Radioactive waste
Part of a series on |
Pollution |
---|
Radioactive waste is a type of
Radioactive waste is broadly classified into 3 categories: low-level waste (LLW), such as paper, rags, tools, clothing, which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity; intermediate-level waste (ILW), which contains higher amounts of radioactivity and requires some shielding; and high-level waste (HLW), which is highly radioactive and hot due to decay heat, thus requiring cooling and shielding.
In
The time radioactive waste must be stored for depends on the type of waste and radioactive isotopes it contains. Short-term approaches to radioactive waste storage have been segregation and storage on the surface or near-surface. Burial in a deep geological repository is a favored solution for long-term storage of high-level waste, while re-use and transmutation are favored solutions for reducing the HLW inventory. Boundaries to recycling of spent nuclear fuel are regulatory and economic as well as the issue of radioactive contamination if chemical separation processes cannot achieve a very high purity. Furthermore, elements may be present in both useful and troublesome isotopes, which would require costly and energy intensive isotope separation for their use - a currently uneconomic prospect.
A summary of the amounts of radioactive waste and management approaches for most developed countries are presented and reviewed periodically as part of a joint convention of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).[2]
Nature and significance
A quantity of radioactive waste typically consists of a number of
Physics
t½ )
(year |
Yield (%) |
keV )
|
βγ
| |
---|---|---|---|---|
155Eu
|
4.76 | 0.0803 | 252 | βγ |
85Kr | 10.76 | 0.2180 | 687 | βγ |
113mCd
|
14.1 | 0.0008 | 316 | β |
90Sr | 28.9 | 4.505 | 2826 | β |
137Cs | 30.23 | 6.337 | 1176 | βγ |
121mSn
|
43.9 | 0.00005 | 390 | βγ |
151Sm
|
88.8 | 0.5314 | 77 | β |
Nuclide | t1⁄2
|
Yield | Q[a 1] | βγ
|
---|---|---|---|---|
( Ma )
|
(%)[a 2] | ( keV )
|
||
99Tc | 0.211 | 6.1385 | 294 | β |
126Sn
|
0.230 | 0.1084 | 4050[a 3] | βγ |
79Se | 0.327 | 0.0447 | 151 | β |
135Cs
|
1.33 | 6.9110[a 4] | 269 | β |
93Zr
|
1.53 | 5.4575 | 91 | βγ |
107Pd
|
6.5 | 1.2499 | 33 | β |
129I | 15.7 | 0.8410 | 194 | βγ |
The radioactivity of all radioactive waste weakens with time. All radionuclides contained in the waste have a half-life — the time it takes for half of the atoms to decay into another nuclide. Eventually, all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements (i.e., stable nuclides). Since radioactive decay follows the half-life rule, the rate of decay is inversely proportional to the duration of decay. In other words, the radiation from a long-lived isotope like iodine-129 will be much less intense than that of a short-lived isotope like iodine-131.[3] The two tables show some of the major radioisotopes, their half-lives, and their radiation yield as a proportion of the yield of fission of uranium-235.
The energy and the type of the
Pharmacokinetics
Exposure to radioactive waste may cause health impacts due to ionizing radiation exposure. In humans, a dose of 1
Depending on the decay mode and the
Sources
Actinides[9] by decay chain | Half-life range (a) |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4n
|
4n + 1
|
4n + 2
|
4n + 3
|
4.5–7% | 0.04–1.25% | <0.001% | ||
228 Ra№
|
4–6 a
|
155 Euþ
|
||||||
244 Cmƒ
|
241Puƒ | 250 Cf
|
227 Ac№
|
10–29 a
|
90Sr | 85Kr | 113m Cdþ
| |
232Uƒ | 238Puƒ | 243 Cmƒ
|
29–97 a
|
137 Cs
|
151 Smþ
|
121m Sn
| ||
248Bk[11]
|
249 Cfƒ
|
242m Amƒ
|
141–351 a |
No fission products have a half-life | ||||
241Amƒ | 251Cfƒ[12]
|
430–900 a | ||||||
226Ra№ | 247 Bk
|
1.3–1.6 ka | ||||||
240Pu | 229 Th
|
246 Cmƒ
|
243 Amƒ
|
4.7–7.4 ka | ||||
245 Cmƒ
|
250 Cm
|
8.3–8.5 ka | ||||||
239Puƒ | 24.1 ka | |||||||
230 Th№
|
231 Pa№
|
32–76 ka | ||||||
236 Npƒ
|
233Uƒ | 234U№ | 150–250 ka | 99Tc₡ | 126 Sn
| |||
248 Cm
|
242Pu | 327–375 ka | 79Se₡ | |||||
1.53 Ma | 93 Zr
| |||||||
237 Npƒ
|
2.1–6.5 Ma | 135 Cs₡
|
107 Pd
| |||||
236U | 247 Cmƒ
|
15–24 Ma | 129I₡ | |||||
244Pu | 80 Ma |
... nor beyond 15.7 Ma[13] | ||||||
232Th№ | 238U№ | 235Uƒ№ | 0.7–14.1 Ga | |||||
|
Radioactive waste comes from a number of sources. In countries with nuclear power plants, nuclear armament, or nuclear fuel treatment plants, the majority of waste originates from the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons reprocessing. Other sources include medical and industrial wastes, as well as naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) that can be concentrated as a result of the processing or consumption of coal, oil, and gas, and some minerals, as discussed below.
Nuclear fuel cycle
Front end
Waste from the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle is usually alpha-emitting waste from the extraction of uranium. It often contains radium and its decay products.
Uranium dioxide (UO2) concentrate from mining is a thousand or so times as radioactive as the granite used in buildings. It is refined from yellowcake (U3O8), then converted to uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6). As a gas, it undergoes enrichment to increase the U-235 content from 0.7% to about 4.4% (LEU). It is then turned into a hard ceramic oxide (UO2) for assembly as reactor fuel elements.[14]
The main by-product of enrichment is
Back end
The back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, mostly spent
It is important to distinguish the processing of uranium to make fuel from the reprocessing of used fuel. Used fuel contains the highly radioactive products of fission (see high-level waste below). Many of these are neutron absorbers, called neutron poisons in this context. These eventually build up to a level where they absorb so many neutrons that the chain reaction stops, even with the control rods completely removed. At that point, the fuel has to be replaced in the reactor with fresh fuel, even though there is still a substantial quantity of uranium-235 and plutonium present. In the United States, this used fuel is usually "stored", while in other countries such as Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and India, the fuel is reprocessed to remove the fission products, and the fuel can then be re-used.[16] The fission products removed from the fuel are a concentrated form of high-level waste as are the chemicals used in the process. While most countries reprocess the fuel carrying out single plutonium cycles, India is planning multiple plutonium recycling schemes [17] and Russia pursues closed cycle.[18]
Fuel composition and long term radioactivity
The use of different fuels in nuclear reactors results in different spent nuclear fuel (SNF) composition, with varying activity curves. The most abundant material being U-238 with other uranium isotopes, other actinides, fission products and activation products.[19]
Long-lived radioactive waste from the back end of the fuel cycle is especially relevant when designing a complete waste management plan for SNF. When looking at long-term radioactive decay, the actinides in the SNF have a significant influence due to their characteristically long half-lives. Depending on what a nuclear reactor is fueled with, the actinide composition in the SNF will be different.
An example of this effect is the use of nuclear fuels with thorium. Th-232 is a fertile material that can undergo a neutron capture reaction and two beta minus decays, resulting in the production of fissile U-233. The SNF of a cycle with thorium will contain U-233. Its radioactive decay will strongly influence the long-term activity curve of the SNF around a million years. A comparison of the activity associated to U-233 for three different SNF types can be seen in the figure on the top right. The burnt fuels are thorium with reactor-grade plutonium (RGPu), thorium with weapons-grade plutonium (WGPu), and Mixed oxide fuel (MOX, no thorium). For RGPu and WGPu, the initial amount of U-233 and its decay around a million years can be seen. This has an effect on the total activity curve of the three fuel types. The initial absence of U-233 and its daughter products in the MOX fuel results in a lower activity in region 3 of the figure on the bottom right, whereas for RGPu and WGPu the curve is maintained higher due to the presence of U-233 that has not fully decayed. Nuclear reprocessing can remove the actinides from the spent fuel so they can be used or destroyed (see Long-lived fission product § Actinides).
Proliferation concerns
Since uranium and plutonium are
High-level waste is full of highly radioactive
Pu-239 decays to U-235 which is suitable for weapons and which has a very long half-life (roughly 109 years). Thus plutonium may decay and leave uranium-235. However, modern reactors are only moderately enriched with U-235 relative to U-238, so the U-238 continues to serve as a denaturation agent for any U-235 produced by plutonium decay.
One solution to this problem is to recycle the plutonium and use it as a fuel e.g. in
Nuclear weapons decommissioning
Waste from nuclear weapons decommissioning is unlikely to contain much beta or gamma activity other than tritium and americium. It is more likely to contain alpha-emitting actinides such as Pu-239 which is a fissile material used in bombs, plus some material with much higher specific activities, such as Pu-238 or Po.
In the past the neutron trigger for an
Some designs might contain a radioisotope thermoelectric generator using Pu-238 to provide a long-lasting source of electrical power for the electronics in the device.
It is likely that the fissile material of an old bomb which is due for refitting will contain decay products of the plutonium isotopes used in it, these are likely to include
The beta decay of
Legacy waste
Due to historic activities typically related to the radium industry, uranium mining, and military programs, numerous sites contain or are contaminated with radioactivity. In the United States alone, the
Medicine
Radioactive
- Y-90, used for treating lymphoma (2.7 days)
- I-131, used for thyroid function tests and for treating thyroid cancer(8.0 days)
- intravenous injection(52 days)
- Ir-192, used for brachytherapy (74 days)
- Co-60, used for brachytherapy and external radiotherapy (5.3 years)
- Cs-137, used for brachytherapy and external radiotherapy (30 years)
- Tc-99, product of the decay of Technetium-99m (221,000 years)
Industry
Industrial source waste can contain alpha, beta, neutron or gamma emitters. Gamma emitters are used in radiography while neutron emitting sources are used in a range of applications, such as oil well logging.[24]
Naturally occurring radioactive material
Substances containing natural radioactivity are known as NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material). After human processing that exposes or concentrates this natural radioactivity (such as mining bringing coal to the surface or burning it to produce concentrated ash), it becomes technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM).[26] A lot of this waste is alpha particle-emitting matter from the decay chains of uranium and thorium. The main source of radiation in the human body is potassium-40 (40K), typically 17 milligrams in the body at a time and 0.4 milligrams/day intake.[27] Most rocks, especially granite, have a low level of radioactivity due to the potassium-40, thorium and uranium contained.
Usually ranging from 1
TENORM is not regulated as restrictively as nuclear reactor waste, though there are no significant differences in the radiological risks of these materials.[29]
Coal
Oil and gas
Residues from the
Radioactive elements are an industrial problem in some oil wells where workers operating in direct contact with the crude oil and brine can be actually exposed to doses having negative health effects. Due to the relatively high concentration of these elements in the brine, its disposal is also a technological challenge. In the United States, the brine is however exempt from the dangerous waste regulations and can be disposed of regardless of radioactive or toxic substances content since the 1980s.[33]
Rare-earth mining
Due to natural occurrence of radioactive elements such as thorium and radium in rare-earth ore, mining operations also result in production of waste and mineral deposits that are slightly radioactive.[34]
Classification
Classification of radioactive waste varies by country. The IAEA, which publishes the Radioactive Waste Safety Standards (RADWASS), also plays a significant role.[35] The proportion of various types of waste generated in the UK:[36]
- 94% – low-level waste (LLW)
- ~6% – intermediate-level waste (ILW)
- <1% – high-level waste (HLW)
Mill tailings
Uranium tailings are waste by-product materials left over from the rough processing of uranium-bearing
Although mill tailings are not very radioactive, they have long half-lives. Mill tailings often contain radium, thorium and trace amounts of uranium.[37]
Low-level waste
Low-level waste (LLW) is generated from hospitals and industry, as well as the nuclear fuel cycle. Low-level wastes include paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters, and other materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. Materials that originate from any region of an Active Area are commonly designated as LLW as a precautionary measure even if there is only a remote possibility of being contaminated with radioactive materials. Such LLW typically exhibits no higher radioactivity than one would expect from the same material disposed of in a non-active area, such as a normal office block. Example LLW includes wiping rags, mops, medical tubes, laboratory animal carcasses, and more.[38] LLW waste makes 94% of all radioactive waste volume in the UK most of it disposed of in Cumbria first in landfill style trenches, and now using grouted metal containers that are stacked in concrete vaults. A new site in the north of Scotland is the Dounreay site which is prepared to withstand a 4m tsunami.[1][1]
Some high-activity LLW requires shielding during handling and transport but most LLW is suitable for shallow land burial. To reduce its volume, it is often compacted or incinerated before disposal. Low-level waste is divided into four classes: class A, class B, class C, and Greater Than Class C (GTCC).
Intermediate-level waste
Intermediate-level waste (ILW) contains higher amounts of radioactivity compared to low-level waste. It generally requires shielding, but not cooling.
High-level waste
High-level waste (HLW) is produced by nuclear reactors and the reprocessing of nuclear fuel.
The radioactive waste from spent fuel rods consists primarily of cesium-137 and strontium-90, but it may also include plutonium, which can be considered transuranic waste.[37] The half-lives of these radioactive elements can differ quite extremely. Some elements, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 have half-lives of approximately 30 years. Meanwhile, plutonium has a half-life that can stretch to as long as 24,000 years.[37]
The amount of HLW worldwide is currently increasing by about 12,000
In 2010, it was estimated that about 250,000 t of nuclear HLW were stored globally.[46] This does not include amounts that have escaped into the environment from accidents or tests. Japan is estimated to hold 17,000 t of HLW in storage in 2015.[47] As of 2019, the United States has over 90,000 t of HLW.[48] HLW have been shipped to other countries to be stored or reprocessed and, in some cases, shipped back as active fuel.
The ongoing controversy over high-level radioactive waste disposal is a major constraint on the nuclear power's global expansion.[49] Most scientists agree that the main proposed long-term solution is deep geological burial, either in a mine or a deep borehole.[50][51] As of 2019 no dedicated civilian high-level nuclear waste site is operational[49] as small amounts of HLW did not justify the investment before. Finland is in the advanced stage of the construction of the Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository, which is planned to open in 2025 at 400–450 m depth. France is in the planning phase for a 500 m deep Cigeo facility in Bure. Sweden is planning a site in Forsmark. Canada plans a 680 m deep facility near Lake Huron in Ontario. The Republic of Korea plans to open a site around 2028.[1] The site in Sweden enjoys 80% support from local residents as of 2020.[52]
The Morris Operation in Grundy County, Illinois, is currently the only de facto high-level radioactive waste storage site in the United States.
Transuranic waste
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (November 2013) |
Transuranic waste (TRUW) as defined by U.S. regulations is, without regard to form or origin, waste that is contaminated with alpha-emitting transuranic
Under U.S. law, transuranic waste is further categorized into "contact-handled" (CH) and "remote-handled" (RH) on the basis of the radiation dose rate measured at the surface of the waste container. CH TRUW has a surface dose rate not greater than 200
Prevention
A future way to reduce waste accumulation is to phase out current reactors in favor of
The UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority published a position paper in 2014 on the progress on approaches to the management of separated plutonium, which summarises the conclusions of the work that NDA shared with UK government.[55]
Management
Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years).[56] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[57] Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.[58]
In the second half of the 20th century, several methods of disposal of radioactive waste were investigated by nuclear nations,[61] which are :
- "Long-term above-ground storage", not implemented.
- "Disposal in outer space" (for instance, inside the Sun), not implemented—as it would be currently too expensive.
- "Deep borehole disposal", not implemented.
- "Rock melting", not implemented.
- "Disposal at subduction zones", not implemented.
- Ocean disposal, by the USSR, the United Kingdom,[62] Switzerland, the United States, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, Russia, Germany, Italy and South Korea (1954–93). This is no longer permitted by international agreements.
- "Sub-seabed disposal", not implemented, not permitted by international agreements.
- "Disposal in ice sheets", rejected in Antarctic Treaty
- "Deep well injection", by USSR and USA.
- Nuclear transmutation, using lasers to cause beta decay to convert the unstable atoms to those with shorter half-lives.
In the United States, waste management policy completely broke down with the ending of work on the incomplete
Initial treatment
Vitrification
Long-term storage of radioactive waste requires the stabilization of the waste into a form that will neither react nor degrade for extended periods. It is theorized that one way to do this might be through vitrification.[66] Currently at Sellafield the high-level waste (PUREX first cycle raffinate) is mixed with sugar and then calcined. Calcination involves passing the waste through a heated, rotating tube. The purposes of calcination are to evaporate the water from the waste and de-nitrate the fission products to assist the stability of the glass produced.[67]
The 'calcine' generated is fed continuously into an induction heated furnace with fragmented glass.[68] The resulting glass is a new substance in which the waste products are bonded into the glass matrix when it solidifies. As a melt, this product is poured into stainless steel cylindrical containers ("cylinders") in a batch process. When cooled, the fluid solidifies ("vitrifies") into the glass. After being formed, the glass is highly resistant to water.[69]
After filling a cylinder, a seal is welded onto the cylinder head. The cylinder is then washed. After being inspected for external contamination, the steel cylinder is stored, usually in an underground repository. In this form, the waste products are expected to be immobilized for thousands of years.[70]
The glass inside a cylinder is usually a black glossy substance. All this work (in the United Kingdom) is done using
Phosphate ceramics
Vitrification is not the only way to stabilize the waste into a form that will not react or degrade for extended periods. Immobilization via direct incorporation into a phosphate-based crystalline ceramic host is also used.[74] The diverse chemistry of phosphate ceramics under various conditions demonstrates a versatile material that can withstand chemical, thermal, and radioactive degradation over time. The properties of phosphates, particularly ceramic phosphates, of stability over a wide pH range, low porosity, and minimization of secondary waste introduces possibilities for new waste immobilization techniques.
Ion exchange
It is common for medium active wastes in the nuclear industry to be treated with
, instead of normal concrete (made with portland cement, gravel and sand).Synroc
The Australian
Long-term management
The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,[79] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[80] Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.[81][82] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[83] and cost evaluations[84] are concerned. Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects in geoforecasting.[85]
Remediation
Algae has shown selectivity for strontium in studies, where most plants used in bioremediation have not shown selectivity between calcium and strontium, often becoming saturated with calcium, which is present in greater quantities in nuclear waste. Strontium-90 with a half life around 30 years, is classified as high-level waste.[86]
Researchers have looked at the bioaccumulation of strontium by Scenedesmus spinosus (algae) in simulated wastewater. The study claims a highly selective biosorption capacity for strontium of S. spinosus, suggesting that it may be appropriate for use of nuclear wastewater.[87] A study of the pond alga Closterium moniliferum using non-radioactive strontium found that varying the ratio of barium to strontium in water improved strontium selectivity.[86]
Above-ground disposal
Dry cask storage typically involves taking waste from a spent fuel pool and sealing it (along with an inert gas) in a steel cylinder, which is placed in a concrete cylinder which acts as a radiation shield. It is a relatively inexpensive method which can be done at a central facility or adjacent to the source reactor. The waste can be easily retrieved for reprocessing.[88]
Geologic disposal
The process of selecting appropriate deep final repositories for high-level waste and spent fuel is now underway in several countries with the first expected to be commissioned sometime after 2010.[citation needed] The basic concept is to locate a large, stable geologic formation and use mining technology to excavate a tunnel, or large-bore tunnel boring machines (similar to those used to drill the Channel Tunnel from England to France) to drill a shaft 500 metres (1,600 ft) to 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) below the surface where rooms or vaults can be excavated for disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The goal is to permanently isolate nuclear waste from the human environment. Many people remain uncomfortable with the immediate stewardship cessation of this disposal system, suggesting perpetual management and monitoring would be more prudent.[citation needed]
Because some radioactive species have half-lives longer than one million years, even very low container leakage and radionuclide migration rates must be taken into account.[90] Moreover, it may require more than one half-life until some nuclear materials lose enough radioactivity to cease being lethal to living things. A 1983 review of the Swedish radioactive waste disposal program by the National Academy of Sciences found that country's estimate of several hundred thousand years—perhaps up to one million years—being necessary for waste isolation "fully justified."[91]
The proposed land-based subductive waste disposal method disposes of nuclear waste in a subduction zone accessed from land and therefore is not prohibited by international agreement. This method has been described as the most viable means of disposing of radioactive waste,[92] and as the state-of-the-art as of 2001 in nuclear waste disposal technology.[93]
Another approach termed Remix & Return[94] would blend high-level waste with uranium mine and mill tailings down to the level of the original radioactivity of the uranium ore, then replace it in inactive uranium mines. This approach has the merits of providing jobs for miners who would double as disposal staff, and of facilitating a cradle-to-grave cycle for radioactive materials, but would be inappropriate for spent reactor fuel in the absence of reprocessing, due to the presence of highly toxic radioactive elements such as plutonium within it.
Deep borehole disposal is the concept of disposing of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear reactors in extremely deep boreholes. Deep borehole disposal seeks to place the waste as much as 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) beneath the surface of the Earth and relies primarily on the immense natural geological barrier to confine the waste safely and permanently so that it should never pose a threat to the environment. The Earth's crust contains 120 trillion tons of thorium and 40 trillion tons of uranium (primarily at relatively trace concentrations of parts per million each adding up over the crust's 3 × 1019 ton mass), among other natural radioisotopes.[95][96][97] Since the fraction of nuclides decaying per unit of time is inversely proportional to an isotope's half-life, the relative radioactivity of the lesser amount of human-produced radioisotopes (thousands of tons instead of trillions of tons) would diminish once the isotopes with far shorter half-lives than the bulk of natural radioisotopes decayed.
In January 2013,
Horizontal drillhole disposal describes proposals to drill over one km vertically, and two km horizontally in the earth's crust, for the purpose of disposing of high-level waste forms such as spent nuclear fuel, Caesium-137, or Strontium-90. After the emplacement and the retrievability period,[clarification needed] drillholes would be backfilled and sealed. A series of tests of the technology were carried out in November 2018 and then again publicly in January 2019 by a U.S. based private company.[100] The test demonstrated the emplacement of a test-canister in a horizontal drillhole and retrieval of the same canister. There was no actual high-level waste used in this test.[101][102]
European Commission Joint Research Centre report of 2021 (see above) concluded:[103]
Management of radioactive waste and its safe and secure disposal is a necessary step in the lifecycle of all applications of nuclear science and technology (nuclear energy, research, industry, education, medical, and others). Radioactive waste is therefore generated in practically every country, the largest contribution coming from the nuclear energy lifecycle in countries operating nuclear power plants. Presently, there is broad scientific and technical consensus that disposal of high-level, long-lived radioactive waste in deep geologic formations is, at the state of today’s knowledge, considered as an appropriate and safe means of isolating it from the biosphere for very long time scales.
Ocean floor disposal
From 1946 through 1993, thirteen countries used ocean disposal or ocean dumping as a method to dispose of nuclear/radioactive waste with an approximation of 200,000 tons sourcing mainly from the medical, research and nuclear industry.[104]
Ocean floor disposal of radioactive waste has been suggested by the finding that deep waters in the North Atlantic Ocean do not present an exchange with shallow waters for about 140 years based on oxygen content data recorded over a period of 25 years.[105] They include burial beneath a stable abyssal plain, burial in a subduction zone that would slowly carry the waste downward into the Earth's mantle,[106][107] and burial beneath a remote natural or human-made island. While these approaches all have merit and would facilitate an international solution to the problem of disposal of radioactive waste, they would require an amendment of the Law of the Sea.[108]
Nuclear submarines have been lost and these vessels reactors must also be counted in the amount of radioactive waste deposited at sea.
Article 1 (Definitions), 7., of the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, (the London Dumping Convention) states:
- ""Sea" means all marine waters other than the internal waters of States, as well as the seabed and the subsoil thereof; it does not include sub-seabed repositories accessed only from land."
Transmutation
There have been proposals for reactors that consume nuclear waste and transmute it to other, less-harmful or shorter-lived, nuclear waste. In particular, the integral fast reactor was a proposed nuclear reactor with a nuclear fuel cycle that produced no transuranic waste and, in fact, could consume transuranic waste. It proceeded as far as large-scale tests but was eventually canceled by the U.S. Government. Another approach, considered safer but requiring more development, is to dedicate subcritical reactors to the transmutation of the left-over transuranic elements.
An isotope that is found in nuclear waste and that represents a concern in terms of proliferation is Pu-239. The large stock of plutonium is a result of its production inside uranium-fueled reactors and of the reprocessing of weapons-grade plutonium during the weapons program. An option for getting rid of this plutonium is to use it as a fuel in a traditional light-water reactor (LWR). Several fuel types with differing plutonium destruction efficiencies are under study.
Transmutation was banned in the United States in April 1977 by President Carter due to the danger of plutonium proliferation,
There have also been theoretical studies involving the use of
Re-use
Spent nuclear fuel contains abundant fertile uranium and traces of fissile materials.[19] Methods such as the PUREX process can be used to remove useful actinides for the production of active nuclear fuel.
Another option is to find applications for the isotopes in nuclear waste so as to
The Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method,
Breeder reactors can run on U-238 and transuranic elements, which comprise the majority of spent fuel radioactivity in the 1,000–100,000-year time span.
Space disposal
Space disposal is attractive because it removes nuclear waste from the planet. It has significant disadvantages, such as the potential for catastrophic failure of a launch vehicle, which could spread radioactive material into the atmosphere and around the world. A high number of launches would be required because no individual rocket would be able to carry very much of the material relative to the total amount that needs to be disposed of. This makes the proposal impractical economically and increases the risk of one or more launch failures.[115] To further complicate matters, international agreements on the regulation of such a program would need to be established.[116] Costs and inadequate reliability of modern rocket launch systems for space disposal has been one of the motives for interest in non-rocket spacelaunch systems such as mass drivers, space elevators, and other proposals.[117]
National management plans
Sweden and Finland are furthest along in committing to a particular disposal technology, while many others reprocess spent fuel or contract with France or Great Britain to do it, taking back the resulting plutonium and high-level waste. "An increasing backlog of plutonium from reprocessing is developing in many countries... It is doubtful that reprocessing makes economic sense in the present environment of cheap uranium."[118]
In many European countries (e.g., Britain, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland) the risk or dose limit for a member of the public exposed to radiation from a future high-level nuclear waste facility is considerably more stringent than that suggested by the International Commission on Radiation Protection or proposed in the United States. European limits are often more stringent than the standard suggested in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiation Protection by a factor of 20, and more stringent by a factor of ten than the standard proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository for the first 10,000 years after closure.[119]
The U.S. EPA's proposed standard for greater than 10,000 years is 250 times more permissive than the European limit.
Mongolia
After serious opposition about plans and negotiations between Mongolia with Japan and the United States of America to build nuclear-waste facilities in Mongolia, Mongolia stopped all negotiations in September 2011. These negotiations had started after U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman visited Mongolia in September 2010. Talks took place in Washington, D.C. between officials of Japan, the United States, and Mongolia in February 2011. After this the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which wanted to buy nuclear fuel from Mongolia, joined in the negotiations. The talks were kept secret and, although the Mainichi Daily News reported on them in May, Mongolia officially denied the existence of these negotiations. However, alarmed by this news, Mongolian citizens protested against the plans and demanded the government withdraw the plans and disclose information. The Mongolian President Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj issued a presidential order on September 13 banning all negotiations with foreign governments or international organizations on nuclear-waste storage plans in Mongolia.[122] The Mongolian government has accused the newspaper of distributing false claims around the world. After the presidential order, the Mongolian president fired the individual who was supposedly involved in these conversations.
Illegal dumping
Authorities in Italy are investigating a
In 2008, Afghan authorities accused Pakistan of illegally dumping nuclear waste in the southern parts of Afghanistan when the Taliban were in power between 1996 and 2001.[125] The Pakistani government denied the allegation.
Accidents
A few incidents have occurred when radioactive material was disposed of improperly, shielding during transport was defective, or when it was simply abandoned or even stolen from a waste store.[126] In the Soviet Union, waste stored in Lake Karachay was blown over the area during a dust storm after the lake had partly dried out.[127] In Italy, several radioactive waste deposits let material flow into river water, thus contaminating water for domestic use.[128] In France in the summer of 2008, numerous incidents happened:[129] in one, at the Areva plant in Tricastin, it was reported that, during a draining operation, liquid containing untreated uranium overflowed out of a faulty tank and about 75 kg of the radioactive material seeped into the ground and, from there, into two rivers nearby;[130] in another case, over 100 staff were contaminated with low doses of radiation.[131] There are ongoing concerns around the deterioration of the nuclear waste site on the Enewetak Atoll of the Marshall Islands and a potential radioactive spill.[132]
Scavenging of abandoned radioactive material has been the cause of several other cases of
Transportation accidents involving spent nuclear fuel from power plants are unlikely to have serious consequences due to the strength of the
On 15 December 2011, top government spokesman Osamu Fujimura of the Japanese government admitted that nuclear substances were found in the waste of Japanese nuclear facilities. Although Japan did commit itself in 1977 to these inspections in the safeguard agreement with the IAEA, the reports were kept secret for the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.[citation needed] Japan did start discussions with the IAEA about the large quantities of enriched uranium and plutonium that were discovered in nuclear waste cleared away by Japanese nuclear operators.[citation needed] At the press conference Fujimura said: "Based on investigations so far, most nuclear substances have been properly managed as waste, and from that perspective, there is no problem in safety management," but according to him, the matter was at that moment still being investigated.[135]
Associated hazard warning signs
-
The trefoil symbol used to indicate ionizing radiation.
-
2007 ISO radioactivity danger symbol intended for IAEA Category 1, 2 and 3 sources defined as dangerous sources capable of death or serious injury.[136]
-
The dangerous goods transport classification sign for radioactive materials
See also
- Ducrete
- Environmental remediation
- Human Interference Task Force
- List of global issues
- Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
- Material unaccounted for
- Mixed waste (radioactive/hazardous)
- Microbial corrosion
- Nuclear decommissioning
- Personal protective equipment
- Radiation protection
- Radioactive contamination
- Radioactive scrap metal
- Radioecology
- Toxic waste
- Waste management
- UraMin
References
- ^ a b c d e "The Geological Society of London - Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste". www.geolsoc.org.uk. Retrieved 2020-03-12.
- ^ "The Joint Convention". IAEA. Archived from the original on 2010-03-28.
- ^ "What about Iodine-129 – Half-Life is 15 Million Years". Berkeley Radiological Air and Water Monitoring Forum. University of California. 28 March 2011. Archived from the original on 13 May 2013. Retrieved 1 December 2012.
- ISBN 978-0-471-01146-0.
- ISBN 0-12-059485-4.
- ISBN 978-0-7020-3048-2. Archivedfrom the original on 2012-11-16.
- ^ Gofman, John W. Radiation and human health. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1981, 787.
- ^ Sancar, A. et al Molecular mechanisms of mammalian DNA repair and the DNA damage checkpoints. Washington D.C.: NIH PubMed.gov, 2004.
- ^ Plus radium (element 88). While actually a sub-actinide, it immediately precedes actinium (89) and follows a three-element gap of instability after polonium (84) where no nuclides have half-lives of at least four years (the longest-lived nuclide in the gap is radon-222 with a half life of less than four days). Radium's longest lived isotope, at 1,600 years, thus merits the element's inclusion here.
- thermal neutron fission of uranium-235, e.g. in a typical nuclear reactor.
- .
"The isotopic analyses disclosed a species of mass 248 in constant abundance in three samples analysed over a period of about 10 months. This was ascribed to an isomer of Bk248 with a half-life greater than 9 [years]. No growth of Cf248 was detected, and a lower limit for the β− half-life can be set at about 104 [years]. No alpha activity attributable to the new isomer has been detected; the alpha half-life is probably greater than 300 [years]." - sea of instability".
- ^ Excluding those "classically stable" nuclides with half-lives significantly in excess of 232Th; e.g., while 113mCd has a half-life of only fourteen years, that of 113Cd is eight quadrillion years.
- ISBN 0-89448-451-6. Archived from the originalon 2011-10-16. Retrieved 2011-09-04.
- ^ "Global Defence News and Defence Headlines – IHS Jane's 360". Archived from the original on 2008-07-25.
- ^ "Recycling spent nuclear fuel: the ultimate solution for the US?". Archived from the original on 28 November 2012. Retrieved 2015-07-29.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ "Continuous Plutonium Recycling In India: Improvements in Reprocessing Technology". Archived from the original on 2011-06-06.
- ^ "Russia's Nuclear Fuel Cycle | Russian Nuclear Fuel Cycle - World Nuclear Association".
- ^ a b "Radioactivity : Spent fuel composition". www.radioactivity.eu.com. Archived from the original on 2020-09-23. Retrieved 2021-08-10.
- ^ World Nuclear Association (March 2009). "Plutonium". Archived from the original on 2010-03-30. Retrieved 2010-03-18.
- ^ Lyman, Edwin S. (December 1994). "A Perspective on the Proliferation Risks of Plutonium Mines". Nuclear Control Institute. Archived from the original on 2015-11-25. Retrieved 2015-11-25.
- ^ a b c d e f U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management Archived 2007-03-19 at the Wayback Machine – "Department of Energy Five Year Plan FY 2007-FY 2011 Volume II Archived 2007-07-05 at the Wayback Machine." Retrieved 8 April 2007.
- ^ American Scientist Jan/Feb 2007
- ^ "Nuclear Logging". Archived from the original on 2009-06-27. Retrieved 2009-07-07.
- ^ a b c d Gabbard, Alex (1993). "Coal Combustion". ORNL Review. 26 (3–4). Archived from the original on February 5, 2007.
- ^ "TENORM Sources | Radiation Protection | US EPA". Epa.gov. 2006-06-28. Archived from the original on 2013-05-20. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
- ^ Idaho State University. Radioactivity in Nature Archived 2015-02-05 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR 2008 Archived 2012-05-03 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Regulation of TENORM". Tenorm.com. Archived from the original on 2013-07-23. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
- ^ Cosmic origins of Uranium. uic.com.au (November 2006)
- ^ U.S. Geological Survey, Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance Archived 2005-11-24 at the Wayback Machine, Fact Sheet FS-163-1997, October 1997. Retrieved September 2007.
- ^ Survey & Identification of NORM Contaminated Equipment Archived 2006-02-20 at the Wayback Machine. enprotec-inc.com.
- ^ Nobel, Justin (29 April 2020). "The Syrian Job: Uncovering the Oil Industry's Radioactive Secret". DeSmog UK. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
- ^ Margonelli, Lisa (2009-05-01). "Clean Energy's Dirty Little Secret". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
- ^ Classification of Radioactive Waste. IAEA, Vienna (1994)
- ^ "Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste" (PDF). The Geological Society. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 12, 2020. Retrieved September 12, 2020.
- ^ a b c "Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste". U.S. NRC. April 3, 2017. Archived from the original on November 13, 2017. Retrieved December 3, 2017.
- ^ "NRC: Low-Level Waste". www.nrc.gov. Retrieved 2018-08-17.
- ^ Janicki, Mark (26 November 2013). "Iron boxes for ILW transport and storage". Nuclear Engineering International. Archived from the original on 2 May 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
- ^ Pihlak, A. "Leaching study of heavy and radioactive elements present in wastes discarded by a uranium extraction and processing facility". OSTI. Retrieved 2021-08-05.
- ^ Rogner, H. (2010). "Nuclear Power and Stable Development". Journal of International Affairs. 64: 149.
- ^ "Myths and Realities of Radioactive Waste". February 2016. Archived from the original on 2016-03-13. Retrieved 2016-03-13.
- ^ "Radioactive Waste Management". World Nuclear Association. July 2015. Archived from the original on 2016-02-01. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
- ^ US EPA, OLEM (2014-12-11). "Coal Ash Basics". US EPA. Retrieved 2020-03-02.
- ^ Hvistendahl, Mara. "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste". Scientific American. Retrieved 2020-03-02.
- ^ Geere, Duncan. (2010-09-20) Where do you put 250,000 tonnes of nuclear waste? (Wired UK) Archived 2016-05-22 at the Wayback Machine. Wired.co.uk. Retrieved on 2015-12-15.
- ^ Humber, Yuriy (2015-07-10). "Japan's 17,000 Tons of Nuclear Waste in Search of a Home". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 2017-05-17.
- ^ "What should we do with radioactive nuclear waste?". The Guardian. 1 August 2019.
- ^ a b Findlay, Trevor (2010). "Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview" (PDF). Nuclear energy futures project. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-03-07. Retrieved 2015-08-10.
- ^ "Radioactive Waste Management | Nuclear Waste Disposal". World Nuclear Association. July 2015. Archived from the original on 2016-02-01. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
- ^ Biello, David (Jul 29, 2011). "Presidential Commission Seeks Volunteers to Store U.S. Nuclear Waste". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 2014-02-26.
- ^ Belgium, Central Office, NucNet a s b l, Brussels (23 January 2018). "Sweden / 'More Than 80%' Approve Of SKB's Spent Fuel Repository Plans". The Independent Global Nuclear News Agency. Retrieved 2020-05-08.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Why Wipp? Archived 2006-05-17 at the Wayback Machine. wipp.energy.gov
- ^ Larson, Aaron (2020-01-28). "MOX Nuclear Fuel Loaded in Russian Reactor, More to Come". POWER Magazine. Retrieved 2020-03-05.
- ^ "Progress on approaches to management of separated plutonium". Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. 2014-01-20. Archived from the original on September 15, 2014.
- ^ Vandenbosch, p. 21.
- ISBN 9780080993928
- ^ Brown, Paul (14 April 2004) 'Shoot it at the sun. Send it to Earth's core. What to do with nuclear waste?' Archived 2017-03-21 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian.
- ^ Black, Richard (2006-04-27). "Finland buries its nuclear past". BBC. Retrieved 2020-11-13.
- ^ Gopalkrishnan, Asha (2017-10-01). "The ominous underbelly of Finland's pioneering nuclear-waste repository". The Caravan. Retrieved 2020-11-13.
- ^ World Nuclear Association "Storage and Disposal Options" Archived 2012-02-20 at the Wayback Machine retrieved 2011-11-14
- ^ "Ministers admit nuclear waste was dumped in sea". The Independent. London. 1997-07-01. Archived from the original on 2017-08-25.
- ^ a b Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future: Executive Summary, Archived 2015-11-28 at the Wayback Machine, January 2012.
- ^ "Nobel Prize Winner Could Have a Solution to Nuclear Waste". www.bloomberg.com. April 2, 2019. Retrieved November 2, 2020.
- ^ "How Lasers Could Solve a Global Nuclear Waste Problem". April 8, 2019.
- ^ Ojovan, M. I. and Lee, W.E. (2005) An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation, Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 315
- ^ a b National Research Council (1996). Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separation and Transmutation. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
- OSTI 6510132
- ^ Ojovan, M.I.; et al. (2006). "Corrosion of nuclear waste glasses in non-saturated conditions: Time-Temperature behaviour" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
- ^ OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (1994). The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Paris: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency.
- .
- ^ "Waste Form Release Calculations for the 2005 Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment" (PDF). PNNL-15198. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. July 2005. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2006-10-05. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
- ^ Hensing, I. & Schultz, W. (1995). Economic Comparison of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options. Cologne: Energiewirtschaftlichen Instituts.
- .
- ^ Brünglinghaus, Marion. "Waste processing". Euronuclear.org. Archived from the original on 2013-08-08. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
- ^ Wilmarth, W.R. et al. (2004) Removal of Silicon from High Level Waste Streams via Ferric Flocculation Archived 2006-06-29 at the Wayback Machine. srs.gov.
- ^ World Nuclear Association, Synroc Archived 2008-12-21 at the Wayback Machine, Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 21. Retrieved January 2009.
- ^ ANSTO, New global first-of-a-kind ANSTO Synroc facility, Retrieved March 2021
- United States National Research Council(1995). Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. cited in "The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal". The American Physical Society. January 2006. Archived from the original on 2008-05-16. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
- ^ "Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Proposed Rule" (PDF). Environmental Protection Agency. 2005-08-22. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
- ^ Peterson, Per; William Kastenberg; Michael Corradini. "Nuclear Waste and the Distant Future". Issues in Science and Technology (Summer 2006). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Archived from the original on 2010-07-10.
- ^ "Issues relating to safety standards on the geological disposal of radioactive waste" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. 2001-06-22. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
- ^ "IAEA Waste Management Database: Report 3 – L/ILW-LL" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. 2000-03-28. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
- ^ "Decommissioning costs of WWER-440 nuclear power plants" (PDF). International Atomic Energy Agency. November 2002. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
- ^ International Atomic Energy Agency, Spent Fuel and High Level Waste: Chemical Durability and Performance under Simulated Repository Conditions Archived 2008-12-16 at the Wayback Machine, IAEA-TECDOC-1563, October 2007.
- ^ PMID 21628117.
- PMID 24919131.
- ^ "Fact Sheet on Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel". NRC. May 7, 2009. Archived from the original on August 5, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-25.
- S2CID 4403906.
- ^ Vandenbosch, p. 10.
- ^ Yates, Marshall (July 6, 1989). "DOE waste management criticized: On-site storage urged". Public Utilities Fortnightly. 124: 33.
- ^ Jack, Tricia; Robertson, Jordan. "Utah Nuclear Waste Summary" (PDF). Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 December 2008.
- ^ Rao, K. R. (25 December 2001). "Radioactive waste: The problem and its management" (PDF). Current Science. 81 (12). Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 December 2008.
- ^ "Remix & Return: A Complete Low-Level Nuclear Waste Solution". scientiapress.com. Archived from the original on 5 June 2004.
- S2CID 96845138.
- ^ "Thorium Resources In Rare Earth Elements" (PDF). uiuc.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 December 2012.
- ^ American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, abstract #V33A-1161. Mass and Composition of the Continental Crust
- ^ Wainwright, Martin (30 January 2013). "Cumbria rejects underground nuclear storage dump". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 22 October 2013. Retrieved 1 February 2013.
- ^ Macalister, Terry (31 January 2013). "Cumbria sticks it to the nuclear dump lobby – despite all the carrots on offer". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 15 February 2014. Retrieved 1 February 2013.
- ^ Conca, James (January 31, 2019). "Can We Drill a Hole Deep Enough for Our Nuclear Waste?". Forbes.
- ^ "Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste in Deep Horizontal Drillholes". MDPI. May 29, 2019. Archived from the original on February 24, 2020.
- ^ "The State of the Science and Technology in Deep Borehole Disposal of Nuclear Waste". MDPI. February 14, 2020. Archived from the original on February 20, 2020.
- ^ "Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the 'do no significant harm' criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 ('Taxonomy Regulation')" (PDF). Politico. March 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 March 2021. Retrieved 28 March 2021. Alt URL
- ISSN 0020-6067.
- ^ Hoare, J. P. (1968). Electrochemistry of Oxygen. Interscience Publishers.
- .
- ISBN 978-0-618-93596-3 – via Google Books.
- ^ "Dumping and Loss overview". Oceans in the Nuclear Age. Archived from the original on June 5, 2011. Retrieved March 23, 2011.
- ^ Review of the SONIC Proposal to Dump High-Level Nuclear Waste at Piketon. Southern Ohio Neighbors Group
- ^ National Policy Analysis #396: The Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems (STATS) Report: Implications for Nuclear Power Growth and Energy Sufficiency – February 2002 Archived 2008-02-17 at the Wayback Machine. Nationalcenter.org. Retrieved on 2015-12-15.
- ^ Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Statement of Principles. gnep.energy.gov (2007-09-16)
- ^ Freidberg, Jeffrey P. "Department of Nuclear Engineering: Reports to the President 2000–2001". Web.mit.edu. Archived from the original on 2013-05-25. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
- ^ Milton R. (January 17, 1978) Nuclear By-Products : A Resource for the Future Archived 2015-12-22 at the Wayback Machine. heritage.org
- ^ "酵素でプチ断食|成功させる秘訣は代替ドリンクにあった!". Nuclearhydrocarbons.com. Archived from the original on 2013-10-21. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
- ISBN 978-0-309-07317-2.
- ^ "Managing nuclear waste: Options considered". DOE Factsheets. Department of Energy: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Project. November 2003. Archived from the original on 2009-05-15.
- ^ Cherkashin, Yuri (2004). "Wastes on the Sun? – System of disposal nuclear and high toxic wastes. Design". Archived from the original on 2008-03-11. Retrieved 2011-12-19.
- ^ Vandenbosch, p. 247.
- ^ a b Vandenbosch, p. 248
- ^ U.S. Federal Register. 40 CFR Part 197. Environmental Protection Agency. Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Final Rule Archived 2011-02-02 at the Wayback Machine
- doi:10.1179/isr.1998.23.3.193. Archived from the originalon 2012-02-04. Retrieved 2011-05-30.
- ^ The Mainichi Daily News (15 October 2011)Mongolia abandons nuclear waste storage plans, and informs Japan of decision Archived 2011-10-18 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ From cocaine to plutonium: mafia clan accused of trafficking nuclear waste Archived 2016-12-28 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, October 9, 2007
- ^ Mafia sank boat with radioactive waste: official Archived 2009-09-29 at the Wayback Machine, AFP, September 14, 2009
- ^ Vennard, Martin (April 1, 2008). "Pakistan 'dumped nuclear waste'". BBC. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
- ^ Strengthening the safety of radiation sources & the security of radioactive materials: timely action Archived 2009-03-26 at the Wayback Machine, by Abel J. González, IAEA Bulletin, 41/3/1999
- ^ Hecker 2000, pp. 39−40.
- ^ Report RAI.it, L'Eredità Archived 2010-05-28 at the Wayback Machine (in Italian), 2 November 2008
- ^ Reuters UK, New incident at French nuclear plant. Retrieved March 2009.
- ^ "'It feels like a sci-fi film' – accidents tarnish nuclear dream". The Guardian. London. 25 July 2008. Archived from the original on 2 September 2013.
- ^ Reuters UK, Too many French nuclear workers contaminated Archived 2009-04-02 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved March 2009.
- ^ "How the U.S. betrayed the Marshall Islands, kindling the next nuclear disaster". Los Angeles Times. 10 November 2019.
- ^ a b International Atomic Energy Agency, The radiological accident in Goiânia Archived 2011-01-20 at the Wayback Machine, 1988. Retrieved September 2007.
- ^ "Transportation of Radioactive Material". EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. 30 November 2018. Retrieved 26 October 2022.
- ^ The Mainichi Daily News (December 15, 2011) Gov't admits nuclear substances found in waste, unreported to IAEA Archived 2011-12-15 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "New Symbol Launched to Warn Public About Radiation Dangers". International Atomic Energy Agency. 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-02-17.
Cited sources
- Vandenbosch, Robert & Vandenbosch, Susanne E. (2007). Nuclear waste stalemate. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ISBN 978-0874809039.
- Hecker, Siegfried S. (2000). "The Plutonium Challenge-Environmental Issues". Los Alamos Science (26). Los Alamos National Laboratory: 36–47. Retrieved 1 October 2023.
External links
- Alsos Digital Library – Radioactive Waste (annotated bibliography)
- Euridice European Interest Group in charge of Hades URL operation (link)
- Ondraf/Niras, the waste management authority in Belgium (link)
- Critical Hour: Three Mile Island, The Nuclear Legacy, And National Security (PDF)
- Environmental Protection Agency – Yucca Mountain (documents)
- Grist.org – How to tell future generations about nuclear waste (article)
- International Atomic Energy Agency – Internet Directory of Nuclear Resources (links)
- Nuclear Files.org – Yucca Mountain (documents)
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission – Radioactive Waste (documents)
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission – Spent Fuel Heat Generation Calculation (guide)
- Radwaste Solutions (magazine)
- UNEP Earthwatch – Radioactive Waste Archived 2008-12-23 at the Wayback Machine (documents and links)
- World Nuclear Association – Radioactive Waste Archived 2010-06-11 at the Wayback Machine (briefing papers)
- Worries can't be buried as nuclear waste piles up, Los Angeles Times, January 21, 2008