An International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility Exploring a Russian Site as a Prototype: Proceedings of an International Workshop (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Site Selection for Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal of High Level Waste -- Site Selection for Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal of High Level Waste: Experience of European Countries
Site Selection for Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal of High Level Waste -- Site Selection for Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal of High Level Waste: Experience of European Countries
Pages 73-88
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 75... ...
In this talk I will look briefly at Space Transmutation ìExoticsîExotics Subduction Ice sheets HLW/Spent Fuel Storage Disposal Surface at depth Deep geology Sea-bed FIGURE 1 Long-term waste management.
|
From page 76... ...
The problems in implementing these further steps in the back-end chain have led to the spent fuel storage capacity being exhausted or nearly exhausted at various reactor plants. Implementing new centralized storage facilities has proven to be difficult because of the societal problems in establishing new nuclear sites, problems to which we will return later.
|
From page 77... ...
GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL: CONCEPT AND STATUS Before moving into the details of this section it is worth drawing your attention to a valuable reference document produced recently by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the United States. The document, "Geological Challenges in Radioactive Waste Isolation; Third Worldwide Review," (Witherspoon and Bodvarsson 2001)
|
From page 78... ...
The next phase, documented in many advisory documents of the IAEA, advocated progressively narrowing in from a nationwide search, using predominantly technical criteria to identify the "best" existing site or sites. The approach was intended to be traceable and to be defensible, that is, the finally chosen site should be easy to defend against any objections, including those of the local population.
|
From page 79... ...
As indicated above, siting is not a simple case of measuring all the characteristics BOX 1 Examples of IAEA Siting Guidelines Technical · The geological setting should be amenable to characterization, should have geometrical, geomechanical, geochemical, and hydrogeological characteristics that inhibit radionuclide transport and allow safe repository construction, operation, and closure. · The host rock and repository containment system should not be adversely affected by future dynamic processes such as climate change, neotectonics, seis micity, volcanism, and diapirism.
|
From page 80... ...
Multiple sites allow choices, that is, they give flexibility to the program and prevent unexpected results at any site necessarily leading to a major realignment of effort. Exploration of sites, especially if this involves investigation of the deep geology, is an expensive undertaking, and much judgment is needed in deciding the number of sites that should be included at each stage throughout the siting process.
|
From page 81... ...
The repository implementer should resist calls for exclusion criteria based on some single simple parameter and should try to illustrate transparently to the public how the overall safety case for a geological repository is made. Public Participation Public participation is an important feature of geological disposal today.
|
From page 82... ...
were not involved in the early stages leading to the selection of the Sellafield site as a potential deep geological repository. This was counterproductive for the hearings that finally took place, and contributed to the loss of that potential site.
|
From page 83... ...
Of course the weighting of the selection criteria will be subjective and therefore open to debate subsequently, but there is no method that is more likely to lead to sites that can achieve the necessary degree of acceptance from all participating stakeholders. In summary the brief consensus on this issue is that · a site must be sufficiently safe to satisfy all safety criteria in a demonstrable manner · the optimization of site selection must, however, consider criteria other than those directly related to safety · in this way it is possible to justify the chosen site as being the best technical and societal option from a limited number of chosen potential sites Figure 2 illustrates the stepwise answering of questions that should lead to decisions on the acceptability of a site.
|
From page 84... ...
Another point of view is that one might first of all clarify the acceptance issue, assuming that local community support will eventually be necessary. This purely voluntary approach to siting is currently being tried by the Japanese waste management agency, NUMO.
|
From page 85... ...
In Switzerland a geological repository site for low- and intermediate-level waste was recently refused, not for technical reasons but for political reasons. For a deep disposal site for high-level waste and spent fuel, the preferred region in northern Switzerland has recently been identified.
|
From page 86... ...
It may be the case that in the future, international repositories able to dispose the wastes from anywhere in the world will be implemented in regions specifically chosen because of their extremely favorable properties. The same scientists currently involved in the Arius association for promoting regional and international disposal worked earlier in the Pangaea Project, which developed the so-called high-isolation concept for geological disposal.
|
From page 87... ...
We come now to the overall conclusions of this talk with respect to the siting of deep geological disposal facilities within Europe. · Geologic disposal is the only feasible option for long-term management of spent nuclear or high-level radioactive wastes that does not depend on continuing care and maintenance.
|
From page 88... ...
on the manage ment of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Brussels: Commission of the European Com munities.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.