Items in cart [4] Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK list:$62.00 Web:$55.80 add to cart Rights & Permissions Free PDF Access Free Resources Sign in to download PDF book and chapters Display this book on your site! Related Titles Going the Distance? The Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States Monitoring Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear-Explosive Materials: An Assessment of Methods and Capabilities Other Related Titles An International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility -- Exploring a Russian Site as a Prototype: Proceedings of an International Workshop (2005) Development, Security, and Cooperation (DSC) Web Search Builder Use this book's key terms to search within this book, across our collection, or across the Web. Skim This Chapter Skim this chapter and use this chapter's key terms to search within this book. Reference Finder Paste in your own text to find books that relate to your topic. Page 248   E-mail  Facebook  Digg  Stumble  Twitter More The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. Concluding Observations Milton Levenson Bechtel International (retired) It was not the objective of our workshop to achieve consensus on what is the best or optimum permanent solution to the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste disposal problem. There are currently several alternatives—each with its own group of advocates. In some countries one option has been selected by policy officials while in other countries the decision has been deferred. It is not my intent to comment on the appropriateness of either selection by policy or deferral by policy but rather to give my personal observations on the content of the discussions at the workshop. There were differing opinions as to what was the best or most appropriate final end point (for example, spent fuel geological disposal, reactor burn-out of actinide, accelerator burn-out of low-level fission products), but there was complete agreement that long-range storage and preferably centralized storage was required in all cases. No one is against either reactor or accelerator burn-up or transmutation, but many have not decided on the practicality of it. This is probably due to the early stage of the science and lack of demonstration feasibility, which means estimates of cost are not credible. There seemed to be concurrence that no matter how safe geological disposal is, it is prudent to minimize the amount of disposal to the extent that is practical.1 Over five decades of experience confirms that shipment of either spent fuel or high-level waste can be conducted safely although the advent of terrorism now causes a rethinking of the most appropriate methods of transportation. Spent fuel and high-level waste are both currently being stored safely Page 248 Front Matter (R1-R12) Opening Remarks (1-2) Handling Spent Nuclear Fuel International Experience -- IAEA Activities in Nuclear Spent Fuel Management (3-11) Analysis of U.S. Experience with Spent Fuel (12-19) Problems of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Storage Site Selection (20-29) Feasibility of Transmutation of Radioactive Elements (30-49) The High Level Waste Disposal Technology Development Program in Korea (50-58) The Use of Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors for Effectively Reprocessing Plutonium and Minor Actinides (59-72) 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 (73-88) The Private Fuel Limited Liability Company National Spent Fuel Site (89-95) Experience of Japan (96-108) The Current Status of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Korea (109-117) Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste: International Experience (118-127) Ensuring Nuclear and Radiation Safety During the Transport of Radioactive Materials in Russia (128-142) Problems in Establishing an International Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Russia -- Creating an Infrastructure for Managing of Spent Nuclear Fuel (143-151) Current Status of Government Regulation of Activities Associated with the Import of Spent Nuclear Fuel into the Russian Federation Return to the Russian Federation of Irradiated Fuel Assemblies from the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Republic of Uzbekistan (152-158) Return to the Russian Federation of Irradiated Fuel Assemblies from the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Republic of Uzbekistan (159-162) Investment and International Aspects of the Problem of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management (163-165) Creation of an Underground Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel near the City of Zheleznogorsk (Eastern Siberia) (166-176) Conditions for the Creation of an International Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository near the Priargunsk Mining-Chemical Production Association (City of Krasnokamensk, Chita Oblast) (177-186) Utilization of High-Level Waste -- Types of High-Level Radioactive Wastes Formed as a Result of Dry Methods of Spent Fuel Regeneration and Technologies for their Management (187-198) Chemical Treatment of High Level Waste for Utilization (199-207) Immobilization of High Level Waste: Analysis of Appropriate Synthetic Waste Forms (208-224) The Management of High-Level Radioactive Wastes from the Mayak Production Association and Plans for the Creation of an Underground Laboratory (225-239) Creation of Underground Laboratories at the Mining-Chemical Complex and at Mayak to Study the Suitability of Sites for Underground Isolation of Radioactive Wastes (240-247) Concluding Observations--Milton Levenson (248-250) Appendix A: Workshop Agenda (251-256) Appendix B: Environmental Effects of Radiation in the Russian Federation (257-259) Appendix C: Geochemistry of Actinides During the Long-Term Storage and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel (260-290)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 248
An International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility: Exploring a Russian Site as a Prototype - Proceedings of an International Workshop Concluding Observations Milton Levenson Bechtel International (retired) It was not the objective of our workshop to achieve consensus on what is the best or optimum permanent solution to the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste disposal problem. There are currently several alternatives—each with its own group of advocates. In some countries one option has been selected by policy officials while in other countries the decision has been deferred. It is not my intent to comment on the appropriateness of either selection by policy or deferral by policy but rather to give my personal observations on the content of the discussions at the workshop. There were differing opinions as to what was the best or most appropriate final end point (for example, spent fuel geological disposal, reactor burn-out of actinide, accelerator burn-out of low-level fission products), but there was complete agreement that long-range storage and preferably centralized storage was required in all cases. No one is against either reactor or accelerator burn-up or transmutation, but many have not decided on the practicality of it. This is probably due to the early stage of the science and lack of demonstration feasibility, which means estimates of cost are not credible. There seemed to be concurrence that no matter how safe geological disposal is, it is prudent to minimize the amount of disposal to the extent that is practical.1 Over five decades of experience confirms that shipment of either spent fuel or high-level waste can be conducted safely although the advent of terrorism now causes a rethinking of the most appropriate methods of transportation. Spent fuel and high-level waste are both currently being stored safely

OCR for page 249
An International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility: Exploring a Russian Site as a Prototype - Proceedings of an International Workshop under conditions that appear to be stable for as long as 50 years. The acceptable time may be much longer, but longer periods have not yet been validated. Permanent solutions other than geological disposal of spent nuclear fuel, such as closed fuel cycles or transmutation, require significant research and development before they can be applied. It is not clear that funding at the levels required will be available to develop the technology in a timely manner. This supports observation 1 above. Among the many considerations in the selection of a site the relationship of the chemistry of the host matrix to the chemistry of the waste form should be considered. In those cases where basic chemistry favors retention of fission products, plutonium, and actinides, natural barriers are important. Since concerns over proliferation and terrorism, which were not discussed at the workshop, are current and since permanent solutions are in the future—an indeterminate time in the future—centralized, secure, long-term storage would appear to be of the highest priority. NOTE 1.   Practical includes consideration of costs and labor expense.

OCR for page 250
An International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility: Exploring a Russian Site as a Prototype - Proceedings of an International Workshop This page intentionally left blank.

Representative terms from entire chapter:

geological disposal