Editing Radioactive waste (section)

==== 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.}}