Case Studies: Foreign Programs and Other Alternatives

References:

• National Research Council, Board on Radioactive Waste Management. 2001. Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
• Lunan, Duncan. 1983. Nuclear Waste Disposal in Space.  Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 36, 147-152.
• Hollister, Charles D., and Nadis, Steven. 1998. Burial of Radioactive Waste under the Seabed. Scientific American, Vol. 278, January 1998, 60-65.

National Waste Management Programs

• France
  Currently, France has no candidate site for permanent geologic disposal of HLW and SNF.  Before 1990, the French site selection process had little public involvement; decisions were primarily based on technical considerations.  After four potential sites were selected and scientific surveys initiated, local opposition to the project, some in the form of violent protests, became a strong concern.  As a result, the French parliament halted all site investigations in 1989.  In 1991, the Waste Act was passed, which mandated that research into developing repositories, studying waste treatment, and exploring surface storage be performed until 2006 when parliament will examine the outcome of the program and decide on a disposal option.  The Waste Act implemented a number of policies to insure greater involved in site selection by affected local communities through a “responsible, democratic, and transparent management process” (NRC, 2001).  With the agreement of affected local communities, three sites were proposed in 1994 for further study and construction of underground research laboratories.  Two sites were in clay formations while the other was located in a granite formation.  Environmental impact statements were prepared and presented to local communities, local assemblies, and several review bodies.  In 1998, one of the clay sites was selected.  Construction of an underground laboratory began at this site, at the border of Meuse and Haute-Marne, and by February 2001 a test shaft was being drilled.  The Waste Act specifies that two underground laboratories be constructed, and the government decided that the second site be located in a granite formation.  The process to find an acceptable granite site has run into strong opposition from locals who felt inadequately consulted about their communities’ potential selection.
  
  
• Sweden
  There is no chosen site for geologic HLW and SNF disposal in Sweden.  Studies have been performed in eight different municipalities with the consent of the local populations.  These investigations have covered technical, geological, and societal aspects of each site and the whole process has been regulated by the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI).  SKI and the organization involved in performing the studies, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB), have made active efforts to insure that impact assessments take into account local input and are publicly available.  In addition, local communities have veto power over potential disposal facilities, and as a result, SKB has stated that it will investigate proposed geologic disposal sites only in consenting communities.   Sweden has recently selected three sites for further investigation and construction of underground laboratories; these communities will have the opportunity to accept or reject the site investigation as early as 2002.
  
  In 1977, Sweden built an underground laboratory in an iron mine located in a granite formation.  After a great deal of international research was performed there, the site was close down in 1992 and another underground laboratory opened in 1988.
  
  
• United Kingdom
  The UK has no candidate site for a geologic repository.  Efforts in 1985 to select a site for deep geologic disposal were halted due to public opposition and another selection program picked Sellafield as a preferred site in 1991.  In 1995, the application to build an underground research laboratory at Sellafield was denied by local authorities, which prompted an investigation into the site selection process by the House of Lords.  Their recommendations included establishing criteria for proposed disposal sites and more public involvement in the decision making process.

Alternative Disposal Methods

Additional references:

• Managing the Nation’s Commercial High-Level Radioactive WasteCongress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-O-171, March 1985)

• Surface Storage
  While most SNF and HLW is stored in surface facilities before a more permanent option is decided upon, some suggest that it could continue to stored on the surface for extended periods of time.  Using existing technology, surface storage facilities can be constructed that will safely house HLW and SNF 100 years or more.  Security of these storage facilities is a major issue as SNF contains uranium and plutonium that could be processed to build nuclear weapons and HLW could be used by terrorists to build a so-called “dirty bomb.”  Even though adequate security can be maintained at the present, it is highly questionable whether institutional mechanisms that can maintain security and replaced aging facilities will still be in place in hundreds or thousands of years.  In light of this fact, many officials in national disposal programs believe that surface storage is only an interim solution and that permanent disposal in a geologic repository should be accomplished.
  
  
• Partitioning and Transmutation
  One potential way to dispose of or reduce the inventory of HLW is to separate long-lived long-lived radionuclides and transmute them into different forms with shorter half-lives.  There has been extensive international research in this area and the U.S. DOE has proposed a research program designed to develop transmutation technology.  However, the conclusion of most scientists is that partitioning and transmutation could reduce the volume of HLW, but not remove the need for permanent disposal of some HLW.
  
  The partitioning process is like SNF reprocessing in that unreacted uranium and plutonium is recovered, except that long-lived fission products are also separated.  Neutrons, possibly from a particle accelerator or nuclear reactor, would then bombard the long-lived radionuclides in order to hasten their decay.
  
  
• Disposal in Space
  SNF and HLW could be disposed of by sending waste canisters into space.  The canisters could be send into orbit around the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, or some other planetary body in the solar system.  Alternatively, the waste could be sent into the Sun or ejected from the solar system.  An initial concern involved in any extraterrestrial disposal is that the transport of waste into space not result in release of radioactive material in the event of an accident.  Some believe this is technically feasible but gaining public confidence that no waste would be released to the environment in the event of an accident would be very difficult.
  
  Many orbits around the earth and sun could decay in the lifetime of the waste and the canisters could conceivably return to earth.  Sending waste into the sun would require a tremendous amount of energy per pound and the only economically feasible way to do so would be to limit the amount of waste sent by first performing partitioning and transmutation.  However, geologic disposal is much more economically feasible compared to any extraterrestrial disposal option as long as nuclear power continues to be important in the global energy budget.
  
  
• Subseabed Disposal
  Disposal of HLW and SNF some 200 to 500 feet beneath the ocean floor in thick clay deposits is widely considered to be “the most promising alternative disposal technology to mined geologic repositories” (OTA, 1985).  Vast mudflats in the middle of oceanic tectonic plates have been geologically stable for millions of years and there is little biological activity and few mineral resources in the area.  Moreover, the clay sediments have advantageous chemical properties in that they tightly bind up many radionuclides.  Human intrusion, intentional or not, would be very unlikely although future retrieval would also be difficult. 
  
  Current international law forbids the use of the seabed for disposal of radioactive waste and other barriers, such as institutional inertia behind geologic disposal, have prevented extensive research or discussion about the feasibility of subseabed disposal.