- •Preface
- •Acronyms
- •Introduction
- •Background and objectives
- •Content, format and presentation
- •Radioactive waste management in context
- •Waste sources and classification
- •Introduction
- •Radioactive waste
- •Waste classification
- •Origins of radioactive waste
- •Nuclear fuel cycle
- •Mining
- •Fuel production
- •Reactor operation
- •Reprocessing
- •Reactor decommissioning
- •Medicine, industry and research
- •Medicine
- •Industry
- •Research
- •Military wastes
- •Conditioning of radioactive wastes
- •Treatment
- •Compaction
- •Incineration
- •Conditioning
- •Cementation
- •Bituminisation
- •Resin
- •Vitrification
- •Spent fuel
- •Process qualification/product quality
- •Volumes of waste
- •Inventories
- •Inventory types
- •Types of data recorded
- •Radiological data
- •Chemical data
- •Physical data
- •Secondary data
- •Radionuclides occurring in the nuclear fuel cycle
- •Simplifying the number of waste types
- •Radionuclide inventory priorities
- •Material priorities
- •Inventory evolution
- •Assumptions
- •Errors
- •Uncertainties
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •Development of geological disposal concepts
- •Introduction
- •Historical evolution of geological disposal concepts
- •Geological disposal
- •Definitions and comparison with near-surface disposal
- •Development of geological disposal concepts
- •Roles of the geosphere in disposal options
- •Physical stability
- •Hydrogeology
- •Geochemistry
- •Overview
- •Alternatives to geological disposal
- •Introduction
- •Politically blocked options: sub-seabed and Antarctic icecap disposal
- •Sea dumping and sub-seabed disposal
- •Antarctic icesheet disposal
- •Technically impractical options; partitioning and transmutation, space disposal and icesheet disposal
- •Partitioning and Transmutation
- •Space disposal
- •Icesheets and permafrost
- •Non-options; long-term surface storage
- •Alternatives to conventional repositories
- •Introduction
- •Alternative geological disposal concepts
- •Utilising existing underground facilities
- •Extended storage options (CARE)
- •Injection into deep aquifers and caverns
- •Deep boreholes
- •Rock melting
- •The international option: technical aspects
- •Alternative concepts: fitting the management option to future boundary conditions
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Site selection and characterisation
- •Introduction
- •Prescriptive/geologically led
- •Sophisticated/advocacy led
- •Pragmatic/technically led
- •Centralised/geologically led
- •Conclusions to be drawn
- •Lessons to be learned (see Table 4.2)
- •Site characterisation
- •Can we define the natural environment sufficiently thoroughly?
- •Sedimentary environments
- •Hydrogeology
- •The regional hydrogeological model
- •More local hydrogeological model(s)
- •Crystalline rock environments
- •Lithology and structure
- •Hydrogeology
- •Hydrogeochemistry
- •Any geological environment
- •References
- •Repository design
- •Introduction: general framework of the design process
- •Identification of design requirements/constraints
- •Concept development
- •Major components of the disposal system and safety functions
- •A structured approach for concept development
- •Detailed design/specifications of subsystems
- •Near-field processes and design issues
- •Design approach and methodologies
- •Design confirmation and demonstration
- •Interaction with PA/SA
- •Demonstration and QA
- •Repository management
- •Future perspectives
- •References
- •Assessment of the safety and performance of a radioactive waste repository
- •Introduction
- •The role of SA and the safety case in decision-making
- •SA tasks
- •System description
- •Identification of scenarios and cases for analysis
- •Consequence analysis
- •Timescales for evaluation
- •Constructing and presenting a safety case
- •References
- •Repository implementation
- •Legal and regulatory framework; organisational structures
- •Waste management strategies
- •The need for a clear policy and strategy
- •Timetables vary widely
- •Activities in development of a geological repository
- •Concept development
- •Siting
- •Repository design
- •Licensing
- •Construction
- •Operation
- •Monitoring
- •Research and development
- •The staging process
- •Attributes of adaptive staging
- •The decision-making process
- •Status of geological disposal programmes
- •Overview
- •Status of geological disposal projects in selected countries
- •International repositories
- •Costs and financing
- •Cost estimates
- •Financing
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •Research and development infrastructure
- •Introduction: Management of research and development
- •Drivers for research and development
- •Organisation of R&D
- •R&D in specialised (nuclear) facilities
- •Introduction
- •Inventory
- •Release of radionuclides from waste forms
- •Solubility and sorption
- •Waste form dissolution
- •Colloids
- •Organic degradation products
- •Gas generation
- •Conventional R&D
- •Engineered barriers
- •Corrosion
- •Buffer and backfill materials
- •Container fabrication
- •Natural barriers
- •Geochemistry and groundwater flow
- •Gas transport and two-phase flow
- •Biosphere
- •Radionuclide concentration and dispersion in the biosphere
- •Climate change
- •Landscape change
- •Underground rock laboratories
- •URLs in sediments
- •Nature’s laboratories: studies of the natural environment
- •General
- •Corrosion
- •Cement
- •Clay materials
- •Degradation of organic materials
- •Glass corrosion
- •Radionuclide migration
- •Model and database development
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Building confidence in the safe disposal of radioactive waste
- •Growing nuclear concerns
- •Communication systems in waste management programmes
- •The Swiss programme
- •The Japanese programme
- •Examples of communication styles in other countries
- •Finland
- •Sweden
- •France
- •United Kingdom
- •Comparisons between communication styles in Finland, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom
- •Lessons for the future
- •What is the way forward?
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •A look to the future
- •Introduction
- •Current trends in repository programmes
- •Priorities for future efforts
- •Waste characterisation
- •Operational safety
- •Emplacement technologies
- •Knowledge management
- •Alternative designs and optimisation processes
- •Materials technology
- •Novel construction/immobilisation materials: the example of low pH cement
- •Future SA code development
- •Implications for environmental protection: disposal of other wastes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Index
Research and development infrastructure |
209 |
Group. It has been suggested that the best approach in biosphere assessment is to create a range of credible illustrations for the biosphere, thereby exploring the uncertainty inherent in its future evolution, e.g., within the Swiss programme (Sumerling et al., 2001). These stylised approaches are generally accepted internationally by national implementers (e.g., NEA, 2000) and regulators (e.g., HSK and KSA, 1993) alike as an appropriate way in which to consider the biosphere in repository SAs. Thus the major requirement for any further R&D is to test the credibility of such illustrations and to show any significant sensitivity to assumptions rather than to attempt detailed predictive modelling.
A methodology for developing such ‘‘Reference Biospheres’’ has been developed internationally, and worked examples provided, within the IAEA BIOMASS Project (IAEA, 2003). The methodology has been applied to a range of different biosphere conditions based on actual site characteristics at five sites across Europe within the EUfunded BioMoSA (Biosphere Models for Safety Assessment) Project (Pro¨hl et al., 2005; Olyslaegers et al., 2005).
In some national programmes, there is a move towards considering potential doses to other species and also actual site characteristics in more detail, (e.g., see SKB, 2004). The first of these represents an area where further R&D is still required.
8.4. Underground rock laboratories
Over the past 30 years, Underground rock laboratories (URLs) have been created to provide access to an underground environment that is similar to that of a repository. This makes it possible to do the work necessary to build an adequate understanding of features and processes that could influence repository safety. These features include geochemical and physical characteristics such as mineralogy, fractures and faults; the processes include groundwater and gas flow, response to excavation disturbance and heat conduction. URLs also allow construction and operation activities such as excavation and waste emplacement to be tested and demonstrated in a realistic setting (see, e.g., Boxes 8.1 and 8.2). Table 8.1 lists some of the types of information that may be obtained from URLs with examples of each. International collaboration is a feature of URL research and countries that do not themselves operate a URL will often be found as partners in specific URL experiments.
In NEA (2001b), 18 generic URLs worldwide are listed of which, at that time, 12 were still in operation. Twelve of the 18 had been developed from existing structures like mines and road tunnels and 6 (all still in operation) were specially built. A further 8 URLs were associated with actual or potential disposal sites. The geological environments that they cover correspond closely to the main anticipated repository environments, namely crystalline rocks, bedded evaporites, salt domes, plastic clay and indurated clay. The USA is unique in its focus on an unsaturated host rock at Yucca Mountain and this is covered in Box 8.2.
The distinction between generic and site-specific URLs is an important one that very much influences the approach to the work carried out there. Generic URLs are primarily research facilities; they are not intended for waste disposal but, rather, are designed to gain experience of underground construction, develop measurement techniques and test models and methodologies. They may also be used for developing waste handling
210 |
A. Hooper |
Box 8.2. R&D in URLs for the Yucca Mountain (USA) site.
As noted in Chapters 3 and 4, only one country is looking at disposal in unsaturated rocks, namely the USA. Currently, disposal of SF in an unsaturated, welded tuff is being considered at Yucca Mountain. A tunnel has been constructed in unsaturated rocks at Busted Butte where the Calico formation, which lies below the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, is relatively close to the surface. Work started in 1998 to investigate fundamental uncertainties in site-scale models of flow and transport in the unsaturated zone and aspects investigated included the effect of heterogeneities on flow and transport, colloid migration, in situ validation of sorption models, 3D flow and transport models, and upscaling effects (Bussod, 2001). Busted Butte has now closed.
An 8 km long tunnel loop inside Yucca Mountain – the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) – has been created for the underground phase of the investigations at Yucca Mountain. The ESF (Fig. 8.7) includes a number of experimental galleries and is configured so that it can eventually become part of the repository. Work carried out in the ESF has included detailed mapping and sample collection. It was found that the ramp-and-main configuration (i.e., drift access to main tunnel as opposed to a vertical shaft access) provided opportunities for observation of changes in stratigraphic, lithological and structural characteristics of the host rock that would not have been available if access had been via a vertical shaft. As a result, some questions about geohydrological features and processes, inferred from the results of surface-based tests, could be answered by direct observation, making it possible to reduce the scope of some surface-based testing activities.
Ongoing work includes a large-scale heater test that, when sufficiently cool, will be dismantled and sampled by overcoring along existing observation holes. The cross drift (which connects the ‘‘outward and return’’ legs of the ESF loop) and some alcoves have been sealed to study natural moisture behaviour without the drying effects of tunnel ventilation. Future work is dependent upon repository construction authorisation and is described in the Performance Confirmation Plan (OCRWM, 2005) (part of the Licence Application).
Fig. 8.7. The Yucca Mountain ESF.
Research and development infrastructure |
211 |
Table 8.1
Examples of information obtained from URLs (see Kickmaier and McKinley, 1997; NEA, 2001b, for details)*.
Class of information |
Examples |
|
|
Development and testing of excavation techniques
Demonstration of technical feasibility of gallery drilling in plastic clays at the Mol URL, Belgium
Studies of the performance of disposal technologies at ONKALA, Finland
Quantification of impact caused by excavation (regional and local scale; physical and chemical perturbations)
¨ ¨
ZEDEX experiment at the Aspo URL, Sweden
EDZ experiments at Grimsel Test Site (GTS), Switzerland and the Whiteshell URL, Canada
Ventilation test at the Mont Terri URL, Switzerland
THM tests at Whiteshell, Canada
Application of site exploration strategies and strategies to adapt underground systems as more information is acquired
Full-scale deposition holes, research tunnel at ONKALA, Finland
Application of geophysical methods at GTS, Switzerland, and the Stripa URL, Sweden
Integration of results to derive conclusions, |
|
¨ |
|
Task forces on groundwater flow and modelling at |
|
conceptual models and predictions regarding |
|
Aspo,¨ Sweden |
groundwater flow and 2-phase flow |
Unsaturated zone seepage tests at the Exploratory |
|
|
|
Studies Facility (ESF), USA |
|
GAM and GMT experiments, GTS, Switzerland |
|
|
|
|
Testing of models, exploration methods and |
Tracer Retention and Understanding Experiment |
|
processes potentially relevant to radionuclide |
|
¨ |
|
(TRUE) Block Scale at the Aspo¨ HRL, Sweden |
|
transport through rock |
Radionuclide Retardation Programme (RRP) at the |
|
|
|
GTS, Switzerland |
|
Diffusion experiments at Mont Terri, Switzerland |
Unsaturated zone transport tests at ESF, USASolute transport and diffusion experiments at
Whiteshell, Canada
Simulation of effects caused by emplacement of radioactive waste (heat, nuclide release, mechanical impact)
Demonstration of engineered barrier systems (feasibility)
CERBERUS at Mol, Belgium
TSS project at the Asse Mine, Germany
FEBEX project at the GTS, Switzerland
Heater tests at Stripa, Sweden, ESF, USA, GTS and Mont Terri, Switzerland
HPF experiment at GTS, Switzerland
THM tests at Whiteshell, Canada
Borehole sealing tests at Stripa, Sweden, Mol, Belgium and the GTS, Switzerland
FEBEX and GMT projects at the GTS, Switzerland
Buffer and container testing at Whiteshell, Canada
RESEAL project at Mol, Belgium
Experiments related to long-term processes, postoperational phases, geochemical corrosion, geomechanical stability
PRACLAY test at Mol, Belgium
In situ test on coupled THM processes and model validation at Kamaishi, Japan
Self-sealing of faults Mont Terri, Switzerland and Tournemire, France
|
¨ |
Prototype Repository at Aspo,¨ Sweden |
THM tests at Whiteshell, Canada
*See also www.grimsel.com, www.mont-terri.ch, www.skb.se, www.aecl.ca, www.posiva.fi.
212 |
A. Hooper |
Table 8.2
Details of the CRR project partners (further information at www.grimsel.com/CRR and www.grimsel.com/ CFM and in Mo¨ri et al., 2003 and Geckeis et al., 2004)
Country |
Organisation |
Backfill |
Host rock |
|
|
|
|
France |
Andra |
Bentonite (precise type not |
Not fixed, but focus currently on indurated |
|
|
decided yet) |
sediment |
Germany |
FZK-INE |
Not yet defined, but majority |
Not yet defined, but majority of past work |
|
|
of past work has been on salt |
has been on salt |
Japan |
JAEA |
Bentonite (Kunigel V1) |
Not yet decided |
Spain |
ENRESA |
Bentonite (FEBEX) |
Not yet decided |
Switzerland |
Nagra |
Bentonite/sand (MX-80 |
Not fixed, but focus currently on indurated |
|
|
bentonite) |
sediment with crystalline as back-up option |
USA |
Sandia |
Magnesium hydroxide |
Salt |
|
|
|
|
techniques and, through carefully designed demonstration exercises, may provide a useful means of communicating with the public. Clearly, it is advantageous if the geological environment of a URL is similar to that of a potential site but differences can be helpful too in that they focus work on understanding processes and mechanisms, thus ensuring transferral of the data produced to other repository designs and host rock types (see also the comments in Mazurek et al., 2006).
An example of such work is that of the Colloid and Radionuclide Retardation (CRR) project in Nagra’s Grimsel Test Site (GTS) in central Switzerland. Here, six countries worked together in a project which was conducted in a fractured crystalline rock and focused on a pure bentonite (FEBEX bentonite) backfill. As can be seen from Table 8.2, this particular backfill is of current interest to only one partner and the host rock may not be the focus of any – despite this, the six worked together on this project for 5 years and three of the six (plus 3 new partners) are now working on a similar, follow-up project.
Site-specific URLs, on the other hand, are likely to be constructed following extensive surface-based investigations and when it is decided that, for further progress to be made, the investigations need to move underground. Site-specific URLs are aimed at confirming the suitability of a site in terms of post-closure safety, guiding the site-specific layout and design, and demonstrating suitable techniques for repository construction – specifically, techniques that will not prejudice post-closure safety. At a site-specific URL emphasis will be placed on keeping disturbances to the natural system to a reasonable minimum and the application of rigorous quality management standards.
To provide some examples of ongoing R&D in URLs, the rest of this section describes some of the R&D carried out in some of the URLs currently operational in sedimentary host rocks around the world (with additional data in Table 8.1).
8.4.1. URLs in sediments
The first URL to be constructed in plastic clay2 was the Hades facility at Mol. It is located on the centre line of the Boom Clay and was originally devised to demonstrate
2 Clay that is able to flow to seal up openings, voidage, etc.
Research and development infrastructure |
213 |
that it was possible to construct suitable openings at repository depths (NEA, 2001c) – there being some doubt about this at the time. Consequently, much of its early work was concerned with investigating geo-mechanical models.
PRACLAY (PReliminAry demonstration test for CLAY disposal of HLW) is a good example of key R&D support of the stepwise design development, focusing as it did on experimental and modelling studies that help to confirm the general feasibility of HLW disposal in plastic clay (see Bastiaens and Demarche´, 2003 for details). The experiment consisted of a 30 m long, 2 m diameter dummy disposal gallery constructed at Mol. The experiment aimed to demonstrate, first, that the construction, operation and sealing of a disposal gallery are technically and economically feasible using existing industrial techniques. Second, the experiment contributes to the evaluation of long-term safety and performance of the disposal system through a better understanding of the processes involved in the disposal system and an attempt to validate mathematical models. The low-mechanical strength and high-water content of plastic clays means that coupled processes tend to be more important than in hard rocks (either crystalline or indurated clays). Consequently, the thermo-hydromechanical (THM) behaviour of the clay and the EDZ around the gallery is of particular interest and a focus for further R&D.
The RESEAL project (Volckaert et al., 1998) aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of making effective, large-scale, in situ bentonite seals under semi-industrial conditions. The project included the sealing of a 1.4 m diameter shaft with a combination of clay powder and high density pellets. As the last stages of hydration of the shaft seal are slow – the last 5–10 per cent takes as long as the first 90 per cent – the project has been extended to 2007, so new R&D on this theme is unlikely before then.
Other clay URLs are constructed in indurated clays whose plasticity is much more limited and, while there may also be mineralogical differences, mechanical properties are the key difference between, say, Mol and Mont Terri (Volckaert et al., 2004). Mont Terri (see www.mont-terri.ch) and Tournemire have been used to improve basic knowledge of low-permeability indurated clays that, in the past 10 years, have come to be increasingly favoured as potential repository host rocks. In situ examinations were considered necessary for progress to be made on (i) understanding the flow and radionuclide transport properties, (ii) characterising the rock response to the excavations and operations, and (iii) assessing potential construction techniques for this type of rock. More recently, construction of the Meuse/Haute-Marne (Bure) URL (MoR, 2003) has extended the range of clay rocks investigated. The following list of activities, based on the current Mont Terri work programme, is typical of ongoing R&D in sediments:
detailed examination of porewater chemistry;
diffusion experiments in undisturbed rock;
measurement of in situ stress;
mine-by tests to examine the formation and evolution of the EDZ;
investigation of methods of diminishing the EDZ;
heater experiments to measure the thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) response in buffer and host rock;
investigations of clay interactions with cement leachates;
ventilation experiments designed to follow the response of the host rock to desaturation and resaturation;
demonstrations of installation methods for engineered barriers;