High-level radioactive waste management
[2] Handling high-level radioactive waste requires sophisticated treatment processes and long-term strategies such as permanent storage, disposal, or conversion into non-toxic forms to isolate it from the biosphere.
[4] Governments worldwide are exploring various disposal strategies, usually focusing on a deep geological repository, though progress in implementing these long-term solutions has been slow.
[9] Long set of workshops on Fundamentals of Radioactive waste treatment, vitrification technology and Vitreous Materials for Nuclear Waste Immobilization Thas been jointly organized by The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by Michael Ojovan and co-workers.
The management of radioactive waste not only involves technical and scientific considerations but also raises significant ethical concerns regarding the impacts on future generations.
[10] The debate over appropriate management strategies includes arguments for and against the reliance on geochemical simulation models and natural geological barriers to contain radionuclides post-repository closure.
[11] Despite some scientists advocating for the feasibility of relinquishing control over radioactive materials to geohydrologic processes, skepticism remains due to the lack of empirical validation of these models over extensive time periods.
[13][14] Forecasts concerning the health impacts of long-term radioactive waste disposal are critically assessed,[15] with practical studies typically considering only up to 100 years for planning and cost evaluation.
[16][17] Ongoing research continues to inform the long-term behavior of radioactive wastes, influencing management strategies and national policies globally.
[18] The selection process for permanent repositories for high-level radioactive waste and nuclear spent fuel is underway in several countries, with the first expected to be operational after 2017.
[citation needed] Given that certain radioactive isotopes have half-lives exceeding one million years, even minimal rates of container leakage and radionuclide migration must be taken into account.
[25] This minimal movement is attributed possibly more to retention within the uraninite crystal structure than to actual insolubility or sorption by moving groundwater.
The glass waste forms have the advantage of being able to accommodate a wide variety of waste-stream compositions, they are easy to scale up to industrial processing, and they are stable against thermal, radiative, and chemical perturbations.
Finland, the United States and Sweden are the most advanced in developing a deep repository for high-level radioactive waste disposal.
This consensus seeking approach is believed to have a greater chance of success than top-down modes of decision making, but the process is necessarily slow, and there is "inadequate experience around the world to know if it will succeed in all existing and aspiring nuclear nations".
However, due to the strong resistance from local community in the island, the nuclear waste has to be stored at the power plant facilities themselves.
NUMO is responsible for selecting a permanent deep geological repository site, construction, operation and closure of the facility for waste emplacement by 2040.
In 1993, reprocessing was suspended following a resolution of the Belgian parliament;[52] spent fuel is since being stored on the sites of the nuclear power plants.
Producers of nuclear waste organized the company Posiva, 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.
Under this legislation, partition and transmutation of long-lived elements, immobilization and conditioning processes, and long-term near surface storage are being investigated by the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA).
[39] Minatom is also responsible for reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal, including over 25,000 tonnes (55 million pounds) of spent nuclear fuel in temporary storage in 2001.
[68] 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.
Between 2004 and 2011, a bipartisan initiative of the Spanish Government promoted the construction of an interim centralized storage facility (ATC, Almacén Temporal Centralizado), similar to the Dutch COVRA concept.
In late 2011 and early 2012 the final green light was given, preliminary studies were being completed and land was purchased near Villar de Cañas (Cuenca) after a competitive tender process.
Meanwhile, the spent nuclear fuel and other high-level waste is being kept in the plants' pools, as well as on-site dry cask storage (almacenes temporales individualizados) in Garoña and Trillo.
[71][72] 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.
[73] On 5 February 2009, the Government of Sweden announced an agreement allowing for the replacement of existing reactors, effectively ending the phase-out policy.
Conceptual design of a permanent repository was determined by 1983, calling for placement of copper-clad iron canisters in granite bedrock about 500 metres (1,600 ft) underground, below the water table in what is known as the KBS-3 method.
[39] 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.
"[88] On March 5, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing "the Yucca Mountain site no longer was viewed as an option for storing reactor waste.
