72	I.G. McKinley et al.

if, from the viewpoint of the principle of sustainability, such use of valuable resources of materials, energy and manpower were justified, given the number of more pressing problems facing humanity at present (see, e.g., Stanton, 2003).

Finally, socio-political acceptance must be considered. Even if they can be argued to be less favourable from the viewpoints of safety, practicality or cost, concepts which receive popular acceptance may be the only ones which are feasible in a democracy. This may lead to increased consideration of long-term monitoring, reversibility and institutional control. Under such conditions, the challenge will be to develop an acceptable option which combines the robustness of deep geological disposal with meeting the desires and concerns of the key stakeholders.

3.6. Conclusions

Concerns about safely disposing of radwaste arose at the very beginning of the nuclear industry, some six decades ago. Such concerns have become more widespread and the ‘‘environmental movement’’ has helped push progress from some rather primitive approaches used in the past to the sophisticated deep geological repositories being planned and implemented today. Looking briefly at other options, it is also clear that deep disposal presently remains the optimal solution in terms of safety, practicality and cost-effectiveness. Arguments have been made that the nuclear industry should stop and wait for future technological developments, but to do so would impose burdens on future generations, which is considered ethically wrong. The generation which heralded the dawn of the new ‘‘Atomic Age’’ has already gone and the current generation, the one which has gained the most from nuclear power, must now shoulder the responsibility of handling all associated wastes.

That is not to say that changes in technology should be ignored: the other main point made here is that there are other promising alternative designs to be considered within deep disposal programmes. Because of the long timescales of many repository programmes (tens to hundreds of years; see Chapters 5 and 7), the radwaste community should remain flexible and be prepared to take advantage of the inevitable progress in science and technology. Additionally, changes in society, economics, and even the environment mean that some options which have currently been discarded may become more relevant in the future. This, however, means that both the radwaste community and all stakeholders need to understand that decisions made on waste disposal are not irreversible and can be changed – the fundamentals of adaptive staging as discussed in Chapter 7.

3.7. References

Alexander, W.R., McKinley, I.G. (1999). The chemical basis of near-field containment in the Swiss high-level radioactive waste disposal concept. In: Metcalfe, R., Rochelle, C.A. (Eds.), Chemical Containment of Wastes in the Geosphere, Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. No. 157, Geol Soc, London, UK, pp 47–69.

Alexander, W.R., Giere´, R., Hidaka, H., Yoshida, H. (2006). Natural immobilisation processes aid the understanding of long-term evolution of deep geological radioactive waste repositories. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis 6, 3–4.

Blu¨mling, P., Bauer-Plaindoux, C., Mayor, J.C., Alheid, H.J., Fukaya, M. (2002). Geomechanical investigations at the underground rock laboratory Mont Terri. Hydromechanical and thermohydromechanical behaviour of

Development of geological disposal concepts

73

deep argillaceous rock: theory and experiments. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Geomechanics, Paris, 11–12 October 2000, pp 275–283.

Buser M. (1998). Hu¨te-Konzept versus Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfa¨lle – Argumente, Diskurse und Ausblick

– Expertenbericht; Hauptabteilung fu¨r die Sicherheit der Kernanlagen – Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (HSK), Villigen, Switzerland.

Byalko, A.V. (1992). A possibility for HLW disposal in very deep boreholes. Sci. Basis Nucl. Waste Manag. XV, 737–742.

Chapman, N.A., McKinley, I.G. (1987). The Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Chapman, N., Gibb, F. (2003). A truly final waste management solution: Is very deep borehole disposal a realistic option for high-level waste or fissile materials? Radwaste Solutions, July/August 2003, 26–37.

Cosman, B.C. (1985). Space Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: A Literature Review and Bibliography. CSA, New York, USA.

CoRWM (2005). http://www.corwm.org.uk/pdf/1340%20-%20Short-list%20report%20from%20July%202005 %20plenary.pdf

Cronhjort, B., Mo¨rner, N.A., Sjo¨berg, R. (2003). Dry rock deposit argued in favour of wet deep disposal – Process through cooperation; Proc. 10th IHLRWM Conf., Las Vegas, Nevada, 1298–1303, ANS, Washington DC, USA.

Defra (2006). Drigg review decision document. Defra, London, UK (also available on www.defra.gov.uk). Dutton, M., Hillis, K., Stansby, J., et al. (2004). Nuclear Science and Technology – The comparison of alternative

waste management strategies for long-lived radioactive wastes (COMPASS Project). EU, Luxembourg. Garrish, T.J. (2005). Statement of T.J. Garrish, deputy director, OCRWM, USDOE, to the Sub-committee

on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organisation, Committee on Government Reform, US House of Representatives (5 April, 2005). US Senate, Washington DC, USA.

Gibb, F.G. (2000). A new scheme for the very deep geological disposal of high-level waste. Journal of the Geological Society, London, UK, 157, 27–36.

Gibb, F.G. (2004). Granite recrystallisation – the key to an alternative strategy for HLW disposal? Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 807, 937–943.

Giere´, R., Stille, P. (2004). Energy, waste and the environment: a geochemical perspective, Special Publication, Geological Society of London, 236, Geol Soc London, London, UK.

Gorman (1955). A.E.Gorman as quoted on page 15 of NRC, 1957.

Grover, J.R. (1984). The management and disposal of L/ILW in the UK. Rad. Waste Manag. Nucl. Fuel Cycle 4, 269–283.

Guimera`, J., Duro, L., Jordana, S., Bruno, J. (1999). Effects of ice melting and redox front migration in fractured rocks of low permeability. SKB Report TR-99-19, SKB, Stockholm, Sweden.

Herbert, H.J. (2005). EPA proposing 1 million year radiation rule for Yucca Mountain. Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas, USA (see also www.lasvegassun.com).

Hooper, A., Mathieson, J., Alexander, W.R., Shiotsuki, M. (2005). Review of international progress in transuranic and long-lived intermediate level waste disposal. ICEM05-1377.-ICEM: Proceedings ICEM ’05. 10th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, September 4–8, 2005, Glasgow. ASME, New York, USA.

Huertas, F., Fuentes-Cantillana, J.L., Jullien, F., et al. (2000). Full-scale engineered barriers experiment for a deep geological repository for high-level radioactive waste in crystalline host rock (FEBEX project): Final report. EUR 19147 EN, EU, Luxembourg.

IAEA (1992). Storage of radioactive waste. IAEA Technical Report 653, IAEA, Vienna, Austria.

IAEA (2002). Long term storage of spent nuclear fuel: Survey and recommendations. Final report of a coordinated research project. IAEA-TECDOC-1293. IAEA, Vienna, Austria.

IAEA (2003). The long term storage of radioactive waste: Safety and sustainability. A position paper of international experts. IAEA-LTS/RW. IAEA, Vienna, Austria.

IAEA (2006). http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/manradwa.html.

Inhofe, J.M. (2006). Yucca Mountain: the most studied real estate on the planet. Report to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (March, 2006). US Senate, Washington DC, USA.

JNC (2005). H17: Development and management of the technical knowledge base for the geological disposal of HLW. JNC report TN1400 2005-022, JAEA, Tokai, Japan.

KBS (1977). KBS 1 – Handling of spent nuclear fuel and final storage of vitrified high level reprocessing waste, I General, II Geology, III Facilities, IV – Safety analysis. SKB Technical Report, SKB, Stockholm, Sweden.

74	I.G. McKinley et al.

KBS (1978). KBS 2 – Handling and final storage of unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel, I General, II – Technical. SKB Technical Report, SKB, Stockholm, Sweden.

KBS (1983). KBS 3 – Final storage of spent nuclear fuel I General, II Geology, III Barriers, IV Safety. SKB Technical Report, SKB, Stockholm, Sweden.

Kernenergie (2006). http://www.kernenergie.net/kernenergie/en/press/presse_detail.php?navid=2&detail=/presse/ en/2006_03_08_pressemeldung.php.

Klett, R.D. (1997a). Performance assessment overview for subseabed disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Sandia Report. SAND93-2723. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, USA.

Klett, R.D. (1997b). Interim radiological safety standards and evaluation procedures for sub-seabed high-level waste disposal. Sandia Report. SAND88-1700. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, USA.

Masuda, S., Umeki, H., McKinley, I.G., Kawamura, H. (2004). Management with CARE – A CAvernREtrievable option for long-lived radioactive waste. In: Nuclear Engineering International, 49, 604, November, 2004.

McCombie, C. (1997). In the eye of the beholder: Different perceptions of the problems of waste disposal. In:

Which is More Stable: A Rock Formation or a Social Structure? In: Bulletin, No. 30. Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

McCombie, C., Chapman, N.A. (Eds.) (2003a). Principles and Standards for the Disposal of Long-lived Radioactive Wastes, Waste Management Series 3, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

McCombie, C., Chapman, N.A. (2003b). Increasing interest in the safety, security and economic aspects of multinational repositories. The Nuclear Engineer Volume 44 (6), 1–6.

McKinley, I.G. (1985). The geochemistry of the near-field. Nagra Technical Report, NTB 84–48, Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

McKinley, I.G., Kawamura, H., Tsuchi, H. (2001). Moving HLW-EBS concepts into the 21st century. Proc. Sci. Basis Nucl. Waste Manag. XXIV, MRS 2000, 663, 723–729.

McKinley, I.G., Murnier, R. (2003). Discussion of ‘‘In absurdum – Long-term predictions and nuclear waste handling’’ by A.N. Mo¨rner. (Engineering Geology, 61, 75–82), Engineering Geology 68 3/4, 401–403.

McKinley, I.G., Neall, F.B. et al. (2004). Evolution of the Cavern-Extended Storage (CES) concept for flexible management of HLW. Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 807, 931–936.

Miller, H.S., Fahnoe, F., Peterson, W.R. (1954). Survey of radioactive waste disposal practices. Nucleonics, January 1954.

Miller, W.M., Alexander, W.R., Chapman, N.A., McKinley, I.G., Smellie, J.A.T. (2000). Geological disposal of radioactive wastes and natural analogues. Waste Management Series 2, Pergamon, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Mobbs, S.F., Charles D., Delow C.E., McColl N.P. (1989). Assessment of Subseabed Disposal of Vitrified High Level Waste for the PAGIS Project. NRPB Report R 218, NRPB, Harwell, UK.

Mo¨rner, A.N. (2003). Reply to discussion of ‘‘In absurdum: long-term prediction of nuclear waste handling’’ [by I.G. McKinley and R. Munier, Engineering Geology 68, 2003, 401–403]. Engineering Geology 68, 3/4, 405–407.

Nagra (1980). Feasibility study for large diameter boreholes for the deep drilling concept of a high-level waste repository. Nagra Technical Report NTB 80-04. Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

Nagra (1985). Projekt Gewa¨hr 1985, 9 (English summary). Nagra Gewa¨hr Report Series NGB 85-09. Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

Nagra (1993). Kristallin-1. Safety assessment report. Nagra Technical Report Series NTB 93-01, Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

Nagra (1994). Geologie und Hydrogeologie des Kristallins der Nordschweiz. Nagra Technical Report Series NTB 93-22, Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

Nagra (1997). Which is more stable: a rock formation or a social structure? Bulletin, No. 30. Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

Nagra (2002a). Project Opalinus Clay – Safety Report. Nagra Technical Report NTB 02-05, Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

Nagra (2002b). Projekt Opalinuston – Konzept fu¨r die Anlagen und den Betrieb eines geologischen Tiefenlagers Nagra Technical Report NTB 02-02, Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

NEA (1985). Review of the continued sustainability of the dumping site for radioactive wastes in the NorthEast Atlantic. OECD/NEA, Paris, France.

NEA (1988). Feasibility of disposal of high-level radioactive waste into the seabed – 1: Overview of research and conclusions. OECD/NEA Report 8805/1, OECD/NEA, Paris, France.

Development of geological disposal concepts

75

NEA (2001). Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Review of Developments in the Last Decade, OECD/ NEA, Paris, France.

NEDRA (1992). Scientific industrial company on superdeep drilling and comprehensive investigation of the Earth’s interior: characterization of crystalline rocks in deep boreholes: the Kola, Krivoy Rog and Tyrnauz boreholes. SKB Technical Report TR 92-39, SKB, Stockholm, Sweden.

New Scientist (2006). SYNROC edges ahead. Letters, New Scientist, 8th April, 2006, 25. Reed business Information Ltd, London, UK.

Ninkovic, M.M., Raicevic, J.J. (2004). Scientific arguments for new – deterministic approach to HLLLW management. Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 807, 925–929.

Nirex (2002). Description of long-term management options for radioactive waste investigated internationally; United Kingdom Nirex Limited, Nirex Report N/050, Nirex, Harwell, UK.

Nirex (2005a). Summary note for CoRWM on the physical disturbances for deep geological disposal, phased deep geological and deep borehole disposal. Nirex Technical Note 488235, Nirex, Harwell, UK.

Nirex (2005b). Review of CoRWM document no. 774, international disposal. Nirex Technical Note 473520, Nirex, Harwell, UK.

NRC (1957). The disposal of radioactive waste on land; National Research Council, Washington D.C., Nat. Acad. Press.

NUMO (2004). Development of Repository Concepts for Volunteer Siting Environments, NUMO Technical Report NUMO-TR-04-03, Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan, Tokyo, Japan.

NW (2005). EPRI: two tiered Yucca Mountain rule would help reduce uncertainty. Nucleonics Week, 21st April, 2005, Platt Publishing, McGraw-Hill, Colombus, OH, USA, 8.

NWGCT (Nagra Working Group on Container Technology) (1984). An assessment of the corrosion resistance of the high-level waste containers proposed by Nagra. Nagra Technical Report Series NTB 84-32, Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.

Ojovan, M.I., Gibb, F.G.F. (2005). Feasibility of very deep self disposal for sealed radioactive sources.

Proceedings of the Waste Management 2005 Conference, Las Vegas, 27 Feb – 3 Mar, 2005. American Nuclear Society, Washington DC, USA.

Ojovan, M.I., Gibb, F.G.F., Lee, W.E. (2004). In situ sintering of waste forms in an underground disposal environment. Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 807, 949–954.

Philberth, B. (1959). Beseitigung radioaktiver Abfallsubstanzen in den Eiskappen der Erde. In: Atomkernenergie, Zeitschrift fu¨r die Kernenergie in Wissenschaft, Technik und Wirtschaft, 4/3, 116–119.

Physicsweb (2003). http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/8/8.

Princeton (1955). Recommendations of the Princeton Conference, page 7 in NRC, 1957.

Rice, E.E., Priest, C.C. (1981). An overview of nuclear waste disposal in space – the technology of high-level nuclear waste disposal: Advances in the science and engineering of the management of high-level nuclear wastes. DOE/TIC-4621, 1, 370–386. USDOE, Technical Information Center, Oak Ridge, USA.

Rubia, C., et al. (1995). Conceptual Design of a Fast Neutron Operated High Power Energy Amplifier. CERN report CERN/AT/95-44/ET, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.

RWMAC (2003). Advice to ministers on the application of partitioning and transmutation in the United Kingdom; Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, Defra, London, UK.

Sains, A. (2004). Demo accelerator reactor seen operating in Europe in 10 years. Nucleonics Week, August 19th, 2004, Platts Publishng, McGraw-Hill, Columbus, OH, USA.

Savage, D. (Ed.) (1995). The Scientific and Regulatory Basis for the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste

Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Schneider, K.J., Platt, A.M. (Eds.) (1974). High-level radioactive waste management alternatives, Section 8, Extraterrestrial disposal; BNWL-1900, 4, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, USA.

Sizgek, G.D. (2001). Thermal considerations in a very deep borehole nuclear waste repository for Synroc. Proc. Sci. Basis Nucl. Waste Manag. XXIV, 819–826.

SKB (1992). Project on alternative systems study (PASS) – Final Report; SKB Technical Report 93-04, SKB, Stockholm, Sweden.

SKB (2000). Systemanalys – Val av strategi och system fo¨r omha¨ndertagande av anva¨nt ka¨rnbra¨nsle (Selection of strategies and systems for the disposal of spent fuel); Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management, SKB Report R-00-32, SKB, Stockholm, Sweden.

Stanton, W. (2003). The Rapid Growth of Human Populations 1750-2000: Histories, Consequences, Issues Nation by Nation. Multi-science Publishing Company, London, UK.

76	I.G. McKinley et al.

Storck, R., Becker, D., Ru¨bel, A., Hirsekorn, P., Preuss, J., Wollrath, J. (2004). The Safety Case for the Morsleben Repository. Proceedings of the DISTEC (2004) Conference, Kontec, Hamburg, Germany.

USAEC (1974). High-level radioactive waste management alternatives; United States Atomic Energy Commission, WASH-1297.

Valfells, A. (2002). Disposal of radioactive waste in permanent icefields; U.S. patent US 6,342,650 B1, Icelandic Radiation Protection Institute, Reykjavik, PAP 03849.

Walker, C., Metcalfe, R. (Eds.) (2004). Proceedings of the International Workshop on Bentonite–Cement Interaction in Repository Environments, 14–16 April 2004, Tokyo, Japan, NUMO, TR-04-05, (also published as Posiva Working Report 2004-05), NUMO, Tokyo, Japan.

Williams, A. (2000). http://www.wnfm.com/2000%20proceedings/Tony%20Williams-sp.pdf.

Witherspoon, P.A. (Ed.) (1991). Geological challenges in radioactive waste isolation. LBNL Report 29703, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

Witherspoon, P.A. (Ed.) (1996). Geological challenges in radioactive waste isolation: second worldwide review. LBNL Report 38915, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

Witherspoon, P.A., Bodvarsson, G.S. (Eds.) (2001). Geological challenges in radioactive waste isolation: fourth worldwide review. LBNL Report 49767, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

Witherspoon, P.A., Bodvarsson, G.S. (Eds.) (2006). Geological challenges in radioactive waste isolation: fourth worldwide review. LBNL Report 59808, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

WNA (2001). World Nuclear Association – http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2001/metcalf.htm.