Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T21:32:10.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Materials aspects of advanced repository concepts for higher toxicity waste

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Ian G. McKinley
Affiliation:
McKinley Consulting, Baden/Dattwil, Switzerland
Ellie M. Scourse
Affiliation:
McKinley Consulting, Baden/Dattwil, Switzerland
Get access

Abstract

Most designs of disposal facilities for higher toxicity radioactive wastes were developed for generic feasibility assessment and hence tend to be rather simple in terms of layout and conservative in the choice of engineered barrier materials. Recently, there has been a trend to reassess such designs in the light of moves towards implementation, where robustness in terms of post closure safety needs to be balanced against the requirements to assure safety, quality, and economic practicality during operation, to minimise environmental impact and to gain public acceptance. Studies to date have, however, tended to focus predominantly on variants of layout and engineered barrier geometry. Evaluation of alternative materials has received less consideration, despite the huge advances in materials science over the last couple of decades and likely further developments in the time until repositories become operational. This paper will examine the constraints that led to the choice of the most common materials selected for barriers within “wet” host rocks and examine the extent to which performance could be optimised by use of alternative materials.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 SKBF/KBS, “KBS-3 – Final Storage of spent nuclear fuel” (1983).Google Scholar
2 Nagra, “Project Gewahr 1985 (English summary)” Nagra Project Report NGB 85-09 (1985).Google Scholar
3 SKB, “Initial state report for the safety assessment SR-Can” SKB TR-06-21 (2006)Google Scholar
4 Nagra, “Project Opalinus Clay, Safety Report” Nagra Technical Report 02-05 (2002).Google Scholar
5 JAEA and FEPC, “Second progress report on research and development for TRU waste disposal in Japan” FEPC TRU-TR2-2007-01 (2007).Google Scholar
6 Makino, H., Umeki, H., Ochi, Y., Hioki, K., Okubo, H., Matsumoto, M., Sato, O., Masuda, S. and I.McKinley, G., I.G. In Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXXIII, these proceedingsGoogle Scholar
7 NUMO, “Development of repository concepts for volunteer siting environments”, NUMOTR-04-03 (2004).Google Scholar
8 Bel, J.J.P., Wickham, S.M. and Gens., R.M.F. In Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXIX, edited by Iseghem, P. Van, (Mat. Res. Soc. Proc. 932, Warrendale, PA, 2006), pp 2332.Google Scholar
9 McKinley, I.G., Apted, M., Umeki, H. and Kawamura, H., “Cavern disposal concepts for HLW/SF: assuring operational practicality and safety with maximum programme flexibility.” Proc. ESDRED workshop, 06-1 – 06-10 (2008).Google Scholar
10 NUMO, “Proceedings of the International Workshop on Bentonite-Cement Interaction in Repository Environments”, NUMO-TR-04-05 (2004).Google Scholar