DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES
DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES
复制标题
DOI：
10.1126/science.182.4118.1205
复制
发表时间：
1973-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
56.9
通讯作者：
ROSE, DJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
KUBO, AS;ROSE, DJ
在目前和可预见的将来，下列选择似乎是可用的或值得进一步探索：mausolea；处置在各种各样的矿井里，也许还会在冰里；原位熔体；以及进一步的化学分离。这些选择是相互依赖的。现在评估在太空中的处置还为时过早，而且由于缺乏足够的知识，在海洋中的处置仍然不安全。表3是我们计算出（有时不确定）成本的主要思路的总结。就短期而言，在深部矿井进行最终处置是最完善的方案。然而，原位熔体的相关概念具有显著的优势，应该得到现实的评价。应该研究和实施进一步的化学分离，然后在LMFBR中回收锕系元素，因为这将是普遍有益的；另一方面，额外去除锶和铯似乎没有吸引力。因此，在不久的将来，我们提出以下建议：1)提供临时储存设施，以确保预计的商业高放废物不会成为公共危害。AEC采纳了这一观点，并表示有意建造这类设施。但由于人类和自然的反复无常，必须尽快制定一个可行的最终处理方案。2)以与盐矿项目相同的速度资助其他最终处置计划——比如每年100万美元或更多——以解决技术问题，以便在未来几年内作出决定。这些方案应包括：(i)就地熔体，以及中央储存库的变化；埋在盐矿以外的矿井（包括南极岩石和永久冰）；（iii）进一步化学分离锕系元素，并在lmfbr中回收锕系元素。(3)与发展中的航天飞机技术保持联系，以确保不失去任何机会。AEC承诺在其废物管理计划中将安全放在首位，但预算考虑和管理优先事项使该计划降级。过去的资金水平和管理重点，在经历了15年的时间之后，还没有产生一个可运行的长期储存设施——这是值得赞扬的谨慎和工作不足的标志。如果核能要在未来几十年解决我们的能源需求，就不应因为缺乏可行的高放射性废物管理计划而推迟其效益。
For the present and the foreseeable future the following options appear to be either usable or worth further exploration: mausolea; disposal in mines of various sorts, and perhaps in ice; in situ melt; and further chemical separations. The options are interdependent.It is too early to assess disposal in space, and disposal in the oceans remains unsafe for lack of adequate knowledge. Table 3 is a summary of the main ideas for which we have worked out (sometimes uncertain) costs.For the short term, ultimate disposal in deep mines is the best-developed plan. However, the related concept of in situ melt has significant advantages and should be realistically appraised. Further chemical separation with subsequent recycling of the actinides in a LMFBR should be investigated and implemented, for it would be universally beneficial; on the other hand, additional removal of strontium and cesium does not seem attractive. Thus, for the near future we make the following recommendations:1) Provide temporary storage facilities to ensure that the projected commercial high-level wastes do not become a public hazard. The AEC adopts this view, and has stated an intention to construct such facilities. But because of the capriciousness of man and nature, a workable ultimate disposal scheme must be developed soon.2) Fund other ultimate disposal schemes at the same rate as the salt mine project—say $1 million a year or more—to sharpen the technological issues, so that a decision can be reached in the next few years. The schemes should include (i) in situ melt, and the variation with a central repository; (ii) burial in mines other than salt mines (including Antarctic rocks and permanent ice); (iii) further chemical separation of actinides and recycling actinides in a LMFBR.3) Maintain liaison with the developing space shuttle technology to insure that no opportunity is lost.The AEC has a commitment to hold safety foremost in its waste management program, but budget considerations and management priorities have downgraded the program. Past funding levels and management emphasis have yet to produce, after a decade and a half, one operational long-term storage facility—a sign of both commendable caution and inadequate work. If nuclear power is to resolve our energy needs in the coming decades, its benefits should not be delayed for lack of a viable management program for high-level wastes.