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 |
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 |