Editing Radioactive waste (section)

=== Long-term management ===
{{See also|Economics of nuclear power plants#Waste disposal costs}}
The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,<ref>{{cite book |last=[[United States National Research Council]] |title=Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards |publisher=National Academy Press |year=1995 |location=Washington, D.C.}} cited in {{cite web |date=January 2006 |title=The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal |url=http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2006/january/article1.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080516010935/http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2006/january/article1.html |archive-date=2008-05-16 |access-date=2008-06-06 |publisher=The [[American Physical Society]]}}</ref> according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.<ref>{{cite web |title=Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Proposed Rule |date=2005-08-22 |publisher=[[Environmental Protection Agency]] |access-date=2008-06-06 |url=http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/70fr49013.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626191551/http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/70fr49013.pdf |archive-date=2008-06-26}}</ref> Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Peterson |first=Per |author2=Kastenberg |first2=William |author3=Corradini |first3=Michael |title=Nuclear Waste and the Distant Future |url=http://www.issues.org/22.4/peterson.html |url-status=dead |journal=Issues in Science and Technology |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=National Academy of Sciences |issue=Summer 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100710055339/http://www.issues.org/22.4/peterson.html |archive-date=2010-07-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Issues relating to safety standards on the geological disposal of radioactive waste |date=2001-06-22 |publisher=[[International Atomic Energy Agency]] |access-date=2008-06-06 |url=http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1282_prn/t1282_part1.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626191615/http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1282_prn/t1282_part1.pdf |archive-date=2008-06-26}}</ref> Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning<ref>{{cite web |title=IAEA Waste Management Database: Report 3 – L/ILW-LL |date=2000-03-28 |publisher=International Atomic Energy Agency |access-date=2008-06-06 |url=http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/rwmp-3/Report_3.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626191629/http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/rwmp-3/Report_3.pdf |archive-date=2008-06-26}}</ref> and cost evaluations<ref>{{cite web |title=Decommissioning costs of WWER-440 nuclear power plants |date=November 2002 |publisher=International Atomic Energy Agency |access-date=2008-06-06 |url=http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1322_web.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626191602/http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1322_web.pdf |archive-date=2008-06-26}}</ref> are concerned. Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects in [[geoforecasting]].<ref>International Atomic Energy Agency, [http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1563_web.pdf ''Spent Fuel and High Level Waste: Chemical Durability and Performance under Simulated Repository Conditions''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216224300/http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1563_web.pdf |date=2008-12-16 }}, IAEA-TECDOC-1563, October 2007.</ref>

==== Remediation ====
[[Algae]] has shown selectivity for strontium in studies, where most plants used in [[bioremediation]] have not shown selectivity between calcium and strontium, often becoming saturated with calcium, which is present in greater quantities in nuclear waste. [[Strontium-90]] with a half life around 30 years, is classified as high-level waste.<ref name=Potera>{{cite journal |last=Potera |first=Carol |title=Hazardous waste: Pond algae sequester strontium-90 |journal=Environ Health Perspect |date=2011 |volume=119 |issue=6 |pages=A244 |pmid=21628117 |doi=10.1289/ehp.119-a244 |pmc=3114833 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Researchers have looked at the bioaccumulation of strontium by ''[[Scenedesmus|Scenedesmus spinosus]]'' ([[algae]]) in simulated wastewater. The study claims a highly selective [[biosorption]] capacity for strontium of S. spinosus, suggesting that it may be appropriate for use of nuclear wastewater.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Liu |first1=Mingxue |last2=Dong |first2=Faqin |last3=Kang |first3=Wu |last4=Sun |first4=Shiyong |last5=Wei |first5=Hongfu |last6=Zhang |first6=Wei |last7=Nie |first7=Xiaoqin |last8=Guo |first8=Yuting |last9=Huang |first9=Ting |last10=Liu |first10=Yuanyuan |date=2014 |title=Biosorption of Strontium from Simulated Nuclear Wastewater by Scenedesmus spinosus under Culture Conditions: Adsorption and Bioaccumulation Processes and Models |journal= International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health|volume=11 |issue=6 |pages=6099–6118 |doi=10.3390/ijerph110606099 |pmc=4078568 |pmid=24919131 |doi-access=free}}</ref> A study of the pond alga ''[[Closterium|Closterium moniliferum]]'' using non-radioactive strontium found that varying the ratio of [[barium]] to strontium in water improved strontium selectivity.<ref name=Potera/>

==== Above-ground disposal ====
[[Dry cask storage]] typically involves taking waste from a [[spent fuel pool]] and sealing it (along with an [[inert gas]]) in a [[steel]] cylinder, which is placed in a concrete cylinder which acts as a radiation shield. It is a relatively inexpensive method which can be done at a central facility or adjacent to the source reactor. The waste can be easily retrieved for reprocessing.<ref>{{cite web |date=May 7, 2009 |title=Fact Sheet on Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel |url=https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dry-cask-storage.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110805095811/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dry-cask-storage.html |archive-date=August 5, 2011 |access-date=2011-06-25 |publisher=U. S. [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission|NRC]]}}</ref>

==== Geologic disposal ====
[[File:Low Level Waste Disposal (44021366302).jpg|thumb|upright=1.4|Diagram of an underground low-level radioactive waste disposal site]]
[[File:WIPP DoE 2014-05-15 5 15 Image lrg.jpg|thumb|upright=1.4|On Feb. 14, 2014, radioactive materials at the [[Waste Isolation Pilot Plant]] leaked from a damaged storage drum due to the use of incorrect packing material. Analysis showed the lack of a "safety culture" at the plant since its successful operation for 15 years had bred complacency.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Cameron L. |last1=Tracy |first2=Megan K. |last2=Dustin |first3=Rodney C. |last3=Ewing |title=Policy: Reassess New Mexico's nuclear-waste repository |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |date=13 January 2016|volume=529 |issue=7585 |pages=149–151 |doi=10.1038/529149a |pmid=26762442 |bibcode=2016Natur.529..149T |s2cid=4403906 |doi-access=free }}</ref>]]

The process of selecting appropriate deep final repositories for high-level waste and spent fuel is now underway in several countries with the first expected to be commissioned sometime after 2010.{{Citation needed|reason=This claim needs references to reliable sources.|date=July 2020}} The basic concept is to locate a large, stable geologic formation and use mining technology to excavate a tunnel, or use large-bore [[tunnel boring machine]]s (similar to those used to drill the [[Channel Tunnel]] from England to France) to drill a shaft {{convert|500|to|1000|m|ft}} below the surface where rooms or vaults can be excavated for disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The goal is to permanently isolate nuclear waste from the human environment. Many people remain uncomfortable with the immediate [[stewardship cessation]] of this disposal system, suggesting perpetual management and monitoring would be more prudent.{{Citation needed|reason=This claim needs references to reliable sources.|date=July 2020}}

Because some radioactive species have half-lives longer than one million years, even very low container leakage and radionuclide migration rates must be taken into account.<ref>[[#Vandenbosch|Vandenbosch]], p. 10.</ref> Moreover, it may require more than one half-life until some nuclear materials lose enough radioactivity to cease being lethal to living things. A 1983 review of the Swedish radioactive waste disposal program by the National Academy of Sciences found that country's estimate of several hundred thousand years—perhaps up to one million years—being necessary for waste isolation "fully justified."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Yates |first=Marshall |title=DOE waste management criticized: On-site storage urged |journal=Public Utilities Fortnightly |volume=124 |date=July 6, 1989 |pages=33}}</ref>

The proposed land-based subductive waste disposal method disposes of nuclear waste in a [[subduction]] zone accessed from land and therefore is not prohibited by international agreement. This method has been described as the most viable means of disposing of radioactive waste,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cppa.utah.edu/publications/environment/nuclear_waste_summary.pdf |title=Utah Nuclear Waste Summary |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216224243/http://www.cppa.utah.edu/publications/environment/nuclear_waste_summary.pdf |archive-date=16 December 2008 |first1=Tricia |last1=Jack |first2=Jordan |last2=Robertson |website=Center for Public Policy & Administration, [[University of Utah]]}}</ref> and as the state-of-the-art as of 2001 in nuclear waste disposal technology.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252001/1534.pdf |title=Radioactive waste: The problem and its management |last=Rao |first=K. R. |journal=[[Current Science]] |volume=81 |issue=12 |date=25 December 2001 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216224242/http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252001/1534.pdf |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref>

Another approach termed Remix & Return<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/r%26r.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040605175857/http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/r%26r.htm |archive-date=5 June 2004 |title=Remix & Return: A Complete Low-Level Nuclear Waste Solution |website=scientiapress.com}}</ref> would blend high-level waste with [[uranium mine]] and mill tailings down to the level of the original radioactivity of the [[uraninite|uranium ore]], then replace it in inactive uranium mines. This approach has the merits of providing jobs for miners who would double as disposal staff, and of facilitating a cradle-to-grave cycle for radioactive materials, but would be inappropriate for spent reactor fuel in the absence of reprocessing, due to the presence of highly toxic radioactive elements such as plutonium within it.

[[Deep borehole disposal]] is the concept of disposing of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear reactors in extremely deep boreholes. Deep borehole disposal seeks to place the waste as much as {{convert|5|km|mi}} beneath the surface of the Earth and relies primarily on the immense natural geological barrier to confine the waste safely and permanently so that it should never pose a threat to the environment. The Earth's crust contains 120 trillion tons of thorium and 40 trillion tons of uranium (primarily at relatively trace concentrations of parts per million each adding up over the crust's 3 × 10<sup>19</sup> ton mass), among other natural radioisotopes.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sevior |first=M. |title=Considerations for nuclear power in Australia |journal=International Journal of Environmental Studies |volume=63 |issue=6 |pages=859–872 |doi=10.1080/00207230601047255 |year=2006 |bibcode=2006IJEnS..63..859S |s2cid=96845138}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Thorium%20Resources%20in%20%20Rare%20Earth%20Elements.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20121218195159/https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Thorium%20Resources%20in%20%20Rare%20Earth%20Elements.pdf |archive-date=18 December 2012 |title=Thorium Resources In Rare Earth Elements |website=uiuc.edu}}</ref><ref>American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, abstract #V33A-1161. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.V33A1161P Mass and Composition of the Continental Crust].</ref> Since the fraction of nuclides decaying per unit of time is inversely proportional to an isotope's half-life, the relative radioactivity of the lesser amount of human-produced radioisotopes (thousands of tons instead of trillions of tons) would diminish once the isotopes with far shorter half-lives than the bulk of natural radioisotopes decayed.

In January 2013, [[Cumbria]] [[county council]] rejected UK central government proposals to start work on an underground storage dump for nuclear waste near to the [[Lake District National Park]]. "For any host community, there will be a substantial community benefits package and worth hundreds of millions of pounds" said Ed Davey, Energy Secretary, but nonetheless, the local elected body voted 7–3 against research continuing, after hearing evidence from independent geologists that "the fractured strata of the county was impossible to entrust with such dangerous material and a hazard lasting millennia."<ref>{{cite news |last=Wainwright |first=Martin |date=30 January 2013 |title=Cumbria rejects underground nuclear storage dump |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/30/cumbria-rejects-underground-nuclear-storage |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131022041542/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/30/cumbria-rejects-underground-nuclear-storage |archive-date=22 October 2013 |access-date=1 February 2013 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |location=London, England}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Macalister |first=Terry |date=31 January 2013 |title=Cumbria sticks it to the nuclear dump lobby – despite all the carrots on offer |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/31/cumbria-nuclear-waste-dump-analysis |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140215082407/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/31/cumbria-nuclear-waste-dump-analysis |archive-date=15 February 2014 |access-date=1 February 2013 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |location=London, England}}</ref>

[[Horizontal drillhole disposal]] describes proposals to drill over one km vertically, and two km horizontally in the earth's crust, for the purpose of disposing of high-level waste forms such as spent nuclear fuel, Caesium-137, or Strontium-90. After the emplacement and the retrievability period,{{clarify|date=March 2020}} drillholes would be backfilled and sealed. A series of tests of the technology were carried out in November 2018 and then again publicly in January 2019 by a U.S. based private company.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/01/31/can-we-drill-a-hole-deep-enough-for-our-nuclear-waste/ |title=Can We Drill a Hole Deep Enough for Our Nuclear Waste? |last=Conca |first=James |date=January 31, 2019 |website=[[Forbes]]}}</ref> The test demonstrated the emplacement of a test-canister in a horizontal drillhole and retrieval of the same canister. There was no actual high-level waste used in the test.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/11/2052 |title=Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste in Deep Horizontal Drillholes |date=May 29, 2019 |website=MDPI |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200224223044/https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/11/2052 |archive-date=February 24, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/4/833 |title=The State of the Science and Technology in Deep Borehole Disposal of Nuclear Waste |date=February 14, 2020 |website=MDPI |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200220060437/https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/4/833 |archive-date=February 20, 2020}}</ref>

The [[European Commission]] [[Joint Research Centre]] report of 2021 (see above) concluded:<ref>{{Cite news |date=March 2021 |title=Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the 'do no significant harm' criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 ('Taxonomy Regulation') |work=[[Politico]] |url=https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/26/JRC-report_March-2021-clean-Copy-printed.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210327185645/https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/26/JRC-report_March-2021-clean-Copy-printed.pdf |archive-date=27 March 2021 |access-date=28 March 2021}} [https://ipfs.io/ipfs/Qmbca7fBXZRboiR1M5o4VBt7rw9ketKjoV8fKBqYVjDsR6 Alt URL]</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=Management of radioactive waste and its safe and secure disposal is a necessary step in the lifecycle of all applications of nuclear science and technology (nuclear energy, research, industry, education, medical, and others). Radioactive waste is therefore generated in practically every country, the largest contribution coming from the nuclear energy lifecycle in countries operating nuclear power plants. Presently, there is broad scientific and technical consensus that disposal of high-level, long-lived radioactive waste in deep geologic formations is, at the state of today’s knowledge, considered as an appropriate and safe means of isolating it from the biosphere for very long time scales.}}

==== Ocean floor disposal ====
[[File:Fûts de déchets faiblement radioactifs en Altantique Nord-Est (Ifremer 00539-65072 - 9585).jpg|thumb|A drum of [[Low-level waste|low-level radioactive waste]] in the North-East Atlantic dumping zone (NEA zone), between 4,500 and 4,700 m deep.]]
From 1946 through 1993, thirteen countries used ocean disposal or ocean dumping as a method to dispose of nuclear/radioactive waste with an approximation of 200,000 tons sourcing mainly from the medical, research and nuclear industry.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Calmet |first=D. P. |date=1989 |title=Ocean disposal of radioactive waste: Status report |url=https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:21044010 |journal=International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin |language=en |volume=31 |issue=4 |issn=0020-6067}}</ref>

[[Ocean floor disposal]] of radioactive waste has been suggested by the finding that deep waters in the North Atlantic Ocean do not present an exchange with shallow waters for about 140 years based on oxygen content data recorded over a period of 25 years.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hoare |first=J. P. |date=1968 |title=Electrochemistry of Oxygen |publisher=Interscience Publishers}}</ref> They include burial beneath a stable [[abyssal plain]], burial in a [[subduction]] zone that would slowly carry the waste downward into the [[mantle (geology)|Earth's mantle]],<ref>{{cite book |last=Hafemeister |first=David W. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LT4MSqv9QUIC&pg=PA187 |title=Physics of societal issues: calculations on national security, environment, and energy |publisher=Springer |year=2007 |isbn=978-0387689098 |location=Berlin, Germany |page=187 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424221725/https://books.google.com/books?id=LT4MSqv9QUIC&pg=PA187 |archive-date=24 April 2016 |url-status=live |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Shipman |first1=J. T. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1LvMLoaN0HQC&pg=PA279 |title=An Introduction to Physical Science |last2=Wison |first2=J. D. |last3=Todd |first3=A. |publisher=[[Cengage Learning]] |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-618-93596-3 |edition=10 |page=279 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> and burial beneath a remote natural or human-made island. While these approaches all have merit and would facilitate an international solution to the problem of disposal of radioactive waste, they would require an amendment of the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea|Law of the Sea]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/ilr/ona/pages/dumping2.htm |title=Dumping and Loss overview |work=Oceans in the Nuclear Age |access-date=March 23, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605190619/http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/ilr/ona/pages/dumping2.htm |archive-date=June 5, 2011}}</ref>

[[List of sunken nuclear submarines|Nuclear submarines have been lost]] and these vessels reactors must also be counted in the amount of radioactive waste deposited at sea.

Article 1 (Definitions), 7., of the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, (the London Dumping Convention) states:

:""Sea" means all marine waters other than the internal waters of States, as well as the seabed and the subsoil thereof; it does not include sub-seabed repositories accessed only from land."

==== Transmutation ====
{{Main article|Nuclear transmutation}}
There have been proposals for reactors that consume nuclear waste and transmute it to other, less-harmful or shorter-lived, nuclear waste. In particular, the [[integral fast reactor]] was a proposed nuclear reactor with a nuclear fuel cycle that produced no transuranic waste and, in fact, could consume transuranic waste. It proceeded as far as large-scale tests but was eventually canceled by the U.S. Government. Another approach, considered safer but requiring more development, is to dedicate [[subcritical reactor]]s to the transmutation of the left-over transuranic elements.

An isotope that is found in nuclear waste and that represents a concern in terms of proliferation is Pu-239. The large stock of plutonium is a result of its production inside uranium-fueled reactors and of the reprocessing of weapons-grade plutonium during the weapons program. An option for getting rid of this plutonium is to use it as a fuel in a traditional light-water reactors (LWR). Several fuel types with differing plutonium destruction efficiencies are under study.

Transmutation was banned in the United States in April 1977 by U. S. President Carter due to the danger of plutonium proliferation,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080908002821/http://www.ohioneighbors.org/SONIC.aspx Review of the SONIC Proposal to Dump High-Level Nuclear Waste at Piketon]. Southern Ohio Neighbors Group.</ref> but President Reagan rescinded the ban in 1981.<ref>[http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA396.html National Policy Analysis #396: The Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems (STATS) Report: Implications for Nuclear Power Growth and Energy Sufficiency – February 2002] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080217012848/http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA396.html |date=2008-02-17 }}. Nationalcenter.org. Retrieved on 2015-12-15.</ref> Due to economic losses and risks, the construction of reprocessing plants during this time did not resume. Due to high energy demand, work on the method has continued in the [[European Union]] (EU). This has resulted in a practical nuclear research reactor called [[SCK•CEN|Myrrha]] in which transmutation is possible. Additionally, a new research program called ACTINET has been started in the EU to make transmutation possible on an industrial scale. According to U. S. President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) of 2007, the United States is actively promoting research on transmutation technologies needed to markedly reduce the problem of nuclear waste treatment.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080306234824/http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/GNEP_SOP.pdf Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Statement of Principles]. gnep.energy.gov (2007-09-16).</ref>

There have also been theoretical studies involving the use of [[fusion reactor]]s as so-called "actinide burners" where a fusion reactor [[plasma (physics)|plasma]] such as in a [[tokamak]], could be "doped" with a small amount of the "minor" transuranic atoms which would be transmuted (meaning fissioned in the actinide case) to lighter elements upon their successive bombardment by the very high energy neutrons produced by the fusion of [[deuterium]] and [[tritium]] in the reactor. A study at [[MIT]] found that only 2 or 3 fusion reactors with parameters similar to that of the [[International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor]] (ITER) could transmute the entire annual [[minor actinide]] production from all of the [[light-water reactor]]s presently operating in the United States fleet while simultaneously generating approximately 1 [[gigawatt]] of power from each reactor.<ref>{{cite web |author=Freidberg, Jeffrey P. |url=http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres01/13.07.html |title=Department of Nuclear Engineering: Reports to the President 2000–2001 |publisher=Web.mit.edu |access-date=2013-08-01 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130525072653/http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres01/13.07.html |archive-date=2013-05-25}}</ref>

2018 [[Nobel Prize for Physics]]-winner [[Gérard Mourou]] has proposed using [[chirped pulse amplification]] to generate high-energy and low-duration laser pulses either to accelerate [[deuterons]] into a [[tritium]] target causing fusion events yielding fast neutrons, or accelerating protons for [[Spallation Neutron Source|neutron spallation]], with either method intended for transmutation of nuclear waste.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/mourou-lecture.pdf |title=Nobel Lecture: Extreme Light Physics and Application |pages=130–132 |date=2018-12-08}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-nuclear-waste-storage-france/ |title=Nobel Prize Winner Could Have a Solution to Nuclear Waste |website=www.bloomberg.com |date=April 2, 2019 |access-date=November 2, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://edgy.app/lasers-nuclear-waste-problem |title=How Lasers Could Solve a Global Nuclear Waste Problem |date=April 8, 2019}}</ref>

==== Re-use ====
{{See also|Nuclear reprocessing|MOX fuel}}
Spent nuclear fuel contains abundant fertile uranium and traces of fissile materials.<ref name=":1" /> Methods such as the PUREX process can be used to remove useful actinides for the production of active nuclear fuel.

Another option is to find applications for the isotopes in nuclear waste so as to [[re-use]] them.<ref>Milton, R. (January 17, 1978) {{unfit|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20151222162343/http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1978/01/nuclear-by-products-a-resource-for-the-future Nuclear By-Products : A Resource for the Future]}}. heritage.org.</ref> <!-- (archived PDF document, with a few errors in it) -->Already, caesium-137, strontium-90 and a few other isotopes are extracted for certain industrial applications such as [[food irradiation]] and [[radioisotope thermoelectric generators]]. While re-use does not eliminate the need to manage radioisotopes, it can reduce the quantity of waste produced.

The Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method,<ref>{{cite web |title=酵素でプチ断食｜成功させる秘訣は代替ドリンクにあった！ |url=http://www.nuclearhydrocarbons.com/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021223503/http://www.nuclearhydrocarbons.com/ |archive-date=2013-10-21 |access-date=2013-08-01 |publisher=Nuclearhydrocarbons.com}}</ref> Canadian patent application 2,659,302, is a method for the temporary or permanent storage of nuclear waste materials comprising the placing of waste materials into one or more repositories or boreholes constructed into an [[unconventional oil]] formation. The thermal flux of the waste materials fractures the formation and alters the chemical and/or physical properties of hydrocarbon material within the subterranean formation to allow removal of the altered material. A mixture of hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and/or other formation fluids is produced from the formation. The radioactivity of high-level radioactive waste affords proliferation resistance to plutonium placed in the periphery of the repository or the deepest portion of a borehole.

[[Breeder reactor]]s can run on U-238 and transuranic elements, which comprise the majority of spent fuel radioactivity in the 1,000–100,000-year time span.

==== Space disposal ====
Space disposal is attractive because it removes nuclear waste from the planet. It has significant disadvantages, such as the potential for catastrophic failure of a [[launch vehicle]], which could spread radioactive material into the atmosphere and around the world. A high number of launches would be required because no individual rocket would be able to carry very much of the material relative to the total amount that needs to be disposed. This makes the proposal economically impractical and increases the risk of one or more launch failures.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m0XndPyS8ZYC&pg=PA1 |title=Disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel: the continuing societal and technical challenges |author=National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Disposition of High-Level Radioactive Waste Through Geological Isolation |publisher=National Academies Press |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-309-07317-2 |page=122}}</ref> To further complicate matters, international agreements on the regulation of such a program would need to be established.<ref>{{cite web |date=November 2003 |title=Managing nuclear waste: Options considered |url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090515020834/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.shtml |archive-date=2009-05-15 |work=DOE Factsheets |publisher=[[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]]: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, [[Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository|Yucca Mountain Project]]}}</ref> Costs and inadequate reliability of modern rocket launch systems for space disposal has been one of the motives for interest in [[non-rocket spacelaunch]] systems such as [[mass driver]]s, [[space elevator]]s, and other proposals.<ref name="Cherkashin">{{cite web |url=http://ecosun.org/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080311175438/http://ecosun.org/ |archive-date=2008-03-11 |title=Wastes on the Sun? – System of disposal nuclear and high toxic wastes. Design. |first=Yuri |last=Cherkashin |date=2004 |access-date=2011-12-19 |url-status=dead}}</ref>