Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:41:08.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Performance Assessment of a High-Level-Waste Repository in Clay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Jan L. Marivoet
Affiliation:
Nuclear Energy Research Establishment S.C.K./CE.N., Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium
Geert Volckaert
Affiliation:
Nuclear Energy Research Establishment S.C.K./CE.N., Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium
Arnold A. Bonne
Affiliation:
Nuclear Energy Research Establishment S.C.K./CE.N., Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

Performance assessment studies have been undertaken on the geological disposal of high-level waste in a clay layer in the framework of the CEC project PAGIS. The methodology applied consists of two consecutive steps : a scenario and a consequence analysis. The scenario analysis has indicated that scenarios of normal evolution, of human intrusion, of climatic change, of secondary glaciation effects and of faulting should be evaluated. For the consequence analysis as well deterministic “best estimate” as stochastic calculations, including uncertainty, risk and sensitivity analyses, have been elaborated.

The calculations performed show that most radionuclides decay to negligible levels within the first fewjneters of the clay barrier. Just a few radionuclides, 99Tc, 135Cs and 237Np with its daughter nuclides 233U and 229Th can eventually reach the biosphere. The maximum dose rates arising from the geological disposal of HLW, as evaluated by the “best-estimate” approach are about 10−11 Sv/y for river pathways. If the sinking of a water well into the 150 m deep aquifer layer in the vicinity of the repository is considered together with a climatic change, the maximum calculated dose rate rises to a value of 3×10−7 Sv/y. The maximum dose rates evaluated by stochastic calculations are about one order of magnitude higher due to the considerable uncertainties in the model parameters. In the case of the Boom clay the estimated consequences of a fault scenario are of the same order of magnitude as the results obtained for the normal evolution scenario. The maximum risk is estimated from the results obtained through stochastic calculations to be about 5×10−8 per year. The sensitivity analysis has shown that the effective thickness of the clay layer, the retention factors of Tc, Cs and Np, and the Darcy velocity in the aquifer are parameters which strongly influence the calculated dose rates.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1989

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

REFERENCES

1. CEC Report No. EUR 6891, 1980.Google Scholar
2. Manfroy, P., in Radioactive Waste Management (IAEA, Vienna, 1984), Vol. 3, pp. 275290.Google Scholar
3. Bonne, A. and Neerdael, B., in Transactions of the European Nuclear Conference '86 (ENS, Bern, 1986), pp. 591600.Google Scholar
4. De Bruyn, D., Buyens, M. and Neerdael, B., Tunnel, 1988 (in press).Google Scholar
5. Cadelli, N., Cottone, G., Bertozzi, G. and Girardi, F., CEC Report No. EUR 9220, 1984.Google Scholar
6. PAGIS-Performance Assessment of Geological Isolation Systems for Radioactive Waste - Summary Report, CEC Report No. EUR 11775 (in press).Google Scholar
7. Bonne, A. and Marivoet, J., CEC Report No. EUR 11776 (in press), SCK/CEN Report No. R2748, 1988.Google Scholar
8. Marivoet, J., Saltelli, A. and Cadelli, N., CEC Report No. EUR 10934, 1987.Google Scholar
9. Saltelli, A. and Marivoet, J., CEC Report No. EUR 10851, 1986.Google Scholar
10. Vandenberghe, N., Bonne, A. and Heremans, R., in Radioactive Release Scenarios for Geologic Repositories (OECD/NEA, Paris, 1980), pp. 169180.Google Scholar
11. d'Alessandro, M. and Bonne, A., Radioactive Waste Disposal into a Plastic Clay Formation: a Site Specific Exercise of Probabilistic Assessment of Geological Containment (Harwood Academic Publishers, London, 1981).Google Scholar
12. Patyn, J., Ph D thesis, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris, 1985.Google Scholar
13. Put, M.J., Rad. Waste Managements Nucl. Fuel Cycle, 6(3–4), 361390 (1985).Google Scholar
14. Marivoet, J. and Van Bosstraeten, C., Health Physics 55 (in press).Google Scholar
15. Lawson, G. and Smith, G.M., NRPB Report No. R169, 1985.Google Scholar
16. Put, M.J. and Henrion, P.N., Radiochimica Acta (in press, 1988).Google Scholar
17. I.C.R.P. Publication 46, Annals of the ICRP 15 (4), (1985).Google Scholar