Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:52:16.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Modest Proposal: A Robust, Cost-Effective Design for High-Level Waste Packages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

M.J. Apted
M.J. Apted*
Affiliation:
QuantiSci, Inc., Suite 555, 3900 South Wadsworth Blvd., Denver Colorado 80235USA
Get access

Abstract

An alternative waste-package design for the geological disposal of high-level waste (HLW) glass is presented. In conventional designs, a massive buffer of compacted bentonite is placed around a thick-walled, mild-steel overpack; in the revised design, a much thinner buffer is placed within a thin-walled, mild-steel overpack. This simple expedient eliminates certain performance concerns in existing waste-package designs, while not necessitating the study of any new materials. This integrated waste package (IWP) design has comparable release-rate performance as current package designs for HLW. In addition, the 1WP design requires far-less rock excavation, permits significantly higher temperatures for longer periods, leads to a 20-50% reduction in repository area, and is more cost efficient than previous designs.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 506: Symposium – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXI , 1997 , 589
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1 , Nagra, Project Gewähr 1985: Nuclear Waste Management in Switzerland: Feasibility Studies and Safety Analyses, NGB 85-09, National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Baden, Switzerland (1985).Google Scholar
2 , Nagra, Kristallin-I Safety Assessment Report, NTB 93-22, National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Baden, Switzerland (1994).Google Scholar
3 PNC, Research and Development of Geological Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste, Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Co., Tokyo, Japan (1992).Google Scholar
4 Nuclear Energy Agency, The Status of Near-Field Modelling, Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 1993.Google Scholar
5 McKinley, I. G., Engineering for Robustness: An Approach to Optimizing HLW Disposal Concepts, written communication (1997).Google Scholar
6 SKB, SKB RD&D Programme 95: Treatment and final disposal of nuclear waste. Programme for encapsulation, deep geological disposal, and research, development and demonstration, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., Stockholm, Sweden (1995).Google Scholar
7 Vieno, T. and Nordman, H., Interim Report on Safety Assessment of Spent Fuel Disposal TILA-96, POSIVA-OY, Helsinki, Finland (1996).Google Scholar
8 Johnson, L.H., LeNeveu, D. M., Shoesmith, D. W., Oscarson, D.W., Gray, M.N., Lemire, R.J., and Garisto, N.C., The Disposal of Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste: The Vault Model for Post-Closure Assessment, AECL-10714, Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada (1994).Google Scholar
9 SKB, Project on Alternative Systems Study (PASS) Final Report, TR 93-04, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., Stockholm, Sweden (1992).Google Scholar
10 Yonezawa, C., Tanaka, T. and Kamioka, H., “Water-rock reactions during gamma-ray irradiation”, Applied Geochemistry, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 461–470 (1996).Google Scholar