Disposal of Nuclear Wastes
For the present and the foreseeable future the following options appear to be either usable or worth further exploration: mausolea; disposal in mines of various sorts, and perhaps in ice; in situ melt; and further chemical separations. The options are interdependent. It is too early to assess dispos...
Published in: | Science |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
1973
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4118.1205 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.182.4118.1205 |
Summary: | For the present and the foreseeable future the following options appear to be either usable or worth further exploration: mausolea; disposal in mines of various sorts, and perhaps in ice; in situ melt; and further chemical separations. The options are interdependent. It is too early to assess disposal in space, and disposal in the oceans remains unsafe for lack of adequate knowledge. Table 3 is a summary of the main ideas for which we have worked out (sometimes uncertain) costs. For the short term, ultimate disposal in deep mines is the best-developed plan. However, the related concept of in situ melt has significant advantages and should be realistically appraised. Further chemical separation with subsequent recycling of the actinides in a LMFBR should be investigated and implemented, for it would be universally beneficial; on the other hand, additional removal of strontium and cesium does not seem attractive. Thus, for the near future we make the following recommendations: 1) Provide temporary storage facilities to ensure that the projected commercial high-level wastes do not become a public hazard. The AEC adopts this view, and has stated an intention to construct such facilities. But because of the capriciousness of man and nature, a workable ultimate disposal scheme must be developed soon. 2) Fund other ultimate disposal schemes at the same rate as the salt mine project—say $1 million a year or more—to sharpen the technological issues, so that a decision can be reached in the next few years. The schemes should include (i) in situ melt, and the variation with a central repository; (ii) burial in mines other than salt mines (including Antarctic rocks and permanent ice); (iii) further chemical separation of actinides and recycling actinides in a LMFBR. 3) Maintain liaison with the developing space shuttle technology to insure that no opportunity is lost. The AEC has a commitment to hold safety foremost in its waste management program, but budget considerations and management priorities have downgraded the ... |
---|