Management of Radioactive Waste

Оглавление

Jean-Claude Amiard. Management of Radioactive Waste

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations

List of Tables

Guide

Pages

Management of Radioactive Waste

Preface

Acknowledgments

1. Classifications and Origins of Radioactive Waste. 1.1. Introduction

1.2. What is radioactive waste?

1.3. Classifications of nuclear waste

1.3.1. General information on the classification of radioactive waste

1.3.2. The IAEA’s recommendations

1.3.3. The French classification of radioactive waste

1.3.3.1. Activity levels used in France

1.3.3.2. French radioactive waste systems

1.3.3.3. Hospital radioactive waste

1.3.3.4. Harmfulness of radioactive waste

1.3.4. American classification

1.3.5. British classification

1.3.6. Russian classification

1.3.7. Comparisons of the various classifications

1.3.7.1. American classification and IAEA recommendation

1.3.7.2. Comparison between the Belgian, French and Canadian radioactive waste classifications

1.3.8. Classification of sealed sources

1.4. Origins of nuclear waste

1.4.1. The main radionuclides in radioactive waste

1.4.2. Wastes related to the nuclear fuel cycle

1.4.3. Nuclear waste from electricity production

1.4.4. Nuclear waste related to military activities

1.4.5. Wastes related to medical and industrial uses

1.4.6. Nuclear waste related to the dismantling of nuclear installations

1.4.7. Waste from nuclear accidents

1.5. The global radioactive waste balance

1.6. Conclusions

2. Nuclear Waste Disposal Methods. 2.1. Introduction. How do we get rid of nuclear waste? What solutions are there for nuclear waste in the future?

2.2. Nuclear waste management

2.2.1. Dilutions

2.2.2. Decontamination

2.2.3. Reduction of the volume of radioactive waste

2.2.4. Radioactive waste immobilizations

2.2.4.1. Cement

2.2.4.2. Bitumen

2.2.4.3. Vitrification

2.2.4.4. Ceramics

2.2.4.5. Resins and metal compounds

2.2.4.6. Choice of immobilization matrix

2.2.5. The separation of radionuclides

2.2.6. Packaging of radioactive waste packages

2.2.6.1. The creation of barriers for radioactive waste packages

2.2.6.2. Steel and copper packaging in Sweden

2.2.6.3. Transport packaging

2.2.7. Physical decay

2.2.7.1. The latency method

2.2.7.2. Storage

2.2.7.3. Release thresholds

2.2.8. Final storage

2.2.8.1. Immersions

2.2.8.2. Final storage centers

2.2.9. Transport of nuclear materials and radioactive waste

2.3. The special case of long-lived radioactive waste management

2.3.1. Treatment and packaging

2.3.1.1. The case of spent fuel

2.3.1.2. The case of acid solutions of fission products and actinides

2.3.1.3. The conditioning of metallic structural waste

2.3.2. Temporary storage facilities

2.3.2.1. Underwater storage, local and centralized pools

2.3.2.2. Dry storage

2.3.2.3. Comparison of wet and dry storage

2.3.2.4. Silos

2.3.3. Long-term storage

2.3.4. Storage in the seabed

2.3.4.1. Storage in abyssal trenches

2.3.4.2. Disposal in the subduction zones of the sea floor

2.3.5. Geological storage in a deep continental repository

2.3.5.1. Final geological repositories

2.3.5.2. Storage in boreholes

2.3.6. Sending into space

2.3.7. Immobilization in polar ice

2.3.8. Transmutation

2.3.8.1. A limited number of candidate radionuclides

2.3.8.2. Very limited evidence of effectiveness and low yields

2.3.8.3. Research for the distant future

2.3.8.4. Limited applications

2.3.8.5. Significant additional costs

2.4. Conclusions

3. Management of Historic Radioactive Waste and Low-level Waste Around the World. 3.1. Introduction

3.2. Management of historical radioactive waste

3.2.1. Uranium extraction and concentration waste

3.2.2. Direct discharges of liquid wastes into waterways and reservoirs

3.2.3. Historical military waste

3.2.4. The ancient uses of radium

3.2.4.1. The use of radium in hygiene and pharmacy

3.2.4.2. Waste from the watchmaking industry

3.2.5. Submergence in the ocean floor

3.2.5.1. European immersions

3.2.5.2. American immersions

3.2.5.3. The Soviet immersions

3.2.5.4. Immersions by other nations

3.3. International recommendations of the IAEA and NEA

3.3.1. General recommendations

3.3.2. Recommendations concerning graphite waste

3.3.3. Radioactive waste management solutions

3.3.4. Waiting and processing time for nuclear fuel

3.3.5. The need for teaching

3.4. Some examples of radioactive waste management

3.4.1. International inventories of radioactive waste

3.4.2. Surface storage

3.4.2.1. Belgium

3.4.2.2. Japan

3.4.3. Geological disposal of radioactive waste

3.4.3.1. Germany

3.4.3.2. Finland

3.4.3.3. Sweden

3.4.3.4. Canada

3.4.3.5. Other countries

3.5. Radioactive waste outside the nuclear fuel cycle

3.5.1. Hospital and healthcare waste

3.5.2. Industrial and research waste

3.6. Conclusions

4. Management of Intermediate- and High-level Nuclear Waste. 4.1. Introduction

4.2. International recommendations of the IAEA and NEA

4.2.1. Spent fuel management

4.2.2. Management of radioactive waste resulting from a nuclear accident

4.2.3. Final repositories in deep geological layers

4.2.4. Site selection criteria

4.2.5. Temporal evolution of a deep geological repository

4.2.6. Underground laboratory

4.2.6.1. Roles of underground laboratories

4.2.6.2. Different underground laboratories in the world

4.2.6.3. Scientific problems dealt with in underground laboratories

4.2.7. Retrievability and recovery

4.2.8. Safety file

4.2.9. Decision-making

4.2.10. Long-term evolution and post-closure monitoring

4.3. High-level radioactive waste management and the public

4.3.1. Public perception of the geological repository project

4.3.2. Public information or communication about the geological repository project

4.3.3. Measures to support a radioactive waste management project

4.3.4. Public participation in the geological repository project

4.3.5. Information for future generations

4.4. Alternative solutions

4.4.1. Underwater temporary storage

4.4.2. An interim solution: dry storage

4.4.3. A waiting stage: long-term storage

4.4.4. The American perspective of deep drilling

4.5. Management of high-level radioactive waste by the various States

4.5.1. States advocating a closed nuclear fuel cycle

4.5.1.1. China

4.5.1.2. France

4.5.1.3. India

4.5.1.4. Russia

4.5.2. States that have reprocessed spent fuel in the past

4.5.2.1. South Africa

4.5.2.2. Germany

4.5.2.3. Belgium

4.5.2.4. South Korea

4.5.2.5. United States

4.5.2.6. Japan

4.5.2.7. United Kingdom

4.5.3. States with an open nuclear fuel cycle

4.5.3.1. Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia and Ukraine

4.5.3.2. Canada

4.5.3.3. Argentina

4.5.3.4. Switzerland

4.5.3.5. Sweden

4.5.3.6. Finland

4.5.3.7. Romania, Armenia and Czechoslovakia

4.5.3.8. Netherlands, Italy and Spain

4.6. Conclusions

5. Nuclear Waste Management in France. 5.1. Introduction

5.2. Direct discharges into the environment

5.2.1. The nuclear study centers

5.2.2. Nuclear reactors

5.2.3. Fuel cycle plants

5.3. The inventory of nuclear waste in France

5.3.1. Military waste

5.3.2. Civilian waste

5.4. Nuclear waste management in France

5.4.1. The regulatory context

5.4.2. The National Radioactive Materials and Waste Management Plan (PNGMDR)

5.4.3. The different actors in nuclear waste management in France

5.4.3.1. The National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management (ANDRA)

5.4.3.2. The main producers of radioactive waste

5.4.3.3. The official circuit of the administrative and political spheres

5.4.3.4. The technical and scientific circuit of the scientific sphere

5.4.3.5. The public circuit

5.4.3.6. The international circuit

5.5. The organization of storage for identified waste

5.5.1. The various types of containers

5.5.1.1. Packages for transport

5.5.1.2. Conditioning of long-lived intermediate-level waste

5.5.1.3. Conditioning of high-level waste in France

5.5.2. The management of very short-lived radioactive waste

5.5.3. Management of very low-level radioactive waste

5.5.4. Disposal centers for low- and intermediate-level short-lived nuclear waste in France

5.5.5. Management of low-level, long-lived nuclear waste in France

5.5.5.1. Radium-bearing waste

5.5.5.2. Uranium waste

5.5.5.3. Graphite waste

5.5.5.4. Historic LL-LLW

5.5.5.5. The future storage center for LL-LLW

5.5.6. Management of long-lived intermediate- and high-level waste in France

5.5.6.1. History of the search for a definitive solution for LL-HLW in France

5.5.6.2. The three lines of research of the 1991 law

5.5.6.3. The Bure underground laboratory

5.5.6.4. The Cigéo project

The 2013 stage

The 2016 stage

The 2020 milestone

5.5.6.5. Reversibility of deep disposal

5.5.6.6. Admission of radioactive waste packages to Cigéo

5.5.6.7. Preservation of memory and its intergenerational transmission

5.5.6.8. The cost of the Cigéo project

5.5.7. Fierce opposition and the arrival of social problems

5.5.7.1. The importance of policy

5.5.7.2. The public is a major player

5.5.7.3. The interests of future generations

5.5.7.4. The territory and citizens

5.5.8. A centralized pool as an interim option

5.5.9. Radioactive waste from the reprocessing of foreign spent fuel

5.6. The management of specific waste and waste without a channel

5.6.1. Management of historical waste

5.6.2. Storage of tritiated waste

5.6.3. Waste of natural origin

5.6.3.1. Mine tailings

5.6.3.2. Natural mineral processing plants

5.6.4. Submerged waste

5.7. French challenges to the radioactive waste management policy

5.8. Conclusions

5.8.1. Shortcomings in several categories of radioactive waste

5.8.2. Recent developments in French nuclear policy

5.8.3. Policy change on the closed cycle?

5.8.4. Redefinition of radioactive waste and radioactive material

5.8.5. The cost of waste management

6. General Conclusions. 6.1. Introduction

6.2. The main problems concerning radioactive waste. 6.2.1. The problem of multiple classifications

6.2.2. Radioactive waste or nuclear material?

6.2.3. Waste without a channel

6.2.4. Long-lived waste

6.2.5. Very low-level waste

6.3. Innovations in radioactive waste management

6.3.1. Research on separation and transmutation

6.3.2. Research on the aging of packaging

6.3.3. Research on recycled nuclear fuel and cladding

6.3.4. Research on deep burial

6.3.4.1. Host rock properties

6.3.4.2. The mobility of radionuclides in geological layers

6.3.4.3. The presence of bacteria in clays

6.3.4.4. Transmission of information to future generations

6.3.5. Communication to the public

List of Acronyms

References

Index. A, C, D

F, G, H, I

L, M, N

P, R

S, T

U, V, W

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

Отрывок из книги

Radioactive Risk Set

.....

The principal radionuclides in radioactive waste are very varied and can be classified into four categories. These are fission products (H, Se, Br, Kr, Rb, Sr, Y, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Te, I, Xe, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb and Dy), activation products (C, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni) and heavy nuclei (U, Nb and Zr), those that are both fission and activation products (Zr and Nb), heavy nuclei (U, Np, Pu, Am and Cm) and some elements with long-lived radioactive isotopes (C, Zr, Tc, Pd, Sn, I, Cs and Sm) to which are added the five heavy nuclei elements.

A distinction should be made between two fuel cycles, the so-called open NFC and the closed NFC, the latter reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in order to reuse the extracted by-products (uranium and plutonium) in other reactors, whereas in the case of the open NFC, the spent fuel is considered as radioactive waste and therefore disposed of. A representation of the two types of fuel cycle is shown in Figure 1.3.

.....