Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:46:46.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mineralogical investigations of the first package of the alternative buffer material test – I. Alteration of bentonites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2018

S. Kaufhold ,
R. Dohrmann ,
T. Sandén ,
P. Sellin  and
D. Svensson
S. Kaufhold*
Affiliation:
BGR, Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Stilleweg 2, D-30655 Hannover, Germany
R. Dohrmann
Affiliation:
BGR, Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Stilleweg 2, D-30655 Hannover, Germany LBEG, Landesamt für Bergbau, Energie und Geologie, Stilleweg 2, D-30655 Hannover, Germany
T. Sandén
Affiliation:
Clay Technology AB, IDEON Research Center, S-223 70 Lund, Sweden
P. Sellin
Affiliation:
SKB, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, Stockholm, BOX 5864, S-102 40 Stockholm, Sweden
D. Svensson
Affiliation:
SKB, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, Stockholm, BOX 5864, S-102 40 Stockholm, Sweden
*
*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.

Bentonite, which is envisaged as a promising engineered barrier material for the safe disposal of highly radioactive waste, was and is investigated in different large scale tests. The main focus was and is on the stability (or durability) of the bentonite. However, most countries concentrated on one or a few different bentonites only, regardless of the fact that bentonite performance in different applications is highly variable. Therefore, SKB (Svensk Kärnbränslehantering) set up the first large scale test which aimed at a direct comparison of different bentonites. This test was termed the ‘alternative buffer material test’ and considers eleven different clays which were either compacted (blocks) or put into cages to keep the material together. One so-called package consisted of thirty different blocks placed on top of each other. These blocks surrounded a heated iron tube 10 cm in diameter. Altogether three packages were installed in the underground test laboratory Äspö, Sweden. The first package was terminated 28 months after installation and the bentonite had been exposed for the maximum temperature (130°C) for about one year.

Almost all geochemical and mineralogical alterations of the different bentonites (apart from exchangeable cations) were restricted to the contact between iron and bentonite. The increase of the Fe2O3 content was attributed to corrosion of the tube. However, the typical 7 or 14 Å smectite alteration product was not found. At the contact of one sample, siderite was precipitated. Some samples showed anhydrite and organic carbon accumulation and some showed dissolution of clinoptilolite and cristobalite. IR spectroscopy, XRD, and XRF data indicated the formation of trioctahedral minerals/domains in the case of some bentonites. Even more data has to be collected before unambiguous conclusions concerning both alteration mechanisms and bentonite differences can be drawn.

Keywords

bentoniteHLRW disposalradwastealternative buffer material testsmectite alterationURL
Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 199 - 213
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

Dohrmann, R., Olsson, S., Kaufhold, S. & Sellin, P. (2013) Mineralogical investigations of the alternative buffer material field test – II. Exchangeable cation population rearrangement. Clay Minerals, 48, 215–233.10.1180/claymin.2013.048.2.05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dueck, A., Johannesson, L.-E., Kristensson, O., Olsson, S. & Sjöland, A. (2011) Hydro-mechanical and chemical-mineralogical analyses of the bentonite buffer from a full-scale field experiment simulating a highlevel waste repository. Clays and Clay Minerals, 59, 595–607.10.1346/CCMN.2011.0590605Google Scholar
Fernández, A.M. & Villar, M.V. (2010) Geochemical behaviour of a bentonite barrier in the laboratory after up to 8 years of heating and hydration. Applied Geochemistry, 25, 809–824.10.1016/j.apgeochem.2010.03.001Google Scholar
Friedrich, A., Grunewald, K., Klinnert, S. & Bechmann, W. (1996) Thermogravimetric and differential thermal analytical investigations on sewage farm soils. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 46, 1589–1597.10.1007/BF01980765Google Scholar
Karnland, O., Olsson, S., Dueck, A., Birgersson, M., Nilsson, U., Hernan-Håkansson, T., Pedersen, K., Nilsson, S., Eriksen, T.E. & Rosborg, B. (2009) Long term test of buffer material at the ä spö Hard Rock Laboratory, LOT project, Final report on the A2 test parcel. SKB Technical Report TR-09-29.Google Scholar
Luan, Z. & Fournier, J.A. (2005) In situ FTIR spectroscopic investigation of active sites and adsorbate interactions in mesoporous aluminosilicate SBA-15 molecular sieves. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 79, 235–240.10.1016/j.micromeso.2004.11.012Google Scholar
Madejová, J., Pentrák, M., Pálková, H. & Komadel, P. (2009) Near-infrared spectroscopy: a powerful tool in studies of acid-treated clay minerals. Vibrational Spectroscopy, 49, 211–218.10.1016/j.vibspec.2008.08.001Google Scholar
Mosser-Ruck, R., Cathelineau, M., Guillaume, D., Charpentier, D., Rousset, D., Barres, O. & Michau, N. (2010) Effects of temperature, pH, and iron/clay and liquid/clay ratios on experimental conversion of dioctahedral smectite to berthierine, chlorite, vermiculite, or saponite. Clays and Clay Minerals, 58, 280–291.10.1346/CCMN.2010.0580212Google Scholar
Pusch, R. (1997) Deep disposal of radioactive waste. Schriftenreihe Angewandte Geowissenschaften, 1, 85–96.Google Scholar
Pusch, R. (2002a) The buffer and backfill handbook part 1 – Definitions, basic relationships, and laboratory methods. SKB Technical Report TR 02-20.Google Scholar
Pusch, R. (2002b) The buffer and backfill handbook part 2 – Materials and techniques. SKB Technical Report TR 02-12.Google Scholar
SKB (2010) Buffer, backfill and closure process report for the safety assessment SR-Site. SKB TR-10-47, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB.Google Scholar
SKB (2011) Long-term safety for the final repository for spent nuclear fuel at Forsmark. Main report of the SR-Site project . SKB TR-11-01, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB.Google Scholar
Svensson, D., Eng, A. & Sellin, P. (2007) Alternative buffer material experiment. Conference abstract, 3rd International meeting, Clays in Natural and Engineered Barriers for Radioactive Waste Confinement. September 17–18, Lille, France.Google Scholar
Svensson, D., Sandén, T., Kaufhold, S. & Sellin, P. (2010) Alternative buffer material experiment – experimental concept and progress. Conference abstract, 4th International meeting, Clays in Natural & Engineered Barriers for Radioactive Waste Confinement. March 29 – April 1, Nantes, France.Google Scholar
Svensson, D., Sandén, T., Olsson, S., Dueck, A., Eriksson, S., Jägerwall, S. & Hansen, S. (2011) Alternative buffer material Status of the ongoing laboratory investigation of reference materials and test package 1. - SKB report TR-11-06.Google Scholar
Wersin, P. & Mettler, S. (2006) Workshop on Fe-clay interactions in repository environments, a joint initiative by ANDRA, SKB and Nagra. Arbeitsbericht NAB 06-15.Google Scholar
Yuan, P., Wu, D.Q., He, H.P. & Lin, Z.Y. (2004) The hydroxyl species and acid sites on diatomite surface: a combined IR and Raman study. Applied Surface Science, 227, 30–39.10.1016/j.apsusc.2003.10.031Google Scholar
Yule, B.L., Roberts, S. & Marshall, J.E.A. (2000) The thermal evolution of sporopollenin. Organic Geochemistry, 31, 859–870.10.1016/S0146-6380(00)00058-9Google Scholar