Deep geological repository

[1][4] In 2011, the International Panel on Fissile Materials 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 radioactivity into the environment.

[6] A storage space hundreds of metres below the ground needs to withstand the effects of one or more future glaciations, with thick ice sheets resting on top of the rock.

[7][8] The presence of ice sheets affects the hydrostatic pressure at repository depth, groundwater flow and chemistry, and the potential for earthquakes.

This is being taken into consideration by organizations preparing for long-term waste repositories in Sweden, Finland, Canada and some other countries that have to assess the effects of future glaciations.

[8] Despite a long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical as a result of anti-nuclear campaigns.

[9] One of the challenges facing the supporters of these efforts is to demonstrate confidently that a repository will contain wastes for so long that any releases that might take place in the future will pose no significant health or environmental risk.

Cigéo (Centre Industriel de Stockage Géologique) Bure, Meuse The process of selecting appropriate deep final repositories is under way in several countries, with the first expected to be commissioned some time after 2010.

[34] On Nov 28, 2024, the NWMO selected the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area as the site for Canada's deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel.

[needs update] A number of repositories including potash mines in Herfa-Neurode and Zielitz have been used for years for the storage of highly toxic mercury, cyanide and arsenic waste.

Approval was granted in January 2022 for the construction of a direct disposal facility using KBS-3 technology, on the site of the Forsmark nuclear power plant.

NWS explained this decision in terms of there being insufficient extent of potentially suitable geology in which to undertake a site selection process.

"[41] In March 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing the Yucca Mountain site is no longer viewed as an option for storing reactor waste.

[43] In February 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted about a potential change of policy on plans to use Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository for nuclear waste.

[45] On February 7, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette echoed Trump's sentiment and stated that the U.S. administration may investigate other types of [nuclear] storage, such as interim or temporary sites in other parts of the country.

Holtec International submitted a license application to the NRC for an autonomous consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) in southeastern New Mexico in March 2017.

[48] Deep Isolation, a corporation based in Berkeley, California,[49] proposed a solution involving horizontal storage of radioactive waste canisters in directional boreholes, using technology developed for oil and gas mining.

Technicians emplacing transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant , near Carlsbad, New Mexico
A Swedish KBS-3 capsule for nuclear waste
A schematic of a geologic repository under construction at Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant site, Finland
A demonstration tunnel in Olkiluoto.
In February 2014, radioactive materials leaked from a damaged storage drum at the U. S. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant . Analysis of several accidents, by the U.S. Department Of Energy, have shown lack of a "safety culture". [ 30 ]
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and the locations across the U.S. where nuclear waste is stored