Home  ›  Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Execution Plan

Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Execution Plan

Written By Monday, April 18, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Management and disposal of highly radioactive materials

High-level radioactive waste direction concerns how radioactive materials created during production of nuclear power and nuclear weapons are dealt with. Radioactive waste contains a mixture of brusque-lived and long-lived nuclides, as well equally non-radioactive nuclides.[ane] There was reportedly some 47,000 tonnes (100 million pounds) of high-level nuclear waste material stored in the The states in 2002.

The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are neptunium-237 (half-life ii million years) and plutonium-239 (half-life 24,000 years).[ii] Consequently, high-level radioactive waste requires sophisticated treatment and direction to successfully isolate information technology from the biosphere. This normally necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving permanent storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[three] Radioactive decay follows the half-life dominion, which means that the charge per unit of decay is inversely proportional to the duration of decay. In other words, the radiations from a long-lived isotope like iodine-129 volition be much less intense than that of curt-lived isotope similar iodine-131.[4]

Governments effectually the world are considering a range of waste direction and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste direction solutions.[five] This is partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with nuclear waste range from 10,000 to millions of years,[half-dozen] [7] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[viii]

Thus, engineer and physicist Hannes Alfvén identified two fundamental prerequisites for effective management of high-level radioactive waste material: (ane) stable geological formations, and (2) stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of years. Equally Alfvén suggests, no known human being culture has ever endured for so long, and no geologic germination of acceptable size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period.[9] Nevertheless, avoiding against the risks associated with managing radioactive wastes may create countervailing risks of greater magnitude. Radioactive waste management is an example of policy assay that requires special attention to ethical concerns, examined in the light of dubiousness and futurity: consideration of 'the impacts of practices and technologies on future generations'.[10]

There is a debate over what should constitute an acceptable scientific and technology foundation for proceeding with radioactive waste disposal strategies. There are those who have argued, on the footing of complex geochemical simulation models, that relinquishing command over radioactive materials to geohydrologic processes at repository closure is an acceptable risk. They maintain that so-called "natural analogues" inhibit subterranean motility of radionuclides, making disposal of radioactive wastes in stable geologic formations unnecessary.[11] Withal, existing models of these processes are empirically underdetermined:[12] due to the subterranean nature of such processes in solid geologic formations, the accuracy of computer simulation models has not been verified past empirical observation, certainly non over periods of time equivalent to the lethal half-lives of high-level radioactive waste material.[thirteen] [14] On the other mitt, some insist deep geologic repositories in stable geologic formations are necessary. National management plans of various countries brandish a diversity of approaches to resolving this fence.

Researchers advise that forecasts of health detriment for such long periods should be examined critically.[15] Applied studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[16] and toll evaluations[17] are concerned. Long term behaviour of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research.[eighteen] Management strategies and implementation plans of several representative national governments are described beneath.

Geologic disposal [edit]

The International Panel on Fissile Materials has said:

It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactive decay into the environment. Safeguards are also required to ensure that neither plutonium nor highly enriched uranium is diverted to weapon use. There is general understanding that placing spent nuclear fuel in repositories hundreds of meters below the surface would be safer than indefinite storage of spent fuel on the surface.[19]

The process of selecting advisable permanent repositories for high level waste and spent fuel is now nether way in several countries with the beginning expected to be commissioned some fourth dimension after 2017.[xx] The basic concept is to locate a large, stable geologic germination and use mining technology to excavate a tunnel, or large-bore tunnel boring machines (similar to those used to drill the Channel Tunnel from England to France) to drill a shaft 500–one,000 metres (1,600–3,300 ft) below the surface where rooms or vaults can be excavated for disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The goal is to permanently isolate nuclear waste from the human environment. However, many people remain uncomfortable with the firsthand stewardship abeyance of this disposal system, suggesting perpetual management and monitoring would be more prudent.

Because some radioactive species have half-lives longer than one million years, even very depression container leakage and radionuclide migration rates must exist taken into business relationship.[21] Moreover, it may require more ane one-half-life until some nuclear materials lose enough radioactive decay to no longer be lethal to living organisms. A 1983 review of the Swedish nuclear waste disposal program by the National Academy of Sciences plant that country's estimate of several hundred thousand years—perhaps up to ane million years—being necessary for waste isolation "fully justified."[22]

The proposed land-based subductive waste disposal method would dispose of radioactive waste in a subduction zone accessed from land,[23] and therefore is not prohibited past international agreement. This method has been described as a viable ways of disposing of radioactive waste,[24] and as a land-of-the-art radioactive waste disposal applied science.[25]

In nature, xvi repositories were discovered at the Oklo mine in Gabon where natural nuclear fission reactions took place 1.7 billion years ago.[26] The fission products in these natural formations were constitute to have moved less than 10 ft (iii thou) over this period,[27] though the lack of motion may be due more than to memory in the uraninite structure than to insolubility and sorption from moving ground water; uraninite crystals are ameliorate preserved here than those in spent fuel rods considering of a less consummate nuclear reaction, and so that reaction products would be less accessible to groundwater set on.[28]

Horizontal drillhole disposal describes proposals to drill over 1 kilometer vertically, and ii kilometers horizontally in the world'south chaff, for the purpose of disposing of high-level waste forms such as spent nuclear fuel, Caesium-137, or Strontium-ninety. After the emplacement and the retrievability period,[ clarification needed ] drillholes would be backfilled and sealed. A series of tests of the engineering were carried out in November 2018 and then again publicly in January 2019 by a U.Due south. based private company.[29] The test demonstrated the emplacement of a test-canister in a horizontal drillhole and retrieval of the same canister. At that place was no actual high-level waste product used in this test.[30] [31]

Materials for geological disposal [edit]

In social club to shop the high level radioactive waste in long-term geological depositories, specific waste forms need to be used which will allow the radioactivity to decay away while the materials retain their integrity for thousands of years.[32] The materials being used can be broken downward into a few classes: glass waste forms, ceramic waste forms, and nanostructured materials.

The glass forms include borosilicate glasses and phosphate glasses. Borosilicate radioactive waste glasses are used on an industrial scale to immobilize high level radioactive waste in many countries which are producers of nuclear energy or have nuclear weaponry. The glass waste forms have the reward of being able to conform a wide variety of waste-stream compositions, they are easy to calibration upwards to industrial processing, and they are stable against thermal, radiative, and chemic perturbations. These glasses function by binding radioactive elements to nonradioactive glass-forming elements.[33] Phosphate glasses while not being used industrially have much lower dissolution rates than borosilicate glasses, which make them a more favorable option. However, no single phosphate fabric has the ability to adjust all of the radioactive products and so phosphate storage requires more reprocessing to carve up the waste into singled-out fractions.[34] Both spectacles accept to exist processed at elevated temperatures making them unusable for some of the more than volatile radiotoxic elements.

The ceramic waste product forms offering higher waste loadings than the glass options because ceramics have crystalline construction. As well, mineral analogues of the ceramic waste forms provide testify for long term durability.[35] Due to this fact and the fact that they can be candy at lower temperatures, ceramics are oft considered the next generation in high level radioactive waste product forms.[36] Ceramic waste forms offer groovy potential, but a lot of research remains to be done.

National management plans [edit]

Republic of finland, the United states of america and Sweden are the most advanced in developing a deep repository for high-level radioactive waste disposal. Countries vary in their plans on disposing used fuel directly or later reprocessing, with France and Nippon having an extensive commitment to reprocessing. The state-specific condition of high-level waste matter management plans are described beneath.

In many European countries (eastward.yard., U.k., Republic of finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) the run a risk or dose limit for a member of the public exposed to radiations from a future high-level nuclear waste product facility is considerably more than stringent than that suggested by the International Committee on Radiation Protection or proposed in the United States. European limits are frequently more stringent than the standard suggested in 1990 by the International Committee on Radiation Protection past a factor of 20, and more stringent by a factor of 10 than the standard proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Yucca Mountain radioactive waste repository for the first 10,000 years after closure. Moreover, the U.S. EPA's proposed standard for greater than 10,000 years is 250 times more permissive than the European limit.[37]

The countries that accept made the near progress towards a repository for high-level nuclear waste have typically started with public consultations and made voluntary siting a necessary condition. This consensus seeking approach is believed to have a greater chance of success than top-down modes of conclusion making, but the process is necessarily boring, and there is "inadequate feel around the world to know if it volition succeed in all existing and aspiring nuclear nations".[38]

Moreover, nigh communities do not desire to host a nuclear waste material repository equally they are "concerned about their customs becoming a de facto site for waste matter for thousands of years, the health and environmental consequences of an accident, and lower property values".[39]

Asia [edit]

China [edit]

In Communist china (Red china), x reactors provide about 2% of electricity and five more are nether construction.[xl] China made a delivery to reprocessing in the 1980s; a pilot institute is under construction at Lanzhou, where a temporary spent fuel storage facility has been synthetic. Geological disposal has been studied since 1985, and a permanent deep geological repository was required past constabulary in 2003. Sites in Gansu Province near the Gobi desert in northwestern People's republic of china are under investigation, with a final site expected to exist selected by 2020, and actual disposal by about 2050.[41] [42]

Taiwan [edit]

In Taiwan (Republic of China), nuclear waste storage facility was built at the Southern tip of Orchid Island in Taitung County, offshore of Taiwan Island. The facility was built in 1982 and it is endemic and operated by Taipower. The facility receives radioactive waste from Taipower's current three nuclear power plants. Still, due to the strong resistance from local community in the isle, the radioactive waste has to be stored at the ability constitute facilities themselves.[43] [44]

India [edit]

India adopted a airtight fuel wheel, which involves reprocessing and recycling of the spent fuel. The reprocessing results in 2-3% of the spent fuel going to waste while the rest is recycled. The waste material fuel, called high level liquid waste product, is converted to glass through vitrification. Vitrified waste is then stored for a period of thirty-twoscore years for cooling.[45]

16 nuclear reactors produce near iii% of India'south electricity, and 7 more are nether construction.[40] Spent fuel is processed at facilities in Trombay near Mumbai, at Tarapur on the west coast north of Mumbai, and at Kalpakkam on the southeast coast of Bharat. Plutonium will be used in a fast breeder reactor (nether construction) to produce more fuel, and other waste vitrified at Tarapur and Trombay.[46] [47] Acting storage for 30 years is expected, with eventual disposal in a deep geological repository in crystalline rock near Kalpakkam.[48]

Japan [edit]

In 2000, a Specified Radioactive Waste Final Disposal Act chosen for cosmos of a new organization to manage high level nuclear waste, and afterward that year the Nuclear waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO) was established under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. NUMO is responsible for selecting a permanent deep geological repository site, structure, operation and closure of the facility for waste product emplacement by 2040.[49] [50] Site selection began in 2002 and application information was sent to 3,239 municipalities, but by 2006, no local regime had volunteered to host the facility.[51] Kōchi Prefecture showed involvement in 2007, but its mayor resigned due to local opposition. In December 2013 the government decided to place suitable candidate areas before approaching municipalities.[52]

The head of the Scientific discipline Council of Nippon's expert panel has said Japan'south seismic conditions makes information technology difficult to predict ground conditions over the necessary 100,000 years, and then information technology will be incommunicable to convince the public of the prophylactic of deep geological disposal.[52]

Europe [edit]

Belgium [edit]

Kingdom of belgium has seven nuclear reactors that provide virtually 52% of its electricity.[40] Belgian spent nuclear fuel was initially sent for reprocessing in France. In 1993, reprocessing was suspended following a resolution of the Belgian parliament;[53] spent fuel is since existence stored on the sites of the nuclear power plants. The deep disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) has been studied in Belgium for more than 30 years. Boom Clay is studied as a reference host formation for HLW disposal. The Hades underground research laboratory (URL) is located at −223 m (−732 ft) in the Nail Formation at the Mol site. The Belgian URL is operated past the Euridice Economic Interest Group, a joint system betwixt SCK•CEN, the Belgian Nuclear Enquiry Centre which initiated the research on waste disposal in Belgium in the 1970s and 1980s and ONDRAF/NIRAS, the Belgian agency for radioactive waste material direction. In Belgium, the regulatory body in accuse of guidance and licensing approving is the Federal Agency of Nuclear Control, created in 2001.[54]

Finland [edit]

In 1983, the authorities decided to select a site for permanent repository past 2010. With four nuclear reactors providing 29% of its electricity,[40] Finland in 1987 enacted a Nuclear Free energy Act making the producers of radioactive waste responsible for its disposal, subject to requirements of its Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority and an absolute veto given to local governments in which a proposed repository would be located. Producers of nuclear waste organized the visitor Posiva, with responsibility for site choice, construction and functioning of a permanent repository. A 1994 amendment to the Human action required final disposal of spent fuel in Finland, prohibiting the import or export of radioactive waste.

Environmental assessment of iv sites occurred in 1997–98, Posiva chose the Olkiluoto site about 2 existing reactors, and the local authorities approved it in 2000. The Finnish Parliament canonical a deep geologic repository there in igneous bedrock at a depth of about 500 metres (1,600 ft) in 2001. The repository concept is similar to the Swedish model, with containers to be clad in copper and buried below the water tabular array offset in 2020.[55] An underground characterization facility, Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository, was under structure at the site in 2012.[56]

France [edit]

With 58 nuclear reactors contributing near 75% of its electricity,[40] the highest pct of whatsoever country, France has been reprocessing its spent reactor fuel since the introduction of nuclear ability there. Some reprocessed plutonium is used to brand fuel, but more than is being produced than is beingness recycled as reactor fuel.[57] France also reprocesses spent fuel for other countries, but the nuclear waste is returned to the country of origin. Nuclear waste from reprocessing French spent fuel is expected to be tending of in a geological repository, pursuant to legislation enacted in 1991 that established a xv-year period for conducting radioactive waste product management enquiry. Under this legislation, partition and transmutation of long-lived elements, immobilization and workout processes, and long-term near surface storage are existence investigated by the Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (CEA). Disposal in deep geological formations is being studied by the French agency for radioactive waste management, L'Agence Nationale cascade la Gestion des Déchets Radioactifs, in underground research labs.[58]

Three sites were identified for possible deep geologic disposal in clay near the border of Meuse and Haute-Marne, almost Gard, and at Vienne. In 1998 the regime canonical the Meuse/Haute Marne Underground Research Laboratory, a site near Meuse/Haute-Marne and dropped the others from farther consideration.[59] Legislation was proposed in 2006 to license a repository past 2020, with operations expected in 2035.[60]

Germany [edit]

Nuclear waste policy in Germany is in flux. German planning for a permanent geologic repository began in 1974, focused on salt dome Gorleben, a salt mine near Gorleben virtually 100 kilometres (62 mi) northeast of Braunschweig. The site was appear in 1977 with plans for a reprocessing plant, spent fuel direction, and permanent disposal facilities at a single site. Plans for the reprocessing establish were dropped in 1979. In 2000, the federal regime and utilities agreed to suspend cloak-and-dagger investigations for three to ten years, and the government committed to ending its use of nuclear power, closing i reactor in 2003.[61]

Within days of the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Chancellor Angela Merkel "imposed a iii-month moratorium on previously appear extensions for Frg's existing nuclear power plants, while shutting seven of the 17 reactors that had been operating since 1981". Protests continued and, on 29 May 2011, Merkel's government announced that it would shut all of its nuclear power plants by 2022.[62] [63]

Meanwhile, electrical utilities have been transporting spent fuel to interim storage facilities at Gorleben, Lubmin and Ahaus until temporary storage facilities tin can be congenital about reactor sites. Previously, spent fuel was sent to France or the Great britain for reprocessing, merely this practice was ended in July 2005.[64]

Netherlands [edit]

COVRA (Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval) is the Dutch interim nuclear waste processing and storage company in Vlissingen,[65] which stores the waste matter produced in their simply remaining nuclear ability plant subsequently it is reprocessed past Areva NC[66] in La Hague, Manche, Normandy, France. Until the Dutch authorities decides what to do with the waste material, information technology will stay at COVRA, which currently has a license to operate for one hundred years. Equally of early 2017, there are no plans for a permanent disposal facility.

Russia [edit]

In Russia, the Ministry of Diminutive Energy (Minatom) is responsible for 31 nuclear reactors which generate about sixteen% of its electricity.[xl] Minatom is too responsible for reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal, including over 25,000 tonnes (55 million pounds) of spent nuclear fuel in temporary storage in 2001.

Russia has a long history of reprocessing spent fuel for military purposes, and previously planned to reprocess imported spent fuel, mayhap including some of the 33,000 tonnes (73 million pounds) of spent fuel accumulated at sites in other countries who received fuel from the U.South., which the U.S. originally pledged to take dorsum, such as Brazil, the Czech republic, India, Nippon, Mexico, Slovenia, Due south Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the Eu.[67] [68]

An Ecology Protection Act in 1991 prohibited importing radioactive cloth for long-term storage or burial in Russian federation, simply controversial legislation to allow imports for permanent storage was passed past the Russian Parliament and signed by President Putin in 2001.[67] In the long term, the Russian programme is for deep geologic disposal.[69] About attention has been paid to locations where waste material has accumulated in temporary storage at Mayak, near Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, and in granite at Krasnoyarsk in Siberia.

Spain [edit]

Spain has five agile nuclear plants with 7 reactors which produced 21% of the land's electricity in 2013. Furthermore, in that location is legacy high-level waste from another ii older, closed plants. Betwixt 2004 and 2011, a bipartisan initiative of the Castilian Government promoted the construction of an interim centralized storage facility (ATC, Almacén Temporal Centralizado), like to the Dutch COVRA concept. In late 2011 and early 2012 the last green low-cal was given, preliminary studies were being completed and land was purchased well-nigh Villar de Cañas (Cuenca) later a competitive tender process. The facility would be initially licensed for sixty years.

However, soon before groundbreaking was slated to begin in 2015, the project was stopped because of a mix of geological, technical, political and ecological problems. By late 2015, the Regional Regime considered information technology "obsolete" and effectively "paralyzed." Equally of early on 2017, the projection has not been shelved only information technology stays frozen and no further action is expected someday soon. Meanwhile, the spent nuclear fuel and other high-level waste is beingness kept in the plants' pools, likewise as on-site dry cask storage (almacenes temporales individualizados) in Garoña and Trillo.

As of early 2017, at that place are no plans for a permanent high-level disposal facility either. Depression- and medium-level waste matter is stored in the El Cabril facility (Province of Cordoba.)

Sweden [edit]

In Sweden, as of 2007 there are ten operating nuclear reactors that produce about 45% of its electricity.[40] Two other reactors in Barsebäck were shut downwards in 1999 and 2005.[70] When these reactors were built, information technology was expected their nuclear fuel would be reprocessed in a foreign country, and the reprocessing waste material would not exist returned to Sweden.[71] Later on, construction of a domestic reprocessing constitute was contemplated, only has not been built.

Passage of the Stipulation Act of 1977 transferred responsibility for nuclear waste matter management from the government to the nuclear industry, requiring reactor operators to present an acceptable program for waste matter direction with "accented prophylactic" in order to obtain an operating license.[72] [73] In early 1980, after the Three Mile Island meltdown in the United States, a plebiscite was held on the future employ of nuclear power in Sweden. In late 1980, afterward a three-question plebiscite produced mixed results, the Swedish Parliament decided to phase out existing reactors by 2010.[74] On 5 February 2009, the Government of Sweden announced an agreement allowing for the replacement of existing reactors, effectively ending the phase-out policy. In 2010, the Swedish authorities opened up for construction of new nuclear reactors. The new units tin can only be congenital at the existing nuclear power sites, Oskarshamn, Ringhals or Forsmark, and simply to supervene upon i of the existing reactors, that will have to be shut down for the new i to be able to start up.

The Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste material Direction Company. (Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, known every bit SKB) was created in 1980 and is responsible for final disposal of nuclear waste matter there. This includes performance of a monitored retrievable storage facility, the Central Acting Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel at Oskarshamn, virtually 240 kilometres (150 mi) s of Stockholm on the Baltic coast; transportation of spent fuel; and construction of a permanent repository.[75] Swedish utilities store spent fuel at the reactor site for 1 year before transporting it to the facility at Oskarshamn, where it will be stored in excavated caverns filled with h2o for about thirty years before removal to a permanent repository.

Conceptual design of a permanent repository was determined by 1983, calling for placement of copper-clad iron canisters in granite bedrock near 500 metres (i,600 ft) underground, beneath the water table in what is known equally the KBS-three method. Space effectually the canisters will exist filled with bentonite clay.[75] After examining six possible locations for a permanent repository, 3 were nominated for further investigation, at Osthammar, Oskarshamn, and Tierp. On 3 June 2009, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Co. chose a location for a deep-level waste site at Östhammar, nigh Forsmark Nuclear Power plant. The application to build the repository was handed in by SKB 2011,[ needs update ] and was approved by the Swedish Government on 27 Jan 2022.[76]

Switzerland [edit]

Switzerland has five nuclear reactors that provide near 43% of its electricity around 2007 (34% in 2015).[40] Some Swiss spent nuclear fuel has been sent for reprocessing in France and the Britain; well-nigh fuel is being stored without reprocessing. An manufacture-endemic organization, ZWILAG, congenital and operates a central interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and loftier-level radioactive waste, and for conditioning low-level radioactive waste and for incinerating wastes. Other interim storage facilities predating ZWILAG proceed to operate in Switzerland.

The Swiss program is considering options for the siting of a deep repository for high-level radioactive waste disposal, and for low and intermediate level wastes. Construction of a repository is not foreseen until well into this century. Inquiry on sedimentary rock (specially Opalinus Clay) is carried out at the Swiss Mont Terri stone laboratory; the Grimsel Test Site, an older facility in crystalline rock is also still active.[77]

United Kingdom [edit]

United kingdom has xix operating reactors, producing well-nigh xx% of its electricity.[40] It processes much of its spent fuel at Sellafield on the northwest coast across from Ireland, where nuclear waste matter is vitrified and sealed in stainless steel canisters for dry out storage above basis for at least 50 years before eventual deep geologic disposal. Sellafield has a history of environmental and condom problems, including a fire in a nuclear plant in Windscale, and a significant incident in 2005 at the main reprocessing institute (THORP).[78]

In 1982 the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Management Executive (NIREX) was established with responsibility for disposing of long-lived nuclear waste product[79] and in 2006 a Committee on Radioactive Waste product Management (CoRWM) of the Section of Environment, Nutrient and Rural Diplomacy recommended geologic disposal 200–1,000 metres (660–3,280 ft) underground.[lxxx] NIREX adult a generic repository concept based on the Swedish model[81] but has non yet selected a site. A Nuclear Decommissioning Potency is responsible for packaging waste from reprocessing and will eventually save British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. of responsibility for power reactors and the Sellafield reprocessing plant.[82]

North America [edit]

Canada [edit]

The 18 operating nuclear power plants in Canada generated almost 16% of its electricity in 2006.[83] A national Nuclear Fuel Waste material Act was enacted by the Canadian Parliament in 2002, requiring nuclear energy corporations to create a waste direction organization to propose to the Government of Canada approaches for management of radioactive waste, and implementation of an approach subsequently selected by the government. The Human activity divers management as "long term management past means of storage or disposal, including handling, treatment, conditioning or transport for the purpose of storage or disposal."[84]

The resulting Nuclear Waste material Direction Organization (NWMO) conducted an extensive three-year study and consultation with Canadians. In 2005, they recommended Adaptive Phased Management, an approach that emphasized both technical and management methods. The technical method included centralized isolation and containment of spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository in a suitable rock germination, such as the granite of the Canadian Shield or Ordovician sedimentary rocks.[85] Also recommended was a phased determination making process supported past a plan of continuous learning, research and development.

In 2007, the Canadian authorities accepted this recommendation, and NWMO was tasked with implementing the recommendation. No specific timeframe was defined for the process. In 2009, the NWMO was designing the procedure for site selection; siting was expected to take 10 years or more than.[86]

United States [edit]

The Nuclear Waste material Policy Act of 1982 established a timetable and process for constructing a permanent, underground repository for high-level nuclear waste by the mid-1990s, and provided for some temporary storage of waste product, including spent fuel from 104 civilian nuclear reactors that produce almost xix.4% of electricity there.[forty] The United states in Apr 2008 had about 56,000 tonnes (120 1000000 pounds) of spent fuel and xx,000 canisters of solid defense-related waste product, and this is expected to increment to 119,000 tonnes (260 million pounds) past 2035.[87] The U.Due south. opted for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, a final repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, merely this projection was widely opposed, with some of the chief concerns being long distance transportation of waste from beyond the United states of america to this site, the possibility of accidents, and the incertitude of success in isolating nuclear waste from the man environment in perpetuity. Yucca Mountain, with capacity for seventy,000 tonnes (150 million pounds) of nuclear waste, was expected to open in 2017. However, the Obama Administration rejected apply of the site in the 2009 United States Federal Budget proposal, which eliminated all funding except that needed to answer inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "while the Administration devises a new strategy toward radioactive waste disposal."[88] On March 5, 2009, Free energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing "the Yucca Mountain site no longer was viewed every bit an choice for storing reactor waste."[87] [89] Starting in 1999, military-generated radioactive waste is being entombed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New United mexican states.

Since the fraction of a radioisotope's atoms decaying per unit of fourth dimension is inversely proportional to its one-half-life, the relative radioactivity of a quantity of cached human radioactive waste would diminish over fourth dimension compared to natural radioisotopes; such as the decay bondage of 120 meg megatonnes (260 quadrillion pounds) of thorium and forty one thousand thousand megatonnes (88 quadrillion pounds) of uranium which are at relatively trace concentrations of parts per million each over the crust'due south xxx,000 quadrillion tonnes (66,000,000 quadrillion pounds) mass.[90] [91] [92] For example, over a timeframe of thousands of years, subsequently the most active brusk half-life radioisotopes rust-covered, burying U.S. nuclear waste would increase the radioactivity in the top 610 metres (2,000 ft) of stone and soil in the United States (10 one thousand thousand square kilometres, 3.ix million square miles) past ≈ 1 part in 10 million over the cumulative amount of natural radioisotopes in such a volume, although the vicinity of the site would have a far higher concentration of artificial radioisotopes cloak-and-dagger than such an average.[93]

In a Presidential Memorandum dated Jan 29, 2010, President Obama established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America'due south Nuclear Hereafter (the Committee).[94] The Commission, composed of 15 members, conducted an extensive ii-year study of nuclear waste disposal, what is referred to as the "back cease" of the nuclear energy process.[94] The Commission established three subcommittees: Reactor and Fuel Bike Technology, Transportation and Storage, and Disposal.[94] On January 26, 2012, the Commission submitted its concluding written report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu.[95] In the Disposal Subcommittee'south final report the Commission does not issue recommendations for a specific site but rather presents a comprehensive recommendation for disposal strategies. During their research the Commission visited Finland, France, Nihon, Russia, Sweden, and the UK.[96] In their final report the Committee put forth seven recommendations for developing a comprehensive strategy to pursue:[96]

Recommendation #1
The United States should undertake an integrated nuclear waste matter management program that leads to the timely development of 1 or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and loftier-level nuclear waste.[96]
Recommendation #two
A new, unmarried-purpose organization is needed to develop and implement a focused, integrated program for the transportation, storage, and disposal of radioactive waste in the United States.[96]
Recommendation #3
Assured admission to the residue in the Radioactive waste Fund (NWF) and to the revenues generated by annual radioactive waste fee payments from utility ratepayers is admittedly essential and must be provided to the new nuclear waste management organization.[96]
Recommendation #four
A new approach is needed to site and develop nuclear waste product facilities in the United States in the future. Nosotros believe that these processes are most probable to succeed if they are:
  • Adaptive—in the sense that procedure itself is flexible and produces decisions that are responsive to new data and new technical, social, or political developments.
  • Staged—in the sense that primal decisions are revisited and modified as necessary along the manner rather than being pre-adamant in advance.
  • Consent-based—in the sense that affected communities have an opportunity to decide whether to accept facility siting decisions and retain significant local command.
  • Transparent—in the sense that all stakeholders have an opportunity to understand cardinal decisions and appoint in the process in a meaningful way.
  • Standards- and science-based—in the sense that the public can have conviction that all facilities meet rigorous, objective, and consistently-applied standards of safety and ecology protection.
  • Governed by partnership arrangements or legally-enforceable agreements with host states, tribes and local communities.[96]
Recommendation #five
The electric current division of regulatory responsibilities for long-term repository performance betwixt the NRC and the EPA is advisable and should continue. The ii agencies should develop new, site-independent safety standards in a formally coordinated joint process that actively engages and solicits input from all the relevant constituencies.[96]
Recommendation #6
The roles, responsibilities, and authorities of local, land, and tribal governments (with respect to facility siting and other aspects of nuclear waste disposal) must exist an element of the negotiation between the federal government and the other afflicted units of government in establishing a disposal facility. In addition to legally-binding agreements, every bit discussed in Recommendation #iv, all affected levels of government (local, state, tribal, etc.) must have, at a minimum, a meaningful consultative function in all other of import decisions. Additionally, states and tribes should retain—or where appropriate, exist delegated—directly potency over aspects of regulation, permitting, and operations where oversight beneath the federal level can exist exercised finer and in a way that is helpful in protecting the interests and gaining the confidence of afflicted communities and citizens.[96]
Recommendation #7
The Radioactive waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) should be retained as a valuable source of independent technical advice and review.[96]

Biden administration has recommended the categorization of waste by level of radioactivity rather than the source of the waste matter which would enable new direction plans.[97]

International repository [edit]

Although Australia does not have whatever nuclear ability reactors, Pangea Resources considered siting an international repository in the outback of Southward Australia or Western Australia in 1998, simply this stimulated legislative opposition in both states and the Australian national Senate during the following year.[98] Thereafter, Pangea ceased operations in Australia simply reemerged as Pangea International Association, and in 2002 evolved into the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage with support from Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Japan and Switzerland.[99] A general concept for an international repository has been advanced by 1 of the principals in all three ventures.[100] Russia has expressed interest in serving equally a repository for other countries, merely does not envision sponsorship or control by an international torso or grouping of other countries. South Africa, Argentina and western China have also been mentioned as possible locations.[59] [101]

In the Eu, COVRA is negotiating a European-wide waste disposal system with single disposal sites that can exist used past several European union-countries. This Eu-broad storage possibility is being researched nether the SAPIERR-2 program.[102]

See also [edit]

  • Horizontal Drillhole
  • Deep Geological Repository
  • Deep Borehole
  • Decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels
  • Economics of new nuclear power plants
  • Into Eternity, a 2010 documentary virtually the construction of a Finnish waste depository
  • Journeying to the Safest Place on Earth, a 2013 documentary about the urgent need for safe depositories
  • List of nuclear waste handling technologies
  • Nuclear reprocessing
  • Nuclear waste

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ "Iodine-131". stoller-eser.com. Archived from the original on 2011-07-sixteen. Retrieved 2009-01-05 .
  2. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 21.
  3. ^ Ojovan, Thou. I.; Lee, W.East. (2014). An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. p. 362. ISBN978-0-08-099392-eight.
  4. ^ "What about Iodine-129 - Half-Life is 15 Million Years". Berkeley Radiological Air and Water Monitoring Forum. University of California. 28 March 2011. Archived from the original on 13 May 2013. Retrieved 1 December 2012.
  5. ^ Brown, Paul (2004-04-14). "Shoot it at the sun. Transport it to Earth's core. What to do with nuclear waste?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-03-21. Retrieved 2016-12-17 .
  6. ^ National Research Council (1995). Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Printing. p. 91. ISBN0-309-05289-0. Archived from the original on 2020-08-18. Retrieved 2020-05-23 .
  7. ^ "The Condition of Nuclear Waste Disposal". The American Concrete Social club. Jan 2006. Archived from the original on 2008-05-16. Retrieved 2008-06-06 .
  8. ^ "Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Proposed Rule" (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005-08-22. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-06 .
  9. ^ Abbotts, John (October 1979). "Nuclear waste: A technical solution?". Bulletin of the Diminutive Scientists. 35 (8): 12–18. Bibcode:1979BuAtS..35h..12A. doi:10.1080/00963402.1979.11458649.
  10. ^ Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Deliberative Commonwealth for the Future: The Case of Nuclear waste Direction in Canada Archived 2018-06-20 at the Wayback Machine, University of Toronto Press, 2008, p.9 ISBN 0-8020-9607-seven
  11. ^ Bruno, Jordi, Lara Duro, and Mireia Grivé. 2001. The applicability and limitations of the geochemical models and tools used in simulating radionuclide behavior in natural waters: Lessons learned from the bullheaded predictive modelling exercises performed in conjunction with natural analogue studies. QuantiSci Southward. 50. Parc Tecnològic del Vallès, Kingdom of spain, for Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste material Management Co.
  12. ^ Shrader-Frechette, Kristin Southward. 1988. "Values and hydrogeological method: How non to site the world'south largest nuclear dump" In Planning for Irresolute Energy conditions, John Byrne and Daniel Rich, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, p. 101 ISBN 0-88738-713-half-dozen
  13. ^ Shrader-Frechette, Kristin South. Burying uncertainty: Risk and the case against geological disposal of nuclear waste Berkeley: University of California Press (1993) p. two ISBN 0-520-08244-3
  14. ^ Shrader-Frechette, Kristin South. Expert judgment in assessing radwaste risks: What Nevadans should know near Yucca Mountain. Carson Urban center: Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Nuclear waste Project, 1992 ISBN 0-7881-0683-X
  15. ^ "Issues relating to condom standards on the geological disposal of radioactive waste" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. 2001-06-22. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-06 .
  16. ^ "IAEA Waste Direction Database: Report 3 – L/ILW-LL" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. 2000-03-28. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-06 .
  17. ^ "Decommissioning costs of WWER-440 nuclear power plants" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. November 2002. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-06 .
  18. ^ "Spent Fuel and High Level Waste: Chemical Durability and Performance nether False Repository Conditions" (PDF). International Atomic Free energy Bureau. October 2007. IAEA-TECDOC-1563. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-12-16. Retrieved 2008-12-24 .
  19. ^ Harold Feiveson, Zia Mian, M.5. Ramana, and Frank von Hippel (27 June 2011). "Managing nuclear spent fuel: Policy lessons from a 10-country study". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Archived from the original on 26 April 2012. Retrieved nineteen Apr 2014. {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 214–248.
  21. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. x.
  22. ^ Yates, Marshall (July 6, 1989). "DOE waste management criticized: On-site storage urged". Public Utilities Fortnightly (124): 33.
  23. ^ Engelhardt, Dean; Parker, Glen. "Permanent Radwaste Solutions". San Francisco: Engelhardt, Inc. Archived from the original on 2017-05-25. Retrieved 2008-12-24 .
  24. ^ Jack, Tricia; Robertson, Hashemite kingdom of jordan. "Utah nuclear waste summary" (PDF). Common salt Lake Urban center: University of Utah Middle for Public Policy and Assistants. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-12-16. Retrieved 2008-12-24 .
  25. ^ Rao, K.R. (December 2001). "Radioactive waste: The problem and its direction" (PDF). Current Science (81): 1534–1546. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-12-sixteen. Retrieved 2008-12-24 .
  26. ^ Cowan, G. A. (1976). "Oklo, A Natural Fission Reactor". Scientific American. 235 (ane): 36. Bibcode:1976SciAm.235a..36C. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0776-36. ISSN 0036-8733.
  27. ^ "Oklo, Natural Nuclear Reactors". U.South. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive waste Direction, Yucca Mountain Project, DOE/YMP-0010. November 2004. Archived from the original on August 25, 2009. Retrieved September 15, 2009.
  28. ^ Krauskopf, Konrad B. 1988. Radioactive waste and geology. New York: Chapman and Hall, 101–102. ISBN 0-412-28630-0
  29. ^ Conca, James (January 31, 2019). "Tin can We Drill a Hole Deep Enough for Our Nuclear Waste material?". Forbes. Archived from the original on May 13, 2020. Retrieved March 9, 2020.
  30. ^ Muller, Richard A.; Finsterle, Stefan; Grimsich, John; Baltzer, Rod; Muller, Elizabeth A.; Rector, James West.; Payer, Joe; Apps, John (May 29, 2019). "Disposal of High-Level Radioactive waste in Deep Horizontal Drillholes". Energies. 12 (11): 2052. doi:10.3390/en12112052.
  31. ^ Mallants, Dirk; Travis, Karl; Chapman, Neil; Brady, Patrick V.; Griffiths, Hefin (February xiv, 2020). "The State of the Scientific discipline and Engineering science in Deep Borehole Disposal of Nuclear waste". Energies. 13 (4): 833. doi:10.3390/en13040833.
  32. ^ Clark, Southward., Ewing, R. Console five Report: Advanced Waste matter Forms. Basic Enquiry Needs for Advanced Energy Systems 2006, 59–74.
  33. ^ Grambow, B. (2006). "Radioactive waste Glasses - How Durable?". Elements. 2 (6): 357–364. doi:ten.2113/gselements.two.half-dozen.357.
  34. ^ Oelkers, E. H.; Montel, J.-M. (2008). "Phosphates and Radioactive waste Storage". Elements. 4 (two): 113. doi:x.2113/GSELEMENTS.4.two.113.
  35. ^ Weber, William; Navrotsky, Alexandra; Stefanovsky, Sergey; Vance, Eric (2009). "Materials Science of High-Level Nuclear Waste Immobilization". MRS Message. 34 (i): 46–53. doi:10.1557/mrs2009.12. [ permanent dead link ]
  36. ^ Luo, South; Li, Liyu; Tang, Baolong; Wang, Dexi (1998). "Synroc immobilization of high level waste (HLW) bearing a high content of sodium". Waste Management. 18: 55–59. doi:10.1016/S0956-053X(97)00019-6.
  37. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 248.
  38. ^ One thousand.Five. Ramana. Nuclear Ability: Economic, Prophylactic, Wellness, and Environmental Bug of Near-Term Technologies, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2009, 34, p. 145.
  39. ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Futurity of Nuclear Ability: A Disquisitional Global Cess of Diminutive Energy, World Scientific, p. 144.
  40. ^ a b c d e f m h i j "World nuclear ability reactors 2005–2007 and uranium requirements". World Nuclear Association. 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-02-04. Retrieved 2008-12-24 .
  41. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 244–45.
  42. ^ Tony Vince (eight March 2013). "Stone solid ambitions". Nuclear Engineering International. Archived from the original on 26 January 2016. Retrieved 9 March 2013.
  43. ^ "Premier reiterates promise of stop to Lanyu nuclear waste storage - Focus Taiwan". Archived from the original on 2013-04-05. Retrieved 2013-05-ten .
  44. ^ "Tao protest against nuclear facility - Taipei Times". 21 Feb 2012. Archived from the original on 27 June 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
  45. ^ "'We'll need a geological repository to store nuclear waste product only subsequently 30-40 years'". www.downtoearth.org.in. Archived from the original on 4 May 2019. Retrieved 4 May 2019.
  46. ^ Raj, Kanwar (2005). "Commissioning and functioning of high level radioactive waste vitrification and storage facilities: The Indian experience" (PDF). International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology. 1 (2/3): 148–63. doi:10.1504/IJNEST.2005.007138. Retrieved 2008-12-24 . [ dead link ]
  47. ^ "Nuclear ability in Republic of india and Pakistan". UIC Nuclear Bug Conference Paper #45. Globe Nuclear Association. 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-12-14.
  48. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 244.
  49. ^ Burnie, Shaun; Smith, Aileen Mioko (May–June 2001). "Japan's nuclear twilight zone". Message of the Diminutive Scientists. 57 (3): 58. Bibcode:2001BuAtS..57c..58B. doi:ten.1080/00963402.2001.11460458. S2CID 145297278.
  50. ^ "Open solicitation for candidate sites for safe disposal of loftier-level radioactive waste". Nuclear Waste matter Direction Organization of Japan. Tokyo. 2002. Archived from the original on 2021-01-22. Retrieved 2021-11-06 .
  51. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 240.
  52. ^ a b "Japan's nuclear waste trouble". The Japan Times. 21 January 2014. Archived from the original on 25 January 2014. Retrieved 23 January 2014.
  53. ^ "Direction of irradiated fuels in Belgium". Belgian Federal Public Service Economic system. Archived from the original on 26 January 2016. Retrieved 27 January 2015.
  54. ^ "Belgium's Radioactive Waste Management Program". U.Due south. Section of Energy. June 2001. Archived from the original on 2008-10-11. Retrieved 2008-12-26 .
  55. ^ Stepwise decision making in Finland for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Organization for Economical Co-operation and Development. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency. 2002.
  56. ^ "Posiva Oy – Nuclear Waste Direction Practiced". Archived from the original on 2009-09-22. Retrieved 2009-09-16 .
  57. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 221.
  58. ^ McEwen, Tim (1995). Brutal, D. (ed.). The scientific and regulatory ground for the geological disposal of nuclear waste. Selection of waste matter disposal sites. New York: J. Wiley & Sons. ISBN0-471-96090-X.
  59. ^ a b Committee on Disposition of High-Level Radioactive waste through Geological Isolation, Board on Radioactive waste Management, Sectionalisation on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. (2001). Disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel: The continuing societal and technical challenges. U.S. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Printing. ISBN0-309-07317-0. Archived from the original on 2021-eleven-06. Retrieved 2020-05-23 . {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  60. ^ "Headlines: International briefs". Radwaste Solutions (xiii): 9. May–June 2006.
  61. ^ Graham, Stephen (2003-eleven-15). "Germany snuffs out nuclear found". Seattle Times. p. A10.
  62. ^ Caroline Jorant (July 2011). "The implications of Fukushima: The European perspective". Message of the Atomic Scientists. 67 (4): 15. doi:10.1177/0096340211414842. S2CID 144198768. Archived from the original on 2020-05-15. Retrieved 2014-04-20 .
  63. ^ Knight, Ben (15 March 2011). "Merkel shuts down 7 nuclear reactors". Deutsche Welle. Archived from the original on 15 May 2020. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
  64. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 223–24.
  65. ^ "COVRA website". Archived from the original on 2019-07-08. Retrieved 2021-eleven-06 .
  66. ^ AREVA NC - nuclear energy, nuclear fuel - La Hague Archived 2007-10-16 at the Wayback Machine
  67. ^ a b Webster, Paul (May–June 2002). "Minatom: The grab for trash". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 58 (5): 36. Bibcode:2002BuAtS..58e..33W. doi:10.1080/00963402.2002.11460603. S2CID 143921460.
  68. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 242.
  69. ^ Bradley, Don J (1997). Payson, David R (ed.). Behind the nuclear curtain: Radioactive waste matter management in the one-time Soviet Wedlock. Columbus: Battelle Printing. ISBN1-57477-022-five.
  70. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 233–34.
  71. ^ Sundqvist, Göran (2002). The bedrock of opinion: Science, engineering and club in the siting of high-level nuclear waste. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBNane-4020-0477-X. Archived from the original on 2021-xi-06. Retrieved 2020-05-23 .
  72. ^ Johansson, T.B.; Steen, P. (1981). Nuclear waste from nuclear power plants. Berkeley: Academy of California Press. p. 67. ISBN0-520-04199-2.
  73. ^ Carter, Luther J. (1987). Nuclear imperatives and public trust: Dealing with radioactive waste . Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Inc. ISBN0-915707-29-2.
  74. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 232–33.
  75. ^ a b "Sweden's radioactive waste direction program". U.S. Section of Energy. June 2001. Archived from the original on 2009-01-xviii. Retrieved 2008-12-24 .
  76. ^ "The Authorities approves SKB's final repository system". SKB.com. 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-04-07 .
  77. ^ McKie, D. "Underground Rock Laboratory Home Page". Grimsel Examination Site. Archived from the original on 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2008-12-24 .
  78. ^ Cassidy, Nick; Green, Patrick (1993). Sellafield: The contaminated legacy. London: Friends of the Earth. ISBN1-85750-225-6.
  79. ^ Openshaw, Stan; Carver, Steve; Fernie, John (1989). Britain'south nuclear waste material: Siting and safety. London: Bellhaven Press. p. 48. ISBN1-85293-005-5.
  80. ^ "Managing our nuclear waste safely: CoRWM's Recommendations to government" (PDF). U.K Commission on Nuclear waste Management. 2006. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2014-04-24 .
  81. ^ McCall, A; King, S (April 30 – May 4, 2006). "Generic repository concept development and assessment for UK high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel". Proceedings of the 11th High-level Radioactive waste Management Conference. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Club: 1173–79.
  82. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 224–xxx.
  83. ^ Table two, Generation of electric energy, 2006. Statistics Canada (www.statcan.gc.ca). 2008.
  84. ^ Nuclear Fuel Waste product Act. Government of Canada, c. 23 Elizabeth Ii. 2002.
  85. ^ Choosing a fashion forrard. Final Written report. Canada: Nuclear waste Management Organization. 2005. Archived from the original on 2021-ten-08. Retrieved 2021-11-06 .
  86. ^ Implementing Adaptive Phased Direction (2008–2012). Canada: Radioactive waste Management Arrangement. 2008. p. viii.
  87. ^ a b Karen R. Olesky (2008). "Masters project: Nuclear Power's Emission Reduction Potential in Utah" (PDF). Duke University. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 10, 2010. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  88. ^ A New Era of Responsibility Archived 2021-11-06 at the Wayback Automobile, The 2010 Budget, p. 65.
  89. ^ Hebert, H. Josef. 2009. "Nuclear waste won't be going to Nevada'south Yucca Mountain, Obama official says." Chicago Tribune. March half dozen, 2009, iv. "Archived copy". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2011-03-24. Retrieved 2011-03-17 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Accessed 3-6-09.
  90. ^ Sevior K. (2006). "Considerations for nuclear power in Australia". International Journal of Environmental Studies. 63 (6): 859–872. doi:x.1080/00207230601047255. S2CID 96845138.
  91. ^ "Thorium Resources In Rare World Elements" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-12-18.
  92. ^ American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, abstract #V33A-1161. Mass and Limerick of the Continental Crust Archived 2019-01-27 at the Wayback Machine
  93. ^ Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 23:193–203;1998. Dr. Bernard L. Cohen, University of Pittsburgh. Perspectives on the Loftier Level Waste Disposal Problem Archived 2012-02-04 at the Wayback Machine
  94. ^ a b c "About the Commission". Archived from the original on April 1, 2012.
  95. ^ "Please Note". Archived from the original on 17 August 2012. Retrieved 3 August 2018.
  96. ^ a b c d e f g h i Bluish Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. "Disposal Subcommittee Report to the Full Committee" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2012.
  97. ^ Keith Ridler. Associated Press. (29 December 2021). "U.S. affirms new interpretation for loftier-level nuclear waste". The Globe and Mail service website Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  98. ^ Holland, I. (2002). "Waste not want not? Australia and the politics of high-level nuclear waste". Australian Journal of Political Science. 37 (two): 283–301. doi:10.1080/10361140220148151. S2CID 154638890.
  99. ^ "Pangea Resources metamorphasizing into International Repository Forum". Nuclear waste News (22): 41. January 31, 2002. ISSN 0276-2897.
  100. ^ McCombie, Charles (April 29 – May 3, 2001). "International and regional repositories: The key questions". Proceedings of the 9th International Loftier-level Radioactive Waste matter Direction Conference. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Order.
  101. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 246.
  102. ^ Nilsson, Karl Fredrik (Dec 10–11, 2007). Enlargement and integration workshop: European collaboration for the management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste by engineering transfer and shared facilities. Brussels: European Commission. Archived from the original on 2007-06-26. Retrieved 2008-12-27 .

References [edit]

  • Vandenbosch, Robert; Vandenbosch, Susanne East. (2007). Nuclear waste product stalemate. Salt Lake Metropolis: University of Utah Press. ISBN978-0-87480-903-9.
  • S Carolina Biohazard Disposal Company

Further reading [edit]

  • Donald, I. W., Waste material immobilization in glass and ceramic based hosts: Radioactive, toxic and hazardous wastes, Wiley, 2010. ISBN 978-ane-4443-1937-8
  • Ialenti, Vincent. "Adjudicating Deep Fourth dimension: Revisiting The U.s.' High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Project At Yucca Mountain" (PDF). Science & Applied science Studies. 27 (2).
  • Shrader-Frechette, Kristin South. Chance analysis and scientific method: Methodological and ethical bug with evaluating societal hazards. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1985. ISBN 90-277-1836-9

External links [edit]

  • International Atomic Energy Agency – Internet Directory of Nuclear Resources (links)
  • Nuclear Regulatory Committee – Nuclear waste (documents)
  • Radwaste Solutions (mag)
  • "Radioactive Waste (documents and links)". UNEP Earthwatch.
  • World Nuclear Clan – Radioactive

khullsomearesove46.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management

0 Response to "Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Execution Plan"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel