Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:30:13.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reactions in Cemented Nuclear Waste forms – the Need for a Toolbox of Different Cement Types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

Neil B Milestone ,
Yun Bai ,
Paulo R Borges ,
Nick C Collier Jean-Phillipe Gorce ,
Laura E Gordon ,
Anthony Setiadi ,
Claire A Utton  and
Qizhi Zhou
Neil B Milestone
Affiliation:
Immobilisation Science Laboratory, Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, Mappin St, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK
Yun Bai
Affiliation:
Immobilisation Science Laboratory, Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, Mappin St, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK
Paulo R Borges
Affiliation:
Immobilisation Science Laboratory, Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, Mappin St, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK
Nick C Collier Jean-Phillipe Gorce
Affiliation:
Immobilisation Science Laboratory, Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, Mappin St, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK
Laura E Gordon
Affiliation:
Immobilisation Science Laboratory, Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, Mappin St, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK
Anthony Setiadi
Affiliation:
Immobilisation Science Laboratory, Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, Mappin St, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK
Claire A Utton
Affiliation:
Immobilisation Science Laboratory, Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, Mappin St, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK
Qizhi Zhou
Affiliation:
Immobilisation Science Laboratory, Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, Mappin St, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK
Get access

Abstract

Encapsulation of low and intermediate level waste (LLW and ILW) into a monolithic waste form is a key method for preparing such wastes for storage and ultimate disposal. One of the most efficient ways of doing this is by cementation, successfully used for much of today's operational waste in the UK. Formulations are based on composite cements where high levels ofpulverised fuel ash or blast furnace slag replace ordinary Portland cement (OPC). These provide cementing systems with good fluidity, lowered heat of hydration and a matrix with lower porosity and permeability. Further the alkaline hydrated calcium silicate matrix ensures insolubility of many metal hydroxides and hydrated oxides. Dealing with historic or legacy wastes presents a challenge as for many, a suitable cementing formulation has yet to be devised. To achieve ultimate durability, likely interactions between the waste and the cementing matrix need to be well understood when choosing the cement system to be used. The alkaline OPC based matrix causes corrosion with metals such as Al and Mg and porous silicates and layered metal hydroxides used to selectively remove radionucleides react in the alkaline environment, potentially releasing the adsorbed species. Slurries of materials normally considered inert show interactions within the OPC composite systems, although these are not considered detrimental for durability. This paper describes the chemistry of some interactions that occur within OPC composite cements. It also details some results for alternative cementing systems that may provide a toolbox of cement types that may address many of the interaction issues. These include calcium sulphoaluminate cements, inorganic polymers or geopolymers, and activated slag systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 932: Symposium – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXIX , 2006 , 49.1
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Utton, CA., Milestone, NB and Hill, J, Proc. Ann. Conf. Amer. Ceram. Soc. (2005)Google Scholar
2. Duff, MC, Coughlin, J Urbanik and Hunter, DB, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 66, 3533–3547 (2002)Google Scholar
3. Collier, NC, Milestone, NB and Godfrey, IH, 24th Cem. and Concr. Sci. Conf. University of Warwick, UK, (2004)Google Scholar
4. Setiadi, A, Milestone, NB, and Hayes, M, 24th Cem. and Concr. Sci. Conf. University of Warwick, UK, (2004)Google Scholar
5. Gordon, LE and Milestone, NB, 24th Cem. and Concr. Sci. Conf. University of Warwick, UK, (2004)Google Scholar
6. Mumpton, F, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 96, 3463–3470, (1999)Google Scholar
7. Gorce, JP and Milestone, NB, 24th Cem. and Concr. Sci. Conf. University of Warwick, UK, (2004)Google Scholar
8. Gartner, E, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 1489–1498 (2004)Google Scholar
9. Zhang, L. Su, M, and Wang, Y,. Adv. Cem. Res. 11 15–21,(1999).Google Scholar
10. Gougar, MLD, Scheetz, BE, & Roy, DM, Waste Manag. 16 295–303 (1996).Google Scholar
11. Zhou, Q, Milestone, NB and Hayes, M, in press J. Hazard. Mater Google Scholar
12. Glukhovsky, V. D, et al. , US Patent 4410365, (1983)Google Scholar
13. Qian, G, Sun, DD, Tay, JH, J. Hazard. Mater. 101 65–77, (2003); Cem.Concr. Res. 33 1251-1256, (2003), Cem. Concr. Res. 33 1257-1262 (2003).Google Scholar
14. Bai, Y and Milestone, NB, Submitted to Nuclear Future.Google Scholar
15. British Standard BS 4248: 2004 – Super sulphated cementGoogle Scholar
16. Davidovits, J, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. Alkaline Cements and Concretes, Kiev, 131–149, (1994); Concr. Internat., 16 53-58, (1994); US Patent 5 349 118 (1994).Google Scholar
17. Xu, H and Deventer, JSJ van Int. J. Min. Proc., 59 247–266 (2000); JW Phair and JSJ van Deventer, Min. Eng., 14 289-304, (2001)Google Scholar
18. Swanepoel, JC and Strydom, CA, Appl. Geochem., 17 1143–48, (2002).Google Scholar
19. Jaarsfeld, JCS van, Deventer, JSJ van and Lorensen, L, Min. Eng., 10 659–669 (1996)Google Scholar
20. Perera, DS, Vance, ER, Aly, Z, Finnie, KS, Hanna, JV, Nicholson, CL, Trautman, RL, Stewart, MWA, Proc ICEM '03 3 1807 1814 Google Scholar
21. Connelly, A and Milestone, NB, 24th Cem. Concr. Science Conf. University of Warwick, UK (2004)Google Scholar