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.

3.2<br />

In considering the nine disposal technology concepts, a variety <strong>of</strong> nuclear wastes is<br />

considered. Each concept needs to be evaluated in terms <strong>of</strong> capability to handle both spent<br />

fuel (as a waste) and waste from fuel reprocessing. Further, the ability <strong>of</strong> these technol-<br />

ogies to accommodate transuranic (TRU) wastes is evaluated (see Section 6.2). As shown in<br />

Table 3.1.1, not all <strong>of</strong> the technologies are capable <strong>of</strong> handling all three categories <strong>of</strong><br />

waste efficiently. Nonetheless, some <strong>of</strong> these technologies may be useful for special pur-<br />

poses such as the disposal <strong>of</strong> very long-lived radioactive substances. Some concepts are<br />

rated impractical because <strong>of</strong> special handling requirements, anticipated cost, environmental<br />

risks and current capabilities to implement the technology.<br />

TABLE 3.1.1 Potential Ability <strong>of</strong> Technology to Handle <strong>Waste</strong> Type<br />

Unprocessed High-Level<br />

Spent Reprocessing TRU<br />

Technology Fuel <strong>Waste</strong> <strong>Waste</strong><br />

Geologic Yes Yes Yes<br />

Very Deep Holes Yes Yes I<br />

Rock Melting No Yes No<br />

Island Yes Yes Yes<br />

Subseabed Yes Yes I<br />

Ice Sheet Yes Yes I<br />

Injection Well No Yes No<br />

Transmutation No Yes No<br />

Space I Yes I<br />

LEGEND: Yes--Concept applies<br />

No--Concept will not work<br />

I--Concept impractical.<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> these various technical alternatives for waste isolation has resulted in<br />

a finding that geologic disposal (placement <strong>of</strong> radioactive wastes in geologic formations<br />

using conventional mining techniques) is the preferred technology for research and develop-<br />

ment. However, the evaluation <strong>of</strong> these alternatives has led to the conclusion that two<br />

other disposal concepts deserve further examination as potential backup or ancillary tech-<br />

nologies to geologic disposal: subseabed disposal (placement <strong>of</strong> wastes in sediments beneath<br />

the deep oceans), and very deep hole disposal (placement <strong>of</strong> wastes into very deep drill<br />

holes).<br />

This Statement examines the ultimate environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong> Ener-<br />

gy's proposed action, a research, development and demonstration.program emphasizing mined<br />

geologic repositories, as well as two alternative courses <strong>of</strong> action: 1) parallel develop-<br />

ment <strong>of</strong> several technologies to an approximately equal level prior to a decision on imple-<br />

mentation and 2) the alternative <strong>of</strong> no action.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!