Jump to content

High-level radioactive waste management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gary (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 25 December 2008 (→National management plans: using smaller headers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Of particular concern in high-level radioactive waste management are two long-lived fission products, Technetium-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and Iodine-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239 (half life 24,000 years).[1] Consequently, high-level radioactive waste requires sophisticated treatment and management in order to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving permanent storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[2] The technical issues in accomplishing this are daunting. Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions.[3]

This is partly because the timeframe in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,[4][5] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[6] Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described the as yet unsolved dilemma of high-level radioactive waste management: "The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability."[7]

Thus, Alfvén identified two fundamental prerequisites for effective management of high-level radioactive waste: (1) stable geological formations, and (2) stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of years. As Alfvén suggests, no known human civilization has ever endured for so long, and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period.[7]

Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.[8] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[9] and cost evaluations[10] are concerned. Long term behaviour of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects.[11] Management strategies and implementation plans of several representative national governments are described below.

Geologic disposal

The process of selecting appropriate deep final repositories for high level waste and spent fuel is now under way in several countries with the first expected to be commissioned some time after 2017.[12] The basic concept is to locate a large, stable geologic formation and use mining technology to excavate a tunnel, or large-bore tunnel boring machines (similar to those used to drill the Chunnel from England to France) to drill a shaft 500–1,000 meters 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 immediate stewardship cessation 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 low container leakage and radionuclide migration rates must be taken into account.[13] Moreover, it may require more than one half-life until some nuclear materials lose enough radioactivity to no longer be lethal to living things. A 1983 review of the Swedish radioactive waste disposal program by the National Academy of Sciences found that country’s estimate of several hundred thousand years—perhaps up to one million years—being necessary for waste isolation “fully justified.”[14]

Storing high level nuclear waste above ground for a century or so is considered appropriate by many scientists. This allows the material to be more easily observed and any problems detected and managed, while decay of radionuclides over this time period significantly reduces the level of radioactivity and associated harmful effects to the container material. It is also considered likely that over the next century newer materials will be developed which will not break down as quickly when exposed to a high neutron flux, thus increasing the longevity of the container once it is permanently buried.[15]

Sea-based options for disposal of radioactive waste[16] include burial beneath a stable abyssal plain and burial in a subduction zone that would slowly carry waste downward into the Earth's mantle. These approaches are currently not being seriously considered because of technical considerations, legal barriers in the Law of the Sea, and because in North America and Europe sea-based burial has become taboo from fear that such a repository could leak and cause widespread contamination.

The proposed land-based subductive waste disposal method would dispose of nuclear waste in a subduction zone accessed from land,[17] and therefore is not prohibited by international agreement. This method has been described as a viable means of disposing of radioactive waste,[18] and as a state-of-the-art nuclear waste disposal technology.[19]

National management plans

Most countries are considerably behind the United States in developing plans for high-level radioactive waste disposal. Sweden and Finland are furthest along in committing to a particular disposal technology, while many others reprocess spent fuel or contract with France or Great Britain to do it, taking back the resulting plutonium and high-level waste. “An increasing backlog of plutonium from reprocessing is developing in many countries... It is doubtful that reprocessing makes economic sense in the present environment of cheap uranium.”[20]

In many European countries (e.g., Britain, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) the risk or dose limit for a member of the public exposed to radiation from a future high-level nuclear waste facility is considerably more stringent than that suggested by the International Commission on Radiation Protection or proposed in the United States. European limits are often more stringent than the standard suggested in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiation Protection by a factor of 20, and more stringent by a factor of ten than the standard proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Yucca Mountain 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.[21]

Asia

China

In the Peoples Republic of China, ten reactors provide about 2 percent of electricity and five more are under construction.[22] China made a commitment to reprocessing in the 1980s; a pilot plant is under construction at Lanzhou, where a temporary spent fuel storage facility has been constructed. Geological disposal has been studied since 1985, and a permanent deep geological repository was required by law in 2003. Sites in Gansu Province near the Gobi desert in northwestern China are under investigation, with a final site expected to be selected by 2020, and actual disposal by about 2050.[23]

India

Sixteen nuclear reactors produce about 3 percent of India’s electricity, and seven more are under construction.[22] 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 India. Plutonium will be used in a fast breeder reactor (under construction) to produce more fuel, and other waste vitrified at Tarapur and Trombay.[24][25] Interim storage for 30 years is expected, with eventual disposal in a deep geological repository in crystalline rock near Kalpakkam.[26]

Japan

With 55 nuclear reactors producing about 29 percent of its electricity,[22] the Japanese policy is to reprocess its nuclear waste. Originally spent fuel was reprocessed under contract in England and France, but after public outcry a major reprocessing plant was built in Rokkasho, with operations expected to commence in 2007.[27] The policy to use recovered plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) reactor fuel was questioned on economic grounds because there are few reactors capable of using it, and in 2004 it was revealed the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry had covered up a 1994 report indicating reprocessing spent fuel would cost four times as much as burying it.[28]

In 2000, a Specified Radioactive Waste Final Disposal Act called for creation of a new organization to manage high level radioactive waste, and later 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 geologic repository site, construction, operation and closure of the facility for waste emplacement by 2040.[29][30] Site selection was begun in 2002 and application information was sent to 3,239 municipalities, but by spring 2006, no local government had volunteered to host the facility. Final selection of a repository location is expected between 2023 and 2027.[31]

Russia

In Russia, the Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) is responsible for 31 nuclear reactors which generate about 16 percent of its electricity.[22] Minatom is also responsible for reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal, including over 25,000 tons 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, possibly including some of the 33,000 metric tons of spent fuel accumulated at sites in other countries who received fuel from the U.S., which the U.S. originally pledged to take back, such as Brazil, the Czech Republic, India, Japan, Mexico, Slovenia, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the European Union.[32][33]

An Environmental Protection Act in 1991 prohibited importing radioactive material for long-term storage or burial in Russia, but controversial legislation to allow imports for permanent storage was passed by the Russian Parliament and signed by President Putin in 2001.[32] In the long term, the Russian plan is for deep geologic disposal.[34] Most attention has been paid to locations where waste has accumulated in temporary storage at Mayak, near Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, and in granite at Krasnoyarsk in Siberia.

Europe

Belgium

The deep disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) is studied in Belgium for more than 30 years. Boom Clay is presently studied as a reference host formation for HLW disposal. The Hades underground research laboratory (URL) is located at −223 m in the Boom Formation at the Mol site. The Belgian URL is operated by the Euridice European Interest Group, a joint organisation between SCK•CEN, the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre which initiated the research on waste disposal in Belgium in the 1970s and 1980s and Ondraf/Niras, the waste management authorities. In Belgium, the regulatory body in charge of guidance and licensing approval is the Federal Agency of Nuclear Control, created in 2001.

Finland

In 1983, the government decided to select a site for permanent repository by 2010. With only four nuclear reactors providing 29 percent of its electricity,[22] Finland in 1987 enacted a Nuclear 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 Posiva Oy with responsibility for site selection, construction and operation of a permanent repository. A 1994 amendment to the Act required final disposal of spent fuel in Finland, prohibiting the import or export of radioactive waste.

Environmental assessment of four sites occurred in 1997–98, Posiva Oy chose the Olkiluoto site near two existing reactors, and the local government approved it in 2000. The Finnish Parliament approved a deep geologic repository there in igneous bedrock at a depth of about 500 meters in 2001. The repository concept is similar to the Swedish model, with containers to be clad in copper and buried below the water table beginning in 2020.[35] The Finnish government has started building a vault to store nuclear waste not far from the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant.

France

With 59 nuclear reactors contributing about 75 percent of its electricity,[22] the highest percentage of any country, France has been reprocessing its spent reactor fuel since the introduction of nuclear power there. Some reprocessed plutonium is used to make fuel, but more is being produced than is being recycled as reactor fuel.[36] France also reprocesses spent fuel for other countries, but the nuclear waste is returned to the country of origin. Radioactive waste from reprocessing French spent fuel is expected to be disposed of in a geological repository, pursuant to legislation enacted in 1991 that established a 15 year period for conducting radioactive waste management research. Under this legislation, partition and transmutation of long-lived elements, immobilization and conditioning processes, and long-term near surface storage are being investigated by a Commissariat a l’Energy Atomique (CEA). Disposal in deep geological formations is being studied by the French agency for radioactive waste management, Agence Nationale pour la gestion des Dechets Radioactifs, in underground research labs.[37]

Three sites were identified for possible deep geologic disposal in clay near the border of Meuse and Haute-Marne, near Gard, and at Vienne. In 1998 the government approved the site near Meuse/Haute-Marne and dropped the others from further consideration.[15] Legislation was proposed in 2006 to license a repository by 2015, with operations expected in 2025.[38]

Germany

Nuclear waste policy in Germany is in flux. With 17 reactors in operation, accounting for about 30 percent of its electricity,[39] German planning for a permanent geologic repository began in 1974, focused on a salt mine near Gorleben about 100 kilometers northeast of Braunschweig. The site was announced in 1977 with plans for a reprocessing plant, spent fuel management, and permanent disposal facilities at a single site. Plans for the reprocessing plant were dropped in 1979. In 2000, the federal government and utilities agreed to suspend underground investigations for three to ten years, and the government committed to ending its use of nuclear power, closing one reactor in 2003.[40] In 2005 Angela Merkel was elected Chancellor with a promise to change the policy moving away from nuclear power, but was unsuccessful in doing so through November 2006.[41]

Meanwhile, electric utilities have been transporting spent fuel to interim storage facilities at Gorleben, Lubmin and Ahaus until temporary storage facilities can be built near reactor sites. Previously, spent fuel was sent to France or England for reprocessing, but this practice was ended in July 2005.[42]

Sweden

In Sweden there are ten operating nuclear reactors that produce about 45 percent of its electricity.[22] Two other reactors in Barsebäck were shut down in 1999 and 2005.[43] When these reactors were built, it was expected their nuclear fuel would be reprocessed in a foreign country, and the reprocessing waste would not be returned to Sweden.[44] Later, construction of a domestic reprocessing plant was contemplated, but has not been built.

Passage of the Stipulation Act of 1977 transferred responsibility for nuclear waste management from the government to the nuclear industry, requiring reactor operators to present an acceptable plan for waste management with “absolute safety” in order to obtain an operating license.[45][46] In early 1980, after the Three Mile Island meltdown in the United States, a referendum was held on the future use of nuclear power in Sweden. In late 1980, after a three-question referendum produced mixed results, the Swedish Parliament decided to phase out existing reactors by 2010.[47]

The Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co. (Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, known as SKB), was created in 1980 and is responsible for final disposal of nuclear waste there. This includes operation of a monitored retrievable storage facility, the Central Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel at Oskarshamn, about 150 miles south of Stockholm on the Baltic coast; transportation of spent fuel; and construction of a permanent repository.[48] Swedish utilities store spent fuel at the reactor site for one year before transporting it to the facility at Oskarshamn, where it will be stored in excavated caverns filled with water for about 30 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 about 1,650 feet underground, below the water table. Space around the canisters will be filled with bentonite clay.[48] After examining six possible locations for a permanent repository, three were nominated for further investigation at Osthammar, Oskarshamn, and Tierp. The first two are still under consideration, with a final selection expected no earlier than 2007.[49]

Switzerland

Spent nuclear fuel is stored for 1–10 years in water pools at Swiss reactors. An industry-owned organization, ZWILAG, built and operates Switzerland’s centralized interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, conditioning low-level radioactive waste, and for incinerating wastes. Other interim storage facilities predating ZWILAG continue to operate in Switzerland.

Switzerland has four nuclear reactors that provide about 43 percent of its electricity.[22] The Swiss contract for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in France and the United Kingdom. Two deep repository options are under consideration for permanent high-level radioactive waste disposal, in crystalline rock and Opalinus clay. Construction of a repository is not foreseen until well into this century. The Grimsel Test Site is an international research facility investigating unresolved questions in radioactive waste disposal.[50]

United Kingdom

Great Britain has 19 operating reactors, producing about 20 percent of its electricity.[22] It processes much of its spent fuel at Sellafield on the northwest coast across from Ireland, where nuclear waste is vitrified and sealed in stainless steel canisters for dry storage above ground for at least 50 years before eventual deep geologic disposal. Sellafield has a history of environmental and safety problems, including a fire in a nuclear plant in Windscale, and a significant incident in 2005 at the main reprocessing plant (THORP).[51]

In 1982 the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Management Executive (NIREX) was established with responsibility for disposing of long-lived nuclear waste[52] and in 2006 a Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recommended geologic disposal 200–1,000 meters underground.[53] NIREX developed a generic repository concept based on the Swedish model[54] but has not yet selected a site. A Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is responsible for packaging waste from reprocessing and will eventually relieve British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. of responsibility for power reactors and the Sellafield reprocessing plant.[55]

North America

Canada

A national Nuclear Fuel Waste Act was enacted by the Canadian Parliament in 2002, requiring nuclear energy corporations to create a waste management organization to propose to the Government of Canada approaches for management of nuclear waste, and implementation of an approach subsequently selected by the government. The Act defined management as “long term management by means of storage or disposal, including handling, treatment, conditioning or transport for the purpose of storage or disposal.”[56]

The resulting Nuclear Waste Management Organization in 2005 recommended centralized isolation of spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository 500–1,000 meters underground in a suitable rock formation such as the granite of the Canadian Shield, or Ordovician sedimentary shale such as that underlying most of the province of Ontario, where most of the 18 operable Canadian nuclear reactors are located.[57] Vaults are to be dug inside geological formations known as batholiths, formed about a billion years ago. Used fuel bundles will be encased in a corrosion-resistant container, and further surrounded by a layer of buffer material, possibly of bentonite clay. The container is designed to last for thousands of years, while the clay would further slow corrosion rates of the container. The batholiths are chosen for their low ground-water movement rates, geological stability, and low economic value.[58]

Also recommended was a phased decision making process supported by a program of continuous learning, research and development. An interim step in implementation is shallow underground storage of spent fuel at the central site, prior to final placement in a deep repository. Reprocessing spent fuel was rejected due to the cost, production of waste materials even more difficult to manage, and the potential for separation and proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium.[59] A timeline for implementation of recommendations contained in the draft report has been described as “leisurely,” waiting for ten years to initiate site selection, deciding whether to construct a centralized storage facility in 20 years, suggesting placement of waste in a deep geologic repository would only begin in about 60 years.[60]

United States

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established a timetable and procedure for constructing a permanent, underground repository for high-level radioactive waste by the mid-1990s, and provided for some temporary storage of waste, including spent fuel from 104 civilian nuclear reactors that produce about 19.4 percent of electricity there.[22] The United States in April 2008 had about 56,000 metric tons of spent fuel and 20,000 canisters of solid defense-related waste, and this is expected to increase to 119,000 metric tons by 2035.[61] The U.S. has opted for a final repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, currently under construction, but this project is widely opposed, with some of the main concerns being long distance transportation of waste from across the United States to this site, the possibility of accidents, and the uncertainty of success in isolating nuclear waste from the human environment in perpetuity. Yucca Mountain is expected to have capacity for 70,000 metric tons of radioactive waste and is expected to open in 2017.[61] The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the United States is the world's first underground repository for transuranic waste.

International Repository

Although Australia does not have any nuclear power reactors, Pangea Resources considered siting an international repository in the outback of South Australia or Western Australia in 1998, but this stimulated legislative opposition in both states and the Australian national Senate during the following year.[62] Thereafter, Pangea ceased operations in Australia but 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.[63] A general concept for an international repository has been advanced by one of the principals in all three ventures.[64] Russia has expressed interest in serving as a repository for other countries, but does not envision sponsorship or control by an international body or group of other countries. South Africa, Argentina and western China have also been mentioned as possible locations.[65][15]

In the EU, Covra is negotiating about a European-wide waste disposal system with single disposal sites that can be used by several EU-countries.[66] This EU-wide storage possibility is being researched under the SAPIERR-2 program.[67]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 21.
  2. ^ Ojovan, M. I.; Lee, W.E. (2005). An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. p. 315.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Brown, Paul (2004-04-14). "Shoot it at the sun. Send it to Earth's core. What to do with nuclear waste?". The Guardian.
  4. ^ National Research Council (1995). Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  5. ^ "The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal". The American Physical Society. January 2006. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
  6. ^ "Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Proposed Rule" (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005-08-22. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
  7. ^ a b Abbotts, John (October 1979). "Radioactive waste: A technical solution?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 12–18, 14.
  8. ^ "Issues relating to safety standards on the geological disposal of radioactive waste" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. 2001-06-22. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
  9. ^ "IAEA Waste Management Database: Report 3 - L/ILW-LL" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. 2000-03-28. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
  10. ^ "Decommissioning costs of WWER-440 nuclear power plants" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. 2002. Retrieved 2008-06-06. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ "Spent Fuel and High Level Waste: Chemical Durability and Performance under Simulated Repository Conditions" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. October 2007. IAEA-TECDOC-1563. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  12. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 214-248.
  13. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 10.
  14. ^ Yates, Marshall (July 6). "DOE waste management criticized: On-site storage urged". Public Utilities Fortnightly (124): 33. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ a b c Disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel: The continuing societal and technical challenges. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 2001. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  16. ^ Nadis, Steven (1996). "The sub-seabed solution." Atlantic Monthly. 278(October): 28-39. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htm
  17. ^ Engelhardt, Dean, and Glen Parker. Permanent Radwaste Solutions. San Francisco: Engelhardt, Inc. http://home.earthlink.net/~dengelhardt [Accessed December 24, 2008]
  18. ^ Jack, Tricia, and Jordan Robertson. Utah nuclear waste summary. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Center for Public Policy and Administration. http://www.cppa.utah.edu/publications/environment/nuclear_waste_summary.pdf [Accessed December 24, 2008]
  19. ^ Rao, K.R. (2001). "Radioactive waste: The problem and its management." Current Science 81(December): 1534-1546. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252001/1534.pdf [Accessed December 24, 2008]
  20. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 247
  21. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 248
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "World nuclear power reactors 2005–2007 and uranium requirements". World Nuclear Association. 2007. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  23. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 244–45
  24. ^ Raj, Kanwar (2005). "Commissioning and operation of high level radioactive waste vitrification an storage facilities: The Indian experience" (PDF). International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology (1): 148–63. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  25. ^ "Nuclear power in India and Pakistan". UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper #45. Uranium Information Center. 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-12-14.
  26. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 244
  27. ^ "Operational progress". Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited. 2006-03-31. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  28. ^ "Bursting point". Economist: 55. 2004-08-14.
  29. ^ Burnie, Shaun; Smith, Aileen Mioko (May–June 2001). "Japan's nuclear twilight zone". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (57): 58.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. ^ "Open solicitation for candidate sites for safe disposal of high-level radioactive waste". Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan. Tokyo. 2002.
  31. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 240
  32. ^ a b Webster, Paul (May–June 2002). "Minatom: The grab for trash". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (58): 36.
  33. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 242
  34. ^ Bradley, Don J. (1997). Payson, David R. (ed.). Behind the nuclear curtain: Radioactive waste management in the former Soviet Union. Columbus: Battelle Press.
  35. ^ Stepwise decision making in Finland for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency. 2002. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  36. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 221
  37. ^ McEwen, Tim (1995). Savage, D. (ed.). The scientific and regulatory basis for the geological disposal of radioactive waste. New York: J. Wiley & Sons. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  38. ^ "Headlines: International briefs". Radwaste Solutions (13): 9. May–June. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  39. ^ "World nuclear power reactors 2005–2007 and uranium requirements". World Nuclear Association. 2007. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  40. ^ Graham, Stephen (2003-11-15). "Germany snuffs out nuclear plant". Seattle Times. p. A10.
  41. ^ "Half life". The Economist. p. November 11. {{cite news}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  42. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 223–24
  43. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 233–34
  44. ^ Sundqvist, Göran (2002). The bedrock of opinion: Science, technology and society in the siting of high-level nuclear waste. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  45. ^ Johansson, T.B.; Steen, P. (1981). Radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. Berkeley: University of California Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  46. ^ Carter, Luther J. (1987). Nuclear imperatives and public trust: Dealing with radioactive waste. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Inc.
  47. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 232–33
  48. ^ a b "Sweden's radioactive waste management program". U.S. Department of Energy. June 2001. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  49. ^ "Sweden with two possible sites for high level radioactive waste disposal" (PDF). Nucleus. European Nuclear Society. June 2002. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  50. ^ McKie, D. "Underground Rock Laboratory Home Page". Grimsel Test Site. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  51. ^ Cassidy, Nick; Green, Patrick (1993). Sellafield: The contaminated legacy. London: Friends of the Earth.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  52. ^ Openshaw, Stan; Carver, Steve; Fernie, John (1989). Britain’s nuclear waste: Siting and safety. London: Bellhaven Press. p. 48.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  53. ^ "Managing our radioactive waste safely: CoRWM's Recommendations to government". U.K Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. 2006. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  54. ^ McCall, A.; King, S. (April 30, 2006 – 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. Las Vegas; La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society: 1173–79. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  55. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, pp. 224–30
  56. ^ "23". Elizabeth II. Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. 2002. pp. 49–51.
  57. ^ "Choosing a way forward". Final Report. Canada: Nuclear Waste Management Organization. 44. Retrieved 2008-12-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  58. ^ "How is high-level nuclear waste managed in Canada?". The Canadian Nuclear FAQ. Retrieved 2006-06-28.
  59. ^ Choosing a way forward. Canada: Nuclear Waste Management Organization. 2005. p. 388. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  60. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 220
  61. ^ a b "How Much Nuclear Waste Is In The United States?". U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  62. ^ Holland, I. (2002). "Waste not want not? Australia and the politics of high-level nuclear waste". Australian Journal of Political Science (37): 283–301.
  63. ^ "Pangea Resources metamorphisizing into International Repository Forum". Nuclear Waste News (22): 41. January 31, 2002.
  64. ^ McCombie, Charles (April 29, 2001 – May 3, 2001). "International and regional repositories: The key questions". Proceedings of the 9th international high-level radioactive waste management conference. Las Vegas; La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  65. ^ Vandenbosch 2007, p. 246
  66. ^ "EU-wide centralised geological waste disposal sites". Covra. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
  67. ^ "SAPIERR-2 program". Europa. Retrieved 2008-12-24.

References

  • Vandenbosch, Robert; Vandenbosch, Susanne E. (2007). Nuclear waste stalemate. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Template:Waste management

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-level_radioactive_waste_management&oldid=260059830"