Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:36:13.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Overview of radionuclide migration experiments in the HADES Underground Research Facility at Mol (Belgium)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2018

M. Aertsens*
Affiliation:
Expert Group Waste & Disposal, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, SCK – CEN - Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium
N. Maes
Affiliation:
Expert Group Waste & Disposal, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, SCK – CEN - Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium
L. Van Ravestyn
Affiliation:
Expert Group Waste & Disposal, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, SCK – CEN - Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium
S. Brassinnes
Affiliation:
ONDRAF/NIRAS, Kunstlaan 14, B-1210 Brussels, Belgium
*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In situ migration experiments using different radiotracers have been performed in the HADES Underground Research Facility (URF), built at a depth of 225 m in the Boom Clay formation below the SCK–CEN nuclear site at Mol (Belgium). Small-scale experiments, mimicking laboratory experiments, were carried out with strongly retarded tracers (strontium, caesium, europium, americium and technetium). Contrary to europium, americium and technetium which are subjected to colloid mediated transport, the transport of strontium and caesium can be described by the classic diffusion retardation formalism. For these last two tracers, the transport parameters derived from the in situ experiments can be compared with the laboratory-derived values. For both tracers, the apparent diffusion coefficients measured in the in situ experiments agree well with the laboratory-derived values.

In the large-scale experiments (of the order of metres) performed in the URF, non-retarded or slightly retarded tracers (HTO, iodide and H14CO3) were used. The migration behaviour of these tracers was predicted based on models applied in performance assessment calculations (classic diffusion retardation) using migration parameter values measured in laboratory experiments. These blind predictions of large-scale experiments agree well in general with the experimental measurements. Fitting the experimental in situ data leads to apparent diffusion coefficients close to those determined by the laboratory experiments. The iodide and H14CO3 data were fitted with a simple analytical expression, and the HTO data were additionally fitted numerically with COMSOL multiphysics, leading to about the same optimal values.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2013 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2013

References

Aertsens, M., Put, M. & Dierckx, A. (1999) An analytical model for pulse injection experiments. Pp. 67–76 in: Proceedings of ‘Modelling of Transport Processes in Soils at Various Scales in Time and Space’, Leuven, Belgium, 24-26 November 1999.Google Scholar
Aertsens, M., Wemaere, I. & Wouters, L. (2004) Spatial variability of transport parameters in the Boom Clay. Applied Clay Science, 26, 37–45.10.1016/j.clay.2003.09.015Google Scholar
Aertsens, M., De Cannière, P., Lemmens, K., Maes, N. & Moors, H. (2008a) Overview and consistency of migration experiments in clay. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 33, 1019–1025.Google Scholar
Aertsens, M., Van Gompel, M., De Cannière, P., Maes, N. & Dierckx, A. (2008b) Vertical distribution of H14CO3 – transport parameters in Boom clay in the Mol-1 borehole (Mol, Belgium). Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 33, S61–S66.Google Scholar
Aertsens, M., Maes, N. & Van Gompel, M. (2009a) Consistency of the strontium transport parameters in Boom Clay obtained from different types of migration experiments. Pp. 421–428 in: Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXIX (Buratov, B. & Aloy, A., editors.), Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, 1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aertsens, M., De Cannière, P., Moors, H. & Van Gompel, M. (2009b) Effect of ionic strength on the transport parameters of tritiated water, iodide and H14CO3 – in Boom Clay. Pp. 497–504 in: Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXIX (B. Buratov & A. Aloy, editors), Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, 1193.Google Scholar
Altmann, S., Tournassat, C., Goutelard, F., Parneix, J.C., Gimmi, T. & Maes, N. (2012) Diffusion driven transport in clayrock formations. Applied Geochemistry, 27, 463–478.10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.09.015Google Scholar
Bastiaens, W., Bernier, F. & Li, X.L. (2007) SELFRAC: Experiments and conclusions on fracturing, selfhealing and self-sealing processes in clays. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 32, 600–615.Google Scholar
Baston, G., De Cannière, P., Ilett, D., Cowper, M., Pilkington, N., Tweed, C., Wang, L. & Williams, S. (2002) Technetium behavior in Boom Clay – a laboratory and field study. Radiochimica Acta, 90, 735–740.10.1524/ract.2002.90.9-11_2002.735Google Scholar
Bernier, F. & Bastiaens, W. (2004) Fracturation and selfhealing processes in clays – The SELFRAC Project. Pp. 478–491 in: Proceedings of EURADWASTE ‘04, European Commission, Luxembourg, Report EUR21027.Google Scholar
Bourg, I. (2004) Diffusion of Water and Inorganic Ions in Saturated Compacted Bentonite. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bruggeman, C., Aertsens, M., Maes, N. & Salah, S. (2010) Iodine Retention and Migration Behavior in Boom Clay. SCK – CEN, Mol, Belgium, report SCK – CEN-ER-119.Google Scholar
Crank, J. (1975) The Mathematics of Diffusion. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
De Cannière, P., Moors, H., Lolivier, P., De Preter, P. & Put, M. (1996) Laboratory and in situ Migration Experiments in the Boom Clay. European Commission, Luxembourg, Report EUR 16 927 EN.Google Scholar
Henrion, P., Monsecour, M., Fonteyne, A., Put, M., De Regge, P. (1985) Migration of radionuclides in Boom Clay. Radioactive Waste Management and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, 6 (3-4), 313–359.Google Scholar
Maes, N., Salah, S., Jacques, D., Aertsens, M., Van Gompel, M., De Cannière, P. & Velitchkova, N. (2008) Retention of Cs in Boom Clay; Comparison of data from batch sorption tests and diffusion experiments on intact clay cores. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 33, S149–S155.Google Scholar
Maes, N., Bruggeman, C., Govaerts, J., Martens, E., Salah, S. & Van Gompel, M. (2011) A consistent phenomenological model for natural organic matter linker migration of Tc(IV), Cm(II), NP(IV), Pu(III,IV) and Pa(V) in the Boom Clay. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 36, 1590–1599.Google Scholar
Marivoet, J. & Weetjens, E. (2009) The importance of mobile fission products for long-term safety in the case of disposal of vitrified high-level waste and spent fuel in a clay formation. Pp. 31–42 in: Mobile Fission and Activation Products in Nuclear Waste Disposal. Workshop proceedings, La Baule, France, 16–19 January 2007, OECD/NEA, Issy-les- Moulineaux, France, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, ISBN 978-92-64-99072-2.Google Scholar
Martens, E., Maes, N., Weetjens, E., Van Gompel, M. & Van Ravestyn, L. (2010) Modelling of a large-scale in situ migration experiment with 14C labeled natural organic matter in Boom Clay. Radiochimica Acta, 98, 659–701.10.1524/ract.2010.1770Google Scholar
Moors, H. (2005) Topical report on the effect of the ionic strength on the diffusion accessible porosity of Boom Clay. SCK – CEN, Mol, Belgium, report SCK – CEN-ER-02.Google Scholar
Naves, A., Samper, J. & Gimmi, T. (2012) Identifiability of diffusion and sorption parameters fom in situ diffusion experiments by using simultaneously tracer dilution and claystone data. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 142-143, 63–74.Google Scholar
Noynaert, L. (2000) Heat and radiation effects on the near filed of a HLW or spent fuel repository in a clay formation (CERBERUS project). EUR 19125 EN (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities), ISBN 92-838-8913-0.Google Scholar
Put, M., Monsecour, M., Fonteyne, A., Yoshida, H. & De Regge, P. (1989) In situ migration experiments in the Boom clay at Mol; experimental method and preliminary results. Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, 127, 621–628.Google Scholar
Put, M., De Cannière, P., Moors, H. & Fonteyne, A. (1993) Validation of performance assessment model by large-scale in situ migration experiments. IAEA-SM- 326/37, 319–326.Google Scholar
Samper, S., Yi, S. & Naves, A. (2010) Analysis of the parameter identifiability of the in situ diffusion and retention (DR) experiments. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 35, 207–216.Google Scholar
Weetjens, E., Govaerts, J. & Aertsens, M. (2011) Model and parameter validation based on in situ experiments in Boom Clay. SCK – CEN, Mol, Belgium, report SCK – CEN-ER-171.Google Scholar
Weetjens, E. & Maes, N. (2013) Model validation based on in situ radionuclide migration tests in Boom Clay: status of the CP1 experiment, 24 years after injection (submitted).Google Scholar
Wemaere, I., Marivoet, J. & Labat, S. (2008) Hydraulic conductivity of the Boom Clay in north-east Belgium based on four core-drilled boreholes. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 33, S24–S36.Google Scholar
Wersin, P., Soler, J., Van Loon, L., Eikenberg, J., Baeyens, B., Grolimund, D., Gimmi, T. & Dewonck, S. (2008) Diffusion of HTO, Br, I, Cs+, 85Sr2+ and 60Co2+ in a clay formation: Results and modelling from an in situ experiment in Opalinus Clay. Applied Geochemistry, 23, 678–691.10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.11.004Google Scholar
Yi, S., Samper, J., Naves, A. & Soler, J. (2012) Identifiability of diffusion and retention parameters of anionic tracers from the diffusion and retention (DR) experiment. Journal of Hydrology, 446–447, 70–76.Google Scholar