23.04.2013 Views

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

6.1.8.1 Concept Summary<br />

6.136<br />

6.1.8 Space Disposal<br />

Space disposal <strong>of</strong>fers the option <strong>of</strong> permanently removing part <strong>of</strong> the nuclear wastes<br />

from the Earth's environment. In this concept, HLW would be formed into a cermet matrix<br />

and packaged in special flight containers for insertion into a solar orbit, where it would<br />

remain for at least 1 million years. NASA has studied several space disposal options since<br />

the early 1970s. A reference concept using an uprated Space Shuttle has emerged and is<br />

considered in detail here.<br />

The Space Shuttle would carry the waste package to a low-earth orbit. A transfer<br />

vehicle would then spearate from the Shuttle to place the waste package and another<br />

propulsion stage into an earth escape trajectory. The transfer vehicle would return to the<br />

Shuttle while the remaining rocket stage inserted the waste into a solar orbit.<br />

The space disposal option appears feasible for selected long-lived waste fractions, or<br />

even for the total amount <strong>of</strong> high-level waste that will be produced. The remaining TRU<br />

wastes would require some terestrial disposal option, such as mined geological repositories<br />

in the continental U.S. Space disposal <strong>of</strong> unreprocessed fuel rods does not appear economi-<br />

cally feasible or practical because <strong>of</strong> the large number <strong>of</strong> flights involved.<br />

Space disposal was considered for its potential to reduce long-term environmental<br />

impacts and human health effects for a given quantity and type <strong>of</strong> waste compared with<br />

alternative terrestrial disposal options. Because <strong>of</strong> the characteristics <strong>of</strong> the space<br />

disposal concept, which removes the waste package from the bioshpere, it is highly unlikely<br />

that physical forces would cause the radioisotopes to migrate toward the Earth. Conse-<br />

quently, for a package properly placed in orbit, there would be no long-term risk or<br />

surveillance problem as in terrestrial alternatives. However, the risk and consequence <strong>of</strong><br />

launch pad accident and low earth orbit failure must be compared to the risk <strong>of</strong> breach <strong>of</strong><br />

deep geologic repositories.<br />

6.1.8.2 System and Facility Descriptions<br />

System Options<br />

The reference concept and system for the initial space disposal <strong>of</strong> nuclear waste has<br />

been developed from a number <strong>of</strong> options available at each step from the reactor to ultimate<br />

space disposal. These options are summarized in Figure 6.1.22 (Battelle 1980), which indi-<br />

cates currently preferred options chosen for the DOE/NASA concept, primary alternatives,<br />

secondary alternatives, and options that are no longer considered viable. The bases for<br />

selection <strong>of</strong> options for the reference concept (those blocked <strong>of</strong>f) are detailed in various<br />

sources listed in Appendix M.<br />

<strong>Waste</strong>-Type Compatibility<br />

As noted, space disposal <strong>of</strong> unreprocessed spent fuel rods would be impractical because<br />

an excessive number <strong>of</strong> launches would be required. This would result in high energy re-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!