CORROSION OF SIMFUEL IN AERATED 

CARBONATE SOLUTION CONTAINING 

CALCIUM AND SILICATE

Prepared for

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Contract NRC–02–07–006

Prepared by 

H. Jung1

T. Ahn2

K. Axler1

R. Pabalan1

D. Pickett1

1

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

San Antonio, Texas 

2

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 

September 2011
ii

ABSTRACT 

This report documents the results of a previously unpublished set of experiments that evaluated 

the corrosion behavior of simulated spent nuclear fuel (SIMFUEL) in a high-level radioactive 

waste repository disposal environment. The purpose of the experiments is to confirm a range of 

dissolution rates of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in a repository relevant environment, specifically 

under oxiding conditions, and to assess a potential effect of radionuclide sorption onto the 

oxides formed on stainless steel. Specific environmental factors are represented by exposure, 

at room temperature, of the SIMFUEL to aerated solutions of NaCl+NaHCO3 with and without 

calcium and silicate addition to simulate a groundwater or in-package chemistry water in a 

repository environment. Two SIMFUEL compositions were studied, representing SNF with 3 or 

6 percent burnups. For the sorption test, a stainless steel disk was immersed in the posttest 

solutions and the concentrations of dissolved metallic species were compared to those in the 

posttest solutions without stainless steel. 

For all tested cases, the corrosion potentials of SIMFUEL increased with time and reached a 

steady state in a range of 0.06 to 0.12 VSCE within 72 hours. With immersion time, the 

polarization resistance increased at the corrosion potential, indicating possible blocking effects 

due to accumulation of corrosion products on the SIMFUEL electrode. The constructed 

potential-pH diagram predicts formation of schoepite (UO3·2H2O), which may support an 

observation of increased corrosion resistance with time due to secondary phase formation. The 

addition of calcium and silicate was not measureable in the values of the impedance of 

polarization resistance measured at the corrosion potential. The impedance with calcium and 

silicate addition was similar to the case without these ions, indicating relatively minor effects of 

calcium and silicate in this study up to concentrations of 6.1 and 1.3 × 10−4

 M, respectively, on 

oxidation and dissolution rate of SIMFUEL. The dissolution (corrosion) rate estimated by 

applying both the Stern-Geary equation and Faraday’s law ranged from 1 to 3 mg/m2

 day, which 

is a range of dissolution rates of SIMFUEL or SNF tested under similar conditions in the 

literature. A high burnup of SIMFUEL (6 percent) presented a higher dissolution rate than the 

3 percent burnup of SIMFUEL under the test conditions in this study. 

The results of solution analysis revealed that uranium was a dominant species dissolved in the 

posttest solutions and the converted dissolution rates based on uranium concentration were 

consistent with the results of dissolution rates obtained from impedance measurements. Other 

fission elements, such as barium, molybdenum, strontium, and zirconium, were also dissolved 

from the SIMFUEL electrode at a relatively high rate. Sorption test results showed that the 

uranium concentrations in the posttest solutions with a stainless steel disk decreased about 

20 percent after 21 days’ immersion of stainless steel compared to the concentrations without 

stainless steel immersed, indicating significant sorption of uranium onto the oxide formed on the 

stainless steel. 

The electrochemical impedance technique was found to be an effective tool in measuring the 

uranium dissolution rate in real time. This technique can also be used to provide a better 

understanding of the uranium dissolution process at the interface between uranium oxide and 

solution. The SIMFUEL characterization results indicate that SIMFUEL can be used as an 

alternative material to represent the SNF dissolution rate after a long-term containment period 

when gamma/beta radiation decreases significantly in a repository environment. 
iii

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ii 

FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... iv 

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ v 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. vi 

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background Information ............................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Objective and Scope ................................................................................................. 1-6

2 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Materials .................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Test Solutions ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Test Procedures ........................................................................................................ 2-1

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 SIMFUEL Characterization ........................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Microstructure ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Chemical Composition ................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Electrochemical Testing ............................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.1 Corrosion Potential Versus Time ................................................................... 3-7

3.2.2 Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy .................................................... 3-9

3.2.3 Dissolution Rate Estimate ............................................................................ 3-11

3.3 Solution Chemistry Analyses ................................................................................... 3-16

3.4 Thermodynamic Stability of Uranium-Simulated Groundwater System at 

22 °C [72 °F] ............................................................................................................ 3-20

4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 4-1

5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 5-1
iv 

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1-1 Comparison of Dissolution Rate of Metallic Waste Form at (o) 50 °C (□) 70 °C 

 And (◊) 90 °C With Rates From HLW Glass Model ........................................................ 1-5 

2-1 Experimental Setup for Electrochemical Test ............................................................... 2-2 

2-2 Experimental Setup for Sorption Test ........................................................................... 2-3 

3-1 Optical Micrographs of SIMFUEL Surfaces: (a) 3 Percent Burnup and 

 (b) 6 Percent Burnup ...................................................................................................... 3-2 

3-2 Backscattered Electron Micrographs of SIMFUEL Surfaces: 

 (a) 3 Percent Burnup and (b) 6 Percent Burnup ............................................................ 3-3 

3-3 Energy Dispersive Spectra of 3 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL: 

 (a) Overall Surface and (b) Grain Boundary Precipitates ............................................... 3-5 

3-4 Energy Dispersive Spectra of 6 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL: 

 (a) Overall Surface and (b) Grain Boundary Precipitates ............................................... 3-6 

3-5 Corrosion Potential Changes of 3 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL Electrode 

 With Time in a Simulated Groundwater Without (•) and With (Δ) Calcium 

 and Silicate Addition At 22 °C [72 °F] ............................................................................. 3-8 

3-6 Corrosion Potential Changes of 6 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL Electrode 

 With Time in a Simulated Groundwater Without (•) and With (Δ) Calcium 

 and Silicate Addition At 22 °C [72 °F] ............................................................................. 3-9 

3-7 Electrochemical Impedance Spectra of 3 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL Measured 

 After 24 (•) and 77 Hours (Δ) Immersion at Corrosion Potential Tested in a 

Simulated Groundwater Without Calcium and Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] ......... 3-10 

3-8 Electrochemical Impedance Spectra of 3 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL Measured 

 After 24 (•) and 77 Hours (Δ) Immersion at Corrosion Potential Tested in a 

Simulated Groundwater With Calcium and Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] .............. 3-12 

3-9 Electrochemical Impedance Spectra of 6 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL Measured 

 After 24 (•) and 77 Hours (Δ) Immersion at Corrosion Potential Tested in a 

Simulated Groundwater Without Calcium and Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] ......... 3-13 

3-10 Electrochemical Impedance Spectra of 6 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL 

 Measured After 24 (•) and 77 Hours (Δ) Immersion at Corrosion Potential Tested 

in a Simulated Groundwater With Calcium and Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] ....... 3-14 

3-11 Concentrations of Dissolved Metallic Species in Samples from SIMFUEL 

 Corrosion Test After 3.25 Days at 22 °C [72 °F] .......................................................... 3-17 

3-12 Converted Dissolution Rates of Uranium, Barium, Molybdenium, Strontium, and 

Zirconium After 3.25 Days of SIMFUEL Corrosion Test at 22 °C [72 °F] ..................... 3-18 

3-13 Changes in Aqueous Concentrations of Uranium, Barium, Chromium, Iron, 

 Molybdenum, Nickel, Strontium, and Zirconium After Immersion of Stainless 

 Steel Disk in Test Solutions for 21 Days ...................................................................... 3-19 

3-14 Potential-pH Diagrams for Uranium-Simulated Groundwater Systems at 

 22 °C [72 °F] at the Concentration of Dissolved Uranium Species of 10−8

 M ............... 3-20 

3-15 Potential-pH Diagrams for Uranium-Simulated Groundwater Systems 

 at 22 °C [72 °F] at the Concentration of Dissolved Uranium Species of 10−7

 M ........... 3-21 

3-16 Potential-pH Diagrams for Uranium-Simulated Groundwater Systems 

 at 22 °C [72 °F] at the Concentration of Dissolved Uranium Species of 10−6

 M ........... 3-21 
v 

TABLES 

Table Page 

1-1 Dissolution Rates in the Literature Relevant to the Test Conditions in 

 Present Study ................................................................................................................. 1-3 

2-1 Chemical Composition of Stainless Steel Type 316L (in Weight Percent) ..................... 2-2 

2-2 Chemical Compositions of Test Solution {mg/L [mM]} ................................................... 2-2 

3-1 Chemical Compositions of SIMFUEL (in Weight Percent) ............................................. 3-7 

3-2 Calculated Dissolution Rates of SIMFUEL Obtained From 

 Impedance Measurements ........................................................................................... 3-16 
vi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report describes work performed by the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

(CNWRA®) and its contractors for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) under 

Contract No. NRC–02–07–006. The activities reported here were performed on behalf of the 

USNRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of High-Level Waste 

Repository Safety and Safeguards, Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety. The 

USNRC staff views expressed herein are preliminary and do not constitute a final judgment or 

determination of the matters addressed or of the acceptability of any licensing action that may 

be under consideration at USNRC. 

The authors gratefully acknowledge E. Pearcy for his technical review, J. Winterle for his 

programmatic review, L. Mulverhill for her editorial review, and A. Ramos for his administrative 

support. Special thanks to Mr. B. Derby for his assistance in conducting experiments in 

this study. 

QUALITY OF DATA, ANALYSES, AND CODE DEVELOPMENT 

DATA: All CNWRA-generated original data contained in this report meet the quality assurance 

requirements described in the Geosciences and Engineering Division Quality Assurance 

Manual. Sources for other data should be consulted for determining the level of quality for 

those data. All data and calculations related to this report have been recorded in CNWRA 

Scientific Notebook 1022 (Jung, et al., 2011). 

ANALYSES AND CODES: The Act2 component of Geochemist’s Workbench Standard 6.0 

(RockWare, Inc., 2005) was used in the analyses contained in this report. This software is 

commercial software controlled under the CNWRA quality assurance procedure Technical 

Operating Procedure–18. Documentation for the thermodynamic calculation in Section 2.2 can 

be found in Scientific Notebook 1022 (Jung, et al., 2011).

References 

Jung, H., B. Derby, and R. Pabalan. “Electrochemical Measurement of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

(SNF) Dissolution Rate Using Simulated Spent Fuel (SIMFUEL).” Scientific Notebook No. 1022. 

San Antonio, Texas: CNWRA. pp. 1–91. 2011. 

RockWare, Inc. “Geochemist’s Workbench Standard Version 6.0.” Golden, Colorado: 

RockWare, Inc. 2005. 
1-1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

This report is part of the knowledge management activities for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission high-level waste repository safety program. The report provides previously 

undocumented results from recent corrosion tests that used electrochemical methods, solution 

analyses, and thermodynamic computations to evaluate the corrosion behavior of simulated 

spent nuclear fuel (SIMFUEL) in a simulated groundwater at room temperature {e.g., 22 °C 

[72 °F]}. The corrosion experiments were conducted in aerated carbonate-based solutions with 

and without calcium and silicate addition. The dissolution rates of SIMFUEL were estimated by 

measuring polarization resistance and compared to corresponding rates obtained from solution 

analyses performed after corrosion tests. A potential effect of radionuclide sorption onto the 

oxides formed on stainless steel was also assessed. 

1.1 Background Information 

In a geologic disposal setting, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) degradation is considered an important 

process in assessing the potential for radionuclide releases. The degradation of SNF by 

contacting groundwater is expected to occur after containment components fail in a repository 

environment. The containment components usually include the canister, overpack (container), 

and/or cladding. Radionuclide release from SNF dissolution will determine the source term from 

the engineered barrier system (EBS) in assessing radionuclide transport from the disposal 

setting to the geosphere and further to the biosphere human environment. The EBS often 

includes the waste form, containment components, and backfill materials, if any. In assessing 

radionuclide release, long-lived (i.e., long half-life; thousands or more years) radionuclides are 

important because containment times are required to be long. 

Importance of SNF Dissolution Rates in Radionuclide Release 

The SNF dissolution rate in groundwater is generally represented by the rate of uranium mass 

loss per unit area of the uranium dioxide (UO2) matrix. In assessing radionuclide release from 

SNF dissolution, two different types of radionuclides are considered (Wilson and Gray, 1990). 

The first type includes radionuclides such as Tc-99, I-129, C-14, and Cs-135. This type has 

high solubility limits and is expected to be released from SNF congruently with the SNF matrix 

dissolution rate. The congruent release rate is the same release rate of each radionuclide with 

respect to the total inventory of the radionuclide in the SNF matrix. The second type includes 

radionuclides such as Np-239, Pu-239, -240, -242, and U isotopes. This type has low solubility 

limits and tends to form precipitates on the surface of the SNF matrix, depending on the 

groundwater flow rate. In this case, the radionuclides are expected to be primarily released at 

the solubility limit of the radionuclides in the groundwater. Depending on the relative magnitude 

of the SNF dissolution rate, the groundwater flow rate, and the precipitation and the subsequent 

redissolution of precipitates, radionuclide release from SNF could be also be below the solubility 

limit. Therefore, for either of the two radionuclide types, it is important to determine the SNF 

dissolution rate in assessing radionuclide release from the EBS. 

The SNF dissolution rate primarily depends on groundwater aqueous chemistry, conditions of 

SNF before groundwater contact, and groundwater contact modes (Ahn and Mohanty, 2008; 

Ferry, et al., 2005; Grambow, et al., 2000). Practically, the groundwater can be modified in the 

partially failed containment component by reaction with SNF or other internals in the 

containment component. The important groundwater chemical characteristics for SNF 

dissolution include carbonates, solution pH, cations dissolved in groundwater (e.g., calcium 

ions) and silicate, dissolved oxygen, oxidants (e.g., radiolysis products), and reducing species 
1-2 

(e.g., iron). Solution temperature is also important for the dissolution rate of SNF. The SNF 

dissolution rate usually increases with increases in carbonate concentration, temperature, and 

concentration of oxygen and oxidants, and decreases with an increase in reducing species 

toward neutral pH from acidic and alkaline sides. The conditions of SNF before groundwater 

contact include preoxidation/hydration of the SNF matrix and/or grain boundary opening of the 

SNF matrix during the reactor irradiation. These processes generally increase the SNF 

dissolution rate. The groundwater contact modes include aqueous immersion and groundwater 

dripping or flow. These modes could be specific to a disposal setting or to accelerated test 

methods. Therefore, the results from the tests with different modes usually need to be 

normalized with respect to the condition of the real, specific disposal setting. 

The initial base data on SNF dissolution are typically obtained at room temperature in a solution 

of relatively simple water chemistry. As such, the work in this paper was done mainly in a 

carbonate solution with and without calcium and silicate. The carbonate concentration is limited 

to about 0.5 mM, and the concentrations of calcium and silicate are also limited to about 0.1 

and 0.6 mM, respectively. This is typical of the solution concentrations expected after the 

containment period at Yucca Mountain or for similar disposal conditions. The pH condition is 

also limited to near neutral to slight alkaline range. Therefore, the background literature 

information is also very selective for this range of water chemistry. Table 1-1 presents selected 

data from the literature in a carbonate concentration range of about 0.1 to 10 mM; this is used 

as a basis to interpret the test results in this report. The literature information presented more 

data obtained under accelerated conditions such as higher carbonate concentration. The 

determination of effective surface area of the test sample is not trivial, because it involves 

factors such as the state of radionuclide distribution in the SNF matrix, grain boundary opening, 

surface roughening, and others as described in Ahn and Mohanty (2008). In Table 1-1, the 

samples Wilson and Gray (1990) used were pellets; others were powders with various sizes, 

ranging from 150 μm to 0.5 mm [3.81 × 10−2

 to 1.27 × 10−1 in] with some of unknown size 

(by measuring the surface area by gas sorption). The dissolution rate per unit surface area is 

useful to scale test results from various test methods to real SNF. Various test methods require 

various sample sizes. 

SNF Dissolution Test Methods

The test methods are primarily designed to represent the SNF dissolution rate over a long 

period of time. The methods conducted to date can be divided into two broad categories—

immersion tests and drip tests. Immersion tests have been conducted for the saturated disposal 

environment with groundwater, while drip tests have been conducted for the unsaturated 

dripping environment of groundwater. To understand mechanistically the results of immersion 

tests or drip tests, auxiliary flow-through or electrochemical methods are also used. High flow in 

these auxiliary tests can avoid possible blocking due to precipitate deposits on the reacting 

surface. As mentioned earlier, determining this unblocked dissolution rate is important in 

assessing radionuclide release. In the disposal environment, highly soluble radionuclides will 

not be deposited and the concentration of low soluble radionuclides will be determined by the 

unblocked dissolution rate, flow rate, and the rates of precipitate and its redissolution. Table 1-1 

specifies the test method used for each datum. The method used in this study 

is electrochemistry. 
1-3 

Table 1-1. Dissolution Rates in the Literature Relevant to the Test Conditions in Present 

Dissolution Rate, 

mg/m2-day 

Sample 

Tested 

Solution 

Chemistry pH Temperature 

Test 

Methods Notes 

0.63–2.5 UO2 1–10 mM 

[HCO3−] 

7.5–8.5 25 °C 

{[77 [°F]} 

Flow 

Through 

— 

About 9 

(significant 

increase at low pH) 

SNF 10 mM NaCl 

with 10 mM 

[HCO3−] 

pH>6 pH<6 

Room 

Temperature 

Flow 

Through 

Congruent Dissolutioof Np, Ba, Tc, Cs, SRb; Incongruent Dissolution: Zr, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, Am 

6.0–9.1 CANDU 

UO2 

0.5–1.0 mM 

[HCO3−] 

 Room 

Temperature 

Flow 

Through 

— 

0.4–3.9 SNF Simulated 

Groundwater

8.4 25 °C 

[77 °F] 

Immersion Acid stripping and 

fission product release, Ca, 0.13 mMSi, 0.61 mM; [HCO3−

0.61 mM 

2–9 UO2, 

SNF 

0.2–20 mM 

[HCO3−] 

8–10 25 °C 

[77 °F] 

Flow 

Through 

— 

*References Pablo, J., I. Casas, J. Gimennez, M. Molera, M. Rovira, L. Duro, and J. Bruno. “The Oxidative Dissolution Mechanism of Uranium Dioxide I. The Effect oCarbonate Medium.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. Vol. 63. pp. 3,097–3,103. 1999. 

Röllin, S., K. Spahiu, and U.-B. Eklund. “Determination of Dissolution Rate of Spent Fuel in Carbonate Solutions Under Different Redox Conditions With 

Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 297. pp. 231–243. 2001. Tait, J.C. and J.L. Luht. “Dissolution Rates of Uranium from Unirradiated UO2 and Uranium and Radionuclides from Used CANDU Fuel Using the Single-

Apparatus.” 06819–REP–01200–0006 R00. Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Whiteshell Laboratories. 1997. Wilson, C.N. and W.J. Gray. “Measurement of Soluble Nuclide Dissolution Rates From Spent Fuel.” Symposium Proceedings. Warrendale, PennsylvanSociety. Vol. 176. pp. 489–498. 1990. Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC. “CSNF Waste Form Degradation: Summary Abstraction.” Rev. 2. ANL–EBS–MD–000015. Las Vegas, Nevada: BechteNote: Surface area measurements are normalized with the geometric surface area, assuming a factor of three increase in the BET surface area comparearea (Bechtel SAIC Company, 2004). 
1-4 

New Waste Forms

Currently, the United States has commercial SNF, U.S. Department of Energy-owned SNF, 

Navy SNF, and defense high-level waste (HLW) glass. In the future, new waste forms may 

need to be managed. Commercial SNF may have higher burnup, and spent mixed-oxide fuel 

(sMOX) with various burnups may be present. Defense HLW glass may have higher waste 

loading. If the nation pursues various types of reprocessing and/or transmutation of commercial 

SNF, other types of waste forms may be present. These may include new HLW glass, HLW 

ceramics (or glass ceramics), and metallic waste forms, varying waste loading. Additionally, the 

new waste forms may have very selective radionuclide loading, depending on the types of 

reprocessing and/or transmutation, if available. In this case, ceramics or metallic waste forms 

with single or fewer types of radionuclides may be expected. For example, I-129 or Pu-239 

encapsulated ceramics or metallic waste forms may be present. 

Metallic waste forms are primarily expected from pyro-reprocessing. Metallic waste forms are 

specifically addressed in this report because the test methods of their aqueous performance 

may include electrochemical methods as an effective tool to estimate dissolution rates of the 

metallic waste form. sMOX tests are also likely to use electrochemistry. Metallic waste form 

tests currently use immersion, flow-through, or electrochemical methods. 

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has developed an electrometallurgical treatment for SNF 

from the experimental breeder reactors II. A product of this treatment process is a metal waste 

form that incorporates the stainless steel cladding hulls, zirconium from the SNF, and fission 

products that are noble to the process (i.e., technetium, rubidium, niobium, palladium, rodium, 

and silver). The metal waste form was crushed and tested for dissolution under immersion 

conditions (Johnson, et al., 2000). ANL also conducted dissolution tests of a similar metallic 

waste form, and the results were compared with glass dissolution rates, using highly soluble 

boron release as the indicator of the dissolution in pH-buffered solutions at 50, 70, and 90 °C 

[122, 158, and 194 °F] (Ebert, et al., 2003). Figure 1-1 shows the results. More recently, 

metallic waste form tests were considered to be standardized by electrochemical methods 

(Cunnane, et al., 2010). 

Sorption

In determining the source term of radionuclide release from the EBS, it is also important to 

assess radionuclide sorption on the surface of corrosion products of container or canister 

metals. Retardation of radionuclides by sorption is more pronounced for low-solubility 

radionuclides such as Pu and U. The sorption capacity also depends on the radionuclide 

concentration in the groundwater. Therefore, the sorption capacity will vary near to or far from 

the waste form. In this study, stainless steel coupons (forming iron oxides on the surface) are 

also immersed in the electrochemical test cell to assess radionuclide sorption capacity near 

SIMFUEL during its dissolution as discussed in Chapter 2. 

Simulated Spent Nuclear Fuel

SIMFUEL is an un-irradiated analog of irradiated SNF, produced by doping natural uranium 

dioxide (UO2) matrix with a series of nonradioactive elements in appropriate proportions that can 

replicate the chemical and microstructural effects of irradiation on UO2 fuel at various degrees of 

burnups in a reactor (Lucuta, et al., 1991). Nonradioactive elements (e.g., barium, cerium, 

lanthanum, molybdenum, strontium, yttrium, zirconium, rhodium, palladium, ruthenium, and 
1-5 

Figure 1-1. Comparison of Dissolution Rate of Metallic Waste Form at (o) 50 °C (□) 70 °C 

and (◊) 90 °C [122, 158, and 194 °F] With Rates From HLW Glass Model: (a) Specific 

Dissolution Rate and (b) Dissolution Rate. Lines Connecting the Symbols Show the 

Range of pHs Attained in Each Test. 

neodymium) in SIMFUEL can represent most fission products present in an irradiated SNF, 

including oxide dissolved in the matrix, metallic precipitates, and oxide precipitates 

(except volatile fission gases). A general trend was observed where higher burnup of UO2 fuel 

in a water-reactor can result in more fission products for SNF and sMOX. Thus, SIMFUEL can 

provide a convenient way to study different burnup effects on fuel properties such as thermal 

conductivity and diffusivity (Lucuta, et al., 1995), and degradation behavior (e.g., oxidation and 

dissolution) (Choi, et al., 1996; Rondinella and Mazke, 1996; Bruno, et al., 1992; Santos, et al., 

2006a) without complication of an intense radiation field. The use of irradiated SNF for 

dissolution experiments poses significant constraints (e.g., use of hot cell) on the experimental 

conditions and the characterization techniques that can be used. 

In addition, the use of SIMFUEL can avoid accelerated radiolysis effects, in particular on 

dissolution of SNF due to the relatively strong gamma/beta radiation field from SNF during an 

initial repository period after closure. The waste package failures could occur much later, 

when a level of gamma/beta radiation is expected to be several orders of magnitude lower 

and ineffective or negligible on radiolysis of water. Therefore, results from dissolution 

experiments using irradiated (young aged) SNF samples could not be directly applied to the 

repository-relevant conditions. 

Fission products in a real SNF can be typically classified into four groups (Lucuta, et al., 1991). 

• Oxides dissolved in the matrix: strontium, zirconium, niobium, yttrium, lanthanum, 

cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium 

• Metallic precipitates {mostly ε-phase, 0.5–1.5 μm in diameter 

• [1.27 × 10−4

–3.81 × 10−4 in]}: molybdenum, technetium, ruthenium, rhodium, 

palladium, silver, cadmium, indium, antimony, tellurium 
1-6 

• Oxide precipitates {perovskite phase, fine particle about 0.1 μm diameter 

[2.54 × 10−5 in]: barium, zirconium, niobium, molybdenum (rubidium, cesium, tellurium) 

• Gases and other volatile elements: krypton, xenon, bromine, iodine 

(rubidium, cesium, tellurium) 

Usefulness of Electrochemical Method in Applying Corrosion of SNF

Electrochemical methods have been extensively used to develop both understanding of the 

dissolution process and the framework of a model that can predict SNF dissolution rates as a 

function of evolving redox and environmental conditions using un-irradiated UO2 or SIMFUEL 

pellets. Canadian and European research groups use these methods because dissolution of 

UO2 under oxidizing conditions is an electrochemical corrosion reaction (Shoesmith and Sunder, 

1998). Shoesmith, et al. (1996) attempted to validate an electrochemical model for oxidative 

dissolution of used CANDU fuel by comparing the predicted dissolution rates based on a model 

to the measured rates for UO2 and SNF powder measured in flow-through experiments on UO2

and used CANDU fuels. Comparison of the results demonstrated that the predicted and 

measured rates are close, in particular for the case of the aerated carbonate solutions in 

relatively oxidized potentials (e.g., ≥ −100 mVSCE), and the dependence of the rates on 

carbonate is almost the same—in a range of 0.1 mM to 0.4 M HCO3

−

. That good agreement 

confirms that UO2 dissolution can be predicted by appropriate electrochemical measurements in 

the case of particularly oxidizing conditions with carbonate-containing solutions [carbonate has 

a strong complexing ability for U(IV)]. In neutral, noncomplexing solutions (e.g., pure chloride 

solution without carbonate), however, models do not properly predict the dissolution rate when 

secondary phases such as schoepite form on the fuel surface. 

One electrochemical method that can be effectively applied for evaluating dissolution behavior 

of UO2 or SNF is electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). This technique has been 

extensively used for study in the areas of corrosion, semiconductors, batteries, concrete 

degradation and rebar corrosion, coating degradation, and electroplating. By applying a very 

small external AC voltage or current perturbation to drive the electrode-environment interface 

not far from the steady state, a wealth of kinetic (i.e., dissolution rate) and mechanistic 

information at the fuel and solution interface can be obtained in real time. In particular, this 

technique can be a very effective tool in conducting corrosion experiments on high resistivity 

electrodes such as UO2 and SNF and also in a very low conductivity solution where DC 

polarization methods are subject to significant potential drop. EIS can also be applied to such a 

neutral, noncomplexing solution in which secondary phases can form to estimate more 

accurately the dissolution rate of UO2, which was difficult to measure using conventional 

leaching tests or conventional electrochemical methods (e.g., cyclic volametry, potentio- or 

galvano-static polarization). Impedance responses from EIS measurement can separate a net 

corrosion resistance of a UO2 matrix from a resistance from a secondary phase by using an 

appropriate electrical circuit model to fit. To date, European researchers reported a few studies 

on UO2 dissolution behavior using EIS (Bottomley, et al., 1996; Engelhardt, et al., 1996; 

Miserque, et al., 2001). 

1.2 Objective and Scope 

The objectives of the present work are (i) to confirm the range of dissolution rates of SNF in a 

repository relevant environment, specifically under an oxidizing condition, by using SIMFUEL as 

an analog material and (ii) assess a potential effect of radionuclide sorption onto the oxides 

formed on stainless steel. In addition, the thermodynamic stability of uranium in a simulated 
1-7 

water is examined by utilizing the potential-pH diagrams for uranium-simulated groundwater 

systems at a relatively low temperature such as 22 °C [72 °F]. 

SIMFUEL and electrochemical methods used to evaluate dissolution of SNF were described in 

this chapter. The importance of dissolution rates of SNF in radionuclide release with a list of 

relevant literature data on dissolution rate measurement were also discussed in this chapter. 

Experimental conditions in this study are provided in Chapter 2, including details of test 

samples, test solutions, and test procedures. Results of experiments and analyses are 

discussed in Chapter 3 including characterization results of SIMFUEL, electrochemical 

measurements (i.e., corrosion potential and impedance), solution chemistry analyses after 

corrosion testing, and sorption test results. A thermodynamic stability assessment for 

uranium-simulated groundwater system is also discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides the 

study conclusions. 
2-1 

2 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS 

2.1 Materials 

The working electrodes used for the corrosion tests were disk-shaped SIMFUEL pellets 

simulating SNF with a 3 or 6 atomic percent burnup level. As described in the previous section, 

these SIMFUEL pellets are natural UO2 pellets doped with nonradioactive elements. The 

SIMFUEL samples were provided by European Commission (EC)-Institute for Transuranium 

Element (ITU) in Germany and originally fabricated at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 

(AECL). The SIMFUEL pellets were 2 to 3 mm [0.08 to 0.12 in] thick and 12 mm [0.47 in] in 

diameter. To enable rotation of the SIMFUEL working electrode, the SIMFUEL disk was 

inserted into a threaded Teflon® cylinder and the inner face of the disk was bonded to a 

stainless steel wire with a highly conductive silver epoxy. After curing the epoxy for 24 hours, 

the Teflon cylinder containing the SIMFUEL disk was attached to the rotator (Pine Instruments 

Model) and lowered into the test solution for use in the experiment. Prior to use, the SIMFUEL 

electrode was polished to a 1,200-grit finish, cleaned with ethanol, and dried. Lucuta, et al. 

(1991) discussed in detail the preparation and microstructural features of this type of SIMFUEL. 

The microstructures and chemical compositions of the SIMFUEL samples used for this study 

were analyzed, and the results are discussed in Section 3.1. 

For the sorption test, a stainless steel Type 316L disk was used. The disk was 6.35 mm 

[0.25 in] thick and 20.32 mm [0.8 in] in diameter. The stainless steel disk was polished to a 

1,200-grit finish, cleaned with ethanol, and dried before immersion in the solution. The chemical 

composition of stainless steel Type 316L is shown in Table 2-1. 

2.2 Test Solutions 

Two different concentrations of carbonate-based solutions (i.e., simulated groundwater and 

in-package chemistry water) were used. The chemical compositions of the test solutions, 

which are shown in Table 2-2, were selected based on literature data (Wilson and Gray, 1990; 

Finn, et al., 1998; Sandia National Laboratory, 2007). The solutions were prepared from 

reagent-grade chemicals. The initial solution pHs were adjusted to 8 and 7 for a simulated 

groundwater and an in-package chemistry water, respectively. The solution pH was monitored 

with an Orion glass electrode and an Orion model 290A pH meter. The test solution was 

aerated by keeping the test vessel open to air. 

2.3 Test Procedures 

The electrochemical tests were conducted at room temperature {22 ± 2 °C [72 ± 3.6 °F]} in a 

200-mL [0.05-gal] glass cell. A saturated calomel reference electrode was interfaced to the test 

solution via a salt bridge filled with the test solution. A platinum foil was used as a counter 

electrode. The experimental setup is presented in Figure 2-1. 

The average exposed surface area of the SIMFUEL working electrodes was 1.13 cm2

[0.175 in2

]. In the tests using simulated groundwater, the test samples were rotated at a speed 

of 1,000 rpm, whereas in the tests using in-package chemistry water, the tests samples were 

not rotated (quiescent). Impedance measurements were carried out in the frequency range of 

100 kHz to 0.1 mHz with an alternating current voltage amplitude of 20 mV at the corrosion 

potential. All electrochemical experiments were performed with a potentiostat (VMP3 model) 
2-2 

Table 2-1. Chemical Composition of Stainless Steel Type 316L (in Weight Percent) 

Fe Cr Ni Mo Mn Si Cu N P S C 

Balance 16.43 10.13 2.06 1.35 0.51 0.32 0.022 0.027 0.0006 0.019 

Fe = iron, Cr = chromium, Ni = nickel, Mo = molybdenum, Mn = manganese, Si = silicon, Cu = copper, N = nitrogen, 

P = phosphorous, S = sulfur, C = carbon

Table 2-2. Chemical Compositions of Test Solutions {mg/L [mM]} 

Chemicals Simulated Groundwater 

(pH = 8) 

In-Package Chemistry Water 

(pH = 7) 

NaCl 14.0 [0.24] 11.2 [0.2] 

NaHCO3 51.2 [0.61] 16.8 [0.2] 

Na2SiO4•5H2O 13.9 [0.61] 22.8 [0.1] 

CaCl2 14.4 [0.13] 5.6 [0.05] 

Figure 2-1. Experimental Setup for Electrochemical Test 
2-3 

controlled by EC-Lab software. The measured potentials are referenced to a saturated calomel 

reference electrode (SCE) via the conversion given in (Eq. 2-1). 

E (VSCE) = E (VSHE) − 0.242 V (2-1)

After completion of the tests, 40-mL [1.353-fl oz] samples of each test solution were taken, 

acidified by adding 250 μL [8.45 × 10−3

 fl oz] of concentrated nitric acid, and saved for later 

chemical analysis. 

A sorption test subsequently was conducted by transferring 40 mL [1.353 fl oz] of the posttest 

solutions into glass cells and immersing a stainless steel disk in each solution. The 

experimental setup for the sorption test is presented in Figure 2-2. The solutions during the test 

were mildly stirred using a small magnetic stirrer. After 21 days, the disks were taken out and 

the solutions were acidified and saved for later chemical analysis. 

The chemistry of the solution samples and two blank solutions (i.e., simulated groundwater with 

and without Ca and Si) were analyzed using inductively coupled atomic emission spectrometry 

(ICP-AES) or inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). ICP-AES was used to 

determine calcium and silicon concentrations, and ICP-MS was used to measure barium, 

chromium, iron, molybdenum, nickel, strontium, uranium, and zirconium concentrations. 

Figure 2-2. Experimental Setup for Sorption Test 
3-1 

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

This section summarizes and discusses the results of experiments and analyses including 

SIMFUEL characterization, electrochemical testing, non-electrochemical solution chemistry 

analysis after corrosion testing, and sorption testing. Finally, thermodynamic stability calculation 

results for uranium and simulated water systems are discussed. 

3.1 SIMFUEL Characterization 

3.1.1 Microstructure 

To establish similitude of microstructure and composition of SIMFUEL with specimens of actual 

SNF, microscopy images were compared with those produced in previous work. In addition, to 

evaluate consistency with other SIMFUEL production batches, the metallographic results were 

compared with published results from earlier work on SIMFUEL. The microstructure of 

SIMFUEL samples was characterized using optical and scanning electron microscopy. 

Because the as-polished SIMFUEL samples did not clearly show grain boundaries on any 

precipitates, if present, the SIMFUEL samples were chemically etched by immersion for 

3 minutes in an etchant composed of sulfuric acid (1 volume percent), hydrogen peroxide 

(2 volume percent), and distilled water (7 volume percent) at room temperature following the 

procedures reported in the literature (Ishii and Seki, 1967). 

The optical micrograph of the surface of 3 and 6 percent burnup SIMFUEL specimens is shown 

in Figure 3-1(a,b), respectively. As seen in the figures, both SIMFUEL specimens reveal a 

compact surface without clear evidence of voids or cracks. Therefore, in estimating the 

dissolution rate of SIMFUEL samples, the geometric surface area of 1.13 cm2

 [0.175 in2] was 

used for analysis purposes in this study. 

The surface also includes many small-sized precipitates (seen as the white particles in the 

figures) that are present mainly along grain boundaries. Grain sizes, determined by the linear 

interception method, were approximately 15 μm [5.91 × 10−4

 in] for the 3 percent burnup 

specimen and < 10 μm [3.94 × 10−4

 in] for the 6 percent burnup specimen. Lucuta, et al. (1991) 

reported a similar microstructure on the 6 percent burnup SIMFUEL, showing spherical, 

intergranular metallic precipitates {0.5–1.5 μm [1.97 × 10−5

–5.91 × 10−5 in] diameter} along the 

grain boundary. In the same reference, the analysis results of the metallic precipitates indicated 

that the precipitates consisted of mainly ε-phase (hexagonal close packed, hcp) and average 

composition yielded 28 atomic percent Mo, 47 atomic percent Ru, 3 atomic percent Rh, and 

22 atomic percent Pd. In the same reference, the grain size of 6 percent burnup was estimated 

to average 12 μm [4.72 × 10−4

 in]. 

The microstructures of SIMFUEL samples in this study were correlated with those produced by 

prior research on SIMFUEL (Lucuta, et al., 1991; Park, et al., 2008), irradiated UO2 (Ishii and 

Seki, 1967), and SNF (Rondinella and Wiss, 2010). 

3.1.2 Chemical Composition 

The chemical composition of both the 3 and 6 percent burnup SIMFUEL specimens was 

determined by energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis. The areas examined are shown in 

Figure 3-2(a,b) for 3 and 6 percent burnups, respectively. 
3-2 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 3-1. Optical Micrographs of SIMFUEL Surfaces: (a) 3 Percent Burnup and 

(b) 6 Percent Burnup 
3-3 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 3-2. Backscattered Electron Micrographs of SIMFUEL 

Surfaces: (a) 3 Percent Burnup and (b) 6 Percent Burnup 
3-4 

These backscattered images can more easily identify these precipitates as the darker area, 

indicating lighter atomic compositions of these precipitates compared to the near-matrix area. 

The majority of precipitates are present mainly along the grain boundary and triple junctions and 

rarely present inside the grain. The corresponding EDX spectra are shown in Figures 3-3 and 

3-4 for 3 and 6 percent burnup, respectively. 

Table 3-1 summarizes chemical analysis results for 3 and 6 percent burnup SIMFUEL in this 

study for the two different areas: general surface area {~200 μm by 200 μm [5.08 × 10−2

 by 

5.08 × 10−2

 in]} and grain boundary precipitate only. The arrows marked in Figure 3-2 indicate 

the local area of grain boundary precipitates for EDX analysis. 

For the case of the general surfaces in both 3 and 6 percent burnups, SIMFUEL matrix consists 

of predominant UO2 and the contents of U are in good agreement with the data reported in 

the literature for the 3 and 6 percent burnup SIMFUEL pallets manufactured by AECL 

(Lucuta, et al., 1991; Rondinella and Matzke, 1996). In the literature, the contents of U were 

97.449 and 94.866 wt% for 3 and 6 percent burnups, respectively, which are very close to the 

U contents (i.e., 97.46 and 95.02 wt% for 3 and 6 percent burnups, respectively) observed in 

this study. The other elements (except U) to represent fisson products accordingly increase 

with burnup (i.e., 2.54 and 4.98 wt% for 3 and 6 percent burnups, respectively). Compared to 

3 percent burnup SIMFUEL, the surface of 6 percent burnup SIMFUEL appears to have more 

precipitates along the grain boundaries indicating a more heterogeneous nature. A higher 

content of elements other than U may result in more precipitates. The size of precipitates on 

6 percent SIMFUEL is similar to the size on 3 percent SIMFUEL. 

The precipitates consisted of predominantly molybdenum, ruthenium, palladium, and 

rhodium, which is in agreement with analysis results from earlier SIMFUEL production batches 

(Lucuta, et al., 1991). Also note that other transition metallic elements (i.e., Fe, Ni, and Cr) were 

detected in the precipitates; these were not the contents in the metallic precipitates reported in 

the works referenced previously. These transition metallic elements were confirmed from the 

solution chemistry analysis as discussed in Section 3.3. 

In the general surface area, other elements such as strontium, zirconium, lanthanum, cerium, 

neodymium, and barium were detected. These were not detected at the grain boundary 

precipitates. Results of SIMFUEL analysis by Lucuta, et al. (1991) indicate that strontium, 

zirconium, and rare earth elements (cerium, lanthanum, meodymium) were fully or partially 

dissolved in the matrix grains. For the case of barium, Lucuta, et al. (1991) also observed that 

barium was a major element for the very small-sized oxide precipitates {about 0.1 μm 

[3.94 × 10−6

 in]} present at grain boundary. 

Attributes assessed in the comparisons were grain size, morphology, precipitates content, and 

elemental composition and distribution. The images obtained in the as-polished condition 

showed the precipitates’ content was similar to that observed by prior researchers of SIMFUEL, 

irradiated UO2, and SNF. 
3-5 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 3-3. Energy Dispersive Spectra of 3 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL: (a) Overall 

Surface and (b) Grain Boundary Precipitates 
3-6 

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 3-4. Energy Dispersive Spectra of 6 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL: (a) Overall 

Surface and (b) Grain Boundary Precipitates 
3-7 

Table 3-1. Chemical Compositions of SIMFUEL Samples (in Weight Percent) 

Element 

3 Percent Burnup 6 Percent Burnup 

General Surface 

Grain Boundary 

Precipitate General Surface 

Grain Boundary 

Precipitate 

U 97.46 6.21 95.02 16.38 

Sr 0.37 <0.01 0.34 <0.01 

Y <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Zr 0.55 <0.01 0.73 <0.01 

Mo 0.49 39.25 1.11 30.47 

Ru 0.51 28.66 0.52 42.02 

Rh <0.01 3.72 <0.01 <0.01 

Pd <0.01 18.09 0.21 10.05 

Ba <0.01 <0.01 0.64 <0.01 

La <0.01 <0.01 0.28 <0.01 

Ce 0.37 <0.01 0.66 <0.01 

Nd 0.24 <0.01 0.49 <0.01 

Cr <0.01 0.63 <0.01 0.26 

Fe <0.01 3.42 <0.01 0.81 

Ni <0.01 1.31 <0.01 <0.01 

U = uranium, Sr = strontium, Y = yittrium, Zr = zirconium, Mo = molybdenum, Ru = rubidium, Rh = rodium, 

Pd = palladium, Ba = barium, La = lanthanum, Ce = cerium, Nd = neodymium, Fe = iron, Cr = chromium, Ni = nickel

3.2 Electrochemical Testing 

Two electrochemical techniques were employed: corrosion potential and impedance 

spectroscopy. The corrosion potential can provide information on a possibly stable oxidation 

state of uranium of the SIMFUEL surface by comparing it with the literature data on the 

well-established relationship between corrosion potential and the oxidation state of uranium 

(Shoesmith, et al., 1996). The measured corrosion potential can be also used in interpreting 

thermodynamic stability calculations of uranium and water systems as discussed in 

Section 3.2.4. The main purpose of impedance measurement was to estimate a real-time 

dissolution (corrosion) rate of SIMFUEL by utilizing both the Stern-Geary equation and 

Faraday’s law. 

3.2.1 Corrosion Potential Versus Time 

Figure 3-5 shows the corrosion potential of a 3 percent burnup SIMFUEL electrode as a function 

of time in simulated groundwater without and with calcium and silicate addition (here after 

referred to as the “without case” and the “with case”) at 22 °C [72 °F]. Corrosion potentials 

gradually increased with time and reached 0.122 and 0.082 VSCE for the without and with cases, 

respectively, after 72 hours. The corrosion potentials of SIMFUEL observed in this study are 

consistent with the reported values in the literature. In Shoesmith and Sunder (1998) and 

Shoesmith, et al. (1996), the measured corrosion potentials of SIMFUEL electrodes ranged from 

approximately 0.0 to 1.2 VSCE in aerated neutral or weakly alkaline solutions containing chloride 

and/or carbonate ions and were not different from those of un-irradiated UO2 or irradiated SNF. 

In this potential range, Shoesmith and Sunder (1998); Shoesmith, et al. (1996) suggested that 

the UO2 surface can be oxidized to produce UO2.333 film and further precipitate a secondary 
3-8 

Figure 3-5. Corrosion Potential Changes of 3 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL Electrode 

With Time Tested in a Simulated Groundwater Without (•) and With (Δ) Calcium and 

Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] 

phase (in the form of UO3⋅xH2O) and/or dissolve to UO2(CO3)2

2− depending on the solution 

chemistry. With the addition of calcium and silicate, as seen in Figure 3-5, the corrosion 

potential increased more slowly with time compared to the without case. This slow change and 

a relatively lower corrosion potential with the addition indicates a possible involvement of 

calcium and silicate in the reactions at the SIMFUEL surface. It has been reported that addition 

of calcium and silicate suppressed fuel dissolution rates when either single-pass flow-through 

tests (Wilson and Gray, 1990) or electrochemical tests (Santos, et al., 2006a,b) were 

conducted. Wilson and Gray (1990) reported that the addition of 15 mg/L of Ca2+ decreased the 

concentration of uranium in the effluent solution by a factor of 3 and further decreased by a 

factor of 100 with the addition of 30 mg/L of SiO4

4−

. More recently, Santos, et al. (2006a,b) also 

observed a similar suppression effect of calcium and silicate on the anodic dissolution of 

SIMFUEL. Santos, et al. (2006a) suggested that the suppression by Ca2+ in the solution was 

due to either inhibiting the stabilization of the cation precursor {UO2(OH)2}ads or blocking the 

O2−

 anion transfer reaction from the fuel surface. In the case of silicate effect (Santos, et al., 

2006b), a suppression was due to adsorption of silicate on the fuel surface and particularly at 

high anodic potentials (i.e., >0.25 VSCE), hydrated U(VI) silicate accumulated on the surface. 

However, the presence of silicate had little influence on the oxidation of UO2 to produce an 

oxidized (altered) surface layer. Note that the concentrations of calcium and silicate used in 

Santos, et al. (2006a,b) were relatively high (i.e., >0.5 M Ca2+ or 0.1 M silicate) to have a 

significant effect on the anodic dissolution compared to those in this study (0.13 mM Ca2+ and 

0.61 mM silicate). 

For the case of 6 percent burnup SIMFUEL, as seen in Figure 3-6, corrosion potentials quickly 

increased with time and reached 0.1 and 0.06 VSCE for the without and with calcium and silicate 

addition, respectively. These potentials are relatively lower than those of 3 percent SIMFUEL in 

the amount of average 22 mV. According to the fundamental electrochemical mixed potential 

time/h

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Ewe/V

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

-0.02

-0.04
3-9 

Figure 3-6. Corrosion Potential Changes of 6 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL Electrode 

With Time Tested in a Simulated Groundwater Without (•) and With (Δ) Calcium and 

Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] 

principles, corrosion potential is determined by balancing the anodic oxidation current and the 

cathodic reduction current. Thus, the lower corrosion potential of 6 percent SIMFUEL could be 

as a result of either relatively higher anodic dissolution rate from the fuel surface or relatively 

lower cathodic reduction rate on the fuel surface. Considering relatively smaller grain size and 

higher heterogeneity of 6 percent SIMFUEL compared to that of the 3 percent SIMFUEL, it is 

likely that a relatively higher grain boundary area with more precipitates on the 6 percent 

SIMFUEL surface can lead to a more rapid and higher anodic dissolution rate of 6 percent 

SIMFUEL. This may be supported by observation of preferential dissolution in the grain 

boundaries on the SIMFUEL surface (Santos, et al., 2006a). Regarding a cathodic 

reaction, it was reported that rare-earth dopants such as yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, and 

neodymium in SIMFUEL (Shoesmith, et al., 1996) or noble metal inclusions such as 

molybdenum, technetium, ruthenium, rhodium, and palladium in SIMFUEL (Martin, et al., 2008; 

Broczkowski, et al., 2005) played a role of catalysis in the reduction of oxidants (e.g., dissolved 

oxygen in the solution), resulting in an increase of cathodic reduction rate. Therefore, it is likely 

that the lower corrosion potential of the 6 percent SIMFUEL could be a result of a relatively 

higher anodic dissolution rate compared to the 3 percent SIMFUEL surface. 

3.2.2 Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy 

The corrosion of the SIMFUEL surface was characterized using the EIS measured at the 

corrosion potential. Figure 3-7 shows the Bode plots of the measured impedance spectra of 

3 percent burnup SIMFUEL after 24 and 77 hours immersed in a simulated groundwater without 

calcium and silicate addition at 22 °C [72 °F]. 

time/h

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Ewe/V vs. SCE

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

-0.02

-0.04
3-10 

(a) Impedance Versus Frequency 

(b) Phase Versus Frequency 

Figure 3-7. Electrochemical Impedance Spectra of 3 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL 

Measured After 24 (•) and 77 Hours (Δ) Immersion at Corrosion Potential Tested in 

a Simulated Groundwater Without Calcium and Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] 

|freq/Hz|, log spacing

1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3 1e4 1e5

log ||Z|/Ohm|

6.5

6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

|freq/Hz|, log spacing

1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3 1e4 1e5

|Phase(Z)/deg|

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
3-11 

Up to very low frequency range (i.e., 0.0001 Hz), two time constants are apparent: (i) the 

plateau at a high frequency range (from 104

 Hz up to about 1 Hz) representing the ohmic 

resistance due to mainly intrinsic electrical resistance of the SIMFUEL pellet and solution 

resistance and (ii) the linear slope at a relatively low frequency range (i.e., below 1 Hz) 

representing polarization resistance at the interface between the SIMFUEL surface and solution. 

With an increase of immersion time from 24 hours to 77 hours, there is an increase in the 

impedance modulus, |z| (i.e., absolute value of the impedance on the y-axis), indicating higher 

polarization resistance of the SIMFUEL after 77 hours. Corrosion resistance is generally 

proportional to the polarization resistance (i.e., magnitude of impedance modulus) because the 

ohmic resistance is negligible (e.g., less than 2.8 kilo-ohms) compared to the polarization 

resistance (e.g., an order of 106

 ohms). As seen in Figure 3-7(b), compared to the 24-hour 

curve, there is a tendency to broaden the phase angle curve for the 77 hours in a low frequency 

range, indicating another time constant is present even if it is not remarkable. This third time 

constant could be due to a formation of a secondary phase (e.g., schoepite) as is usually 

observed in similar solutions in the literature (Shoesmith and Sunder, 1998; Shoesmith, et al., 

1996; Shoesmith, 2000). 

For the impedance spectra of the 3 percent burnup SIMFUEL for the with case (Figure 3-8), the 

Bode plots were very similar to the without case in terms of impedance modulus and time 

constant. This result indicates a similar polarization resistance and the same or similar 

dissolution mechanism for the without case. 

For the case of 6 percent SIMFUEL, as seen in Figures 3-9 and 3-10, the shape of the Bode 

plots was very similar to that of 3 percent SIMFUEL, indicating no changes in the corrosion 

mechanisms of the 6 percent SIMFUEL. However, 6 percent SIMFUEL exhibited a relatively 

lower polarization resistance (i.e., impedance modulus) compared to that of 3 percent SIMFUEL 

for both the without and with cases. Therefore, 6 percent SIMFUEL is expected to have a 

higher dissolution rate than that of 3 percent SIMFUEL. This expectation is consistent with the 

observed lower corrosion potential of 6 percent SIMFUEL as discussed previously. 

3.2.3 Dissolution Rate Estimate 

The dissolution (corrosion) rate of SIMFUEL was estimated by fitting the impedance spectra 

with an appropriate electrical circuit model. As two time constants were apparent within the 

experiments conducted and the SIMFUEL surface was relatively compact without any clear 

evidence of crack or porosity as seen in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, a simple Randle circuit was 

employed consisting of two circuits in series. The first describes the ohmic resistance of the 

SIMFUEL pellet and solution resistance at high frequency range. The second circuit is related 

to the SIMFUEL electrode/solution interface and consists of the polarization resistance in 

parallel connection to the double-layer capacitance at low frequency range. The dissolution rate 

is calculated from the polarization resistance using the Stern-Geary equation (Stern and Geary, 

1957) and Faraday’s law, as shown in Eqs. (3-1) and (3-2), respectively 

 icorr = B / Rp (3-1) 

 B = ba × bc / [2.303(ba+ bc)] 

where icorr , is corrosion current density; Rp, is polarization resistance; and ba and bc are anodic 

and cathodic Tafel slopes, respectively.
3-12 

(a) Impedance Versus Frequency 

(b) Phase Versus Frequency 

Figure 3-8. Electrochemical Impedance Spectra of 3 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL 

Measured After 24 (•) and 77 Hours (Δ) Immersion at Corrosion Potential Tested in 

a Simulated Groundwater With Calcium and Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] 

|freq/Hz|, log spacing

1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3 1e4 1e5

log ||Z|/Ohm|

6.5

6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

|freq/Hz|, log spacing

1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3 1e4 1e5

|Phase(Z)/deg|

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
3-13 

(a) Impedance Versus Frequency 

(b) Phase Versus Frequency 

Figure 3-9. Electrochemical Impedance Spectra of 6 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL 

Measured After 24 (•) and 77 Hours (Δ) Immersion at Corrosion Potential Tested in 

a Simulated Groundwater Without Calcium and Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] 

|freq/Hz|, log spacing

1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3 1e4 1e5

log ||Z|/Ohm|

6.5

6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

|freq/Hz|, log spacing

1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3 1e4 1e5

|Phase(Z)/deg|

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
3-14 

(a) Impedance Versus Frequency 

(b) Phase Versus Frequency 

Figure 3-10. Electrochemical Impedance Spectra of 6 Percent Burnup SIMFUEL 

Measured After 24 (•) and 77 Hours (Δ) Immersion at Corrosion Potential Tested in 

a Simulated Groundwater With Calcium and Silicate Addition at 22 °C [72 °F] 

|freq/Hz|, log spacing

1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3 1e4 1e5

log ||Z|/Ohm|

6.5

6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

|freq/Hz|, log spacing

1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e0 1e1 1e2 1e3 1e4 1e5

|Phase(Z)/deg|

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
3-15 

The value of the composite Tafel parameter B for uranium dissolution used in this study 

is selected to be 25 mV based on the literature data (Miserque, et al., 2001; 

Grambow, et al., 2000). 

 Dissolution (Corrosion) Rate = K2 × icorr × EW (3-2) 

where K2 is the constant (0.0895 mg cm2

/μA dm2 day) and EW, is the equivalent weight for UO2. 

The equivalent weight of UO2 used in this study is 33.75 based on 88.15 mass percent of U and 

11.85 mass percent of O assuming +6 and -2 valences of U and O, respectively. 

Table 3-2 listed the calculated dissolution rates of 3 and 6 percent SIMFUEL tested in simulated 

groundwater or the in-package chemistry water after 72 hours’ immersion. The related 

parameters are also included in the table. The dissolution rate was calculated based on the 

geometric surface area of the SIMFUEL surface exposed to solution {i.e., 1.13 cm2

 [ 0.175 in2 ]}. 

Because the Bode plots of the 6 percent SIMFUEL tested in the in-package chemistry water 

were very similar to those tested in the simulated groundwater for both the without and with 

cases, the same electrical circuit used for the simulated groundwater was employed to fit the 

impedance spectra. 

For all tested cases, SIMFUEL exhibited very high polarization resistance on the order of 

106 ohms, indicating that is it highly corrosion resistant. Miserque, et al. (2001) also observed 

this high resistance. A polarization resistance of 6.8 × 106

 ohms was reported for the UO2 pellet 

tested in 0.1 M KCl (pH = 6) at room temperature. As listed in Table 3-2, the calculated 

dissolution rates of SIMFUEL range from 1 to 3 mg/m2

-day under the test conditions in this 

study. This range of rates is consistent with the reported values summarized in Table 1-1. In 

particular, as seen in Table 1-1, the dissolution rates of SNF under similar test conditions 

(i.e., immersion in a simulated groundwater at room temperature) are 0.4 to 3.9 mg/m2

-day, 

which are very close to the rates estimated in this study. 

In the simulated groundwater tested in this study, the burnup effect on SIMFUEL dissolution 

rates was consistent. The dissolution rate of 6 percent SIMFUEL is relatively higher than that of 

3 percent SIMFUEL for both the without and with cases by a factor of two to three. 

Forsyth (1997) reported that the cumulative fractional release of radionuclides such as Cs-137 

and Sr-90 of SNF increased with burnup almost linearly up to values of 40–45 MWd/kg U, but 

afterwards the rates decreased up to 49 MWd/kg U. 

The effect of the calcium and silicate addition on the dissolution rate of SIMFUEL was not 

significant under the conditions tested in this study. This result could be due to very low 

concentrations of calcium and silicate in this study and/or the masking effect of schoepite 

formation. Nonetheless, the effect of the calcium and silicate addition did not significantly affect 

the dissolution rate of SIMFUEL under the conditions tested in this study. 

In the in-package chemistry water, the dissolution rate of 6 percent SIMFUEL was slightly lower 

compared to the simulated groundwater. This result could be due to a lower carbonate 

concentration in the in-package chemistry water. 
3-16 

Table 3-2. Calculated Dissolution Rates of SIMFUEL Obtained From 

Impedance Measurements

Simulated Groundwater 

In-Package Chemistry 

Water 

SIMFUEL Burnup 

(at%) 3 Percent 6 Percent 6 Percent 

Ca and Silicate 

Addition Without With Without With Without With 

Rp, Polarization 

Resistance (Ohms) 

5.76 × 106 6.66 × 106 2.95 × 106 2.20 × 106 3.48 × 106 3.04 × 106

icorr, Corrosion 

Current Density 

(A/cm2) 

3.08 × 10−9 2.66 × 10−9 6.01 × 10−9 8.06 × 10−9 5.10 × 10−9 5.83 × 10−9

Dissolution Rate 

(mg/m2-day) 

1.15 1.00 2.25 3.01 1.91 2.18 

3.3 Solution Chemistry Analyses 

The measured solution concentrations of barium, chromium, iron, molybdenum, nickel, 

strontium, zirconium, and uranium are shown in Figure 3-11. The element concentrations 

plotted in the figure were corrected for the amounts present in the blank solutions. As shown in 

the figure, the concentration of uranium, which is the dominant element present in the SIMFUEL 

matrix (see Table 3-1), ranges from 7.5 × 10−9

 to 1.9 × 10−8 mol/L. The uranium concentration 

from the tests that used a 6 percent burnup SIMFUEL is almost twice the uranium concentration 

from tests that used a 3 percent burnup SIMFUEL. The solution concentration of molybdenum, 

which is a dominant element in the SIMFUEL grain boundary precipitate, is similar to that of 

uranium, ranging from 6.6 × 10−9

 to 1.2 × 10−8 mol/L. Considering a relatively very small amount 

of molybdenum is present on the SIMFUEL surface compared to uranium content, as seen in 

Table 3-1, it is likely that molybdenum could be dissolved preferentially to uranium. The relative 

mass fraction of molybdenum to uranium is 0.005 and 0.01 for 3 and 6 percent burnup, 

respectively. The other fission-product-simulating elements, such as barium and zirconium, 

also have a similar tendency. 

Iron, nickel, and chromium occur only as minor elements in the SIMFUEL grain boundary 

precipitate (see Table 3-1). In spite of their low concentrations in SIMFUEL, iron and nickel 

generally have high concentrations in the aqueous samples indicating preferential dissolution of 

iron and nickel. In contrast, the solution concentration of chromium is low. The low 

concentration of strontium in solution reflects its very low concentration in SIMFUEL 

(see Table 3-1). 

Figure 3-12 shows the calculated fractional release rate for barium, molybdenum, strontium, 

zirconium, and uranium. The release rate decreases in the order Ba > Mo ≈ Zr > Sr > U. The 

higher release rates for barium, molybdenum, and zirconium could be due to the preferential 

dissolution of the precipitate content present in the SIMFUEL matrix (e.g., Zr) and at the grain 

boundary (e.g., Mo, Ba, and Zr). The relatively low rate of uranium release could be a result of 

secondary phase formation. As mentioned previously (see Section 3.2.2), there was an 

indication of possible formation of secondary phases from the impedance spectra after 

72 hours’ immersion. In the literature, the formation of schoepite was usually observed in 

similar solutions under an oxidizing condition (Shoesmith, et al., 1996; Santos, et al., 2004; 

Shoesmith, 2000). 
3-17 

Figure 3-11. Concentrations of Dissolved Metallic Species in Samples from SIMFUEL 

Corrosion Test After 3.25 Days at 22 °C [72 °F]. Test Method A: 6 Percent Burnup 

(With Calcium and Silicate). Test Method B: 6 Percent Burnup (Without Calcium and 

Silicate). Test Method C: 3 Percent Burnup (With Calcium and Silicate). Test Method D: 

3 Percent Burnup (Without Calcium and Silicate). 

The calculated uranium release rates range from 1.0 to 2.6 mg/m2

-day, which are very close to 

the rates of 1 to 3 mg/m2

 day determined by impedance measurements after a 77-hour 

immersion time (see Table 3-2). The calculated uranium release rates suggest that SIMFUEL 

dissolution is controlled by the uranium dissolution process. In particular, the dependence of 

release rate on burnup and solution chemistry observed from the solution analysis has the 

same trend as that determined from the electrochemical impedance measurements. The 

release rate of strontium is higher than uranium, which is consistent with literature data 

(Serrano-Purroy, et al., 2009; Röllin, et al., 2001) and has been attributed to fission product 

migration to the grain boundaries upon irradiation. 

The data from the sorption test onto stainless steel disks are presented in Figure 3-13, which 

shows that uranium and barium concentrations decreased by about 20 percent after immersion 

of the disks in the test solutions for 21 days. The decrease in uranium and barium 

concentrations is likely due to sorption onto the stainless steel disks. On the other hand, iron, 

nickel, and chromium concentrations increased, most likely due to corrosion of the stainless 

steel disks, which are composed mainly of iron, chromium, and nickel (see Table 2-1). 

Strontium concentration in solution also increased, but the reason for this increase is not known 

at this time. The change in molybdenum and zirconium solution concentrations showed 
3-18 

Figure 3-12. Converted Dissolution Rates of Uranium, Barium, Molybdenium, Strontium, 

and Zirconium After 3.25 Days of SIMFUEL Corrosion Test at 22 °C [72 °F]. 

Test Method A: 6 Percent Burnup (With Calcium and Silicate). Test Method B: 6 Percent 

Burnup (Without Calcium and Silicate). Test Method C: 3 Percent Burnup (With Calcium 

and Silicate). Test Method D: 3 Percent Burnup (Without Calcium and Silicate). 
3-19 

(a) 

 (b) 

Figure 3-13. Changes in Aqueous Concentrations of Uranium, Barium, Chromium, Iron, 

Molybdenum, Nickel, Strontium, and Zirconium After Immersion of Stainless Steel Disk in Test 

Solutions for 21 Days. Test Method E: Sorption Test Using the Posttest Aqueous Solution 

From Test Method B. Test Method F: Sorption Test Using the Posttest Aqueous Solution From 

Test Method D. Iron and Nickel Are Not Plotted in Figure 3-13(b) To Expand the Y-Axis Scale. 
3-20 

opposite inconsistent trends. The tests that used a 6 percent burnup SIMFUEL showed a 

decrease in molybdenum and zirconium concentration, whereas the tests that used a 3 percent 

burnup SIMFUEL showed a slight increase in solution concentration. The reason for this 

inconsistency is not known at this time. 

3.4 Thermodynamic Stability of Uranium-Simulated Groundwater System 

at 22 °C [72 °F] 

Figure 3-14 presents the thermodynamic calculation results for a uranium-simulated 

groundwater system at 22 °C [72 °F] at a concentration of 10−8

 M for uranium species. In 

Figure 3-14, uranium can dissolve as UO2OH+

, UO2CO3(aq), or UO2(CO3)2

2−

 in weakly acidic to

weakly alkaline solutions. With increasing potential, uranium oxide, UO2, can further oxidize to 

higher oxidation states such as UO2.25, UO2.3333, and UO2.6667. The alteration of the uranium 

oxide surface was reported in the literature (Shoesmith, 2000). 

With increasing the concentration of uranium species from 10−8 to 10−7 M as seen in 

Figure 3-15, schoepite (UO3·2H2O) can form as a stable phase in neutral pH. At the 

concentration of 10−6

 M (see Figure 3-16), a region of schoepite is further expanded to a wide 

range of pH ranging from 6 to 8. Therefore, during the corrosion test conducted in this study, 

formation of schoepite was very likely. The initial solution pH of simulated groundwater in this 

study was 8, and the corrosion potentials of SIMFUEL ranged from 0.3 to 0.36 VSHE. 

Note that there is no stable region for calcium and silicon species under the calculation results, 

perhaps due to very low initial concentrations of calcium and silicate used in this study, which 

are not enough to represent as a dominant species any thermodynamically stable species. 

Figure 3-14. Potential-pH Diagrams for Uranium-Simulated Groundwater 

Systems at 22 °C [72 °F] at the Concentration of Dissolved Uranium Species 

of 10−8

 M 

++ UO2

2 4 6 8 10 12

–0.8

–0.4

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

pH

Eh (volts)

-

UO2.3333

UO2.25

+ UO OH 2

UO CO (aq) 2 3

UO2

++ UO2

-- 2 3 2 UO (CO )

--- 2 3 3 UO (CO )
3-21 

Figure 3-15. Potential-pH Diagrams for Uranium-Simulated Groundwater 

Systems at 22 °C [72 °F] at the Concentration of Dissolved Uranium Species 

of 10−7

 M 

(c) 

Figure 3-16. Potential-pH Diagrams for Uranium-Simulated Groundwater Systems 

At 22 °C [72 °F] at the Concentration of Dissolved Uranium Species of 10−6

 M 

2 4 6 8 10 12

–0.8

–0.4

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

pH

Eh (volts)

-

UO2

UO2.3333 UO2.25

UO2.6667

++ UO2

+ UO OH 2

Schoepite

-- 2 3 2 UO (CO )

--- 2 3 3 UO (CO )

2 4 6 8 10 12

–.8

–.4

0

.4

.8

1.2

pH

Eh (volts)

UO2

++

UO2(CO3)

2

--

UO2(CO3)

3

----

UO2OH+

Schoepite

Uraninite

,

UO2.6667

UO2.3333

UO2.25
4-1 

4 CONCLUSIONS 

In this report, corrosion behavior of SIMFUEL as an analog material for SNF was evaluated 

under oxidizing conditions through corrosion tests (electrochemical and non-electrochemical 

solution analysis) and thermodynamic computation. The main conclusions from this 

study follow. 

• Under test conditions in this study, the measured dissolution rates of 3 and 6 percent 

burnup SIMFUEL ranged from 1 to 3 mg/m2 day and a high burnup of SIMFUEL 

(6 percent) presented a higher dissolution rate than 3 percent burnup SIMFUEL. The 

range of dissolution rates measured in this study is consistent with the literature data 

obtained, considering radioactivity decays during the containment period. Compared to 

accelerated conditions by using relatively high concentrations of carbonate-based 

solutions, the dissolution rates measured in this study are lower than the rates obtained 

under accelerated conditions. 

• By comparing the dissolution rate measured by electrochemical methods to the uranium 

release rate measured by solution analysis, it was found that SIMFUEL dissolution is 

controlled by the uranium dissolution process. The dissolution of other fission product 

surrogates, such as barium, molybdenum, strontium, and zirconium, were not congruent 

with uranium. 

• The uranium oxide dissolution appeared to be protected by secondary phases such as 

schoepite that formed on the SIMFUEL surface. The formation of stable schoepite is 

predicted from the results of thermodynamic stability calculations that may support 

an observation of increased corrosion resistance with time due to secondary 

phase formation. 

• The effect of calcium and silicate addition on the dissolution rate of SIMFUEL was not 

significant under the conditions tested in this study. This result could be due to the low 

concentrations of calcium and silicate used in this study and/or the masking effect of 

schoepite formed on the SIMFUEL surface. 

• Sorption test results showed that the uranium concentrations in the posttest solutions 

with a stainless steel disk decreased by about 20 percent after 21 days’ immersion of 

stainless steel compared to the concentrations without stainless steel immersed, 

indicating significant sorption of uranium onto the oxide formed on the stainless steel. 

• The electrochemical impedance technique is found to be an effective tool in measuring 

uranium dissolution rate in real time. This technique can also be used to improve 

understanding of the uranium dissolution process at the interface between uranium 

oxide and solution. 

• Based on the characterization results of the SIMFUEL microstructure and chemical 

composition in comparison with other previously reported data for SNF, it is found that 

SIMFUEL can be used to represent SNF dissolution rate after a long-term containment 

period when gamma/beta radiation decreases significantly in a repository environment. 
5-1 

5 REFERENCES 

Ahn, T. and S. Mohanty. NUREG–1914, “Dissolution Kinetics of Commercial Spent Nuclear 

Fuels in the Potential Yucca Mountain Repository Environment.” ML 083120074. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2008. 

<www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html> (1 March 2009). 

Bottomley, P.D.W., D.-H. Wegen, and M. Coquerelle. “Construction of an Electrode for 

Irradiated UO2 Fuel and Preliminary Results Concerning its Use in Aqueous Solution.” 

Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 238. pp. 23–37. 1996. 

Broczkowski, M.E., J.J. Noel., and D.W. Shoesmith. “The Inhibiting Effects of Hydrogen on the 

Corrosion of Uranium Dioxide Under Nuclear Waste Disposal Conditions.” Journal of Nuclear 

Materials. Vol. 346. pp. 16–23. 2005. 

Bruno, J., I. Casas, and A. Sandino. “Static and Dynamic SIMFUEL Dissolution Studies Under 

Oxic Condition.” Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 190. pp. 61–69. 1992. 

Choi, J.W., R.J. McEachen, P. Taylor, and D.D. Wood. “The Effect of Fission Products on the 

Rate of U3O8 Formation in SIMFUEL Oxidized in Air at 250 °C.” Journal of Nuclear Materials. 

Vol. 230. pp. 250–258. 1996. 

Cunnane, J., K. Czerwinski, B. Ebert, D. Kolman, E. Mausolf, and M. Williamson. “Waste Form 

Testing Protocols: Alloys.” Savannah River National Laboratory, ASTM C26.07 & C26.13 

Workshop, January 27, 2010. San Antonio, Texas: ASTM. 2010. 

Ebert, W.L., M.A. Lewis, T.L. Barber, and S.G. Johnson. “Accounting for EBR-II Metallic Waste 

Form Degradation in TSPA.” Symposium Proceedings Volume 757. 

Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Material Research Society. pp. 71–80. 2003. 

Engelhardt, J., F. Feldmainer, M. Laske, and G. Marx. “Impedance Measurements on UO2=x in 

Saturated NaCl Solutions.” Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 238. pp. 104–109. 1996. 

Ferry, C., et al. “Synthesis on the Spent Fuel Long Term Evolution.” CEA–R–6084. 

Saclay, France: COMMISSARIAT À L’ÉNERGIE ATOMIQUE. 2005. 

Finn, P.A., et al. “Yucca Mountain Project—Argonne National Laboratory: Annual Progress 

Report, FY 1997.” ANL–98/12. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory. 1998. 

Forsyth, R. “An Evaluation of Results From the Experimental Programmed Performed in the 

Studsvik Hot Cell Laboratory.” SKB TR 97-25. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Nuclear Fuel and 

Waste Management Company. 1997. 

Grambow, B. et al. “Source Term for Performance Assessment of Spent Fuel as a Waste 

Form.” European Commission, Nuclear Science and Technology. EUR 19140. Belgium: 

European Communities. 2000. 

Ishii, B. and Y. Seki. “Microstructure of Irradiated Uranium Dioxide.” Journal of Nuclear 

Science and Technology. Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 143–148. 1967. 
5-2 

Johnson, S.G., D.D. Keiser, S.M. Frank, T. DiSanto, A.R. Warren, and M. Noy. “Leaching 

Characteristics of the Metal Waste Form From the Electrometallurgical Treatment Process: 

Product Consistency Testing.” Warrendale, PA: Material Research Society. 

Symposium Proceeding Volume 608. pp. 589–594. 2000. 

Lucuta, P.G., H.J. Matzke, and R.A. Verrall. “Thermal Conductivity of Hyperstoichimetric 

SIMFUEL.” Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 223. pp. 51–60. 1995. 

Lucuta, P.G., R.A. Verrall, H.J. Matzke, and B.J. Palmer. “Microstructural Features of 

SIMFUEL–Simulated High-Burnup UO2-Based Nuclear Fuel.” Journal of Nuclear Materials. 

Vol. 178. pp. 48–60. 1991. 

Martin, T., S. Nilson, and M. Johnson. “On the Effects of Fission Product Noble Metal 

Inclusions on the Kinetics of Radiation Induced Dissolution of Spent Nuclear Fuel.” Journal of 

Nuclear Materials. Vol. 378. pp. 55–59. 2008. 

Miserque, F., T. Gouder, D.H. Wegen, and P.D.W. Bottomley. “Use of UO2 Films 

Electrochemical Studies.” Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 298. pp. 280–290. 2001. 

Park, G.I., J.W. Lee, Y.W. Lee, and L.C. Song. “Effect of Impurities on the Microstructure of 

DUPIC Fuel Pellets Using the SIMFUEL Technique.” Nuclear Engineering and Technology. 

Vol. 40, No. 3. pp. 191–198. 2008. 

Rondinella, V. and Hj. Matzke. “Leaching of SIMFUEL in Simulated Granite Water Comparison 

to Results in Demineralized Water.” Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 238. pp. 44–57. 1996. 

Rondinella, V. and T. Wiss. “The Shigh Burn-Up Structure in Nuclear Fuel.” Materials Today. 

Vol. 13, No. 12. pp. 24–32. 2010. 

Röllin, S., K. Spahiu, and U.-B. Eklund. “Determination of Dissolution Rates of Spent Fuel in 

Carbonate Solutions Under Different Redox Conditions With a Flow-Through Experiment.” 

Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 297. pp. 231–243. 2001. 

Sandia National Laboratory. “In-Package Chemistry Abstraction.” ANL–EBS–MD–000037. 

Rev 04 ADD 01 CAN 01 ERD 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Sandia National Laboratories. 2007. 

Santos, B.G., J.J. Noel, and D.W. Shoesmith. “The Influence of Calcium Ions on the 

Development of Acidity in Corrosion Product Deposits on SIMFUEL, UO2.” Journal of Nuclear 

Materials. Vol. 350. pp. 320–331. 2006a. 

Santos, B.G., J.J. Noel, and D.W. Shoesmith. “The Influence of Silicate on the Development of 

Acidity in Corrosion Product Deposits on SIMFUEL (UO2).” Corrosion Science. Vol. 48. 

pp. 3,852–3,868. 2006b. 

Santos, B.G., H.W. Nesbitt, J.J. Noel, and D.W. Shoesmith. “X-Ray Photoelectron 

Spectroscopy Study of Anodically Oxidized SIMFUEL Surfaces.” Electrochimica Acta. Vol. 49. 

pp. 1,863–1,873. 2004. 

Serrano-Purroy, D., F. Clarens, J.-P. Glatz, D. Wegen, B. Christiansen, J. de Pablo, 

J. Gimennez, I. Casa, and A. Martinez-Esparza. “Leaching of 53 MW/d kg U Spent Fuel 

Nuclear Fuel in a Flow-Through Reactor.” Radiochimica Acta. Vol. 97. pp. 491–496. 2009. 
5-3 

Shoesmith, D.W. “Fuel Corrosion Processes Under Waste Disposal Conditions.” Journal of 

Nuclear Materials. Vol. 282. pp. 1–31. 2000. 

Shoesmith, D.W. and S. Sunder. “Validation of an Electrochemical Model for the Oxidative 

Dissolution of Used CANDU Fuel.” Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 257. pp. 89–98. 1998. 

Shoesmith, D.W., S. Sunder, M.G. Bailey, and N.H. Miller. “Corrosion of Used Nuclear Fuel in 

Aqueous Perchlorate and Carbonate Solutions.” Journal of Nuclear Materials. Vol. 227. 

pp. 287–299. 1996. 

Stern, M. and A.L. Geary. “Electrochemical Polarization: 1. A Theoretical Analysis of the 

Shape of Polarization Curves.” Journal of the Electrochemical Society. Vol. 104, No 1. 

pp. 56–63. 1957. 

Wilson, C.N. and W.J. Gray. “Measurement of Soluble Nuclide Dissolution Rates from Spent 

Fuel.” Symposium Proceedings Volume 176. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Material Research 

Society. pp. 489–498. 1990.