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.
The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Concluding Observations--Milton Levenson ."
An International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility -- Exploring a Russian Site as a Prototype: Proceedings of an International Workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
Please select a format: