Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T14:32:05.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accelerated Testing of Waste forms using a Novel PressurizedUnsaturated flow (PUF) Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2012

B. P. McGrail,
P. F. Martin and
C. W. Lindenmeier
B. P. McGrail
Affiliation:
Applied Geology and Geochemistry Department, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99352, bp_mcgrail@pnl.gov
P. F. Martin
Affiliation:
Applied Geology and Geochemistry Department, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99352, bp_mcgrail@pnl.gov
C. W. Lindenmeier
Affiliation:
Applied Geology and Geochemistry Department, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99352, bp_mcgrail@pnl.gov
Get access

Abstract

A new experimental technique has been developed to test waste forms andother proposed engineered-barrier materials under unsaturated conditions.Laboratory experiments using the pressurized unsaturated flow (PUF)apparatus have been performed with a Na-Ca-Al borosilicate glass beingstudied for immobilization of low-activity tank wastes and a referenceborosilicate glass for immobilization of high-level wastes (SRL-202). Acomplex coupling between glass corrosion, secondary phase precipitation, andunsaturated flow behavior was observed. Precipitation of a family ofNa-Ca-Al zeolites was also found to cause an acceleration in the reactionrate of the low-activity waste glass. This same effect was observed afterapproximately 1 year in high solid-to-liquid ratio batch tests but afteronly 12 days using the PUF method at the same temperature. The onset ofsecondary phase precipitation was tracked by monitoring changes involumetric water content and by inline chemical analysis. Finally, elementalrelease of the major glass components and solution pH were found to differunder unsaturated flow-through conditions as compared with saturated, batchtests. These findings, while preliminary, have important implications forunderstanding and modeling glass corrosion behavior under unsaturatedconditions.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Eiholzer, C. R. 1995. Disposal Facility Data for the Interim Performance Assessment. WHC-SD-RPT-159, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.10.2172/81104Google Scholar
2. Mann, F. M., Eiholzer, C. R., Lu, A. H., Rittmann, P. D., Kline, N. W., Chen, Y., McGrail, B. P., Williamson, G. F., and Brown, N. R.. 1996. Hanford Low-Level Tank Waste Interim Performance Assessment. WHC-EP-0884, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.10.2172/326848Google Scholar
3. McGrail, B. P., and Mahoney, L. A.. 1995. Selection of a Computer Code for Hanford Low-Level Waste Engineered-System Performance Assessment. PNL-10830, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.10.2172/118381Google Scholar
4. Bates J. K., Jardine, L. J., and Steindler, M. J.. 1982. “Hydration Aging of Nuclear Waste Glass”. Science 218: 51–54.Google Scholar
5. Bates, J. K., and Gerding, T. J.. 1985. NNWSI Phase II Materials Interaction Test Procedure and Preliminary Results. ANL-84–81, Argonne National Laboratory, Argorme, Illinois.10.2172/59354Google Scholar
6. Chen, Y., McGrail, B. P., and Engel, D. W.. 1996. “Source-Term Analysis for Hanford Low-Activity Tank Waste Using the Reaction-Transport Code AREST-CT”. In this volume of the Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XX.10.1557/PROC-465-1051Google Scholar
7. McGrail, B. P., Lindenmeier, C. W., Martin, P. F., and Gee, G. W.. 1996. “The Pressurized Unsaturated Flow (PUF) Test: A New Method for Engineered-Barrier Materials Evaluation”. In Proceedings of'the American Ceramic Society, Indianapolis, Indiana, April 14–18, 1996.Google Scholar
8. Wierenga, P. J., Young, M. H., Gee, G. W., Hills, R. G., Kincaid, C. T., Nicholson, T. J., and Cady, R. E.. 1993. Soil Characterization Methods for Unsaturated Low-Level Waste Sites. PNL-8480, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.10.2172/6677674Google Scholar
9. Ebert, W. L., and Bates, J. K.. 1993. “A Comparison of Glass Reaction at High and Low Glass Surface/Solution Volume”. Nuc. Tech. 104: 372–384.10.13182/NT93-A34898Google Scholar
10. ASTM. 1994. Standard Test Methods for Determining the Chemical Durability of Nuclear Waste Glasses: The Product Consistency Test (PCT). ASTM C1285–94, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
11. Bakel? Baker?, A.J., Ebert, W. L., and Luo, J. S.. 1995. Long-Term Performance of Glasses for Hanford Low-Level Waste. ANL-84526, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.Google Scholar
12. White, M.D. and Oostrom, M.. 1995. STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases. Theory Guide. PNL-11217, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.Google Scholar
13. van, Genuchten. 1980. “A Closed-Form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils”. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44: 892–898.Google Scholar
14. Ebert, W. L., Bates, J. K., Buck, E. C., and Bradley, C. R.. “Accelerated Glass Reaction Under PCT Conditions”. In Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVI, eds. Interrante, C. G. and Pabalan, R. T., Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvannia.Google Scholar