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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Science
Main Authors: Kubo, Arthur S., Rose, David J.
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
id craaas:10.1126/science.182.4118.1205
record_format openpolar
spelling craaas:10.1126/science.182.4118.1205 2024-06-09T07:41:04+00:00 Disposal of Nuclear Wastes At an increased but still modest cost, more options can be explored and the outlook can be improved. Kubo, Arthur S. Rose, David J. 1973 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4118.1205 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.182.4118.1205 en eng American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science volume 182, issue 4118, page 1205-1211 ISSN 0036-8075 1095-9203 journal-article 1973 craaas https://doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4118.1205 2024-05-16T12:54:44Z 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 ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Antarc* Antarctic AAAS Resource Center (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Antarctic Science 182 4118 1205 1211
institution Open Polar
collection AAAS Resource Center (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
op_collection_id craaas
language English
description 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 ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Kubo, Arthur S.
Rose, David J.
spellingShingle Kubo, Arthur S.
Rose, David J.
Disposal of Nuclear Wastes
author_facet Kubo, Arthur S.
Rose, David J.
author_sort Kubo, Arthur S.
title Disposal of Nuclear Wastes
title_short Disposal of Nuclear Wastes
title_full Disposal of Nuclear Wastes
title_fullStr Disposal of Nuclear Wastes
title_full_unstemmed Disposal of Nuclear Wastes
title_sort disposal of nuclear wastes
publisher American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
publishDate 1973
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4118.1205
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.182.4118.1205
geographic Antarctic
geographic_facet Antarctic
genre Antarc*
Antarctic
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctic
op_source Science
volume 182, issue 4118, page 1205-1211
ISSN 0036-8075 1095-9203
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4118.1205
container_title Science
container_volume 182
container_issue 4118
container_start_page 1205
op_container_end_page 1211
_version_ 1801369478327435264