Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T07:22:31.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Diffusion of Radionuclides through Waste Encapsulation Grouts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

Adam V. Chambers
Affiliation:
Serco Assurance, Building 150, Harwell, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA, United Kingdom
Andrew Green
Affiliation:
Serco Assurance, Building 150, Harwell, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA, United Kingdom
Andrew W. Harris
Affiliation:
UK Nirex Limited, Curie Avenue, Harwell, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RH, United Kingdom
Timothy G. Heath
Affiliation:
Serco Assurance, Building 150, Harwell, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA, United Kingdom
Fiona M.I. Hunter
Affiliation:
Serco Assurance, Building 150, Harwell, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA, United Kingdom
Michelle C. Manning
Affiliation:
Serco Assurance, Building 150, Harwell, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA, United Kingdom
Stephen J. Williams
Affiliation:
Serco Assurance, Building 150, Harwell, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA, United Kingdom
Get access

Abstract

United Kingdom Nirex Limited develops and advises on safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable options for the long-term management of radioactive waste. One option Nirex has developed is a phased geological repository concept for intermediate level waste and some low level wastes that makes use of a combination of engineered and natural barriers. Physical containment of radionuclides would be achieved by immobilisation and packaging of wastes (mostly) in stainless steel containers.

Existing models of the migration of dissolved radionuclides from packaged wastes suggest that radionuclide release is determined largely by the rate of diffusion through the encapsulation grout used to immobilise the waste. The use of such models requires diffusion coefficient data for radionuclides in waste encapsulation grouts. This paper describes a programme of through-diffusion experiments, and modelling interpretation, aimed at deriving diffusion coefficients for some radionuclides in two types of encapsulation grout.

An intrinsic diffusion coefficient of HTO of around 1×10−13 to 2×10−13 m2s−1 was determined for a 3:1 mix of blast furnace slag to ordinary Portland cement, compared to around 4×10−13 to 5×10−13 m2s−1 for a 3:1 mix of pulverised fuel ash to ordinary Portland cement. These values are lower than that assumed for a non-sorbing radionuclide in an earlier modelling exercise. Porosity values around 0.3 were obtained in each case. For 36Cl as chloride, the experiments showed no significant breakthrough over the experimental timescale of about one year, suggesting an intrinsic diffusion coefficient below 5×10−13 m2s−1. One possibility is that chlorine-containing solids are precipitating in the cement. An intrinsic diffusion coefficient for 137Cs in the 3:1 mix of pulverised fuel ash to ordinary Portland cement of 4×10−15 m2s−1 was estimated, significantly lower than that determined for HTO.

The results from three of the sixteen experiments could not be fitted with a simple diffusion model, and for a further five experiments there was some doubt as to whether simple diffusion behaviour had been observed. It is suggested that this may have been due to cracks in the grouts that were sufficiently large to affect the diffusion properties of the grouts, although none was visible to the naked eye. Cracking of the waste encapsulation grouts could provide a mechanism for enhanced migration of radionuclides from waste packages, compared with diffusion in a homogeneous porous medium alone.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

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 United Kingdom Nirex Limited, Generic Repository Studies: The Nirex Phased Disposal Concept, Nirex Report N/074, (2003).Google Scholar
2. Askarieh, M.M., Chambers, A.V. and Gould, L.J., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXIII, edited by Smith, R.W. and Shoesmith, D.W., (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 608, Pittsburg, PA, USA, 2000) pp.243248.Google Scholar
3. Bourke, P.J., Gilling, D., Jefferies, N.L., D.A. Lever and Lineham, T.R., Nirex Report NSS/R135 (1988).Google Scholar
4. A. Haworth, A.C. Smith and Thompson, A.M., Nirex Report NSS/R366 (2001).Google Scholar
5. Chambers, A.V., Green, A., Harris, A.W., Hunter, F.M.I., Manning, M.C. and Williams, S.J., Serco Assurance Report SA/ENV-0646 (2005) draft.Google Scholar
6. Harris, A.W. and Nickerson, A.K., Nirex Report NSS/R309 (1995).Google Scholar
7. Harris, A.W. and Nickerson, A.K., Nirex Report NSS/R335 (1997).Google Scholar
8. Tits, J., Jakob, A., Wieland, E. and Spieler, P., J. Contaminant Hydrology 61, 4562 (2001).Google Scholar