Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T12:15:44.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Oxidative Alteration of Uraninite at the Nopal I Deposit, Mexico: Possible Contaminant Transport and Source Term Constraints for the Proposed Repository at Yucca Mountain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1992

Bret W. Leslie
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, TX 78228-0510
English C. Pearcy
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, TX 78228-0510
James D. Prikryl
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, TX 78228-0510
Get access

Abstract

The Nopal I uranium deposit at Pefla Blanca, Mexico is being studied as a natural analog of the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Identification of secondary uranium phases at Nopal I, and the sequence of their formation after uraninite oxidation, provides insight into the source term for uranium, and suggests that uranophane may control uranium release and transport in a silicic, tuffaceous, chemically oxidizing, and hydrologically unsaturated environment. Possible constraints on contaminant transport at Nopal I are derived from the spatial distribution of uranium and from measurements of 238U decay-series isotopes. The analyses indicate that flow of U-bearing fluids was influenced strongly by fracture density, but that the flow of these fluids was not restricted to fractures. Gamma spectroscopic measurements of 238U decay-series isotopes indicate secular equilibrium, which suggests undetectable U transport under present conditions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

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. Goodell, P. C., in Uranium in Volcanic and Volcaniclastic Rocks, edited by Goodell, P. C. and Waters, A. C. (Amer. Asso. Petrol. Geol. Studies in Geology 13, Tulsa, 1981), p. 275.Google Scholar
2. Aniel, B. and Leroy, J., Amer. Mineral. 70, 1290 (1985).Google Scholar
3. Ildefonse, P., Muller, J.-P., Clozel, B. and Calas, G., Eng. Geol. 29, 413 (1990).Google Scholar
4. Muller, J.-P., Ildefonse, P., Calas, G., Clays Clay Min. 38, 600 (1990).Google Scholar
5. Pearcy, E. C., Murphy, W. M., Green, R. T., Leslie, B. W., and Prikryl, J. D., Report No. CNWRA 91-01A, 1992.Google Scholar
6. Murphy, W. M., Tech. Today 13, 16 (1992).Google Scholar
7. Pearcy, E. C. and Murphy, W. M., Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstr. with Prog. 23, A419 (1991).Google Scholar
8. Murphy, W. M. and Pearcy, E. C., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XV, edited by Sombret, C. G. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 257, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992), pp. 521527 Google Scholar
9. Leslie, B. W., Pearcy, E. C., Prikryl, J. D., Report No. CNWRA 92–015, 1992.Google Scholar
10. Finch, R. J. and Ewing, R. C., J. Nucl. Mater. 190, 133 (1992).Google Scholar
11. Goodell, P. C., in Uranium Deposits in Volcanic Rocks, (International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA-TC-490, Austria, 1985), p. 97.Google Scholar
12. Dickson, B. L. and Herzceg, A. L., Chem. Geol. 96, 151 (1992).Google Scholar
13. George-Aniel, B., Leroy, J. L. and Poty, B., Econ. Geol. 86, 233 (1991).Google Scholar
14. Wronkiewicz, D. J., Bates, J. K., Gerding, T. J., Veleckis, E., and Tani, B. S., J. Nucl. Mater. 190, 107 (1992).Google Scholar