Field Demonstration of Three Permeable Reactive Barriers to Control Uranium Contamination in Groundwater, Fry Canyon, Utah

Naftz, David L.; Fuller, Christopher C.; Davis, James A.; Morrison, Stan J.; Feltcorn, Edward M.; Freethey, G.W.; Rowland, Ryan C.; Wilkowske, C.D.; Piana, Michael J.

doi:10.1016/b978-012513563-4/50018-9

Cited by 31 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) have been used for decades to promote the in situ passive sequestration of trace metals such as U in shallow, contaminated aquifers (e.g., Naftz et al, 2000). A series of PRBs have been evaluated on three classes of potential materials (phosphate, zero valent iron, and ferric iron) for treatment of U in groundwater (median U concentrations = 840 lg/L) in the aquifer beneath a U-Cu heap leaching and U up-grader site in Fry Canyon, Utah (Naftz et al, 2000). Zero-valent iron foam pellets removed 99.9% of incoming U, whereas amorphous ferric oxyhydroxide mixed with 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) gravel (2% Fe) and pelletized bone-char phosphate each removed over 70% of U from solution.…”

Section: Groundwater Remediation Strategies Based On U Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biogeochemical aspects of uranium mineralization, mining, milling, and remediation

Campbell¹,

Gallegos²,

Landa

2015

Applied Geochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

aspects of uranium mineralization, mining, milling, and remediation" (2014 U is overwhelmingly the most abundant at greater than 99% of the total mass of U. Prior to the 1940s, U was predominantly used as a coloring agent, and U-bearing ores were mined mainly for their radium (Ra) and/or vanadium (V) content; the bulk of the U was discarded with the tailings (Finch et al., 1972). Once nuclear fission was discovered, the economic importance of U increased greatly. The mining and milling of U-bearing ores is the first step in the nuclear fuel cycle, and the contact of residual waste with natural water is a potential source of contamination of U and associated elements to the environment. Uranium is mined by three basic methods: surface (open pit), underground, and solution mining (in situ leaching or in situ recovery), depending on the deposit grade, size, location, geology and economic considerations (Abdelouas, 2006). Solid wastes at U mill tailings (UMT) sites can include both standard tailings (i.e., leached ore rock residues) and solids generated on site by waste treatment processes. The latter can include sludge or ''mud'' from neutralization of acidic mine/mill effluents, containing Fe and a range of coprecipitated constituents, or barium sulfate precipitates that selectively remove Ra (e.g., Carvalho et al., 2007). In this chapter, we review the hydrometallurgical processes by which U is extracted from ore, the biogeochemical processes that can affect the fate and transport of U and associated elements in the environment, and possible remediation strategies for site closure and aquifer restoration. This paper represents the fourth in a series of review papers from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on geochemical aspects of UMT management that span more than three decades. The first paper (Landa, 1980) in this series is a primer on the nature of tailings and radionuclide mobilization from them. The second paper (Landa, 1999) includes coverage of research carried out under the U.S. Department of Energy's Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (UMTRA). The third paper (Landa, 2004) reflects the increased focus of researchers on biotic effects in UMT environs. This paper expands the focus to U mining, milling, and remedial actions, and includes extensive coverage of the increasingly important alkaline in situ recovery and groundwater restoration.Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Groundwater Remediation Strategies Based On U Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biogeochemical aspects of uranium mineralization, mining, milling, and remediation

Campbell¹,

Gallegos²,

Landa

2015

Applied Geochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The injection of ferric nitrate into unsaturated sediments at low water content could be accomplished using 1% water content with primarily air injection. A technology similar to this proposed technology has been somewhat unsuccessfully tested at Fry Canyon, Utah (Naftz et al 2002). In that study, solid phase Fe(III) oxides were emplaced in a trench, forming a PRB that would presumably adsorb U(VI) phases, with subsequent dissolution of some of the iron oxides to reprecipitate as mixed Fe-U(VI) oxides.…”

Section: U(vi)/fe(iii) Coprecipitation By Fe(iii) Nitrate Air Injectimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mixture of 85% Na 2 HPO 4 and 15% NaH 2 PO 4 will maintain the pH at 7.5 ± 0.1. Note also that a 3-year field study at Fry Canyon, Utah (Naftz et al 2002), was conducted comparing the uranium remediation performance of ZVI to bone char pellets (phosphate) to amorphous ferric oxyhydroxide. Both the phosphate and amorphous iron oxide barriers showed weak performance, but the ZVI barrier showed relatively efficient uranium removal.…”

Section: Autunite Precipitation By Phosphate Injection (Mist and Foammentioning

confidence: 99%

Remediation of Uranium in the Hanford Vadose Zone Using Gas-Transported Reactants: Laboratory Scale Experiments in Support of the Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central Plateau

Szecsody¹,

Truex²,

Zhong³

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This laboratory-scale investigation focused on decreasing uranium mobility in subsurface contaminated sediments in the vadose zone by in situ geochemical manipulation at low water content. This geochemical manipulation of the sediment surface phases included reduction, pH change (acidic and alkaline), and additions of chemicals (phosphate and ferric iron) to form specific precipitates. Reactants were advected into one-dimensional columns packed with uranium-contaminated sediment from the 200 Area of the Hanford Site as a reactive gas (for CO 2 , NH 3 , H 2 S, SO 2 ), with a 0.1% water content mist [for NaOH, Fe(III), HCl, PO 4 ] and with a 1% water content foam (for PO 4 ).Uranium is present in the sediment in multiple phases that include (in decreasing mobility) the following: aqueous U(VI) complexes, adsorbed uranium, reduced U(IV) precipitates, rind-carbonates, total carbonates, oxides, silicates, and phosphates. Geochemical changes were evaluated in the ability to change the mixture of surface uranium phases to less mobile forms, as defined by a series of liquid extractions that dissolve progressively less soluble phases. Although liquid extractions provide some useful information as to the generalized uranium surface phases (and are considered operational definitions of extracted phases), positive identification of surface phase changes by electron microprobe analysis is in progress. Some of the changes in uranium mobility directly involve uranium phases, whereas other changes result in precipitate coatings on uranium surface phases. The long-term implication of the uranium surface phase changes to alter uranium mass mobility in the vadose zone was then investigated using simulations of one-dimensional infiltration and downward migration of six uranium phases to the water table.In terms of the short-term decrease in uranium mobility (in decreasing order), NH 3 , NaOH mist, CO 2 , HCl mist, and Fe(III) mist showed 20% to 35% change in uranium surface phases. Difference in treatment effectiveness between sediments likely reflects mineralogy. Phosphate addition (mist or foam advected) showed inconsistent change in aqueous and adsorbed uranium, but significant coating (likely phosphates) on uranium carbonates. The two reductive gas treatments (H 2 S and SO 2 ) showed little change. For long-term decrease in uranium reduction, mineral phases created that had low solubility (phosphates and silicates) were desired, so NH 3 , phosphates (mist and foam delivered), and NaOH mist showed the greatest formation of these minerals. In addition, simulations of uranium movement in the vadose zone showed that these treatments greatly decreased uranium transport to groundwater. Advection of reactive gasses was the easiest to implement into low water content sediments at the laboratory-scale (and presumably field-scale) experiments. Both mist and foam advection show potential and need further development, but current implementation techniques move reactants shorter distances relative to reactive gasses. Overall, the am...

show abstract

“…Another example is that of uranium, which potentially could be remediated using hydroxyapatite which dissolves and causes a uranium phosphate precipitate to form (Arey et al 1999;Fanizza et al 2013). Instead of using abiotic hydroxapatite directly, less expensive bone meal has been considered (Naftz et al 1998). When used as a permeable reactive barrier, the extent of this precipitation is such that the bone meal needs to be diluted with unreactive phases to avoid clogging the reactive barrier by reducing the permeability drastically (Naftz et al 1998).…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Precipitation in Pores: A Geochemical Frontier

Stack

2015

Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field Demonstration of Three Permeable Reactive Barriers to Control Uranium Contamination in Groundwater, Fry Canyon, Utah

Cited by 31 publications

References 4 publications

Biogeochemical aspects of uranium mineralization, mining, milling, and remediation

Biogeochemical aspects of uranium mineralization, mining, milling, and remediation

Remediation of Uranium in the Hanford Vadose Zone Using Gas-Transported Reactants: Laboratory Scale Experiments in Support of the Deep Vadose Zone Treatability Test Plan for the Hanford Central Plateau

Precipitation in Pores: A Geochemical Frontier

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About