What's the difference between disposal and storage during the high-level radioactive waste disposal?
FYI:
Article High-level radioactive waste
In principle, there is a difference between disposal and storage. Disposal implies that no future action is contemplated with the exception of environmental monitoring or restrictions on future use of the disposal site. Storage, on the other hand, implies an intention to take further action at a later date to retrieve, treat, examine, or dispose of the waste.
As Ma Zhaoyang said, we associate the concept of disposal with perennial and storage with reversible. However, some concepts of high-level radioactive repositories are being designed to be reversible (for instance this concept was adopted by France).
As per: Radioactive waste management glossary : 2003 ed. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1155_web.pdf
disposal. Emplacement of waste in an appropriate facility without the intention of retrieval. Some countries use the term disposal to include discharges of effluents
to the environment.
storage. The holding of spent fuel or of radioactive waste in a facility that provides for its containment, with the intention of retrieval [3]. Storage is by definition an interim measure, and the term interim storage would therefore be appropriate only to refer to short term temporary storage when contrasting this with the longer term fate of the waste. Storage as defined above should not be described as interim storage.
To Biagio Zaffora : 'some concepts of high-level radioactive disposal facilities are being designed to be reversible (for instance this concept was adopted by France)' ; this is false ;
In the first part of a long text in French about the andra-edf project ('évaluer cigéo', published here on RG), I show that this is just an argument to sell the project ; the idea behind 'reversibility' is that as long as you burry wastes, the disposal is 'open' and it's possible to reverse and extract ;
I show that for different (cognitive, economical, technical...) reasons, this is probably not true, even if 'technically', it could maybe done (and this is not shure at all : the more you burry, the harder the reverse).
The word 'storage' is another trick to sell the project and even the 'anti cigéo' use it without any critical sense.
A last word : I'm convinced that cigéo is dangerous, because there is only one barrier to radioactivity, the 100 or 130 meters of 'argillite', before limestone and water above ; this is a race, and radioactivity have a long life time to migrate. So, I must dig this (any help is welcome) ; but I have find some (official) data (in French) that show that the leaking is a quasi 'certitude' ; the gamble is probably : in the very long time, they (future generations) will be able to manage it... I doubt that technology can win the race : the problem will be huge.
Dear Jean-Pierre,
Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. I think that what Ma Zhaoyang wanted to ask is a definition of the concepts storage and disposal, which was given by Florian Glodeanu according to the IAEA references. I just gave what is a common interpretation of the 2 terms in this domain. I did not want to enter into the discussion of the intrinsic value of each single choice (disposal, storage, etc...) that you discuss in your personal paper available on researchgate. I would like however say that according to the French law "loi n° 2006-739 du 28 juin 2006 de programme relative à la gestion durable des matières et déchets radioactifs" the concept of reversible storage is the concept that France has officially accepted 11 years ago. Your word document discusses various interesting points which however are, I believe, beyond the scope of the question.
Also, be careful when you say that there is only one barrier: by definition the project is multi-barrier. I'll let you search for detailed information about this topic.
With kind regards,
Biagio
Dear Biagio,
Thanks for your answer ; you are right, I have misunderstood your initial message ; I just wanted to show that the French concept of 'reversible storage' during the loading time, and the law you quote, are (probably) 'empty boxes' ; it's just some 'phraseology' to 'sell' the project to taxpayers and avoid the 'sub surface' reversible option (the storage) ; I'm serious on this ; and yes, part of my message was not an answer to the initial question (but all is linked).
I was also following Florian's answer.
I think that you should consider that there will be (in fact) only one barrier, the 'argillite' (clay stone) : obviously, it depends on the time scale and in the long run, the device simply disappears in the ground (for ex., due to the hydrogen problem, the 'colis' - the cans of wastes - are partly open, there will be some 'radiolyse', some geological moves underground... the concrete will not last long, the argillite is not dry, etc.).
The very problem is the speed of the radioactive 'migration' into the 'argillite' stone (my 'naive' representation is : if it must 'hold' 1 million years, and maybe more in facts, the speed limit is under 1 cm/century ; or something like this).
Accept my apologies if I have disturbed (a little) the discussion here : I can't identify myself as an expert in nuclear safety, radio toxicology, geology and so on ; in my work, I shed some light on some (obscure) motivations that are behind the project and can shape its technical features ; anyone should consider those problems seriously and the question shall be open to everyone, as it is not a 'pure' technical or logical solution to the wastes problem, it's bigger.
I'll dig it (alone).
Regards, Jean-Pierre.
Storage is temporary.
Disposal is forever.
Basically, is it.
I agree with Gilberto ; I have written a lot on this in French ; it's on RG
In the French project : no storage and also no disposal of the waste ; this is why it's dangerous
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Inorganic Materials
- Metals
- Alloys
- Steel