Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:26:53.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The carbon-14 IPT: an integrated approach to geological disposal of UK wastes containing carbon-14

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

David Lever  and
Sarah Vines
David Lever*
Affiliation:
AMEC, Building 150, Thomson Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QB, UK
Sarah Vines
Affiliation:
Radioactive Waste Management Limited, Building 587, Curie Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0RH, UK
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
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.

Carbon-14 is a key radionuclide in the assessment of the safety of a geological disposal facility because of the calculated assessment of the radiological consequences of gaseous carbon-14-bearing species. Radioactive Waste Management Limited has established an Integrated Project Team (IPT) in which partners are working together to develop an holistic approach to carbon-14 management in the disposal system. We have used an 'AND' approach to structure and prioritize our technical work. For a waste stream to be of concern, there has to be a significant inventory, AND carbon-14-bearing gas has to be generated, AND this gas has to be entrained by bulk gas, AND it has to migrate through the engineered barriers, AND it has to migrate through the overlying geological environment (either as gas or in solution), AND there have to be consequences in the biosphere. We are also using this approach to consider alternative treatment, packaging and design options.

Keywords

carbon-14geological disposalradioactive wasteIntegrated Project TeamIPT
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 79 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 1641 - 1650
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015. This is an open access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015

References

Atkinson, B., Meredith, W., Snape, C., Steven, M. and Shaw, G. (2011) Experimental and Modelling Studies of Carbon-14 Behaviour in the Biosphere: Diffusion and Oxidation of Isotopically Labelled Methane ( CH4) in Laboratory Soil Column Experiments. Serco Report Serco/Nott/e.4031/002 Issue 1.Google Scholar
Atkinson, B.S., Meredith, W., Snape, C., Steven, M., Hoch, A., Lever, D. and Shaw, G (2012) Migration and fate of 14CH4 in subsoil — tracer experiments to inform model development. Mineralogical Magazine, 76, 483–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, B.S., Meredith, W., Snape, C., Steven, M. and Shaw, G. (2014) Data from Laboratory Experiments LE3 and LE4 and on Field Experiment FE1 and FE2. AMEC Report AMEC/Nott/004041/005.Google Scholar
Bailey, L.E.F. and Billington, D.E. (1998) Overview of the FEPAnalysis Approach to Model Development. Nirex Science Report S/98/009.Google Scholar
Baston, G.M.N., Marshall, T.A., Otlett, R.J., Walker, A.J., Mather, I.D. and Williams, S.J. (2012) Rate and speciation of volatile carbon-14 and tritium releases from irradiated graphite. Mineralogical Magazine, 76, 3293–3302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baston, G., Preston, S., Otlett, R., Walker, J., Clacher, A., Kirkham, M. and Swift, B. (2014) Carbon-14 Release from Oldbury Graphite. AMEC Report AMEC/5352/ 002 Issue 3.Google Scholar
Hoch, A.R. (2014) Uptake of Gaseous Carbon-14 in the Biosphere: Development of an Assessment Model. AMEC Report AMEC/004041/007.Google Scholar
Hoch, A.R. and James, M. (2012) Comparison of alternative approaches to modelling gas migration through a higher strength rock. Mineralogical Magazine, 76, 3319–3326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoch, A.R. and Shaw, G. (2014) Uptake of Gaseous Carbon-14 in the Biosphere: Modelling of Field and Laboratory Experiments. AMEC Report AMEC/Nott/004041/006.Google Scholar
Hoch, A.R., Thorne, M.C., Swift, B.T. and Bate, F. (2008) Update of the GPA (03) Assessment of the Consequences of Gas. Serco Report SA/ENV 0948.Google Scholar
Nirex (2005) The Viability of a Phased Geological Repository Concept, for the Long-term Management of the UK's Radioactive Waste. Nirex Report N/1 22.Google Scholar
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2010a) Generic Disposal System Safety Case. http://www.nda.gov.uk/aboutus/geological-disposal/rwmd-work/dssc/index.cfm.Google Scholar
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2010b) Geological Disposal: Gas Status Report. NDA/RWMD/037.Google Scholar
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2010c) Geological Disposal: Radionuclide Behaviour Status Report. NDA/RWMD/034.Google Scholar
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2011) Geological Disposal:R&DProgramme Overview, Research and Development Needs in the Preparatory Studies Phase. NDA Report NDA/RWMD/073.Google Scholar
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2012) Carbon-14 Project - Phase 1 Report. NDA Report NDA/ RWMD/092.Google Scholar
Rodwell, W.R., Harris, A.W., Horseman, S.T., Lalieux, P., Müller, W., Ortiz Amaya, L. andPruess, K. (1999) Gas Migration and Two-phase Flow through Engineered and Geological Barriers for a Deep Repository for Radioactive Waste, A Joint EC/NEA Status Report, European Commission Report EUR 19122 EN.Google Scholar
Shaw, G., Atkinson, B., Meredith, W., Snape, C., Steven, M., Hoch, A. and Lever, D. (2014) Quantifying 12/13CH4 migration and fate following sub-surface release to an agricultural soil. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 133, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumerling, T. (2013) Assessment of Carbon-14 Bearing Gas. LLWR Report LLWR/ESC/R(13)10059.Google Scholar
Tyler, B., Crawley, F. and Preston, M. (2008) HAZOP: Guide to Best Practice (2nd Edition). IChemE, Rugby, UK.Google Scholar