Working Report 2008-56

Backfilling Techniques and Materials

in Underground Excavations:
Potential Alternative Backfill Materials in Use
in Posiva’s Spent Fuel Repository Concept

David A Dixon

Paula Keto

May 2009

POSIVA OY
Olkiluoto
FI-27160 EURAJOKI, FINLAND
Tel +358-2-8372 31
Fax +358-2-8372 3709
 Working Report 2008-56

Backfilling Techniques and Materials

in Underground Excavations:
Potential Alternative Backfill Materials in Use
in Posiva’s Spent Fuel Repository Concept

David A Dixon

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

Paula Keto

Saanio & Riekkola Oy

May 2009

Working Reports contain information on work in progress

or pending completion.

The conclusions and viewpoints presented in the report

are those of author(s) and do not necessarily
coincide with those of Posiva.
ABSTRACT

A variety of geologic media options have been proposed as being suitable for safely and
permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel or fuel reprocessing wastes. In Finland the
concept selected is construction of a deep repository in crystalline rock (Posiva 1999,
2006; SKB 1999), likely at the Olkiluoto site (Posiva 2006). Should that site prove
suitable, excavation of tunnels and several vertical shafts will be necessary. These
excavations will need to be backfilled and sealed as emplacement operations are
completed and eventually all of the openings will need to be backfilled and sealed.
Clay-based materials were selected after extensive review of materials options and the
potential for practical implementation in a repository and work over a 30+ year period
has led to the development of a number of workable clay-based backfilling options,
although discussion persists as to the most suitable clay materials and placement
technologies to use.

As part of the continuous process of re-evaluating backfilling options in order to

provide the best options possible, placement methods and materials that have been
given less attention have been revisited. Primary among options that were and continue
to be evaluated as a potential backfill are cementitious materials. These materials were
included in the list of candidate materials initially screened in the late 1970‟s for use in
repository backfilling. Conventional cement-based materials were quickly identified as
having some serious technical limitations with respect their ability to fulfil the identified
requirements of backfill. Concerns related to their ability to achieve the performance
criteria defined for backfill resulted in their exclusion from large-scale use as backfill in
a repository. Development of new, less chemically aggressive cementitious materials
and installation technologies has resulted in their re-evaluation. Concrete and
cementitious materials have and are being developed that have chemical, durability and
mechanical properties that should allow their use in limited quantities in a repository
(e.g. grouts, shotcrete or concrete plugs/seals). Widespread use of cemented backfill
materials is still not a viable option for backfilling of Posiva‟s repository although some
of the technologies developed for materials placement in the mining industry have
potential for repository application.

Extensive work has been done in order to identify a range of potentially suitable clay-
based backfilling materials and technologies that could be used to install them in a
repository environment. As a result of these efforts a suite of materials and technologies
are available for backfilling of repository openings and although many have not yet
been demonstrated at full-scale in an underground environment there is considerable
confidence that one, or more of these options will prove suitable.

Keywords: spent nuclear fuel, disposal, backfill, assessment, concept

Täyttötekniikat ja materiaalit maanalaisissa louhituissa tiloissa.
Sovelluksena Posivan käytetyn ydinpolttoaineen loppusijoitus.

TIIVISTELMÄ

Useita erilaisia geologisia ympäristöjä on ehdotettu sekä käytetyn että uudelleen pro-
sessoidun polttoaineen loppusijoitukseen. Suomen loppusijoituskonseptiksi on valittu
käytetyn ydinpolttoaineen sijoittaminen syvälle kiteiseen kallioperään (Posiva 1999,
2006; SKB 1999). Loppusijoituspaikkana tutkitaan Eurajoen Olkiluotoa, jonne raken-
netaan parhaillaan Onkalo tutkimustilaa maanalaisia tutkimuksia varten (Posiva 2006).
Mikäli Olkiluoto varmistuu maanalaisten tutkimusten perusteella sopivaksi loppu-
sijoituspaikaksi, Onkalo laajennetaan loppusijoitustilaksi rakentamalla tarvittava määrä
erilaisia tunneleita ja kuiluja. Varsinaisen loppusijoitustoiminnan loputtua nämä kallio-
tilat tullaan täyttämään ja sulkemaan loppusijoitukselle asetettujen vaatimusten mu-
kaisesti.

Yli kolme vuosikymmentä kestäneiden tutkimusten ja selvitysten perusteella savi-

pohjaiset materiaalit on yleisesti valittu useimpien erilaisten täyttökonseptien lähtö-
kohdaksi, vaikkakin keskustelu ja tutkimukset siitä minkälainen savipohjainen mate-
riaali soveltuu parhaiten kyseiseen käyttötarkoitukseen ja miten täyttö tulisi asentaa
jatkuvat edelleen. Savipohjaisten ratkaisujen rinnalla on jo 1970-luvun lopulta lähtien
tarkasteltu myös vaihtoehtoisia täyteaineita, pääasiassa sementtipohjaisia materiaaleja.
Kuitenkin jo pian tutkimusten alkamisen jälkeen tunnistettiin tavanomaisen sementin
käyttöön liittyviä riskejä ja rajoituksia, joidenka perusteella sementtipohjainen täyttö ei
voisi täyttää loppusijoitukselle asetettuja vaatimuksia. Tämä johti siihen, että sementin
laajamittaista käyttöä täyttömateriaaleissa ei harkittu pitkään aikaan, kunnes uusia,
kemiallisesti vähemmän aggressiivisia sementtejä alettiin kehittää muita käyttötarkoi-
tuksia varten. Tämänhetkisen käsityksen mukaan näiden sementtipohjaisten materi-
aalien käyttö voidaan todennäköisesti sallia loppusijoitustilassa, mutta vain pienissä
määrin esimerkiksi injektoinnissa, ruiskubetonissa ja sulkurakenteissa. Sementin laaja-
mittaista käyttöä loppusijoitustilojen täyteaineena ei voida edelleenkään sallia. Sen
sijaan joidenkin malmiteollisuuden käyttämien asennustekniikoiden soveltaminen saat-
taa edelleen tulla kysymykseen joissain osissa loppusijoitustiloja.

Loppusijoitusympäristöön soveltuvien savipohjaisten täyttömateriaalien ja asennus-

tekniikoiden kehittämiseksi on viime vuosina tehty laajalti kehitys- ja tutkimustyötä ja
työn tuloksena on syntynyt useita varteenotettavia ratkaisuvaihtoehtoja. Vaikka osaa
ratkaisuista ei ole vielä ehditty testata suuressa mittakaavassa, voidaan pitää toden-
näköisenä, että yksi tai useampi näistä ratkaisuista tulee todistetusti täyttämään
loppusijoitukselle asetetut vaatimukset.

Avainsanat: käytetty ydinpolttoaine, loppusijoitus, täyteaine, arviointi, konsepti

 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

TIIVISTELMÄ

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 7

2. REPOSITORY CONCEPT AND BACKFILLING ...................................................... 9

2.1 KBS – 3V and KBS – 3H Repository Concepts.............................................. 9

2.2 Current Status of Posiva-SKB Backfill Development.................................... 11
2.2.1 Joint Posiva - SKB Activities ................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Posivia - Specific Backfilling Activities and Issues .................................. 11

3 HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF MATERIAL SELECTION FOR USE AS

REPOSITORY BACKFILL ..................................................................................... 13

4 BACKFILLING OF UNDERGROUND OPENINGS ................................................ 19

4.1 Purposes and goals of backfill in mining ...................................................... 19

4.2. Purposes and goals of backfill in civil construction ...................................... 21
4.3. Purposes and goals of backfill in a repository .............................................. 22

5. BACKFILL MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT OPTIONS ........................................ 23

5.1. Backfilling of Repository Openings .............................................................. 23

5.1.1 Purpose of Backfilling ............................................................................. 23
5.1.2 Backfilling Concepts ............................................................................... 26
5.2 Materials Options and Emplacement Technologies for Backfill .................... 29
5.2.1 Review of Backfilling Options ................................................................. 29
5.2.2 Geologic Conditions Affecting Backfill: Groundwater Salinity .................. 31
5.2.3 Clay - Only Backfill ................................................................................. 32
5.2.4 Clay – Aggregate Mixtures ..................................................................... 36
5.2.5 Aggregate - Based Backfills ................................................................... 45
5.3 Use of Cementitious Materials in Backfill ..................................................... 49
5.3.1 Use of Cement and Concrete as Repository Backfill .............................. 49
5.3.2 Backfills Containing Cementitious Component ...................................... 51
5.3.3. pH – related issues and development of low-pH cements ...................... 55
5.4 Backfilling of Shafts ..................................................................................... 59

6. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 61

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX A. UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM ........................................................ 73

 6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Candidate Buffer and Backfill Materials for Geologic Repositories ........... 14
Table 3-2. Preliminary Backfill screening on the basis of longevity ............................ 15
Table 3-3. Initial classification and ranking of backfill materials (design properties) .. 17
Table 3-4. Summary of initial materials screening and classification ........................... 17
Table 5-1. Basic Safety-Case Requirements of Backfill for a KBS-3 repository ......... 24
Table 5-2. Backfill Materials Examined and Placement Techniques Considered ........ 31
Table 6-1. Backfill Requirements, Goals and Suitability of Selected Options* ........... 62

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. KBS-3V and KBS-3H Emplacement Geometries ......................................... 9

Figure 2-2 Generic repository layout at Olkiluoto Finland ........................................... 10
Figure 2-3 KBS-3H Concept (note large distance between canister and backfill .......... 11
Figure 5-1. Options for backfilling and Sealing ............................................................. 27
Figure 5-2. Backfilling in Canadian concepts ................................................................ 28
Figure 5-3. Options for Backfilling of Shafts and Ramps ............................................. 28
Figure 5-4. Placing pellets & clay-aggregate backfill using shotcreting equipment ..... 34
Figure 5-5. Placement of precompacted clay blocks ...................................................... 35
Figure 5-6. Use of precompacted clay blocks near crown of tunnel. ............................. 36
Figure 5-7. Large Precompacted blocks of backfill ....................................................... 38
Figure 5-8. In situ compaction of inclined layers of backfill ......................................... 39
Figure 5-9. Machine-Mounted Compactor .................................................................... 39
Figure 5-10. In situ compaction of horizontal or inclined layers of backfill using roller
and vibratory plate technologies (Korkiala-Tanttu et al. 2007) ............................. 40
Figure 5-11. Composite backfill using precompacted blocks ........................................ 40
Figure 5-12. Displacement piling to densify backfill ..................................................... 43
Figure 5-13. Full-Face mechanical compression of backfill ......................................... 43
Figure 5-14. Vertical seal walls and injection densification. ........................................ 44
Figure 5-15. Schematic showing dry filling in mining ................................................... 48
Figure 5-16. Slinger-type RPF placement equipment and resulting tunnel filling ......... 53
Figure 5-17. Cement Backfill Concept for JAEA .......................................................... 54
Figure 5-18. Nagra shaft sealing concept ...................................................................... 60
Figure 5-19. AECL Tunnel Seal (Shaft Plug) Experiment ............................................ 60
 7

1 INTRODUCTION

A variety of geologic media options have been proposed by countries involved in

developing a safe means of permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel or fuel
reprocessing wastes. Media proposed internationally include hard crystalline rock (e.g.
granite), sedimentary rock formations (e.g. continental clays, clay stones, limestone),
volcanic rock (e.g. tuff ) and massive salt deposits. In Finland and Sweden the concept
selected after more than 30 years of investigation and research is construction of deep
repositories in crystalline rock (Posiva 1999, 2006; SKB 1999). In Finland it is
proposed that a spent fuel repository be constructed at Olkiluoto (Posiva 2006) and at
present excavation of an underground characterization facility is occurring. Should the
site prove suitable, excavation of additional tunnels and several vertical shafts will be
necessary in order to move the canisters into the repository and then emplace them.
These excavations will need to be backfilled and sealed as emplacement operations are
completed. Complicating the development of backfilling materials and techniques is
that complete saturation of the repository backfill may take several hundred to a few
thousand years (Hellä & Pastina 2006). Locally in high-water inflow regions, saturation
may occur within days (or even hours) after the backfill is placed, potentially causing
backfill erosion. As a result of these variations in local conditions the development of
backfill and backfilling technologies is a considerable technical challenge.

Work leading up to the selection of appropriate disposal concepts and means of

achieving safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel has involved examination of a wide range
of emplacement geometries and methodologies. In order to safely close the repository
once canister emplacement is accomplished there are many options for sealing and
backfilling. Those relevant to the Posiva repository concept have undergone continual
re-evaluation as repository design options have been developed.

This report reviews the placement technology options and materials currently being
evaluated as potential backfill. Of particular interest in backfilling is re-evaluation of
materials and methods that have been given less attention than the clay and aggregate
materials generally accepted as being suitable. There have been suggestions since the
beginnings of concept development that cementitious materials could be utilized in
backfilling of a repository. Concerns related to their ability to achieve the desired
performance criteria for backfill has meant that they have largely been discounted for
large-scale use as backfill in a repository.

Development of new, less chemically aggressive cementitious materials and installation

technologies has resulted in preparation of this document and a re-evaluation of the
potential for using these materials. Technologies developed by the mining industry to
place tailings and aggregate materials provide some potentially useful applications in
backfilling of a repository. Development of cementitious materials that are chemically,
mechanically and hydraulically suitable for widespread repository is advancing,
particularly with respect to concretes and grouts that have chemical, durability and
mechanical properties that would allow for their use in limited quantities in a repository
(e.g. grouts, shotcrete or concrete plugs/seals). Development of materials suitable for
more widespread use in backfilling is less advanced and is not generally considered as
being sufficiently developed to be viable, however they, their advantages and
disadvantages are discussed together with other concepts.
8
 9

2 REPOSITORY CONCEPT AND BACKFILLING

2.1 KBS – 3V and KBS – 3H Repository Concepts

Evaluation of options for disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep geological

environment began in the late 1970’s in a number of nations as the inventories of spent
power reactor fuel began to accumulate. Much of the initial work into developing
workable approaches to permanently dispose of spent nuclear fuel was done by SKB
who developed the KBS-3 concept (KBS 1983). This generic concept has subsequently
been used to develop detailed concepts known as the KBS-3V (vertical emplacement
holes in floor of tunnels) and KBS-3H (horizontal emplacement drifts) shown
schematically in Figure 2-1. The generic reference concept developed for spent fuel
disposal in granitic rock and adopted by Posiva (Posiva 2006) is based on the horizontal
emplacement geometry option KBS-3H and is described in detail in the Posiva (2006)
report.

The long history of collaborative work between Posiva and SKB has facilitated the
development of Posiva’s Olkiluoto-specific repository concept and aided in focussing in
on approaches to repository sealing that are most applicable to this candidate repository
site. Based on the results of site and economic evaluations of the candidate repository
site at Olkiluoto, the KBS-3H with its smaller excavation volume requirements has been
selected as the potential option for consideration (Posiva 2006). The 3V option is the
reference option for repository design and evaluation purposes. A conceptual layout for
the Olkiluoto repository has been developed in Figure 2-2.

KBS-3V KBS-3H

Figure 2-1. KBS-3V and KBS-3H Emplacement Geometries (Posiva 2006).

 10

Figure 2-2. Generic repository layout at Olkiluoto Finland (Tanskanen 2007).

Generic Backfilling Approaches in KBS-3V and KBS–3H

Much of the early work associated with developing concepts for spent fuel occurred in
Sweden with utilization of the Stripa Mine facility to examine options for spent fuel
isolation and develop tools for use in geologic evaluation of granitic rock for potential
suitability for hosting a repository (SKBF/KBS 1980). The Stripa facility provided a
location where international research was carried out until 1992 when the facility was
closed. Gray (1993) provides an overview of the engineered barriers work carried out at
Stripa over the course of its operation. Stripa was succeeded by a number of
underground research facilities built in hard crystalline rock (e.g. Äspö-Sweden,
Grimsel-Switzerland, URL-Canada) where international collaboration has continued.
Much of the work done at these facilities has focussed on development of materials and
technologies for sealing of excavations in the deep geologic environment. A component
of the sealing system that has been a consistent part of all repository sealing concepts is
backfill and its evaluation began in the early stages of the Stripa project.

The KBS-3V – type concept was the first to be evaluated in detail by Sweden, Finland
and Canada. It involves larger excavation openings than for a horizontal emplacement
since the canisters must be lowered vertically into the emplacement boreholes. As a
result of the larger openings there is the possibility to use larger emplacement
equipment as well as larger backfill installation equipment. With this comes the
challenge of how to effectively backfill these openings and how to accomplish this
when in close physical proximity to the containers (Figure 2-1).

The KBS-3H – type emplacement concept involves smaller excavation openings and so
canister handling and emplacement equipment must operate under a different set of
constraints than in the 3V geometry. One particularly important aspect of the 3H
concept is the greater physical separation between the canister-buffer package and the
backfill. This is shown in Figure 2-1 but is more clearly shown in Figure 2-3. In the 3H
emplacement geometry the buffer and the backfill components are never in contact. The
 11

buffer in the emplacement drifts is restrained by a mechanical plug (concrete) to ensure

that the installed materials remain in place. As a result there is no need for the backfill
to provide mechanical restraint to the buffer. Similarly, the separation also removes the
need to operate backfilling equipment in the vicinity of the waste canisters.

Backfilled Tunnel

Figure 2-3. KBS-3H Concept (note large distance between canister and backfill (after
Posiva 2006).

2.2 Current Status of Posiva-SKB Backfill Development

2.2.1 Joint Posiva - SKB Activities

While the KBS-3V and -3H emplacement options have some significant differences
between them, they are more similar than different. This is especially true when it
comes to backfilling in these repository concepts. As noted previously the 3H geometry
has the advantage of not having to deal with close proximity to the canisters and buffer
and backfilling can be considered to be a totally separate operational activity within the
repository. With this separation the stringent density and emplacement requirements
(e.g. ability to constrain buffer in its borehole) of the emplacement tunnel backfill is
removed from the 3H geometry. In the regions beyond the emplacement tunnel (3V)
and emplacement drift (3H) the backfill requirements become much more comparable.
There will be the need to backfill the access tunnels, service rooms, ramp and shafts in
both the 3H and 3V concepts.

Whether Posiva ultimately selects the KBS-3V or KBS-3H concept for use, Posiva and
SKB have a large number of common interests with respect to developing workable
backfill materials and technologies for use in a repository. In recognition of this
common interest Posiva and SKB have an extensive and ongoing program of co-
operative work related to backfill development and demonstrations. Most of this work is
being done as part of the BAckfilling and CLOsure of the repository (BACLO) project
jointly supported by Posiva and SKB (Keto et al 2009). While BACLO focuses on the
3V concept the information developed on materials, installation technology and other
aspects are also directly applicable to Posiva‟s KBS-3H repository work.
12
 13

3 HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF MATERIAL SELECTION FOR USE AS

REPOSITORY BACKFILL

From the beginning of the process of evaluating geological media and engineered
barriers options in the late 1970‟s there has been an ongoing process of concept review
and improvement. This was reflected in the evolution of the deep geologic repository
concept documented in KBS-1 (1977), KBS-2 (1978) and KBS-3 (1983) and the
detailed development of the KBS-3H and KBS-3V options (Posiva 2000; 2006; SKB
2001). Associated with much of the early concept and materials selection process was a
series of option evaluations, many of which were incompletely documented since the
focus was to develop the concepts and materials selected rather than documenting those
that were not apparently practical. Most of the national programs examining permanent
disposal for spent nuclear fuel in a hard crystalline rock medium used the means of
prioritizing backfill materials options that was subsequently documented in a review of
backfilling and sealing approaches and options prepared by Mott et al. (1983).

Mott et. al (1983) provide an excellent summary of the initial assessment and screening
process undertaken as part of establishing the direction taken by Finland, Sweden,
Canada and other national programs in developing backfilling and sealing of
repositories. Mott et al. (1983) records many of the reasons that led Finland and other
nations to select natural materials (aggregate, clay or mixtures of these materials) as
candidate system backfill. It should be noted that in the early stages of concept
development there was often no terminology differentiation between the sealing
material immediately adjacent to the canister (now referred to as buffer) and that used to
fill the rooms, tunnels and shafts (now referred to as backfill) and so there is a need to
be careful when examining some of the original documentation related to backfilling.

The candidate “backfilling” materials were expected to provide adequate isolating

capability to the repository and different materials were recognized as having
advantages for use in different areas. It was established early in the repository concept
development process that the fundamental requirements of a repository backfilling and
sealing system in any geologic medium are:

“- to provide an effective engineering barrier which will prevent or inhibit

the release of radionuclides from „active‟ parts of the repository,
- to eliminate preferential groundwater migration paths within „redundant‟
parts of the repository,
- to exhibit a long-term compatibility with other components throughout
the repository system ”
(Mott et al 1983)

These are the same basic requirements identified in the original KBS-3 concept
document (KBS 1982) and have remained throughout the development of the more
detailed repository concepts presented by Posiva (2000; 2006) and SKB (2002). A
similar set of generic sealing system performance guidelines have been adopted by most
repository concepts, regardless of the geologic medium considered.
 14

The basic process used to initially screen backfills and backfilling approaches was
similar for most repository concept development efforts internationally and is
reproduced in Table 3-1 through Table 3-4. In many cases the process of screening
backfilling concepts, leading up to selection of reference materials and techniques was
inadequately documented, often leading to later uncertainty as to why particular
materials were selected for evaluation. The logic used by Posiva and others to screen
and select potentially suitable backfilling materials is presented in Mott et al. (1983).

Table 3-1. Candidate Buffer and Backfill Materials for Geologic Repositories. (after
Mott et al. 1983; Table 16)

Material Group Principal Attributes Material Types

Spoil A, E Crystalline rock clay
Clays B, C, D, E Illites,
Kandites, Palygorskites,
Smectites,
Vermiculites, Chlorites
Zeolites D Various
Pozzolanas B, E Various natural pozzolanas
Pulverized fly ash (PFA)
Hydraulic Cements B, E Portland cements,
Polymer cements,
Hydrothermal cements
Minerals/Aggregates A, E Natural aggregates,
Crushed aggregates
Bitumens B, E Natural bitumens,
Various industrial bitumens
Attributes
A Good heat transfer properties
B low permeability
C favourable chemical buffering capacity
D favourable retention properties
E favourable mechanical properties

From the materials listed in Table 3-1, a ranking of potential suitability of these
materials was developed based on state-of-knowledge at that time regarding the
longevity (not clearly defined by Mott et al. 1983), design properties heat transfer,
hydraulic, chemical buffering properties, radionuclide retention properties and
mechanical properties. The resulting ranking is presented in Table 3-4. Work done since
the time of initial material screening would alter some of the ratings developed (e.g.
longevity, radionuclide retention properties) but would not substantially change the
basic results documented in the early 1980s. It should be noted that Mott et al. (1983)
also included carbon and polymer/chemical grout materials in their listing of potential
buffer/backfill materials. For a variety of reasons they are clearly not suitable for use in
backfilling (e.g. chemical compatibility or toxicity, long-term stability, microbial
interactions and cost), and so are not discussed in this document or included in the
tables. Based on these initial materials screenings the most obviously suitable materials
for consideration in backfilling of the repository openings were rock spoil, clay-based
materials, cementitious materials (e.g. concrete), or mixtures of these materials.
 15

Table 3-2. Preliminary Backfill screening on the basis of longevity. (after Mott et al.
1983; Table 17)

MATERIAL RANKING COMMENTS

SPOIL 1  Geochemically and physically compatable with
host environment,
 On-site availability at nominal cost
CLAYS 1  May exhibit excellent longevity,
 Certain types may undergo alterations (e.g. Na to
Ca bentonite),
 Diagenetic changes precluded by temperature-
pressure constraints
ZEOLITES 3  Potentially reactive esp. under extreme alkaline
conditions,
 Stability under repository conditions unknown,
 Dehydration precluded by temperature-pressure
constraints
POZZOLANAS 2  Good geological and archaeological evidence for
longevity for naturally-occurring pozzolanas,
although influence of ambient repository
conditions requires investigation,
 Long-term stability of PFA is likely to be
comparable to or better than natural varieties.
HYDRAULIC 2  Favourable archaeological evidence exists
CEMENTS although further research is required to determine
optimum formulation,
 Hydrothermal cements are inherently more stable
than Portland cements,
 Longevity of polymer-based cement is doubtful
MINERALS/ 1  Geological evidence suggest excellent longevity
AGGREGATES provided mineralogy is matched with that of the
host formation
BITUMENS 1  Geological evidence suggests excellent longevity,
mainly due to lack of affinity to water
Rankings: 1. Documented evidence of geochemical stability over geological time
2. Documented evidence of stability over significant time-intervals
3. Some doubt as to long-term stability under certain physico-chemical
conditions

Despite having some advantageous aspects, initial concerns associated with the very
high pH generated in cement-based materials and its impact on the regional
groundwater, canister durability, contaminant mobility and stability of nearby clay-
based materials made consideration of use of any cementitious materials in a repository
problematic (Mott et al. 1983). Cementitious materials were identified as lacking the
self-sealing capability and ability to provide a continuously positive load on the rock
adjacent to it. As a result of these concerns many programs concentrated much of their
ongoing efforts on non-cementitious backfill options while still working towards the
 16

development of specialized cementitious materials that would not generate adverse pH

conditions and that could be relied on to be very durable/stable and of low permeability.

Ongoing work on cementitious materials has primarily been intended to allow for their
use as construction expedients (localized grouting for groundwater inflow control,
shotcrete for stabilization of excavation walls in regions of poor rock quality), during
repository excavation and operation. There has also been a general acceptance that some
concrete materials will ultimately be needed in the construction of plugs and seals in
repositories in hard crystalline rock for the Finnish (Posiva 2006; Tanskanen 2007);
Swedish (SKB 2001) and Canadian (Dixon et al. 2001; Maak and Simmons 2005)
concepts. Recent work has also indicated that limited use of specialty concretes and
other cementitious materials will not likely be detrimental to backfill performance
(Arcos et al. 2006; Luna et al. 2006) although concerns persist regarding extensive use
of cementitious materials (Alexander and Neall 2007)

Development of backfill placement techniques and materials containing a cementitious

component continues, predominantly by the mining industry. These materials are also
routinely reassessed for potentially wider applications such as in repository backfilling.
Many of the original reservations regarding the suitability of cementitious materials in
backfilling and repository structures have persisted but others have become less of an
issue. In order to document the development of this technology over the nearly 25 years
since the initial repository backfilling concepts were screened and selected, and its
current potential for application, a brief review or the initial concepts and current
technology is provided later in this document.

The development of clay, aggregate or mixtures of these materials as backfill has

progressed from the initial assumption of general applicability through a still ongoing
program of material and technological development. In a number of cases concepts and
materials have been tested in large-scale backfilling trials as well as demonstrations of
full-scale repository sealing constructions (Gunnarsson et al. 1996; 2001; Börgesson et
al. 2002; Chandler et al. 2002b). These tests have led to the development of a number of
approaches to backfilling of underground openings using clay-based materials and
conduct of an extensive program of work to demonstrate their application (Posiva
2006).
 17

Table 3-3. Initial classification and ranking of backfill materials (design properties).
(after Mott et al. 1983; Table 18)
A B C D E
Material Type* Heat Hydraulic Chemical Radio- Mechanical
Transfer Properties Properties nuclide Properties
Properties
Clays 3 1 2 1 1
Zeolites 3 3 2 1 3
Pozzolanas R 2 R 1/2 1
Hydraulic Cements 3 1 2 2 1
Minerals/Aggregates 1/2 3 2 2 1
Bitumen 3 1 2 2 3
* Spoil materials not included in original group classification since a variety of host media were
considered. Crushed spoil was deemed to generally equivalent to siliceous aggregates
R - Fundamental uncertainties concerning longevity.

Table 3-4. Summary of initial materials screening and classification. (after Mott et al
1983; Table 19)
CATEGORY DEFINITION SCREENING & MATERIAL
CLASSIFICATION GROUPS/TYPES
CRITERIA
1 Materials LONGEVITY RANKINGS  Crystalline rock spoil,
properties are (SCREENING)  Illite, kandites,
well known, predominantly 1 and 2 smectites,
allowing for PROPERTY RANKNGS  Portland cements,
quantitative (CLASSIFICATION)  Pulverized fly ash,
performance predominantly 1 and 2.  Natural sands and
evaluation Ranking 3 tolerated if property gravels,
likely to be improved by  Crushed silicious
mixing with other aggregates,
constituents.  Industrial bitumens
2 Material LONGEVITY RANKINGS  Palygorskites,
properties are (SCREENING) predominantly  Natural zeolites,
known to an 1, 2 and R  Natural pozzolanas,
extent that allow  Polymer/hydrothermal
them to be PROPERTY RANKNGS cements,
tentatively (CLASSIFICATION)
incorporated in predominantly 1, 2 and R.
backfill, pending Ranking 3 tolerated if adverse
the outcome of property likely to be improved
further research by mixing with other
constituents.
3 Materials which LONGEVITY RANKINGS  Vermiculite,
may possess (SCREENING) are  Synthetic zeolites,
desirable 1, 2, 3 and R
attributes but
properties are PROPERTY RANKINGS
poorly (CLASSIFICATION)
understood High proportion of R-rankings
18
 19

4 BACKFILLING OF UNDERGROUND OPENINGS

Backfilling of underground excavations involves installation of filler material(s) into the

openings following completion of the activities that initially required the removal of the
naturally-occurring geologic materials. Reasons for excavation are numerous but
commonly include activities such as: mining, underground facilities construction (e.g.
natural gas storage, subways, or utilities installation (e.g. water, gas, electrical
conduits…). Once the purpose for which the excavation was made has been
accomplished there is commonly a need to backfill the openings in order to: provide
mechanical support to the openings; stabilize the surrounding rock mass to facilitate
closure or further excavation; reduce groundwater flow into or through the excavation;
improve heat transfer characteristics (e.g. electrical power lines) and a variety of other
purposes. One of the first steps in determining the backfilling approach is to define the
functional requirements of the backfill.

Backfilling of underground openings in a manner that results in filling to a density that

will ensure that the tunnel does not exhibit unacceptably high localized water flow or
develop gaps between the backfill and the crown of the filled opening is not a simple
process. The role and purpose of backfill in underground mine openings is also not the
same as in a repository for spent nuclear fuel. It is necessary to clearly define the goals
of backfilling in each application and in some cases the purpose of backfilling will vary
within the same underground facility. As a result there is a need to evaluate past
experience in non-repository applications of backfill and backfilling technologies and
determine which have the greatest potential for successful application. The discussion
in this section deals with the basic purposes and goals in backfilling in mines, civil
construction and nuclear waste repositories. Detailed descriptions of some of the options
and materials screened for suitability as backfill are provided below.

4.1 Purposes and goals of backfill in mining

Underground mining is a human activity that has spanned many thousands of years but
only in the past 50 to 100 years has there been a substantial application of backfilling as
a technological tool. Backfilling is typically considered to result in a permanent
closure/abandonment condition and historically was not a requirement. In most cases
the rock in which mines are located still contain some ore material that is not
economically viable at the time of closure. As a result many mine operators prefer not to
backfill and permanently seal workings so as to facilitate reopening at some
undetermined time in the future. Mine regulations also historically did not require
environmentally stringent closure plans and often mining companies ceased to exist
once operations ceased, leaving no resources to properly backfill and seal them. As a
result historically most mines were simply abandoned to either collapse or not as the
local geologic conditions dictated. As a result there are a large number of major
environmentally damaging (typically heavy metal or acid water – generating abandoned
metal mine facilities around the world. Much of the environmental damage might have
been avoided/limited if current mining practices, including backfilling and sealing of
underground excavations were utilized.
 20

The purposes of backfilling operations in modern mining operations is typically

associated with to one of the following basic needs/requirements:
1. To provide mechanical support to excavations to allow additional removal of ore
(pillar removal) or else to limit/prevent surface subsidence as the result of
excavation collapse;
2. To provide a location for disposal/isolation of mine tailings;
3. To “prevent” or limit groundwater flow into or through key locations within the
mine;
4. To limit contaminated water discharge from underground openings; or
5. To prevent subsequent intrusion into abandoned mine workings.

In terms of providing passive mechanical support to excavations, backfill options are

numerous. As part of ongoing mining operations where pillar and room excavation is
often done (involving leaving part of ore body to provide roof support (pillar)). During
ore extraction it is not uncommon to use some form of backfill to provide a passive
support system in the already excavated volumes, thereby allowing later removal of part
or all of the pillars (also ore material). This type of backfilling can be done using
slurried mine tailings (with or without cementitious component to increase strength and
stiffness), fine sand-sized materials (again with or without cementitious component), or
may in some cases involve use of expansive foam. The particular type of filler material
used depends on the stiffness required of the backfill, the geologic and geochemical
environment present and the time over which the backfill is expected to function.

In terms of providing a location for disposal/isolation of mine tailings, old mine

workings often provide an ideal environment. Typically the ore bodies disturbed during
mining are not chemically stable in the wet, oxidizing conditions induced by mining and
removal of the ore to the surface. This is particularly the case where sulphide ores are
mined (acid mine drainage). Commonly the result of such disturbances is the initiation
of oxidizing processes that can lead to generation of acidic solutions and associated
mobilization of heavy metals and other undesirable compounds. Relocating mine
tailings back into the geologic environment they originally came from can go a long
way towards reducing rates and quantities of contaminants. This action is only a partial
solution to the volume of waste rock generated by mining as the volume of tailings will
always greatly exceed the volume that the intact rock originally occupied.

The use of backfill as a water control tool is common in operating mines as well as in
mines that are being closed. Backfilling in an operating mine provides a means of
reducing the volume into which groundwater can enter but also provides resistance to
the movement of that water (and contaminants). This is of particular use where sections
of a mine are closed off and water inflow control is needed to facilitate ongoing mining
operations elsewhere. In such situations installation of large volumes of low
permeability material can be used to reduce the rate at which water can move from the
abandoned areas to the operating areas during ongoing operation of the mine, after
which it serves to long-term function. This backfill normally has a requirement to
function as an inflow-reducing material and is not expected to exhibit hydraulic
characteristics comparable to the surrounding rock mass since its purpose is typically
water control rather than flow prevention. Even so these backfilled volumes need to be
installed to a high degree of consistency and uniform performance, especially where
 21

they are expected to resist high inflow conditions and potentially high hydraulic
gradients across them. As a result they may include the use of packed in place aggregate
materials that are subsequently cement grouted or in situ compacted materials of low
permeability (e.g. aggregate-clay mixtures).

Backfilling to control or moderate the movement of water into, through and out of mine
workings is of particular importance in mining operations where there is an exit point
for the mine drainage at or near ground level or if the site is located in a hydrological
discharge location. Movement of water into mine workings typically occurs along pre-
existing joints or fractures and so can oxygenate regions where reducing conditions
previously existed. The result is often the production of acidic mine drainage and high
metals content in the water that exits the mine workings. Where backfill is used to
reduce the volume of water that can enter the excavations and reduce the rate at which
the water can move there will be a greater tendency for the water entering the system to
become anoxic/reducing, reducing the rate at which contaminants are generated and
moved. It should be noted that the goal typically set for this type of backfilling
operation is to slow the process down to rates that can be handled by the mine
dewatering system and not to match the hydraulic character of the surrounding rock or
ensure that diffusion-dominated mass transport is established.

Backfilling by its very nature also makes subsequent animal or human intrusion into the
old mine workings more difficult and thereby makes the site a safer location with
respect to inadvertent intrusion. The use of massive fill components (boulders or
cemented materials) in those regions at or near the entrances to an abandoned mine
facility provide an effective deterrent to casual intrusion but will not prevent a
technologically capable intruder from re-entering the facility if it is unmonitored.

4.2. Purposes and goals of backfill in civil construction

Backfilling of underground excavations made as part of civil construction has a wide

range of purposes and goals. In most cases backfilling is associated with the need to
provide passive support to excavations once the civil structure/utility is installed or to
provide a contiguous contact between the installation and the surrounding rock mass.
For example, pipes or cables may have sand, mud, paste or cementitious materials
installed into the annular space between them and the surrounding rock. In most
respects the application of backfilling in civil construction is comparable to that
described for the mining industry.

Another civil-engineering application for backfill-like materials is groundwater

protection. Bentonite-based barriers are commonly used as liners or slurry trenches in
order to protect the groundwater below and around landfills or sites containing
hazardous materials. There is a considerable body of information available in the
technical literature that discusses application of backfill-like materials in environmental
protection applications. In Finland bentonite membranes and layers are also used to
protect groundwater systems from saline runoff from highways (Hämäläinen et al.
2005) by providing an impermeable near-surface barrier to water infiltration and
allowing separate collection of salt-impacted runoff. These are examples of applications
 22

that provide increased confidence in the potential suitability of bentonite-based barrier

materials in controlling contaminant migration (e.g. under saline groundwater
conditions in a repository) and its ability to be installed in large quantities to high
degrees of consistency. However near-surface barrier applications allow the use of large
equipment and do not suffer the physical constraints (rock walls and confined areas)
that are present in a repository environment.

4.3. Purposes and goals of backfill in a repository

While seeming similar in many ways to mine backfilling, there are many fundamental
differences in the goals of backfilling in a repository for spent nuclear fuel. In mining
the primary goals are to control water flow to manageable rates, provide support to poor
quality rock following extraction of large volumes of ore and dispose of potentially
chemically reactive tailings materials. A repository for spent nuclear fuel is a unique
application in that excavation is solely for the purpose of installing a waste package. A
repository will have special care taken during its excavation in order to minimize
damage or disturbance to the surrounding rock and the rock extraction ratio is very low
relative to most mining operations where backfilling is undertaken. In a repository the
excavations are to be backfilled primarily to provide isolating capacity to the system
and to make subsequent intrusion into the repository extremely difficult. Depending on
the emplacement geometry selected and the local ground conditions, backfill may need
to keep the sealing materials (buffer), installed adjacent to the canisters in place. Over
the long-term backfill materials may also provide a limited degree of resistance to
radionuclide movement through sorption of these materials onto the surface of clay
and/or aggregate surfaces.

Backfilling in a repository can also assist in keeping the tunnel and room excavations
mechanically stable, a function similar to that in mine backfilling but at a very different
scale. In mine backfills, mechanical stabilization is intended either to provide a means
of increasing the extraction ratio of the ore body, provide some limited resistance to
water movement through the excavation or to prevent subsidence of the ground surface
or vertically adjacent excavations. In a repository, excavation stabilization is
predominantly associated with minimizing potential for ongoing development of the
excavation-disturbed zone immediately adjacent to the excavation, especially if high
rock stress conditions exist. Provision of even passive restraint at the rock surface can
greatly affect the subsequent extent of the damaged rock zone around excavations
(Chandler et al. 2002b). The low extraction ratio and the high strength of the crystalline
rock means that surface subsidence is not foreseen to be a concern in a repository.

Associated with the basic mechanical function of backfill in a repository for spent
nuclear fuel there is a need for it not to adversely affect the performance of other
components of the repository sealing system. This means that it must maintain its
chemical, mechanical and hydraulic characteristics over many thousands of years. Some
of the evidence collected from field investigations that point towards the long-term
stability of bentonites is presented by Smellie (2001). Specifics as to the expected role
and performance of backfilling materials in a spent fuel repository are discussed in
greater detail later in this document.
 23

5 BACKFILL MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT OPTIONS

5.1. Backfilling of Repository Openings

5.1.1 Purpose of Backfilling

The requirements of a repository sealing system as outlined by Posiva requires that the
backfill exhibit certain basic characteristics, presented in Table 5-1 (Posiva 2000, 2006).
They include re-establishing of the equivalent of the initial groundwater flow and
geochemical/transport conditions present at the repository site. This means that the
disposal tunnels must be prevented from being major pathways for groundwater and
contaminant transport. There is additionally the need for the backfill to prevent
inadvertent (or casual) intrusion into the repository at some time in distant future. In
order to accomplish these requirements the backfill must be able to ensure that the
swelling clay used as the buffer material in contact with the corrosion-resistant canisters
used to hold the spent reactor fuel in the location it is initially placed. There is also a
need for the backfill to contribute to maintaining the tunnels as mechanically stable
features. In the 2000 and 2006 Posiva program documents the purpose of backfill
research and development activities in Finland was outlined. It can be described as
focusing on identifying materials and methods (for production and emplacement) for a
backfill that is able to tolerate the inflow of saline ground water without significant
changes in its effectiveness as a safety barrier. A general conclusion was that the overall
function of the backfill (assumed to be clay, aggregate or a mixture of these materials)
could be achieved by maximizing the dry density of the backfill material and by
minimizing the void spaces in the backfilled tunnels. In order to achieve this, a focus
was put on developing improved compaction and other methods for backfill
emplacement techniques.
As described in the repository concepts of Posiva (2000; 2006) and SKB (2002) there
are a limited number of fundamental requirements of the backfilling material(s) related
to ensuring that the requirements of the safety case are achieved. Table 5-1 summarizes
the basic safety-case requirements defined for the backfill in the Posiva (2000) and SKB
(2002) KBS-3 repository concepts. The wording of the two sets of requirements vary
slightly but cover the same basic issues; mechanical suitability; minimizing mass
transport; compatibility with other components and; long-term stability. The Posiva
requirements for a KBS-3H-type repository do not contain a requirement to withstand
compression by the buffer since they are not in contact.
In order to accomplish the established purpose of the backfill, it needs to be chemically
and mechanically stable for very long times and should not have or develop any
properties that could significantly degrade the function of the other barriers in the
repository system. This typically has been interpreted to mean that backfill must
therefore be stiff enough to keep the buffer in place in the KBS-3V geometry, have a
sufficiently low hydraulic conductivity to prevent contaminant movement. The presence
of at least a minimal (~100 kPa) positive contact pressure has been identified as being
desirable in a backfilling material (Gunnarsson et al 2007). This pressure was
subsequently increased to 200 kPa to provide a greater margin with respect to the ability
to support the excavation. This pressure provides support the tunnel perimeter, limiting
stress-induced rock degradation and ensuring that no open pathways develop between
the backfilling material and the surrounding rock.
 24

Table 5-1. Basic Safety-Case Requirements of Backfill for a KBS-3 repository.

Organization Requirement Description

Posiva Compressibility Keep the buffer and canister in place in the
(2000) deposition hole
Hydraulic Prevent the tunnels from becoming major conductors
of groundwater and transport pathways of
radionuclides
Chemical Shall not have any harmful chemical interaction with
other barriers
Mechanical Contribute to the stability of the tunnels.
SKB (2002) Compressibility In order to maintain density of buffer the backfill
shall have a compressibility that is low enough to
minimize the upward expansion of the buffer.
Hydraulic To prevent the tunnels from being conductive
pathways that influence water movement in the
repository the backfill shall, over the entire length
and cross-section of the tunnel, have a hydraulic
conductivity in the same order of magnitude as that
of the surrounding rock, or so low than the water
transport is dominated by diffusion.
Interaction with The backfilled tunnels shall not have any negative
other barriers influence on the barriers in the repository.
Durability The backfill shall be stable in a long-term
perspective and its functions be maintained under the
expected repository conditions.

The KBS-3H repository concept does not have emplacement tunnels in the same sense
as in the 3V concept. In 3H, the canisters are installed horizontally in long, relatively
small diameter drifts with the space between the canister and the surrounding rock
occupied by highly compacted bentonite buffer. There is also the expectation that a
concrete plug will be placed at the end of the emplacement drifts in the KBS-3H
concept (Table 3). This eliminates the need for backfill to resist the swelling pressure
generated by the buffer component. Backfill will not be needed until the access tunnels
and other excavations are ready for final closure. This results in a less important role for
backfill in the initial near-field isolation of the canisters as it will not be installed until a
considerable distance from the canisters has already been sealed. Beyond the
emplacement tunnels of the KBS-3V and the emplacement drifts of the KBS-3H
concepts the role of the backfill in isolating a repository will be the same.

These basic differences in the KBS-3H and 3V repository concepts will therefore
influence what type(s) of backfilling materials are deemed adequate and what
installation approaches can be taken in repository backfilling.

Development and testing of backfilling concepts has been done through co-operative
work with SKB within the BACLO (BAckfilling and CLOsure of the repository)
project. The overall objective of BACLO is to develop backfill concepts and techniques
for sealing and closure of the repository. The aim of the program is twofold: to develop
 25

the technical feasibility of the concepts and to assess the ability of various backfill
materials and emplacement concepts to meet the long-term safety requirements of a
KBS-3V repository. The results of Phase III (2006-2008) of this project is documented
in a report by Keto et al. (2009).

While the focus of Baclo is to develop backfill and backfilling concepts that have
application in the KBS-3V geometry, much of the information developed is applicable
to backfilling of a KBS-3H repository. In the KBS-3V concept the backfill is needed to
fill the emplacement rooms, rendering that region relatively impermeable and it must be
capable of resisting any upwards (vertically compressive) force developed by the buffer
that surrounds the canisters in the floor of the emplacement tunnel. Beyond the
emplacement tunnels of the KBS-3V repository concept, the backfill needs to fill other
openings (access tunnels, ramps, service areas and ultimately shafts), ensuring that they
do not provide preferential transport pathways for contaminant migration.

Other studies that address some unique aspects of backfilling for the smaller tunnel
cross-section and slightly different material being considered are being undertaken by
Posiva‟s Baceko project.

The main system requirements for the backfill originate from long-term safety
considerations and have evolved from those defined in Posiva (2000) to those outlined
in Posiva (2006) and Tanskanen (2007). Additional subsystem requirements have
developed from operational safety and radiation protection, environmental impact, as
well as from programmatic, operational and economical consideration. Gunnarsson
et al. (2006) outlined the backfill subsystem requirements related to the KBS-3V
concept for the SKB program. They are essentially identical in either the KBS 3-V or 3-
H geometries and therefore are to a large extent relevant to Posiva‟s repository concept.
As of early 2007 the performance requirements for backfill identified by SKB were:
- the backfill shall restrict advective transport in deposition tunnels so that the
function of the bedrock is not impaired,
- the backfill in deposition tunnels shall restrict the upward swelling/expansion of
the buffer so that the function of the buffer is not impaired (in KBS-3V),
- the backfill in deposition tunnels must not in other ways significantly impair the
barriers safety functions.
- the backfill shall be long-term resistant and its functions shall be preserved in the
environment expected in the repository,
- the backfill shall be based on well-tried or tested technique,
- the backfill properties shall be controlled against specified acceptance criteria,
- the backfill shall be efficient regarding consumption of raw material and energy,
- backfill installation shall be possible to perform in the specified rate, and
- the backfill shall be cost efficient.

The basic requirements for backfilling outlined in Posiva (2000) have changed slightly
as more information has been developed regarding backfilling options and backfill
requirements, but no major redirection has been necessary. The focus of work has
remained the development of clay and clay-aggregate backfilling materials that have the
characteristics required and demonstrating their performance. In order to reflect some of
the site-specific concerns related to the geologic conditions likely to be present in
 26

Finland, Keto (2003) expanded on the basic backfill materials properties requirements
for a clay-based backfill of the type described in (Posiva 2000). In that report it was
noted that the backfill should have the following properties:
1. Sufficiently low hydraulic conductivity in saline solution (TDS 35 g/l),
2. Low effective porosity, high bulk density and high clay and
montmorillonite dry density,
3. Optimal gradation curve and optimal moisture content to provide optimal
compaction properties to the backfill,
4. The interfaces between the tunnel and the backfill should be tight in
order to avoid boundary flow,
5. Presence of swelling capacity (0.1 MPa), in backfill to hinder boundary
flow and support the excavation openings,
6. Low compressibility and high value of shear strength.
7. High value of specific surface.

Beyond these points is the need for the backfill to prevent human intrusion and limit
impact of glacial events. These points are also being addressed in recent backfill
development activities being undertaken by Posiva and SKB.

5.1.2 Backfilling Concepts

Beyond the defining of potentially suitable backfill materials is the need to develop
backfilling approaches that will be most appropriate for the different geologic,
hydrogeologic and geochemical conditions that will exist within the rock mass where a
repository will be constructed. In order to deal with variations at the repository site
Posiva is considering an approach that will allow backfilling materials and methods to
be varied to deal with local or regional conditions. This would involve turning the
repository into a series of isolated compartments. Within each compartment the
materials placed would be suitably uniform but materials placed in different
compartments may differ in recognition of changing geologic, geomechanical,
geochemical and other conditions. Examples of some of the backfilling options under
consideration by Posiva are presented in Table 3-4.

Concepts that have/are being evaluated (Keto 2003; Gunnarsson et al. 2004) include:
A. Compaction of a mixture of bentonite and crushed rock in the tunnel.
B. Compaction of a natural clay with swelling ability in the tunnel.
C. Compaction of non-swelling soil type in the tunnel combined with application of
pre-compacted bentonite blocks at the roof.
D. Placement of pre-compacted blocks; a number of materials are considered.
E. Installation of high quality plugs to isolate high hydraulic conductivity areas.
F. Combination of sections consisting of a) crushed rock compacted in the tunnel
and b) pre-compacted bentonite blocks. The bentonite sections are installed
regularly above every disposal hole.

These concepts were initially screened as described by Gunnarsson et al. (2003) based
on the need for a backfill that will meet the initial requirements for backfill in the KBS-
3 concept and concepts A, B and D have been examined in the joint Posiva/SKB
BACLO program. Concept C considers predominantly non-swelling materials and so
 27

was not examined in BACLO because it was not a low-permeability material that met
the basic requirements for backfill as laid out in the original KBS-3 concept. Concepts E
and F are composed of sections with different types of materials that require separate
placement systems. The question of the effectiveness of these approaches where high
permeability zones and a heterogeneous backfilling system is present resulted in a
recommendation that no further work should be directed specifically at those concepts
in phase 2 of the BACLO project (Gunnarsson et al 2003). However, options E and F
form the basis of the compartment concept and so have been examined by Posiva as
activities outside of the BACLO project as they would be used outside the deposition
tunnels. Additional backfilling approaches for regions outside the deposition tunnels
include the use of two different backfill materials installed in different manners as
shown in Figure 5-2 (Maak and Simmons 2005) a variation of which has been examined
by Korkiala-Tanttu and Ritola (2006) which is described in Section 5.2.3. JAEA (Japan)
has developed a similar range of backfill placement concepts (JNC 2000).

A: Ballast/Bentonite in situ compaction D: Emplacement of pre-compacted blocks

Blocks and pellets

Crushed rock / bentonite

B: Swelling clays, in situ compaction E: Compartment concept

Swelling clay

C: Non swelling backfill and blocks at roof F: Sandwich concept

Bentonite blocks
Bentonite blocks
Non swelling clay/ Crushed rock
Mixture

Figure 5-1. Options for backfilling and Sealing. (Gunnarsson et al. 2004)

In the compartment concept for sealing, the various regions within the repository and its
access ways would be treated separately, with installation of a series of very high-
quality plugs or regions with higher quality backfilling materials and shown in Figure 5-
3. These high-quality plugs isolate regions that are filled with backfill materials that are
not particularly effective as hydraulic barriers (e.g. crushed rock or lower density
aggregate/clay materials). This approach to backfilling would be particularly relevant in
regions where the local rock is fractured or of limited quality and so installation of a
high-quality backfill would not be particularly effective in controlling groundwater
movement. As the purpose of backfilling of these regions would be to maintain an
overall hydraulic performance of the system to the equivalent to the original geologic
conditions, this approach may be appropriate in some regions of the repository. In
regions where rock quality is better plugs or backfilling materials that provide hydraulic
disconnects could be installed. This approach is consistent with the hydraulic
requirements outlined in Table 5-1 (Posiva 2000).
 28

In-floor (KBS-3V-type)

In-room horizontal

Horizontal (KBS-3H type)

Figure 5-2. Backfilling in Canadian concepts. (Maak and Simmons 2005)

Figure 5-3. Options for Backfilling of Shafts and Ramps.

 29

Evaluation of a range of materials and technologies that could be used to achieve the
backfilling goals in the various backfilling options described above has been the focus
of ongoing work by Posiva as well as other organizations interested in the isolation of
nuclear fuel waste in a geologic medium (e.g. SKB, NAGRA, NWMO, JAEA). As a
result of the consideration of both uniform backfilling and compartment concepts for
repository backfilling and plugging re-evaluation of options for backfill materials and
approaches is appropriate. In order to document the reasoning for the backfilling
approaches selected as being most appropriate for Posiva‟s repository concept, a review
of backfilling requirements, concepts, materials and experiences associated with
underground openings is provided. Based on this review, the options available for
backfilling a repository are presented, discussed and a brief summary of the results of
studies to determine the appropriateness of the selections is provided.

5.2 Materials Options and Emplacement Technologies for Backfill

5.2.1 Review of Backfilling Options

As described above, the backfilling approaches examined by Posiva, SKB and most
other national programs evaluating options for a spent fuel repository in hard crystalline
rock (e.g. Canada, Japan), have focussed on development of clay-based materials. These
materials and methodologies that can be applied to install them as reasonably uniform
volumes in the tunnels, shafts and ramps of a repository have undergone extensive
evaluation. Despite this focus on clay-based materials, repository concepts are not
inflexibly defined and so a number of other backfill material options have been and
continue to be examined.

The general background and history leading to focussing on clay-based and aggregate
backfill materials has been described previously. The selection of clay and clay-
aggregate materials as the primary focus for backfill development work did not preclude
ongoing monitoring of alternative materials and technologies; especially those
associated with mine backfill development. This section discusses the initial screening
of and subsequent development of these options and assesses their suitability for use in
Posiva‟s repository (2000, 2006).

The development of the KBS-3 concept included the recognition that there was the need
of backfill materials to effectively fill the room and tunnel openings left after canister
installation was completed. The backfilling material and the means by which it was to
be emplaced was not rigidly defined in order to allow room for system modification and
technology development. The basic assumption in the concept development stage was
that the backfill would likely be a mixture of a clay mineral-based material and
aggregate (either crushed host rock or other suitable material) that would have some
capacity to swell to fill any voids or defects that might occur during the backfilling
process. By using such materials it was anticipated that the requirements outlined in
Table 5-1 could be met but it was necessary to demonstrate the means by which
placement could be done and quantify the effectiveness of the backfill. The early
selection of clay-based backfill was not arbitrary but was based on careful consideration
of the options available.
 30

Based on early evaluation of the functional purposes of backfill and materials that could
provide these functions a wide range of materials and technologies are available. For the
purposes of this report, clay-based backfilling materials are defined as those containing
a clay-mineral fines component. The clay material component(s) can be mixed with
aggregate to produce a mixed clay-aggregate backfill. This means that clay-based
backfill includes clay-only, artificially blended clays mixed with aggregate, as well as
mixtures of natural clay and aggregate. There are also potential backfill materials that
do not contain a clay-mineral component although they may contain a clay-sized
component. For the purposes of this report these materials are defined as being
aggregate backfill. Work towards demonstration of suitable backfill materials and their
installation in various regions of a repository has resulted in a number of options being
developed.

Most programs focussed their initial efforts on the barrier materials closest to the spent
fuel (canister, buffer) and left development of barriers farther from the canister until
later. Posiva began its backfill development and evaluation work with Kirkkomäki
(1997) where a 15% bentonite clay, 85% crushed rock mixtures was proposed. This
concept has since undergone re-evaluation as the result of the 2001 selection of the
Olkiluoto site as a potential repository location. Initial site evaluation at Olkiluoto
identified groundwater salinity as high as 3.5%. Given the sensitivity of relatively low
bentonite-content materials to salinity (Dixon 2000) and the identified need for the
emplacement room backfill of the KBS-3V concept to provide some positive pressure
on the surrounding rock the backfill materials and installation concepts have been re-
evaluated by Posiva. This re-evaluation has included participation in the BACLO
project (a joint Posiva-SKB project) as well as studies conducted by Posiva. In many
cases testing and demonstrations have been conducted at-or-near full-scale to confirm
performance of candidate materials and to evaluate various backfilling options. The
range of options and materials that were initially identified or have subsequently been
evaluated are briefly discussed below and are listed in Table 5-2.
 31

Table 5-2. Backfill Materials Examined and Placement Techniques Considered.

MATERIAL PLACEMENT TECHNOLOGY

Thrown* In situ Enhanced Compacted Fluid
In Situ ** Blocks Injection+
Compacted
Bentonite √1 √
Natural swelling clay √1 √ √
Non-swelling clay √
Bentonite & aggregate √ √ √ √
Aggregate & natural clay √ √ √ √
Non-swelling clay & √ √
aggregate
Aggregate – only √ √ √ √
Aggregate & cement √2 √ √
* Includes placement by high-energy air-blowing and mechanical throwing
** Densification through pile installation
+
For the purposes of discussion this is defined as including paste injection and rocky paste injection
technologies.
1
Precompacted pellet and granulated clay material used to fill space between main backfilled volume and
roof/perimeter regions
2
Shotcrete, Gunnite materials, well established technology

5.2.2 Geologic Conditions Affecting Backfill: Groundwater Salinity

A number of factors have been identified that have the potential to adversely affect the
performance of clay-based backfilling materials. These include factors induced by the
construction and operation of the repository (e.g. oxidation of surrounding rock,
introduction of non-native microbes, elevation of pH as the result of grouting activities
or introduction of other cementitious materials). These topics have been discussed in a
large number of documents developed by various national programs examining
repository concepts and are not further discussed in this report (excepting a general
discussion on the impact of cementitious backfill materials provided in Section 4.3).

One factor of considerable importance to repository performance and not able to be

changed through engineering, materials selection, or remediation is the natural
groundwater salinity.

The effects of saline porefluids on clay-based materials has long been recognized both
in the natural environment (e.g. Norwegian and Canadian Quick Clays) and engineered
barriers to contaminant migration. In the natural environment there is a general
tendency for groundwater salinity to increase with depth in crystalline rock (especially
granitic plutons). Beyond such general trends it is impossible to predict the magnitude
of the increase with depth prior to actually doing site investigations and salinity range
will vary dramatically depending on the site and host medium. The basis for choosing
salinity of 3.5 % (TDS) as the design value for the Finnish repository located in
Olkiluoto is described in Vieno (2000):
 32

“Today the salinity at the depth of 500 metres varies from 15 to 25 g/L. A design basis
value of 35 g/L would allow intrusion of groundwaters presently lying 100 to 200
metres below the 500 metre level. As 35 g/L is the salinity of ocean water, it would also
take into account the maximum possible salinity of water infiltrating at the surface.”

In contrast the URL site in Canada found TDS concentrations as high as 9% at depth of
400 m (Gascoyne et al. 1987) and the Äspö site in Sweden has only 1 % (SKB 2004).

The basic performance requirements of the backfill are to ensure that its ability to
prevent preferential pathways for contaminant migration (3V and 3H) is maintained and
that it provides modest support to the emplacement tunnel walls (3V). These basic
requirements have resulted in a need to carefully consider a range of materials and
potentially disruptive processes as part of the process of identifying suitable backfill
materials. Kjartanson et al. (2003) provided a review of the basic backfilling concepts
and clay-based materials options and identified issues related to the then current status
of backfilling development. Of primary concern at that time and still valid for backfill
materials for repository use in Finland, Sweden, Canada and elsewhere where the
repository is located below the local water table, is the influence of groundwater
composition. Using the information provided by Dixon (2000) it is possible to assess the
influence of porefluid salinity on the swelling pressure developed by and the hydraulic
conductivity of smectitic clay – based backfills, particularly as they might influence a
repository in Finland. The basic density requirements for the emplacement tunnel
backfill (KBS-3V) are to achieve the hydraulic properties required (diffusion based
mass transport) and minimum swelling pressure (200 kPa positive pressure at rock-clay
contact) targets. Both of these parameters are influenced by the specific swelling clay
used (smectite content), density achieved as well as the local groundwater salinity.
Based on a combination of laboratory performance data and field emplacement data for
backfill it can be concluded that many of the initially proposed backfilling options (e.g.
in situ compaction of bentonite-aggregate mixtures) would not likely achieve the
performance required of an emplacement room backfill in the KBS-3V concept. This is
supported by the results of field tests at the Äspö facility in Sweden (Gunnarsson et al.
2001) where densification was highly problematic, especially in the crown regions or
where water inflow was occurring during backfill placement. In order to evaluate other
materials for suitability an ongoing program of work is being undertaken by Posiva as
part of both the buffer development and Baceko programs.

As a result of the established influence of groundwater salinity on the swelling and

hydraulic performance of backfill materials there has been a concerted effort to develop
materials and technologies that can maximize the degree of densification achievable in
repository tunnels. These materials and approaches include development of
precompacted backfill block emplacement to fill the majority of the tunnel volume and
the use of highly compacted bentonite pellets to fill the remaining volume. These
technologies are described below.

5.2.3 Clay - Only Backfill

Posiva, SKB and Nagra have all considered the use of clay-only materials as backfill.
Materials considered include clays compacted in situ in the tunnels, rooms and ramps,
 33

precompacted natural clay materials (typically containing a smectite clay component),

precompacted natural clays that have their swelling and hydraulic properties improved
through blending in smectite clay. Most commonly the smectite considered for addition
to natural clay materials is the industrially produced clay known as bentonite. Bentonite
is produced by drying and crushing of natural montmorillonite-rich clay-shale materials
and has good swelling properties, a low hydraulic conductivity but these properties can
be sensitive to groundwater salinity, especially when its density is low (Dixon 2000).

Pneumatic and Throwing-type Installation

Placement of clay-only materials (materials composed of fines-only), as a backfill can
be achieved through placement of granulated or pelletized clays using air-emplacement
techniques (similar to shotcrete) or mechanical throwing technologies (ie. using
conveyor-belt –type equipment).

Air-emplacement techniques are being considered by Posiva, SKB, NAGRA and

NWMO to allow for installation of backfilling materials into confined volumes where
other emplacement or compaction approaches are not effective. Figure 5-4 shows
examples of some of the emplacement trials done in Canada as part of the Canadian
NWMO‟s contribution to the BACLO project. Finland, Sweden and Canada have
actively examined methods to blow or throw pellets or clay-aggregate mixtures in order
to achieve the maximum possible densification in backfilled tunnels (Baumgartner and
Snider 2002; Martino and Dixon 2006; Gunnarsson and Börgesson 2004). Of particular
interest is to develop a means of placing fill materials into confined regions such as the
tunnel crown. Granulated or pelletized clay materials have been demonstrated as being
placeable using this technology but the density achievable is limited, but still results in a
better system than one where a portion of the tunnel volume is initially unfilled. Figure
5-4 shows examples of the type of equipment and materials utilized in placement trials
done as part of the BACLO project.

Throwing using conveyor-belts, blowing using shotcrete-type equipment and augering

technologies are also being considered by Nagra as potential means of placing backfill
for its repository concept in sedimentary rock (Mayor 2005; Nold 2006). It should be
noted that the Nagra horizontal emplacement concept does not differentiate between
buffer and backfill as the canister is placed horizontally on a bed of precompacted
bentonite blocks and then the majority of the openings are filled with pellets of densely
compacted bentonite clay. The Nagra concept differs in several key aspects from
Posiva‟s KBS-3H, primarily in that the Nagra concept involves much larger
emplacement drifts which will require and allow for operation of backfilling equipment
rather than the narrow clearances present in the KBS-3H geometry. The Nagra
repository concept also calls for the facility to be located in dry (no liquid water inflow),
sedimentary rock and will operate at an intentionally higher repository temperature
(>100 C). All of these features result in a system where backfilling materials must
function in a very different environment to that expected in Finland and result in
different options for materials and their placement being available. The basic
differences in the repository concepts of Nagra and Posiva does not mean that
techniques developed by Nagra to manufacture and place bentonite pellets cannot be
adopted, if appropriate, to backfilling some regions in Posiva‟s repository.
 34

a. Shotcrete/Gunnite Machine b. HCB Clay Pellets

c. Placement of material into 0.3m x 3m gap d. As-placed aggregate-clay mix

Figure 5-4. Placing pellets & clay-aggregate backfill using shotcreting equipment.
(Note: Void filled is representative of crown region of a block-filled KBS-3 tunnel)

In Situ Compaction
In situ compaction of the clay materials is possible under conditions where essentially
no groundwater inflow occurs. This approach is very sensitive to the water ratio of the
clay materials and the compaction effort applied and so water influx or variations in
tunnel geometry will make effective and consistent densification problematic. Under
conditions where there is no water influx, properly blended and water conditioned clay
materials can be taken underground and placed using conventional compaction
equipment (e.g. rollers, dynamic impact equipment). This approach also has limitations
as to the densification achievable and uneven densification will occur, especially
adjacent to the perimeter of the openings. Of particular concern would be how to
achieve adequate compaction in the uppermost regions of the backfill and to quality-
assure their installation. As a result this approach may be more suitable to regions more
removed from the emplacement tunnels or drifts of the KBS-3V and KBS-3H concepts.

Use of Dense, Precompacted Blocks of Clay

One solution to compaction inefficiencies in clay-only backfilling materials and
sensitivity to local water inflow conditions is the production of large precompacted
 35

blocks of high density. These blocks can be manufactured under controlled conditions a
considerable distance away from the volume to be backfilled and then transported to the
installation location where they are carefully placed as shown schematically in Figure
5-5.

Figure 5-5. Placement of precompacted clay blocks. (Gunnarsson et al. 2006)

Spaces between the block filled volume and the excavation perimeter can be filled with
more clay-based materials using throwing technologies (air or mechanical). This
concept is being actively developed and evaluated as it has the potential to simplify
quality control and ensure placement of a backfill to a high average density, as well as
utilizing already established technologies for manufacturing and materials movement. It
also allows backfilling to deal with the uneven surfaces and variability in the cross-
sectional area of the openings. Large-scale emplacement trials of block and pellet
backfill have been completed at the buffer laboratory at SKB‟s Äspö facility (Wimelius
and Pusch 2008). This two-component backfilling approach shows promise as a means
of backfilling in challenging conditions, especially those regions where water moves
into and through the system during backfilling operations. Posiva, SKB and other
organizations are addressing questions related to placement technology and the
behaviour of the backfill both within the BACLO project as well as independently
supported work related to SKB and Posiva repository-specific issues (e.g. different
excavation geometries).

In a nearly reverse approach to the current Posiva and SKB backfilling concepts (where
precompacted backfill blocks are installed to occupy the majority of the tunnel volume),
precompacted blocks of swelling clay can and have been installed in backfilled volumes
 36

where in situ compaction was used to install clay-aggregate materials into the majority
of the openings (Gunnarsson et al. 2001a,b). Densely compacted clay blocks (together
with highly compacted bentonite clay pellets) were used to fill the crown regions where
in situ compaction of clay-aggregate materials was less effective than desired Figure
5-6. The intent of the installation of the blocks and pellets into the crown region was to
ensure that this region had adequate density to ensure that a positive pressure was
maintained in the tunnel crown and that no gaps were present, even if the porewater
salinity was elevated. This approach was utilized in the Backfill and Plug Test as well as
the Prototype Repository Test at Äspö. The issue of porefluid salinity was briefly
discussed in Section 5.2.2.

Figure 5-6. Use of precompacted clay blocks near crown of tunnel. (Gunnarsson et al.
2001a)

5.2.4 Clay – Aggregate Mixtures

Mixtures of clay (bentonite, natural smectitic or mixture of bentonite and natural clay)
and aggregate are under active consideration for use as repository backfill in Finland,
Sweden and Canada (Pusch 1998; Pusch and Gunnarsson 2001; Kjartanson et al 2003;
Keto 2003; Gunnarsson et al. 2004). There are numerous advantages to this type of
material (improved compaction characteristics (higher dry density), higher strength,
lower compressibility, reduced use of imported clay materials, lower cost for clay
material component….). This type of material was the focus of much of the early work
in Canada related to backfilling of repository openings (Yong et al. 1986) and a wide
range of potentially suitable clay-aggregate materials and emplacement techniques have
been developed and demonstrated. Much of the information related to bentonite-sand
material developed as part of Canada‟s buffer development program as well as
demonstration of tunnel sealing technologies (Chandler et al. 2002b).

Pneumatic and Throwing-type Installation

As with the clay-only backfills described above, it is possible to pre-manufacture clay-
aggregate pellets for installation into confined spaces. Similarly, blends of clay, sand
and gravel materials have been produced and placed using air-entrainment and throwing
equipment of the type described previously. A range of materials have been mixed and
 37

successfully tested in field or simulated field conditions (Baumgartner and Snider 2002;
Chandler et al. 2002a; Martino and Dixon 2006; Gunnarsson and Börgesson 2004 (clay
pellets only)). The same types of equipment and installation techniques presented in
Figure 5-4 have also been used in field trials to place aggregate-clay mixtures using
conventional shotcrete technology. With careful application these materials can be
placed relatively quickly (4 to 10 m3/h) to a reasonably high degree of uniformity but
the achievable dry density is somewhat limited (1.4 to 1.5 Mg/m3 for an aggregate-clay
mixtures of 50 to 70% clay content), Baumgartner and Snider (2002), Martino et al.
(2003), making this approach potentially problematic as a solution for overall tunnel
backfilling (the density of the bentonite component is quite low and so the system is
sensitive to changes in porewater chemistry). These materials and this placement
technique do however have application in filling gaps between precompacted blocks or
in situ compacted materials and the surrounding rock mass. Tests done using highly
compacted bentonite pellets and pneumatic emplacement achieved dry densities in the
order of 1.1 to 1.2 Mg/m3, which is sufficient to maintain a limited positive swelling
pressure within the backfilled volume (Martino et al. 2003).

Backfill blowing and throwing technology has been adapted to and is commonly
utilized in the mining industry, where backfilling of mine opening are often undertaken.
In mine applications the materials installed are typically mine tailings or spoil materials,
often with some cementitious component rather than clay. This technology is discussed
in greater detail as part of discussion of aggregate-only and aggregate-cement
backfilling materials and placement systems.

Manufacture of Precompacted Blocks of Aggregate-Clay

As with the manufacture of precompacted blocks of clay, the ability to manufacture and
place blocks of aggregate-clay material in repository-like environments has been
demonstrated (Gunnarsson et al. 2006; Chandler et al. 2002).

Aggregate-clay mixtures have a number of attractive features, including:

 need for lower compactive effort during manufacture,

 improved dry density,
 higher stiffness,
 greater physical durability (important during handling and placement), and
 a lower unit cost as aggregate replaces more expensive clay materials.

Many of these trials involved relatively small sized blocks (largest so far produced is
0.8 x 0.6 x 0.5 m) and shown in Figure 5-7 but manufacture of larger blocks is
technologically possible (Gunnarsson et al. 2006). Development of equipment to lift and
place these blocks is also under development (Gunnarsson et al. 2006).
 38

Figure 5-7. Large Precompacted blocks of backfill. (Gunnarsson et al. 2006)

In situ Compaction of Aggregate-Clay Materials

In situ compaction of aggregate-clay mixtures has been the focus of considerable work
within Posiva, SKB and other national programs looking at technologies to install
densely compacted aggregate-clay materials in a repository. Clay-aggregate mixtures
have been prepared and compacted in situ in a variety of studies (Gunnarsson and
Börgesson (2002); Gunnarsson et al. (2004); Korkiala-Tanttu et al. (2007); Gunnarsson
et al. (2006) and Dixon et al. (2002).

In situ compaction is a viable means of installing backfill in large openings in a

repository, especially vertical or near-vertical openings such as shafts and ramps.
Horizontal openings such as tunnels and rooms are somewhat more problematic and
there are difficulties in achieving uniform densification, especially in the regions close
to the crown of the tunnels and rooms. Another issue related to in situ compaction, as
well as most other options for backfill placement is inflow water from the surrounding
rock. The presence of inflowing water in tunnels, rooms, ramps or other openings that
are to be backfilled makes densification problematic, particularly if in situ compaction
is desired. In situ, as well as most means of backfill compaction is water ratio sensitive
and compactability is typically degraded with the presence of water ratio beyond a fairly
narrow range (range is dependent on the particular material used and the density
desired).

Studies at the Äspö facility in Sweden and elsewhere have demonstrated the ability to
install large volumes as inclined layers in repository-like conditions using in situ
compaction (Gunnarsson et al. 2001). Recent studies have also identified areas where
improvements to the compaction process can be made (Adam 2006 in Korkiala-Tanttu
et al. 2007). Examples of the approaches proposed for compaction of inclined layers of
backfill and equipment developed to test their effectiveness are presented in Figure 5-8
through Figure 5-10.

As an alternative to full-face compaction of inclined layers, high degrees of

densification can be achieved in the lower portions of tunnels using conventional
 39

horizontal roller or impact compactors as shown in Figure 5-10. The use of horizontal
compaction in tunnels and rooms is not a complete solution to backfilling, as it cannot
be used to fill the entire volume, eventually there is insufficient headroom to operate the
compaction equipment. Once that point is reached in the backfilling process other
compaction equipment or techniques must be used. Examples of these options are
placement of materials using blowing or throwing technology or placement of
precompacted blocks Figure 5-4, or other backfilling approaches e.g. Figure 5-6 and
Figure 5-11. These approaches are also discussed below as part of enhanced in situ
compaction options.

Figure 5-8. In situ compaction of inclined layers of backfill. (after Gunnarsson et al.
2001)

Figure 5-9. Machine-Mounted Compactor. (photo by P.Keto)

 40

Challenges to achieving adequate densification in the crown regions of the tunnels and
rooms has been recognized in most backfilling approaches including KBS-3 and that
proposed by Canada. In the KBS-3V and 3H concepts, a variety of options have been
examined including development of specialized compaction equipment and use of
different materials in different parts of the backfilled volume (Korkiala-Tanttu and
Ritola 2006). In Canada two distinctly different backfill materials were identified as
being needed to effectively close the tunnels and other underground openings. They
were defined as Dense Backfill and Light Backfill in reference to their relative density.
The manner in which they would be placed would also differ, dense backfill could be in
situ compacted or installed as precompacted blocks while the light backfill is generally
assumed to be blown into place and would occupy the crown and perimeter regions
where dense compaction was not achievable (Dixon et al. 2001).

Figure 5-10. In situ compaction of horizontal or inclined layers of backfill using roller
and vibratory plate technologies. (Korkiala-Tanttu et al. 2007).

Figure 5-11. Composite backfill using precompacted blocks. (Gunnarsson et al. 2004)
 41

The use of a swelling clay component in more densely compacted (lower) aggregate-
clay backfill regions provides it with the ability to expand, autonomously-densifying the
lower-density materials close to the roof and walls of the openings. While an attractive
feature in the backfill there are still concerns regarding the degree to which equilibration
process can be relied on to ensure that adequate density is achieved. As a result studies
are ongoing to determine the rate and degree to which adjacent dissimilar materials will
deform and homogenize.

In situ compaction of aggregate-clay mixtures provides an ability to vary the proportion

of clay used in the backfill without major technological impact on the backfilling
process, thereby allowing modification of the backfill to reflect regional hydraulic
performance needs. The variation of material composition can be done without the need
to undertake major equipment changes, only the procedure used to achieve compaction
(time and effort to be applied to compact backfill).
Enhanced In Situ Compaction
Enhanced in situ compaction involves the densification of the backfill beyond that
initially obtained during placement. In most situations this is associated with post-
placement densification of clay-aggregate, or in some situations aggregate-only
backfills. There are a number of techniques that could potentially be used to improve
the as-placed density and Korkiala-Tanttu and Ritola (2006) review a number of options
having the potential in achieving post-placement densification of backfill in a
repository. To aid in assessing some of these options, they were assessing based on their
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats to their functionality (SWOT)
(Korkiala-Tanttu and Ritola 2006). The basic results of these assessments of these
approaches to enhanced in situ compaction are reproduced below (with some
modifications resulting from more recent considerations):

1. Horizontal in situ compaction with shotcrete technology: Used to install

“shotclay” material in crown regions (technologies examined by AECL of Canada
(Baumgartner and Snider 2002; Chandler et al. 2002b, Martino et al. 2003) as part
of the engineered barriers development work supported by NWMO (Canada) and
more recently as NWMO‟s contribution to the BACLO project (Figure 5-4).
Aggregate-clay backfill materials can be placed using shotcreting technology at
dry densities in the order of 1.4 to 1.5 Mg/m3 (for bentonite-aggregate mixtures
containing from 50 to 70 % by mass of bentonite) (density achieved depends on
composition of material placed). Within the BACLO project Posiva and SKB have
done additional work to evaluate this technology for installing highly compacted
bentonite pellets (discussed previously in this document).
Strength - basic techniques known,
- tunnel shape not critical,
- basic technology exists,
- filling can be done in steep(near vertical) layers.
Weaknesses - potentially too low a density attained,
- may require post-placement compaction,
- need for compressed air,
- unevenness of roof may be a problem.
Opportunities - placement can be made in long lengths.
Threats - is compaction adequate,
 42

- can machine operate in low headroom and long lengths,

- Interaction between backfill and equipment,
- Material rebound,
- Mixing between layers and removal of joints between layers

2. Displacement method: Involves horizontal in situ compaction in lower tunnel,

shotclay in crown and then installation of displacement piles into crown region to
densify that material (Figure 5-12).

In many ways this concept parallels technologies applied to improve the density
and strength of soft soils prior to construction of buildings or other infrastructure.
In those applications the soil (often a very soft clay), has a large number of
displacement piles installed. These piles act to provide higher soil bearing capacity
to the foundation but if placed close enough together, actually act to densify the
soil contained within the piled region to achieve further strengthening of the soil.

While the primary purpose in a repository would not be to increase the strength of
the backfill, displacement piling does have the potential to densify the upper
backfill. This would result in a lower hydraulic conductivity and a higher stiffness
upper backfill region that would be less susceptible to compression by the
underlying higher–density materials thereby improving overall backfill
performance.

Strengths - can be used to increase densification,

- shape of tunnel does not affect results.
Weaknesses - only short sections of backfill (8-10m) densified at one time,
- need to develop machinery, methods and materials,
- horizontal piling is not a well-developed technique.
Opportunities - can be used to increase compaction.
Threats - ability to achieve compaction goals is not known,
- non-uniform compaction,
- reinforcement needed for face of underlying layered fill
materials (base collapse),
- durability of pile materials,
- generation of corrosion gases in long-term (steel piles).
 43

Figure 5-12. Displacement piling to densify backfill. (Korkiala-Tanttu & Ritola 2006)

3. Mechanical compression: Involving full-face mechanical compression (with or

without vibratory component). This technique would use pressing plates;
vibratory compaction and a backfill material feed system to place material into
the tunnel along its entire face. This placement process would involve a series of
thin layers and machine, like a TBM that uses the rock walls as reaction backing
to apply a mechanical pressure against the entire vertical face of the backfilled
excavation as shown in
4. Figure 5-13. There are a considerable number of potential difficulties in both
construction of such equipment and then determining its effectiveness.
Strengths - efficient compaction,
- one piece of equipment used.
Weaknesses - machinery not developed yet (cost and time).
Opportunities - one technique for full tunnel, one working stage.
Threats - can one machine‟s pressing plates be constructed to
effectively cover entire tunnel cross-section,
- can a workable machine be developed?

Figure 5-13. Full-Face mechanical compression of backfill. (Korkiala-Tanttu & Ritola

2006)
 44

5. Vertical seal walls involving installation of regions of high-density bentonite,

cementitious grout or bentonite-aggregate added to already installed backfill
using high-pressure injection via pre-installed tubes (Figure 5-14). In this
approach the lower regions of the tunnel would be compacted using in-situ
technique to achieve target density to as high an elevation as possible. Once
maximum in situ compacted depth is achieved a series of injection pipes are
installed and the remaining volume is filled with backfill using shotcrete or other
placement technique. The injection tubes are then used to pump dense, paste-like
bentonite, bentonite-sand or cementitious materials to compress backfill and also
essentially clay grouts perimeter. This means formation of series of cut-offs that
will improve density and reduce hydraulic conductivity of backfill near roof and
perimeter. Will also require installation of concrete support walls every 30-40m
to provide support to BF during injection process.

Strengths - simple and efficient

- not much equipment needed,
- length can be varied,
- improves contact between roof, walls and filler,
- time before injection can be varied.
Weaknesses - need for concrete wall (curing time),
- composition of injection material ?,
- quality of compaction hard to ensure,
- long-term safety and functionality?
Opportunities - flexible approach,
- potential for using different materials in different areas.
Threats - can the required bentonite density be attained?
- chemical compatibility with other system components.

Figure 5-14. Vertical seal walls and injection densification. (Korkiala-Tanttu and
Ritola 2006)
 45

5.2.5 Aggregate - Based Backfills

Experiences in mines and other openings

Installation of backfill into underground openings is a technology that has been
developed by the mining industry. Literature from this source provides useful insight
into what materials and technologies may be useful in a repository environment and
which are not.

Tunnels and ramps constructed to gain access to regions having suitable geologic
conditions for canister installation will likely pass through regions of lower quality rock.
Based on the compartment concept for repository sealing described previously (Figure
5-1 and Figure 5-3) there may not be the need for very low permeability backfill within
such regions of low quality rock. In such regions installation of aggregate-only
materials may prove to be as effective as clay-aggregate or other fill materials. In such
regions there is also a greater potential for loss of fine-grained or colloidal clay
materials into the fractures in the surrounding rock as the result of hydraulic and
geochemical processes. Aggregate fill would not be as susceptible to such processes.
There may also be regions where a very low permeability backfill is not what is needed
to prevent subsequent intrusion into the tunnels or to resist glacial action. As a result of
these factors, evaluation of aggregate materials is a topic that has received ongoing
consideration as part of Posiva‟s backfill development program.
Use of aggregate-only or aggregate with some cementitious component has been
evaluated on an ongoing basis since the initiation of backfill development work and was
included in the discussions by Mott et al. (1983). Since that time, options for use of
these materials have been part of the regular evaluation of technology process in
repository development work. With the introduction of the compartment-concept for
deposition tunnels, access routes and other cavities (Autio et al. 2001), a wider range of
aggregate-based backfill materials and options for their placement have been examined.

Aggregate materials are often used in conjunction with cementitious materials in

backfilling of underground openings for mining applications. For the purposes of this
document and in recognition of the potential role of aggregate-based backfilling
materials, cementitious and non-cementitious backfilling materials and technologies are
discussed separately in this report. Materials that do not contain cementitious materials
are discussed in this section while those containing cementitious materials are discussed
in Section 5.3.

Aggregate produced from excavated host rock are perhaps the most mineralogically and
geochemically compatible materials that can be used in a repository, depending on the
location of the source material and the grain size distribution of the materials proposed
for use. Siliceous materials also provide a high degree of durability and stability. These
materials can be placed in tunnels and ramps using a variety of technologies, blowing,
throwing, dumping and depending on the nature of the materials used can be compacted
using a variety of means. The primary limitations to use of these materials are that they:

 are not particularly cohesive (tend to be somewhat difficult to compact in

any geometry other than as horizontal layers or shallow slopes),
 provide no active support to the overlying rock,
 46

 may settle, leaving a gap at the crown of the tunnel,

 provide limited sorption capacity for most contaminants.
 Surface storage of aggregate before re-introduction into the repository
may result in introduction of undesirable materials (contaminants).

As a result of these limitations aggregate-only systems are generally not suitable for
backfill in regions where they would provide a preferential transport pathway for
contaminants or where active roof support is desired. In other regions where these
properties are not critical, aggregate materials may have potential for use.

Installation by In Situ Compaction, Throwing, Blowing and Placing

The installation of aggregate material in the lower regions of tunnels can be achieved
using conventional roller or plate compaction technologies. These materials can be
compacted to reasonably high density and depending on the particle gradation of the
aggregate reasonably low hydraulic conductivities can be achieved (e.g. 10-10 m/s),
(Yong et al. 1986). Materials such as tunnel boring machine cuttings are particularly
attractive if a relatively low hydraulic conductivity is desired. The low hydraulic
conductivity exhibited by these materials is the result of the size, shape and relatively
high fines content of these cuttings. The uppermost portion of the backfilled openings
will still be problematic since it will be difficult to achieve adequate densification.

A properly graded aggregate material can be installed to a high compacted density in the
lower regions of the tunnels, it will be very stiff and have a low potential for self-
settlement, both features that are desirable in a rock fill. As is the case for clay-based
backfilling materials, in situ compaction of aggregate materials in the upper regions of
the tunnels is problematic. It is not likely that aggregate materials can be installed at
adequate density to provide active support (positive pressure at contact), to the
surrounding rock. These materials can be placed dry and thereby avoid water drainage
issues and will permit some water movement through them during operations without
adversely affecting placement operations.

In most mining applications where backfilling is undertaken to provide a means of

raising the floor of working excavations and facilitate ongoing removal of overhead ore,
crushed mine rock and tailings are often used as filler, often with a cementitious
component but not always. Backfill materials are also installed to provide roof support
in areas where the rock is or is at risk of yielding (either creeping or failing). In such
regions the concern with backfilling is not to limit water movement but to provide
passive mechanical support to the surrounding rock. These backfill materials are often
designed so as to allow gravity drainage of water through them to their base where
water can be drained off. In this way the fill will self-consolidate and there will not be a
build-up of hydraulic pressure within the fill. Such hydraulic pressures are potentially
dangerous in underground operations, especially where work is ongoing at levels below
that of the filled regions.

The technologies used to place aggregate in underground locations are much the same
as used for any aggregate placement application, with some minor complications since
working space is limited. In most mines where dry rock fill is used is moved by gravity
from a higher elevation via special chutes, trucking or conveyor belts. In limited space
 47

conditions shotcrete / gunnite placement techniques can be used but they have
limitations regarding the maximum aggregate size, shape and particle size distribution.
Use of throwing or blowing techniques will generally encounter problems with material
segregation during the placement process. This will result in poor placement efficiency
and potentially hydraulically and mechanically heterogeneous backfill. Fine to medium
– grained aggregate materials can be readily deposited using these techniques and are
commonly used in handling of mine tailings and placement of aggregate materials as
backfill in mines. These technologies are described in Section 5.3.2.

Figure 5-15 shows an example of the type of opening into which aggregate fill is
typically installed in mine backfilling applications. It is clear that the size of openings
portrayed in this figure are much larger than would be present in a repository and the
depth of fill placed can reach tens of metres (or more) depending on the ore body. The
fill placed in this type of application is placed for operational purposes to allow ease of
access to the ore bodies and do not serve the same purposes as would be needed in a
repository (roof support to prevent EDZ expansion, limit water/contaminant
transmission).

Beyond placement of aggregate within hydraulically contained regions, there is an

additional aspect of repository closure where use of rock material can play a role. This
is in the upper-most regions of the repository excavations, close to the surface. In these
regions, the host rock is likely to be highly disturbed and installation of highly
impermeably materials would not provide any resistance to water movement in the
vicinity of the openings. In such locations the role of backfill is largely to provide a
physical barrier to repository intrusion, either by man or else to resist removal of
backfilling materials by ice or water action at some time in the distant future.

To provide a barrier to tunnel and repository intrusion, a combination of very large

stone blocks has been proposed for installation in the regions closest to the surface
(Korkiala-Tanttu and Ritola 2008). They would be installed to minimize any voids
within the excavated volume but would not be a particularly effective hydraulic barrier,
water could freely move within the rock-filled volume. These massive rocks would
resist removal by ice or flowing surface water. There would also be no fines component
to erode and water movement in the fill would allow for natural circulation of near-
surface water within this region without providing a particularly preferential vertical
flow path. A tendency for local groundwater to enter the upper portions of the backfilled
excavations would also provide an additional complication should intrusion be
attempted (depending of local groundwater conditions and fracture patterns, openings
would tend to flood as rock was removed). Below the depth of anticipated near-surface
erosive activity, the backfill materials can be changed to those that provide a more
effective hydraulic barrier. This could include regions of massive concrete fill although
given the uncertainties regarding very long-term durability of concrete in glacial melt
water conditions concrete should not be relied on by itself. Ultimately, using a
compartment concept, the backfill at depth would be tailored to be comparable to that of
the surrounding rock.
 48

Supporting bulkhead
allowing water drainage
from aggregate

Figure 5-15. Schematic showing dry filling in mining. (after Chen and Sheppard 2001)

Hydraulic / Slurry Fill

A very popular mining industry technique to install backfill materials into large
openings where support is desired is the installation of hydraulic or slurry fill (Souza
and Degagne 2001). These materials are fluid mixtures of water and fine-grained mine
tailings that are pumped into openings. They have the advantages of being quite quick
to install, quite effective in filling the opening and relatively inexpensive to install. They
are also an excellent means of dealing with some of the fines (potentially chemically
undesirable in the surface environment), generated during mining operations. These
materials often have a cementitious component added to them to provide physical
stability and strength, but not always. They also have problems in the mining
environment of tending to consolidate leaving free-water volume above them, this water
then needs to be drained and more slurry installed. They are also of low strength and
high fluidity and so care must be taken to ensure that they to not fail and flow into
regions where they are not desired. Additionally, they require a considerable
cement/binder content in order to achieve relative stability, and moderate strength.

Paste Backfill
Paste-backfill is used by the mining industry and is installed by pumping mixtures of
water and crushed rock fines (sometimes with a non-swelling clay and a cementitious
component) into openings. This backfill material is not properly clay as it is largely
composed of silt- to sand - sized crushed rock and does not contain the layer silicates
normally associated with clay minerals. Paste materials will be discussed later in this
paper as part of the evaluation of cementitious and aggregate materials. Paste fill is a
material that has been extensively developed over the past 3 decades. Composition is
adjustable to allow for differing performance requirements. It is typically a mixture of
fines (rock), binder (cement) and water that can reach 72-88% solids by weight. It needs
to have between 15 and 40 % of <20-µm fines component in order to make it pumpable.
The hydraulic conductivity has been reported to be adjustable to be as low as 10-9 to 10-
10
m/s, which is of interest in a repository environment. Density can be improved by
addition of larger sized aggregate and ensuring the correct size gradation is defined and
maintained. Stiff paste fill can achieve ~ 2.3 wet density (O‟Hearn 2001) but this is
using high-density mine tailings. The properties described above are for materials that
 49

use a cementitious component to provide the paste with volumetric stability and strength
as well as fluidizing (e.g. organic superplasticizers) agents.

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of this technique for backfilling are as
follows:
Advantages: - Can potentially provide a greater and more predictable strength with
less cement than slurry or hydraulic backfills,
- It could provide a homogeneous high density (low porosity) backfill
but could be pumped into place,
- The nature of this material should mean that no decant water is
generated meaning no alkaline outflow,
- Generally all types of tailings can be used, including fines, meaning
excavation rock could be used.
Disadvantages: - Typically it is a more expensive process than other mine backfilling
options involving cementitious materials (slurry, hydraulic backfill),
- It is a process that requires a high degree of materials preparation and
placement design, process control and qualtity checking required for
other cementitious backfilling materials.
- Materials are not demonstrated as being durable over the longterm
needed for a repository.

In summary, it has yet to be established if this technique is able to reliably function

without cement and/or fluidizing components or if such a material would provide the
type of filling materials needed for a repository. The properties of paste backfill with a
cementitious component are discussed in Section 5.3.2.

5.3 Use of Cementitious Materials in Backfill

5.3.1 Use of Cement and Concrete as Repository Backfill

The obvious operational advantages of installing concrete-type backfilling materials

were recognized during the initial options screening process for repository backfilling.
However they were overshadowed by concerns related to the stability and chemical
compatibility of these materials with the other sealing system components and the
surrounding geosphere. Much of the initial evaluation process and issues identification
associated with cementitious backfilling materials were documented by Mott et al.
(1983) in their review of repository sealing options.

In the initial screening process, concrete was proposed for use as bulk backfill, intended
to provide excavation support and high-integrity plugs and seals. In early materials
evaluations conventional cementitious materials were reviewed and deemed to be strong
but brittle, with low tensile strength and had potential issues related to segregation,
shrinkage, brittleness and thermal cracking. Cement-stabilized backfills such as those
used in mining applications were also considered. The initial apparent advantages
associated with such materials were however offset by the limited capability of concrete
to provide substantial buffering or sorption capacity to the system. Their thermal
properties are dependent on other mix components, porous aggregate fill needed to be
 50

used in order to facilitate cement/grout permeation and their buffering properties would
be determined by the bulk fill material (Mott et al. 1983). It was suggested that mixing
cementitious materials with other components such as zeolites, clays or metals might
result in a better backfill but the interactions between these materials was not known
(Mott et al. 1983).

Another major concern at the time of initial screening of options for backfilling was that
of material longevity and functionality. The longevity of cementitious materials in the
environment was evaluated on the basis of information available at the time of initial
materials screening (~1980). Ordinary and low-heat Portland cements were concluded
to be of low stability in sulphate-rich environments but sulphate resistant Portland
cements were more durable. Based on available archaeological evidence, conventional
Portland cements were estimated to have excellent longevity in low-sulphate
environments, but that there was little archaeological evidence available for concrete in
chemical conditions similar to those anticipated in the repository environment (Mott et
al. 1983).

Based on a review of the state of knowledge at the time of initial repository concept
development Mott et al. (1983) capture the conclusion reached by most programs
evaluating repository backfilling concepts, - that clay-based materials had a greater
potential for successful application in repository backfilling.

“For repositories constructed in hard crystalline rocks, the presence of

natural and induced discontinuities present the greatest threat to
containment. The specific use of a swelling backfill at potential points of
water entry (fissures, joints) could deal with “radial” entries.
Disimprovement in the integrity of the host rock peripheral to the
repository chambers would be more difficult to deal with on the basis of
existing ground treatment capability.” Mott et al. (1983)

From this initial assessment of a wide range of potential backfilling approaches it was
decided to focus the majority of work related to buffer and backfill development on
clay-based materials. A very extensive program of work has been undertaken in order to
qualify materials in terms of their short- and long-term performance as well as the
practicalities of installing them. The result has been the development of a range of
materials and placement options that are intended to provide workable options and
alternatives that can be used in a repository.

Despite the focus of backfilling work on clay-aggregate materials considerable effort

has and continues to be expended on development of cementitious materials for use in
specialized repository applications. Of particular interest has been the development of
specialized materials and designs for tunnel, room, drift and shaft seals and plugs, as
well as grouting and shotcreting materials. These materials are typically low pH, low
shrinkage, high-strength and low-heat of hydration concrete and cementitious
compounds that would have minimal impact on adjacent materials or the regional
groundwater. Much less effort has been spent on bulk backfilling materials based on
cement technology, although as described in Section 5.3.3, a watch has been kept on
development of that type of filler.
 51

5.3.2 Backfills Containing Cementitious Component

Issues related to cement-clay interaction, the impact of hyper alkaline (high pH),
solutions or limited use of cementitious materials have not been conclusively settled
with regards to repository application (a very brief overview of the state of knowledge is
provided in Section 5.3.3). It would appear that for conservative design purposes
extensive use of cementitious materials in backfilling is not likely to be acceptable
based on the current level of knowledge and uncertainty regarding their performance.
However, in order to be kept aware of the advances in the mining industry, Posiva and
other national programs have ongoing watch and assessment processes in place so as to
maximize technology transfer.

The primary issues with the use of mining technologies and practices for backfilling to
stabilize openings and underground disposal of mill tailings and waste rock, are related
to the very different purpose of backfilling. A mine looks to backfilling as a tool to
dispose of unwanted (and chemically reactive) mine tailings and to help maximize ore
recovery. A spent-fuel repository looks to retarding contaminant transport, support
excavations to prevent development of EDZ, isolate hydraulic features, prevent human
intrusion and limit impact of glacial events. Despite these fundamental differences there
are some areas where the experiences of the mining industry can provide guidance. Of
particular interest is development of placement technologies and equipment. Examples
of these watches and assessments can be found in the documents produced for Posiva by
Kukkola (2001).

The mining industry uses four basic approaches to backfilling of large underground
openings. These are:
1. Dry filling using rock, dry mill tailings, sand and gravel,
2. Cemented rock or aggregate fill,
3. Hydraulic fill or slurry fill (using water as transport medium),
4. Paste filling (with optimized psd, high fines content, minimum water content
and non-segregating during handling).
5. Shotcrete/Gunnite filling where concrete materials are blown into place

Aspects of these backfilling approaches as they can be applied to backfilling without the
presence of cementitious materials have been discussed in Section 5.2.5. Most of the
applications for these materials (excepting dry filling) require the utilization of
cementitious materials. For the purposes of completeness the features and limitations of
using cementitious backfill materials are provided below.

Cemented Rock or Aggregate Fill

Cemented rock or aggregate fill is perhaps the simplest application of backfill
installation in the mining industry. It typically involves cemented rock fill and is used
where higher strength backfill is needed. Waste rock from excavation and crushed/
screened fill are used to provide a fill material with a good particle size distribution.
Cement slurry is added to the fill material either prior to placement or else is sprayed
onto the mixture as it is placed. This is typically done on large-scale using heavy
equipment where headroom is not an issue. This material typically contains 3-7%
 52

Portland cement or blast furnace slag (if low water ratio is present). Porosity and
hydraulic conductivity of concrete rock fill is typically quite high as mine drainage is
typically desirable and so this material can also be expected to segregate during
placement. Such techniques will therefore not tend to provide a particularly low
permeability backfill but it will remain in place.

Higher quality applications of this approach are used in the mining industry and
elsewhere when installing pre-compacted aggregate plugs for water control purposes. In
those situations a high permeability, clean aggregate is used and cement paste is
pressure injected into the aggregate to generate a strong, very low permeability plug and
has been considered for potential use in a repository. Similar materials and approaches
have been suggested for general backfilling of tunnels in a repository (Kukkola 2001).
Aggregate would be pre-placed and then injected with low viscosity cementitious
material via pre-installed pipes. Preplaced aggregate and subsequent grouting to install
underground plugs is a technology that has been used by the mining industry as well as
in hydroelectric water control structures to install hydraulic plugs in critical locations
and normally requires considerable post-placement grouting to seal areas that are not
initially plugged. It should also be noted that such plugs for mine applications are also
designed to control water seepage rather than provide a diffusive barrier and so seepage
past / through or around such plugs is normally acceptable, so long as it is not erosive or
excessive. It is unlikely that this would be acceptable in a backfilled repository tunnel.
As with any use of cementitious materials there are potential problems. These include
pH issues with respect to groundwater chemistry, solubility of contaminants, chemical
and mineralogical stability of buffer, shrinkage of cement during curing causing
openings and preferential flow paths to develop. It is also likely that cement will
degrade with time and at a rate that is not clearly established.

It is therefore unlikely that installation of high-quality plug-like backfill will be a

practical solution for large portions of a repository as this approach is typically time
intensive and has a limited length that can be installed and grouted at one time. There
are also issues related to ensuring that the aggregate is fully grouted and pathways for
preferential water movement do not persist. This approach does however have potential
for use in installation of plugs or backfilling or regions where water influx is an issue.

Hydraulic / Slurry Backfill

Hydraulic backfilling uses mill tailings, water and often a binding (cementitious)
component and installed by pumping through pipes. This material will contain a
relatively small (<5 %) cement or ground slag component to provide the binding
component to the slurry materials. Hydraulic backfilling is a very popular method for
mine backfilling as it is easy to place, effective in filling entire void volume and
relatively inexpensive while allowing for underground disposal of waste materials from
mining and processing activities. It also has a number of disadvantages including the
need to drain decant (water left after fines begin to settle), and tends to require a large
cement content in order to be stabilized. The tendency for the material to settle and
dewater, while tolerable in a mining environment where backfilling is an ongoing
process would not be feasible in a repository where small volumes need to be filled in a
timely manner. This fill could also not be relied on to remain volumetrically stable or
 53

provide even passive support to the roof of the tunnels and ramps (resulting from
ongoing self-consolidation).

Paste and Rocky Paste Backfill

In most mine backfills the particle size distribution of backfill is designed to allow water
percolation through backfill, preventing hydraulic pressure build up while providing
enough strength to support operations on its upper surface. Paste backfill is different; it
has a high fines content and low hydraulic conductivity. A high fines content and
careful particle-size gradation minimizes the water used to pump the mixture by pipe to
its installation location. In order to keep it in place a cement content of 2-5% is added to
the paste. As a result of the need to keep the water ratio as low as possible there is a
considerable material and process control aspect to this placement technology.

Rocky Paste Filling (PF) is similar to paste backfill excepting that it includes a much
coarser aggregate component. RPF consists of a well-graded aggregate with lots of
fines, ground rock or clay, binding agent and minimal water. This material has been
reported to be able to reach a density target of 2300 kg/m3, will not segregate and can be
pumped. It should be noted that this density involved use of particles of high specific
gravity and may not be representative of what can be achieved using granitic rock.
There is also the issue of the large quantity of external water introduced in the process
of paste installation.

Figure 5-16. Slinger-type RPF placement equipment and resulting tunnel filling.
(Yanske et al. 2001)
 54

One approach to backfilling of ramps and tunnels would have material installed in two
stages. The first would involve compaction of the RPF material in the lower portions of
the tunnel. Conventional road-type equipment (plate, roller) technology would be used
for placement and the material placed would have a small cementitious content. This
RPF could provide a low deformability and low permeability in the base layer and in the
in-floor emplacement concept (KBS-3V), it would be stiff enough to prevent buffer clay
swelling, even before the upper region was backfilled. The upper portion of the rooms
and tunnels would be filled later using a slinger-belt, shotcreting techniques or pumping
of RPF. Figure 5-16 shows the type of equipment used to throw RPF and an example of
the type of placement that can be accomplished using such a technique. This approach
was recognized as being potentially usable in JAEA‟s H12 report (JNC 2000), shown in
Figure 5-17.

Figure 5-17. Cement Backfill Concept for JAEA. (JNC 2000)

 55

5.3.3. pH – related issues and development of low-pH cements

Discussion in Section 5.3.2 is largely related to the technical aspects of installing and
designing of backfilling materials that contain a cementitious component. In addition to
the technology of placing backfill there needs to be a careful consideration given to the
chemical and geochemical aspects of backfill and its interaction with the surrounding
geosphere and adjacent sealing system components. Of particular concern are those
aspects related to a fundamental feature of almost all cementitious materials, the
generation of high pH. This was a major concern during the initial screening of
materials for potential use in repository backfilling as summarized by Mott et al. (1983)
and continues to be a concern. Although it is recognized that some cementitious
materials would be necessary during excavation and repository operations (IAEA 2003;
OECD 2003), there is a reluctance to consider its extensive use. The primary concerns
are related to its longevity and pH impacts on the repository environment. In order to
better quantify the extent to which these materials can be used most national programs
examining deep geologic disposal have ongoing work on cementitious materials.

The discussion below briefly reviews the key issues, concerns and activities related to
developing a better understanding of the role of pH (alkalinity) on the behaviour of the
repository sealing system. Most of this discussion draws from the recent work of
Alexander and Neall (2007) who provide a detailed discussion on potential sources of
perturbation on a spent fuel repository at the Olkiluoto site. The information provided is
then used to provide guidance as to the likely impacts of using cementitious backfill
materials in substantial areas of Posiva‟s repository.

High pH OPC Materials

The most pressing issue identified in initial screening of potential backfilling materials
was related to their tendency to drive local pH conditions to extremely high levels,
potentially resulting in mineralogical alteration in other sealing system components
(bentonite) and dissolution/precipitation processes in the repository (Mott et al. 1983).
Evaluation and addressing of this issue has been the focus of considerable effort over
the past 25 years. Firstly, the chemical, geochemical and mineralogical effects of
cementitious materials on other repository materials have been examined and a measure
of the rates at which negative processes would progress has been investigated. The
second activity associated with cementitious materials has been development and
evaluation of cementitious materials other than conventional, ordinary Portland cement
(OPC), usually for specialized applications within the repository (e.g. tunnel or shaft
bulkheads, shotcrete, grout). These alternative cementitious materials need to be less
chemically aggressive (lower alkalinity or lower pH), and yet provide the hydraulic and
mechanical characteristics desired of a sealing system component.

Of particular concern regarding the ability of cementitious materials to provide the long-
term sealing function deemed necessary in a backfill there are ongoing issues related to
cement-generated high pH conditions in the surrounding groundwater and the resultant
degradation of the clay-based buffer. It is not uncommon for long-term pH conditions in
excess of 11 to be generated as the result of cement curing. This is not in equilibrium
with the surrounding geosphere or nearby buffer materials where pH in the order of 7 to
9 (depending on local groundwater conditions and rock-type), is likely to exist. High pH
 56

conditions are known to substantially alter the solubility state of adjacent materials (e.g.
quartz, clay, metals, contaminants) and can result in loss of many of the properties
deemed attractive in other sealing system components. There is an abundance of
literature that discusses the potential impact of alkaline solutions on bentonite behaviour
(e.g. Ahokas et al. 2006; Lehikoinen, 2004; Vuorinen et al., 2006; Karnland et al., 2006;
Karnland, 2004 and Nakayama et al. 2004). Beyond the impact of alkaline leachate on
buffer and backfill materials, there are also concerns that such pH conditions could alter
the corrosion characteristics of the canister holding the spent reactor fuel (Alexander
and Neall 2007).

Alexander and Neall (2007) do an excellent job of highlighting the lack of consensus
regarding the processes and comparability of tests done in batch and flow-through cell
experiments and dense clay materials such as would exist in a repository. They identify
the shortage of tests of alkali-clay interactions conducted under realistic density and
groundwater conditions, something that is needed in order to have confidence in the
results of models predicting system evolution.

Alexander and Neall (2007) also provide a brief summary of the state of knowledge
related to potential perturbation effects of OPC alkaline leachates from grout materials
on the Olkiluoto repository. In this assessment it was assumed that OPC generates an
initial pH in the order of 13.4 that decreases to 12.5. If leachates are pushed from the
cement due to flow of groundwater through them, then high pH conditions may result in
a hyper alkaline plume. If subsequent mass transport of the leachate through adjacent
buffer or backfill material is governed by diffusive processes, only a few decimetres of
alteration would occur and that the tunnel backfill (clay-based) would have considerable
buffering capacity for pH (ability to consume OH-). They conclude that given the
distance between the tunnels and the emplacement drifts in the KBS-3H geometry as
well as the mass of HCB that is adjacent to the canisters, it is unlikely that grouting
could result in a substantial alteration of the buffer. This same conclusion was reached
by modelling the effects of low pH shotcrete and grout material located on the walls of
an emplacement room backfilled using a bentonite-aggregate mixture (Luna et al.
2006). In these simulations pH in the backfill never exceeded 10 and only a small (<1%)
decrease in porosity due to precipitation of calcite was predicted. It should be noted that
these analyses did not consider the widespread use of cementitious backfill.

It was also noted by Alexander and Neall (2007) that: “…hyper alkaline
leachate/bentonite interaction is a young science and “cutting edge” geochemistry so
models and certainty in assessments could not be expected until the work became more
mature.” Based on this state of knowledge, it is difficult to put reliance on widespread
use high- alkalinity OPC-based sealing materials (e.g. as backfill).

Low alkalinity (low pH) cementitious materials

Alexander and Neall (2007) provide a very complete summary of the status of
development of low alkalinity cementitious materials and the state of knowledge with
regards to their durability and potential issues associated with their use in a repository
environment. For the sake of simplicity a number of paragraphs that clearly and
concisely describe the state of understanding related to these materials have been
extracted directly from Alexander and Neall (2007). For ease of reader reference, the
 57

sources cited by Alexander and Neall (2007) and reproduced in paragraphs taken
directly from that source are provided in the reference section of this paper. In several
cases the references cited in Alexander and Neall (2007) were not available to this
author and are provided for reference purposes only.

“Low pH porewater cement can be produced in a range of ways such as using a low
alkali source rock (e.g. Schäfer and Meng, 2001) or reducing the amount of cement
clinker used (e.g. Grey and Shenton, 1998) or using >50% blast-furnace slag in the
cement (e.g. Smolczyk, 1974) and it is even possible to produce cements with acidic pH
levels (e.g. Bohner et al., 1997). Although much of the cement grout used by the
Romans over two millennia ago was effectively low alkali cement (see, for example, the
discussions in McKinley and Alexander, 1992; Miller et al., 2000), little interest was
shown in the development of modern low alkali cements in the radwaste industry until
about two decades ago when AECL began further developing existing cements for use
as high performance plugs, seals and grouts.”

The use of low alkali cement grouts was initially contemplated due to better handling
and fracture penetration properties (e.g. Mukherjee, 1982) and lower heat generation
(e.g. Gray and Shenton, 1998). While these properties remain of interest, much work is
currently focused on the greater chemical compatibility (or, more precisely, less serious
incompatibility) with bentonite (e.g. JAEA 2007) and the repository host rocks (e.g.
Nakayama et al. 2006). However, areas where some doubt remains as to the relevance
of low alkali cement are long-term durability (e.g. Philipose et al., 1991) and organic
content (e.g. Kronlöf, 2004).

It is important to note that Posiva, or any other implementer worldwide has a designated
low alkali cement and has been heavily involved (unilaterally, in collaboration with
SKB and NUMO and, more recently, the EU) in testing a wide variety of „recipes‟ to
find the most appropriate range of characteristics, including a leachate with pH less than
11. …Vuorinen et al. (2005), Bodén and Sievänen (2006), Sievänen et al. (2005, 2007)
and Arenius et al. (2008). All of these studies show that, despite initial leachates of up
to pH 13, the leachates of most formulations tested to date in Posiva‟s programme,
rapidly drop to around pH 11 or less. Those that do not do so, have been dropped from
the development programme. To date, there are little data available on the likely
behaviour of the low-alkali cements in saline waters, but Vuorinen et al. (2005) noted
that leaching of low-alkali grouts with saline water generated leachates with lower pH
(by 0.5 to 1 units) than when the same grout was leached by fresh water.”

Alexander and Neall (2007) reported that Posiva currently plans to use MX-80 bentonite
at Olkiluoto, where the natural local groundwater-clay system would be approximately
pH 8 (Bradbury and Baeyens, 2002). This is a much lower pH state than would be
generated by low alkali cement or silica sol grouts (pH of 11 or less) and so a
considerable alkalinity differential will exist. Oscarson et al. (1997) noted that even at
this level of pH differential between the components that the potential still exists for
clay minerals to alter over long periods of time if in contact with low pH concrete.
 58

Effect of organic additives in low alkali cement

In any low alkali cement there is typically several weight percent of organic additives
present to provide improved handling characteristics (fluidity, compressive strength etc)
of the cement (Kronlöf, 2004). These additives are commonly complex compounds that
may contain a wide variety of recorded and unrecorded components (Bodén and
Sievänen 2006). It has also been suggested that the release and degradation of these
compounds is poorly understood and that they may actually increase the solubility and
mobility of certain radionuclides (Baston et al. 1992; Serne et al. 2002; Hakanen and
Ervanne 2006).

A further potential issue is the presence of organic additives introduced in low alkalinity
cementitious materials to improve their fluidity during placement. These materials
might affect the canister‟s copper overpack, increasing degradation by influencing
copper (Hakanen and Ervanne 2006).

Posiva is involved in ongoing studies of low-alkali cement but is also examining other
options such as silica sol (colloidal silica) (Bodén & Sievänen, 2006; Ahokas et al.
2006) particularly as a potential grout material. Silica sol grouts typically contain 20 –
50% silica, 1.5 - 10% salt (NaCl or CaCl2) and the remainder water, with a leachate pH
of approximately 10.

Summary
The information provided by Alexander and Neall (2007) and others shows that even
with the considerable advances in understanding and development of specialized low
pH cementitious materials whose express purpose is repository use, there is still
uncertainty regarding their long-term behaviour. In particular OPC-based grouts (or
other similarly formulated cementitious materials) are likely to induce a hyper alkaline
plume (from leaching of the cement). Use of low alkali materials would mitigate the
magnitude of this phenomenon but the long-term behaviour of these materials is not
established.

The estimated volume of the basic access tunnels, shafts and ramps in Posiva‟s SFR is
in the order 365 000 m3 (Alexander and Neall 2007). Additional volumes excavated for
emplacement tunnels and drifts brings the total to 1 311 000 m3 in the KBS-3V
geometry (Saanio et al. 2007). This volume excludes the boreholes that would be filled
by the canisters and buffer materials. The exact volumes necessary for the KBS-3H
concept are not clearly established and are expected to be less than those required for
the 3V geometry. Despite this, the excavations needed in 3H are substantial (in the order
of 1 000 000 m3). Based on a very simple calculation that a cementitious backfill would
be used to fill all the tunnels, shafts and ramps and that the backfill contains an average
of 5% OPC (not necessarily a conservative assumption), placed at a density of 2.0
Mg/m3 the resulting cement usage would be in the order of 36 500 Mg (for 365 000 m3)
to 131 000 Mg (for 1 311 000 m3). These masses do not include the approximately 3
000 Mg of cementitious materials anticipated to be used in grouting and shotcrete
(Alexander and Neall 2007). Estimates provided by Hansen (2004) and Vieno (2004)
put the quantity of cement remaining in a repository (not backfilled by cementitious
materials), after closure is in the range of 10 000 to 23 000 Mg.
 59

Given the well-documented concerns and uncertainties related to widespread use of

cementitious materials for shotcrete and grout, particularly with respect to the effect of
high-pH materials such as conventional cement on bentonite (Alexander and Neall
2007), it is not likely that a 5 to 15 fold increase in the quantity of cementitious material
present in the repository will be acceptable. Use of low-ph alternatives to OPC will
certainly result in less disruptive conditions in a repository but will still generate large
volumes of material that are of (discernibly) higher pH (~10) than the natural
groundwater or clay-aggregate backfill (~8-9) and so their unrestricted use is not likely
to be desirable.

It would therefore seem most prudent to continue to focus backfill development on clay-
based materials with concrete, shotcrete and grout development focusing on specialized
applications of more limited volume. Application of cementitious materials should
focus on engineering construction requirements, to control water inflow, rock
stabilization and ultimately construction of concrete seals and bulkheads as part of a
composite sealing system approach.

5.4 Backfilling of Shafts

Backfilling of shafts will involve many of the same materials that are used in filling of
drifts and ramps, with the exception that there will not be overhead space constraints to
the type of equipment that can be used. Most concepts for shaft backfilling include
recognition that there will be a variety of materials used to achieve effective sealing of
these vertical features. Figure 5-18 shows the type of shaft backfill that is proposed by
Nagra for closing a facility built in Opalinus clay and shows the installation of concrete,
aggregate and bentonite – based components (Nold 2006). Similar multicomponent
geometries were tested by Canada for use in sealing and plugging in a granitic
repository are shown in Figure 5-20. (AECL 1994). A full-scale tunnel (shaft) plug was
built and tested where an artificially high permeability region was present between two
plugs (Chandler et al. 2002; Martino et al. 2006). Although designed to evaluate two
separate components of a composite tunnel plug, the TSX can also be considered as a
situation where a compartment section (or if rotated 90 degrees, a shaft), intersects a
high permeability region (pressurized and heated section between plugs). The
effectiveness of the TSX concrete and and clay bulkhead demonstrated how a high
permeability geologic feature could be hydraulically isolated from the repository
excavations.

All of these concepts for shaft sealing are essentially the same as the compartment
concept described by Autio et al. (2002; 2005) excepting that they are vertical rather
than horizontal in orientation. The shaft backfill (and plugs) would be designed to suit
the rock conditions encountered. Additionally, the shaft regions could likely tolerate a
higher degree of cementitious materials, as they are further away from the canisters and
less likely to interact geochemically with them. There will still be the issue of the
longevity of the cementitious materials and their durability once the more oxygenated
and fresher-water regions closer to the surface are reached. These are all topics that will
require consideration as development of shaft sealing approaches and materials options
are evaluated.
 60

Figure 5-18. Nagra shaft sealing concept. (Nold 2006)

Figure 5-19. AECL Tunnel Seal (Shaft Plug) Experiment. (Chandler et al. 2002a,b;
Martino et al. 2006)
 61

6 SUMMARY

A brief review of backfilling materials and installation options for a spent fuel
repository has been provided. A wide range of materials and combinations of materials
have been proposed for use and they have been briefly reviewed and discussed with
reference to their potential suitability for use in a repository.

Clay-based materials have been the focus of most of the backfill development since the
start of developing repository concepts in the late 1970‟s. These materials were not
selected without an extensive review of materials options and the potential for practical
implementation in a repository. Work over a 30+ year period has led to the development
of a number of workable clay-based backfilling options, although discussion persists as
to the most suitable materials and placement technologies to use. There are also certain
interactions between clay-based materials and other engineered barriers system
components that may be detrimental to system performance but these are mainly
associated with processes occurring closer to the canister (in buffer barrier). These
issues are the subject of ongoing study and assessment and are not discussed in this
document.

Cementitious materials were included in the list of candidate materials initially screened
in the early 1980‟s for use in backfilling of repository opening. These materials were
recognized to have a potential advantage with respect to the relative ease of their
placement and initial development of a stiff and strong barrier material. However
conventional cement-based materials were quickly identified as having some serious
technical limitations with respect their ability to fulfil the identified requirements of
backfill. Of greatest concern was, and still is, the pH generated by cementitious
materials during their curing and the impact of large volumes of alkaline groundwater
on the repository. The elevation of the pH (high alkalinity groundwater) within large
volumes of the repository is a very undesirable condition and puts the effectiveness of
other engineered barriers at risk.

It was recognized during concept development that some cementitious materials will be
used and will be useful in the repository, either as part of construction activities,
groundwater control (grouting, shotcreting) or as part of composite seals installed in
critical locations within the repository. In order to minimize the adverse affect of
cementitious materials within the repository, considerable work has been and continues
to be done on developing of low pH (alkalinity) cementitious and pozzolan materials
that can provide the positive properties of strong, stiff materials without the negative
aspects of conventional concretes and cements.

Table 6-1 presents a brief summary of the ability of various materials considered as
backfill in the repository to meet the basic performance requirements set out by Posiva
(Posiva 2006). It should be noted that the properties requirements described in Table 6-
1 do not specifically address any particular backfilling or repository concept (e.g.
compartment versus uniform backfilling) but examine the general suitability of various
materials for use in backfilling.
 62

Table 6-1. Backfill Requirements, Goals and Suitability of Selected Options*

Backfill Requirement (based on Posiva (2006)) Cemented Cemented HCB Insitu Block Aggregate
Paste Rocky Pellet Compacted & Pellet Backfill
Backfill Paste Backfill Backfill Backfill
Fill
Restrict advective transport in tunnels ?1 ?1 √ √ √ No 1
-10 6 6 6
Low hydraulic conductivity (≤10 m/s) No No √ √ √
Stiffness to resist buffer swelling
KBS-3V √ √? No √ √? √?
KBS-3H NA NA NA NA2 NA 2 NA2
Ability to isolate hydraulic features √? √? √ √ √ √1
Chemical compatibility with geosphere No ? No ? √ √ √ √
Chemical compatibility with other EBS materials No ? No ? √ √ √ √
Long-term stability 3 No ? No ? √ √ √ √
62

Ability to retard contaminant transport No 4 No 4 √ √ √ No 4

Support excavations to prevent development of EDZ √?5 √?5 √ √ √ No ? 5
Ability to maintain positive pressure at rock backfill boundary No No √6 √?6 √6 No 5
Limit impact of glacial events ? ? ? ? ? ?
NA: Not applicable, emplacement geometry results in this property being irrelevant.
* Note: These options are only some of those discussed or proposed for use but are amongst the more notable suggestions. There are sub-varieties of each of
these options and many are discussed in this document.
1
This is accomplished by very low permeability bulkheads constructed in conjunction with backfilling.
2
This concept does not have HCB in contact with backfill material, drift plugs separate the components.
3
Concerns persist regarding very-long-term stability of cementitious materials. Swelling clays are generally accepted as maintaining most of their
mineralogical integrity over the life of a repository (within limits of having an initially suitable groundwater regime).
4
These materials will provide some retardation of contaminant movement under diffusive flow as they have very high porosity and as a result contaminant
concentration will be diluted, resulting in lower chemical diffusion gradients. Crushed granite also provides some minimal sorption to selected contaminants.
5
Materials may tend to self-consolidate, resulting in loss of contact with crown of excavation
6
Properties are sensitive to groundwater salinity and density variations, high salinity results in increased hydraulic conductivity and lower swelling pressure.
 63

The compartment approach (Autio et al. 2001; Gunnarsson et al. 2004) requires a more
flexible approach to be taken regarding identifying where some of the performance
requirements provided in Table 6-1 are necessary. In the compartment approach the
backfill is tailored to the local geologic and hydrogeologic conditions so that it matches
it surroundings. In a region of higher conductivity in the surrounding rock mass,
installing a very low permeability backfill would not likely achieve a discernible
advantage with respect to contaminant transport. As a result, it is more important to
concentrate on disconnecting that section of tunnel from adjacent regions of better
quality.

Careful review of backfilling options related to extensive use of cementitious materials

in a manner similar to that used in the mining industry does not result in the conclusion
that use of such materials would provide any discernible improvement in the
effectiveness of backfill in isolating the canisters. Indeed the assessment provided in
Table 6-1 shows that such materials meet very few of the requirements defined as
necessary in a backfilling material (Posiva 2000; 2006; Tanskanen 2007). This is not
surprising given that, in general, the mining industry has a very different set of
expectations and goals regarding the installation of backfill and the timeframe for
maintaining its mechanical and hydraulic characteristics.

It should be noted that the mining industry has been actively developing equipment for
installation of backfill that could be useful in the transportation and placement of
backfilling materials, particularly aggregate materials for installation in regions where
the quality of the surrounding rock is lower and a compartment concept is adopted.
Similarly, considerable development is ongoing on development of low alkalinity grouts
and cements (for use in shotcrete) and they have considerable importance in both
mining and repository applications.

Work on development of backfill has resulted in the identification of several potentially

workable materials and placement options. They are associated with clay and
aggregate-based materials and should be able to be installed in a manner capable of
achieving the performance requirements of the backfilling system. There are still issues
that need to be addressed with regards to the best methods to install backfill and what
backfill materials are most appropriate for use. Ongoing research and demonstration of
materials and concepts are needed in order to optimize the backfilling and sealing
system. This is being accomplished through ongoing work by Posiva as well as in joint
research activities with SKB and other organizations.
64
 65

REFERENCES

AECL. 1994. Environmental impact statement of the concept for disposal of Canada‟s
nuclear fuel waste, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, AECL-10711, COG-93-
1, Chalk River.

Ahokas H, Hellä P. 2006. Control of water inflow and use of cement in ONKALO after
penetration of fracture zone R19. Posiva Oy Working Report 2006-45, Olkiluoto.

Alexander W M, and Neall F B. 2007. Assessment of potential perturbations to

Posiva‟s SF repository at Olkiluoto from the ONKALO facility. Posiva Oy Working
Report 2007-35, Olkiluoto.

Arcos D and Duro L. 2006. Effects of grouting, shotcreting and concrete leachates on
backfill geochemistry. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company, SKB
Technical Report, SKB-R-06-107, Stockholm.

Autio J, Riekkola R, Salo J-P and Viena T. 2001. Alternative backfilling concepts for a
spent fuel repository at Olkiluoto, Posva/SKB Workshop on backfill requirements in a
KBS-type repository, Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory, 2001 August 27-28

Autio J, Hautojärvi A, Salo J-P and Vieno T. 2002. Backfilling concepts for a spent
fuel repository at Olkiluoto. 6th Intl. Workshop on Design and Construction of Final
Repositories: Backfilling in Radioactive Waste Disposal. ONDRAF/NIRAS Brussels,
11-13 March 2002. Session II, paper 3.

Autio J. 2007. KBS-3H Design Description 2005. Posiva Oy Working Report 2007-11,
Olkiluoto.

Baston G M N, Berry J A, Bond K A, Brownsword M and Linklater C M. 1992. Effects

of organic degradation products on the sorption of actinides, Radiochim Acta 58/59,
349-356.

Baumgartner P. and Snider G R. 2002. Seal Evaluation and Assessment Study (SEAS):
Light backfill placement trials. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Technical Record,
TR-793. Chalk River.

Bodén A and Sievänen U. (eds) 2006. Low pH injection grout for deep repositories.
Summary report from a co-operation project between NUMO, Posiva and SKB. Posiva
Oy, Working Report 2005-24, Olkiluoto.

Bohner M, van Landuyt P, Merkle H P and Lemaitre J. 1997. Composition effects on

the pH of a hydraulic calcium phosphate cement. J. Mat. Sci.: Mat. in medicine 8, 675-
681.

Börgesson L, Gunnarsson D, Johannesson L-E and Sandén T. 2002. Prototype

Repository. Installation of buffer, canisters, backfill and instruments in Section 1.
 66

Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB), SKB IPR-02-23,
Stockholm

Bradbury H. and Baeyens B. 2002. Porewater chemistry in compacted, re-saturated

MX-80 bentonite: physico-chemical characterisation and geochemical modelling. PSI
Report 02-10, PSI, Villigen, Switzerland.

Chandler N, Martino J and Dixon D. 2002a. The Tunnel Sealing Experiment, 6th
International workshop on design and construction of final repositories “Backfilling of
Radioactive Waste Disposal. ONDRAF/NIRAS – Brussels, 11-13 March 2002.
Transactions, Session IV, Paper 11.

Chandler N, Cournut A, Dixon D, Fairhurst C, Hansen F, Gray M, Hara K, Ishijima Y,

Kozak E, Martino J, Masumoto K, McCrank G, Sugita Y, Thompson P, Tillerson J, and
Vignal B. 2002b. The five year report on the Tunnel Sealing Experiment: An
international project of AECL, JNC, ANDRA and WIPP. Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited, Report AECL-12127, Chalk River.

Chen J and Sheppard I. 2001. Development of underground mining methods with

backfill for narrow orebodies at the Isa lead mine, Mount Isa mines ltd, Queensland,
Austrialia. D. Stone ed., Minefill 2001 7th Intl. Symp. On Mining With Backfill, Soc,
for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc. (SME), pp 369-377. ISBN 0-87335-211-
4.

Dixon D A. 2000. Porewater salinity and the development of swelling pressure in

bentonite-based buffer and backfill materials, POSIVA Report 2000-04, Olkiluoto,
Finland.

Dixon D A, Chandler N A and Thompson P M. 2001. The selection of sealing system

components in AECL‟s 1994 Environmental Impact Statement. Ontario Power
Generation, Technical Report, REP-01200-10074-R00, Toronto.

Dixon D A, Chandler N A, Graham J and Gray M N. 2002. Two large-scale sealing

tests conducted at Atomic Energy of Canada‟s Underground Research Laboratory: The
Buffer/Container Experiment and the Isothermal Test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
39(3) pp. 503-518, June 2002.

Gascoyne, M., Davison, C.C., Ross, J.D. and Pearson, R. 1987. Saline groundwaters
and brines in plutons in the Canadian Shield, in Saline water and gases in crystalline
rocks, editors Fritz, P. and Frape, S.K., Geol. Assoc. of Canada Special Paper 33, pp.
53-68.

Gray M N. 1993. OECD/NEA International Stripa Project overview volume III:

Engineered Barriers. SKB, Stockholm, Sweden.

Gray M N and Shenton B S. 1998. For better concrete, take out some of the cement. In
Proceedings of the 6th ACI/CANMET symposium on the durability of concrete,
 67

Bangkok, Thailand, 31st May – 5th June, 1998, CANMET Technical Report,
CANMET, Ottawa, Canada.

Gunnarsson, D, Johannesson L-E, Sandén T and Börgesson L. 1996. Äspö Hard Rock
Laboratory: Field test of tunnel backfilling. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste
Management Company (SKB), SKB HRL-96-28, Stockholm.

Gunnarsson, D, Börgesson L, Hökmark H, Johannesson L-E and Sandén T. 2001.

Report on the installation of the Backfill and Plug Test, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and
Waste Management Company (SKB), SKB IPR-01-17, Stockholm.

Gunnarsson D, Johannesson L-E and Börgesson L. 2001. Backfilling of the tunnel in

the Prototype Repository. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company,
SKB IPR-01-11, Stockholm.

Gunnarsson D and Börgesson L. 2004. Study on bentonite pellets. Summary of

techniques for production and use of bentonite pellets for nuclear waste isolation.
Engineering studies relating to the project for an underground repository for high-level,
long-lived radioactive waste. ANDRA Technical Report C.RP.ISKB.04.0001.

Gunnarsson D, Borgesson L, Keto P, Tolppanen P and Hansen J. 2004. Backfilling and

closure of the deep repository: Assessment of backfill concepts. Posiva Oy Working
Report 2003-77, Olkiluoto.

Gunnarsson D, Moren L, Selin P and Keto P. 2006. Deep repository – engineered

barrier systems: Assessment of backfill materials and methods for deposition tunnels,
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company, SKB Technical Report, SKB-
R-06-71, Stockholm.

Hakanen, M. and Ervanne, H. (2006). The influence of organic cement additives on

radionuclide mobility: A Literature Survey. Posiva Oy, Working Report 2006-06,
Olkiluoto.

Hansen J. 2004. Planned use of cement in ONKALO, in a KBS-3V type and KBS-3H
type repository in crystalline rock. in Metcalfe, R. and Walker, C. (eds), (2004).
Proceedings of a the International Workshop on Bentonite-Cement Interaction in
Repository Environments, 14-16 April 2004, Tokyo, Japan. (NUMO-TR-04-05), also as
Posiva Oy Working Report 2004-25, Olkiluoto.

Hämäläinen, J. Gustafsson, J., Hellstén, P. & Nystén, T. 2005. Sodium chloride and the
permeability of mineral barriers used to protect ground water from highway runoff (in
Finnish). The Finnish Environment 775. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE),
Helsinki. 77 pages. ISN 1238-7312, ISBN 952-11-2012-6.

Pastina, B. & Hellä, P. 2006 (editors). Expected evolution of a Spent Nuclear Fuel
Repository at Olkiluoto. Posiva Oy Report, POSIVA 2006-05. Olkiluto.
 68

IAEA. 2003. Scientific and technical basis for the geological disposal of radioactive
wastes. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Technical Report Series, TRS-
413.

JAEA. 2007. The Second Progress Report (TRU-2) on the R&D for TRU (ILW) waste
disposal in Japan. JAEA Report. JAEA, Tokai, Japan (in press).

JNC. 2000. H12: Second progress report on R&D for the geological disposal of HLW
in Japan. H12: Project to establish the scientific and technical basis for HLW disposal in
Japan; Supporting Report 2: Repository Design and Engineering Technology. JNC
TN1410 2000-003, JAEA, Tokai, Japan.

Karnland, O. 2004. in Metcalfe, R. and Walker, C. (eds), (2004). Proceedings of a the

International Workshop on Bentonite-Cement Interaction in Repository Environments,
14-16 April 2004, Tokyo, Japan (NUMO-TR-04-05), also Posiva Oy, Working Report
2004-25, Olkiluoto.

Karnland, O., Nilsson, U., Olsson, S. & Sellin, P. 2006. Experimental sealing properties
of commercial bentonites related to bentonite mineralogy and water solution
composition. International meeting, March 14-18.2005, Tours. Clays in Natural &
Engineered Barriers for Radioactive Waste confinement. ANDRA. Abstracts, O/14B/4
pages 229-230.

KBS-1. 1977. Handling of spent nuclear fuel and final storage of vitrified high-level
reprocessing waste, KBS Final Report, Volume I-IV, Stockholm.

KBS-2. 1978. Handling and final storage of unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel, KBS
Final Report Volume I and II, Stockholm.

KBS-3. 1983. Final storage of spent nuclear fuel, KBS-3, Volumes 1 to 4. SKB
(Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB), Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management
Company Report, Stockholm.

Keto, P. 2003. Natural clays as backfilling materials in different backfilling concepts.

Posiva Oy Working Report 2003-79, Olkiluoto.

Keto, P. 2006. Backfilling of Deposition Tunnels. In situ alternative. Posiva Oy,

Working report 2006-90, Olkiluoto.

Keto P, Kuula-Väisänen P, Ruuskanen J, 2006. Effect of material parameters on the

compactibility of backfill materials. Posiva Oy Working Report 2006-24, Olkiluoto.

Keto P and Rönnqvist P E. 2006. Backfilling of Deposition Tunnels, Block

Alternative. Posiva Oy Working Report 2006-89, Olkiluoto.

Keto, P., Jonsson, E., Dixon, D., Börgesson, L., Hansen, J. & Gunnarsson, D. 2009.
Assessment of Backfill Design for KBS-3V Repository. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and
Waste Management Company (SKB), Stockholm. In print.
 69

Kjartanson B, Dixon D A and Baumgartner P. 2003. Concepts and technologies for

backfilling a nuclear fuel waste repository, Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste
Management Division Report, REP-01200-10103, Toronto.

Korkiala-Tanttu L and Ritola J. 2006. Compaction methods of the tunnel backfill

material, Research Report VTT-R-03124-06. (Provided in Appendix A)

Korkiala-Tanttu L., Keto P., Kuula-Väisänen P., Vuorimies N. and Adam D. 2007.
Packfill - development of in situ compaction. Test report field tests November
2005.Posiva working report 2007-75.

Korkiala-Tanttu L. and Ritola J. 2008 BACLO phase 3, subproject 4: Backfilling

principles for area outside deposition tunnels. Posiva working report 2008- xx,
Olkiluoto. In progress

Kronlöf A. 2004. Injection grout for deep repositories – Low-pH cementitious grout for
larger fractures: Testing technical performance of materials. Posiva Oy Working Report
2004-45, Olkiluoto.

Kukkola T. 2001. A new method for tunnel backfilling, Posiva/SKB Workshop on

Backfilling Requirements in a KBS-type Repository, Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory, 2001
August 27-28.

Lehikoinen, J. 2004. Cement-bentonite interaction issues, buffering capacity of

bentonite. In Metcalfe, R. and Walker, C. (2004) (eds). Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Bentonite-Cement Interaction in Repository Environments, 14-16 April
2004, Tokyo, Japan. (NUMO-TR-04-05), Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, Working Report 2004-
25.

Luna M, Arcos D and Duro L. 2006. Effects of grouting, shotcreting and concrete
leachates on backfill geochemistry, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management
Company, SKB Technical Report, SKB-R-06-107, Stockholm.

Maak P and Simmons G R. 2005. Deep geologic repository concepts for isolation of
used fuel in Canada, Canadian Nuclear Society, Waste Management, Decommissioning
and Environmental Restoration for Canada‟s Nuclear Activities: Current Practices and
Future Needs, Ottawa May 8-11 2005.

Mayor J-C, García-Siñeriz J-L, Alonso E, Alheid H-J, Blümbling P. 2005. Engineered
barrier emplacement experiment in Opalinus Clay for the disposal of radioactive waste
in underground repositories, enresa, publicación técnica 02/2005, Madrid.

Martino J B and Dixon D A. 2006. Placement and formulation studies on potential

light backfill and gap fill materials for use in repository sealing. Ontario Power
Generation, Supporting Technical Report, REP-01300-10011. Toronto.
 70

Martino J B, Dixon D A, Vignal B and Fujita T. 2006. A full-scale tunnel sealing

demonstration using concrete and clay bulkheads exposed to elevated temperatures and
pressures. Waste Management 06 Conference, 26 Feb – 02 Mar 2006. Tucson.

McKinley I G and Alexander W R. 1992. A review of the use of natural analogues to

test performance assessment models of a cementitious near field. Waste Management
12, 253-259.

Miller W M, Alexander W R, Chapman N A, McKinley I G and Smellie J A T. 2000.

Geological disposal of radioactive wastes and natural analogues. Waste management
series, vol. 2, Pergamon, Amsterdam, The Netherlands..

Mott, Hay and Anderson. 1983. The backfilling and sealing of radioactive waste
repositories, Report to the Commission of the European Communities, MHA-249,
Brussels, ISBN 92-825-4826-0.

Mukherjee P K. 1982. A preliminary report on the use of cementitious grouts for

repository sealing. AECL Report TR-192, AECL, Chalk River, Canada.

Nakayama S, Sakamoto Y, Yamaguchi T, Akai M, Tanaka T, Sato T and Iida Y. 2004.

Dissolution of montmorillonite in compacted bentonite by highly alkaline aqueous
solutions and diffusivity of hydroxide ions. Applied Clay Sci. 27, 53-65.

Nakayama M, Iriya K. et al. 2006. Development of low alkaline cement considering

pozzolanic reaction for support system in HLW repository construction. Scientific Basis
for Nuclear Waste Management. XXIX, 159-166.

Nold A L. 2006. The Swiss concept for disposal of spent fuel and vitrified high-level
waste: Example of a buffer system consisting of compacted bentonite blocks and
granular bentonite pellets, ESDRED Deep Geological Disposal of HLW, Lecture 10,
Swiss Concept, Bucharest.

OECD/NEA. 2003. Engineered barrier systems and the safety of deep geological
repositories: State-of-the-art Report. NEA-OECD 3615, ISBN 92-64-18498-8.

Oscarson D W, Dixon D A and Onofrei M. 1997. Aspects of clay/concrete interactions.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, AECL-11715/COG-96-562-I, AECL, Chalk
River, Canada.

Philipose K E, Feldman R F and Beaudoin J J. 1991. Durability predictions from rate of

diffusion testing of normal Portland Cement, fly ash and slag concrete. Atomic Energy
of Canada Limited Report, AECL-10489, Chalk River, Canada.

Posiva. 1999. The final disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel: Environmental impact
assessment report, Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, 232 p.

Posiva. 2000. Disposal of spent fuel in Olkiluoto bedrock. Programme for research
development and technical design for the pre-construction phase. Posiva Oy Working
Report 2000-14, Olkiluoto.
 71

Posiva. 2003. Nuclear Waste Management of the Olkiluoto and Loviisa Power Plants:
Programme for Research, Development and Technical Design for 2004-2006. Posiva
Oy, Olkiluoto. TKS-2003.

Posiva. 2006. Nuclear Waste Management of the Olkiluoto and Loviisa Power Plants:
Programme for Research, Development and Technical Design for 2007-2009. Posiva
Oy, Olkiluoto. TKS-2006.

Pusch R. 1998. Backfilling with mixtures of bentonite/ballast materials or natural

smectitic clay? Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company, SKB
Technical Report TR-98-16. Stockholm.

Pusch R and Gunnarsson D. 2001. Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory, Field compaction test
of Friedland clay at Äspö HRL. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management
Company, SKB IPR 01-26, Stockholm.

Russell S B and Simmons G R. 2003. Engineered barrier system for a deep geologic
repository in Canada. Radwaste Solutions, A Publication of the ANS, Vol. 11, No. 1, p.
7-14.

Saanio T, Kirkkomäki T, Keto P, Kukkola T and Raiko H. 2007. Preliminary Design

of the Repository: Stage 2. Posiva Oy Working Report 2006-94, Olkiluoto.

Schäfer E and Meng B. 2001. Einfluss von Zement und Zusatzstoffen auf das
Alkaliangebot für eine Alkali-Kieselsäure-Reaktion. In: beton 51 (2001), H. 10, S. 577–
584 (in German).

Serne, R J, Cantrell K J. 2002. Radionuclide chelating agent complexes in low level

radioactive decontamination waste: stability, adsorption and transport potential.
NUREG report CR-6758, USNRC, Washington, USA.

Sievänen U, Syrjänen P and Ranta-Aho S. 2005. Injection grout for deep repositories.
Low-pH cementitious grout for larger fractures. Subproject 3: Field Testing in Finland,
Pilot Tests. Posiva Oy Working Report 2004-47, Olkiluoto.

Sievänen U, Raivio P, Vuorinen U, Hansen J, Norokallio J and Syrjänen P. 2007.

Optimisation of technical properties of low-pH cementitious injection grout. Laboratory
tests and pilot field-test 3. Posiva Oy Working Report 2006-85, Olkiluoto.

SKB. 1999. SR97 Processes in repository evolution: Background to SR 97. Swedish

Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB), Technical Report, SKB-TR-99-
07, Stockholm.

SKB. 2001. Program for research, development and demonstration of methods for the
management and disposal of nuclear waste. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste
Management Company Technical Report, SKB-TR-01-30, Stockholm.
 72

SKB. 2004. Interim main report on the safety assessment SR-Can. Swedish Nuclear
Fuel and Waste Management Company Technical Report, SKB-TR-04-11, Stockholm.

Smellie, J. 2001. Wyoming bentonites. Evidence from the geological record to evaluate
the suitability of bentonite as a buffer material during the long-term underground
containment of radioactive wastes. SKB TR-01-26.

Souza E and DeGagne A J. 2001. Minefill applications, practices and trends in

Canadian mines. D. Stone ed., Minefill 2001 7th Intl. Symp. On Mining With Backfill,
Soc, for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc. (SME), pp 311-319. ISBN 0-87335-
211-4.

Smolczyk H G. 1974. Slag cements and alkali-reactive aggregates. Proceedings, The VI

International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, Moscow. Supplementary paper,
Section III.

Tanskanen J. 2007. Facility Description 2006. Posiva Oy Working Report 2007-21,

Olkiluoto.

Vieno, T., Groundwater salinity at Olkiluoto and its effect on a spent fuel repository.
Posiva Oy, Helsinki. POSIVA 2000-11.

Vieno T. 2004. Main issues in the use of cement in a spent fuel repository- What are
we seeking answers for?, in Metcalfe, R. and Walker, C. (eds), (2004). Proceedings of a
the International Workshop on Bentonite-Cement Interaction in Repository
Environments, 14-16 April 2004, Tokyo, Japan. (NUMO-TR-04-05), also as Posiva Oy
Working Report 2004-25, Olkiluoto.

Vuorinen U, Lehikoinen J, Imoto H, Yamamoto T and Cruz Alonso M. 2005. injection

grout for deep repositories, Subproject 1: Low-pH cementitious grout for larger
fractures, leach testing of grout mixes and evaluation of the long-term safety. Posiva Oy
Working Report 2004-46, Olkiluoto.

Vuorinen, U., Lehikoinen, J., Luukkonen, A. and Ervanne, H. 2006. Effects of salinity
and high pH on crushed rock and bentonite – experimental work and modelling. Posiva
Oy Report 2006-01, Olkiluoto.

Wimelius, H. and Pusch, R. 2008. Backfilling of KBS-3V deposition tunnels –

Possibilities and Limitations. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering (SKB), Stockholm. R-Series
report, R-08-59.

Yanske T, Clark L and Carmack J. 2001. CRF pillar construction at the Doe Run
Company: D. Stone ed., Minefill 2001 7th Intl. Symp. On Mining With Backfill, Soc, for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc. (SME), pp 337-349. ISBN 0-87335-211-4.

Yong R N, Boonsinsuk P and Wong G. 1986. Formulation of backfill material for a

nuclear fuel waste disposal vault. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 23, 216-228.
 73

APPENDIX A. UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM

Korkiala-Tanttu L and Ritola J. 2006. Compaction methods of the tunnel backfill

material, Research Report VTT-R-03124-06, Finland.
74