Curmudgeon's Corner, 2004 Archives
2007 Current 2006 Archives 2005 Archives 2003 Archives 2002 Archives 2001 Archives
Several of these papers taken together provide a strong rationale for continued storage of nuclear waste at the reactor sites along with heightened security and research into transmutation technologies.
Background Paper: 6-1 Technical Methods: Status of Reactor Site Storage Systems for Used Nuclear Fuel, by SENES Consultants Limited
24 pages plus appendices
This is a descriptive paper which summarizes the methods used for the storage of irradiated fuel at commercial Canadian nuclear power sites in Canada. It includes an appendix which provides a handy list of 39 world-wide web site locations which contain information about the on-site storage of nuclear waste around the globe.
One of its main conclusions is that the dry storage facilities of irradiated fuel at Canada's nuclear power sites currently have a design life of 50 years and that "...the actual life of dry storage containers is thought to be 100 years or more." It goes on to state that "...in the event that centralized facilities for the management of used fuel are not available on a timely basis, extended use of dry storage would provide a reliable method of managing used fuel in the longer term. In such an event, regulatory and environmental issues would need to be revisited."
In my view, although predictions about the length of time into the future that dry storage facilities would remain "reliable," are somewhat speculative, given proper monitoring and security measures, perhaps a fairly long-term containment is possible. Unfortunately, the paper did not discuss the adaptation of a surface dry storage facility to a near-surface one, hardened to the point where it could withstand most terrorist attack scenarios.
Like other papers on this subject, I am not comforted by the bland regulatory descriptions of wet or dry storage security arrangements, systems and procedures. "Local police," and "security staff," etc. would be of little value in the event of a major security breech of these containment structures. Let there be no doubt that these installations could well become very high-priority terrorism targets, throughout North America and especially anywhere near the Great Lakes.
However, this paper does reinforce my own view of the need for a Government of Canada policy decision to continue to improve the on-reactor-site storage system.
The paper also reinforces my view of the need for a full-scale environmental assessment of the various options provided for in the legislation, or any other option being seriously considered.
This paper, when considered along with the following one (which analyses the potential options for management of nuclear fuel waste), gives added strength to adoption of extended on-reactor-site-storage.
Background Paper: 6.5 Technical Methods: Range of Potential Options for the Long-Term Management of Used Nuclear Fuel, by Phil Richardson & Marion Hill, Enviros Consulting
38 pages
This paper examines no less than 16 options for the long-term management of nuclear waste. It includes brief descriptions of each option along with a short summary of "assessments" of each option.
Also included are the criteria used for these assessments, i.e., environmental, technical, economic and specific social and ethical considerations. Other criteria identified as "not used" deal with sustainability, intergenerational equity, general ethical considerations and public acceptability. The authors provide their reasons for these criteria omissions.
Based on the results of published assessments of these options, the authors placed them into three categories: Those of considerable interest, those of some interest and those of very little interest.
Three options appear in the "considerable interest" category and they are: above ground storage, underground storage and underground "disposal." As opposed to "storage," disposal is generally defined here as "permanent," with "... no intention to retrieve the waste..."
In it's descriptions of the options, using it's restricted set of criteria, this paper leans heavily in the direction of so-called underground "disposal." It tends to measure a number of the other options against the "disposal" option in it's assessment statements and always winds up with "disposal" as the winner. The technical argument for this option is given more weight because it is favoured by many other countries and international agencies. That particular viewpoint has become something of a "mantra" which we have been hearing since the late 1970's.
No reference is made in this assessment to the fact that various technical problems associated with Atomic Energy of Canada's underground burial concept were identified by the Federal Environmental Review Panel during it's lengthy assessment process.
The authors state that the partitioning and transmutation (P&T) option was placed in the "some interest," rather than in the "considerable interest" category because "it is not a complete management option for used fuel and could not be implemented soon." I personally surveyed the considerable progress in accelerator transmutation of nuclear waste and found that some of the key scientists involved considered that the technology could provide a complete management option for used fuel.
However, this paper does state that "It is recognized internationally that the possibility that P&T could become a readily available and very attractive treatment option in several decades time (emphasis supplied), could be a reason for choosing storage rather than disposal."
But why not go further. If on-site dry storage is suitable for 50 to 100 years as stated in the previous discussion paper, there should be plenty of time to research and develop an appropriate transmutation option designed specifically for the destruction of nuclear waste. What is needed is political will along with the phase out of the formidable vested interests in the underground burial option.
Walter Robbins
July, 2004