REPORT

Faire
nucléaire
Faire avancer
avancer lala sûretésûreté nucléaire

International panorama of
research on alternatives togeological disposal of high-level
waste and long-lived
intermediate-level waste
IRSN Report/2019-00318

Report prepared in response to arequest by the National Commission
for Public Debate (CNDP)

May 2019
IRSN/FRM-285 Ind 9REPORT SUMMARY

Within the framework of the preparations for the public debate on the French National Plan for the Management ofRadioactive Materials and Waste 2019-2021 (PNGMDR 2019-2021), the President of the National Commission for Public
Debate (CNDP) asked the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) to complete the project
management report with an inventory, on an international level, of the research conducted on alternatives to thegeological disposal of high-level (HLW) and intermediate-level long-lived waste (ILW-LL).
The literature review conducted by IRSN in response to this request was based on the use of freely available information
published by international agencies (IAEA, OECD/NEA in particular) or national organizations, as well as in scientificjournals. The resulting panorama identifies the main alternatives to geological disposal explored around the world,
historically or currently, to ensure the long-term management of HLW and ILW-LL. It provides historical and scientificbackground to appreciate the context within which the various options emerged and were explored. It also identifies
the concerns of technical and societal natures with which these options are associated, without however stating IRSN
position with regard to their relevance or technical feasibility.
The panorama highlights the diversity of alternatives to geological disposal explored since the 1950s. These can begrouped into six major families: storage for centuries, partitioning-transmutation, borehole disposal, seabed disposal,
launching into outer space, and disposal in polar ice sheets. The extent of the international work on each of these ishighly variable. All of these have, however, been the subject of investigations carried out by official bodies, often
involving several countries, as well as involving experimental devices and tests.
The technical difficulties of implementation, as well as the changing ethical considerations and their legal extrapolation
led to the abandonment of several of the options considered historically. This was the case of seabed disposal, launching
into outer space, and disposal in polar ice sheets, which are no longer the subject of studies and research.
Discussions and researches continue, however, on storage, partitioning-transmutation and borehole disposal. The status
and nature of the work on these three alternatives differ greatly from one another. With regard to storage, which is
generally perceived as a standby solution, the work is aimed at evaluating the possibilities of extending the lifetimes ofthe facilities and at reinforcing their robustness. With regard to partitioning-transmutation, the work covers a verybroad field of scientific knowledge and combines developments in fundamental research and studies to establish thefeasibility of deploying the technologies envisaged on an industrial scale. With regard to borehole disposal, studies areunderway internationally, particularly in the United States. They deal in particular with the handling and transfer ofwaste from the surface to the containment area, as well as with the sealing of boreholes after the waste has beenplaced inside them.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 1/49

Table of Contents
TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................... 4
1

FOREWORD ........................................................................... 5

2

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 5

3

STORAGE .............................................................................. 7

3.1

What does it involve? ........................................................................................7

3.2

Ways explored around the world ..........................................................................8

3.3State of the art and perspectives ........................................................................ 10

3.4

And in France?............................................................................................... 11

4

PARTITIONING-TRANSMUTATION ............................................... 13

4.1

What does it involve? ...................................................................................... 13

4.2

Partitioning processes and strategies ................................................................... 15

4.2.1

Ways explored around the world .......................................................................... 15

4.2.2

State of the art and perspectives.......................................................................... 17

4.3

Transmutation in nuclear reactors ...................................................................... 17

4.3.1

Ways explored around the world .......................................................................... 17

4.3.2

State of the art and perspectives.......................................................................... 18

4.4

Transmutation in dedicated systems .................................................................... 19

4.4.1

Ways explored around the world .......................................................................... 19

4.4.2

State of the art and perspectives.......................................................................... 20

4.5

Other types of transmutation ............................................................................. 20

4.5.1

Ways explored around the world .......................................................................... 20

4.5.2

State of the art and perspectives.......................................................................... 21

4.6

And in France?............................................................................................... 21

5

BOREHOLE DISPOSAL ............................................................. 22

5.1

What does it involve? ...................................................................................... 22

5.2

Embedding of exothermic waste in molten rock (“rock melting”) ................................ 22

5.2.1

Ways explored around the world .......................................................................... 22

5.2.2

State of the art and perspectives.......................................................................... 25

5.2.3

And in France? ................................................................................................ 25

5.3

Liquid waste injection in deep boreholes .............................................................. 25

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 2/49

5.3.1

Ways explored around the world ........................................................................... 25

5.3.2

State of the art and perspectives .......................................................................... 26

5.3.3

And in France? ................................................................................................ 26

5.4

Solid and packaged waste disposal in boreholes ...................................................... 27

5.4.1

Ways explored around the world ........................................................................... 27

5.4.2

State of the art and perspectives .......................................................................... 28

5.4.3

And in France? ................................................................................................ 29

6

SUB-SEABED DISPOSAL ............................................................ 29

6.1

What does it involve? ...................................................................................... 29

6.2

Ways explored around the world ........................................................................ 29

6.2.1

Deep seabed disposal ........................................................................................ 29

6.2.2

Disposal in subduction trenches ............................................................................ 33

6.3

State of the art and perspectives........................................................................ 35

6.4

And in France? .............................................................................................. 36

7

OTHER ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 36

7.1

The launching of radioactive waste into outer space ................................................ 36

7.1.1

What does it involve? ........................................................................................ 36

7.1.2

Ways explored around the world ........................................................................... 36

7.1.3

State of the art and perspectives .......................................................................... 37

7.1.4

And in France? ................................................................................................ 37

7.2

Disposal of waste in ice sheets ........................................................................... 37

7.2.1

What does it involve? ........................................................................................ 37

7.2.2

Ways explored around the world ........................................................................... 37

7.2.3

State of the art and perspectives .......................................................................... 38

7.2.4

And in France? ................................................................................................ 38

8

REFERENCES ........................................................................ 39

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 3/49

Table of illustrations
Figure 1: The Swedish underground storage facility CLAB (about 30 m deep) for spent fuel in water [11].
Figure 2: CEA Concept for HLW and SF storage facilities: (1) surface storage, (2) sub-surface storage [80].
Figure 3: Transmutation by fission (left) or by simple capture of a neutron (right) (according to [29], modified).
Figure 4: The atom.
Figure 5: Myrrha (SCK • CEN), with its large hall for the LINAC accelerator [56].
Figure 6: Various types of disposal by rock melting: 1) the DSB concept (according to [89], modified); 2) the DRD
concept (according to [92], modified); 3) the initial device of the Solidified Waste In Situ Melting Concept(according to [94], modified).
Figure 7: Granite core (2 cm long) partially melted after 570h at 800°C (at 2.55% humidity).
The arrows indicate "glass" areas (uncrystallised molten mass because rapidly cooled) [96].
Figure 8: The concept of multi-barrier disposal applied to borehole disposal (according to [118], modified).
Figure 9: The two concepts for placing the waste in seabed sediments: 1) using a penetrator; 2) by drilling ([144]according to Sandia under the Sub-seabed Disposal Program, modified).
Figure 10: Sites of radioactive waste disposal at sea around the world and percentage of total radiological activity(85,000 TBq) ([146][147]).
Figure 11: Campaigns for the disposal at sea of radioactive waste in the North-East Atlantic - Location, date andradiological activity of submerged waste ([146], source [147]). Dotted circles: sites used by France.
Figure 12: Diagram of a subduction zone (Wikipedia, according to K.D. Schroeder).
Figure 13: Location of the main subduction zones in the world (Live Science, according to USGS, modified).
Figure 14: Illustration of concepts as envisaged in the United States in 1974 (from [140], modified).

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 4/49

1

FOREWORD

This paper presents the results of the bibliographical review of the international panorama of research on alternatives
to the geological disposal of high-level waste (HLW) and intermediate-level long-lived waste (ILW-LL) by the FrenchInstitute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) in response to a request by the National Commission for
Public Debate (CNDP) within the framework of the public debate organised on the occasion of the development of the
5th edition of the French National Plan for the Management of Radioactive Materials and Waste (PNGMDR 2019-2021).
In line with this request, this document is not intended to provide a critical analysis of the various technical options
identified, or to provide IRSN's point of view as to their relevance or feasibility. It endeavours to report, as factuallyand objectively as possible, on the context and arguments that led to their study, the nature and progress of theresearch that has been devoted to them, and in some cases the reasons that led to their abandonment. The document
thus provides keys to understand the potentialities of each of the identified alternatives.
Several of these alternatives have given rise to opinions by IRSN, which can be consulted on the institute's website(www.irsn.fr).
To complement these elements, the reader will also be able to refer to the results of the initiative "Clarification ofControversies"1 organised by the Special Commission for Public Debate (CPDP) prior to the debate on the PNGMDR (seepngmdr.debatpublic.fr).

2

INTRODUCTION

On the occasion of the public debate organised prior to the development of the 5th edition of the French National Planfor the Management of Radioactive Materials and Waste (PNGMDR 2019-2021), the President of the CNDP asked IRSN, ina letter dated the 15th of February 2019 [1], to present two expert assessments aimed at completing the information of
the project management report2. These expert assessments concern, on the one hand, the dry cask storage of spenturanium-oxide and plutonium-oxide (MOX) based, or enriched reprocessed uranium oxide (ERU) based, nuclear fuel andon the other hand, the state of the research on an international level on alternatives to the geological disposal of
HLW/ILW-LL. This report is the response to the second part of the CNDP request. It presents an international panoramaof the research on alternatives to deep geological disposal of HLW/ILW-LL.
In the request that she sent to IRSN, the President of the CNDP included the following reminder3:"In the law of 2006, France decided to retain deep geological disposal as a reference solution for managing the mostdangerous radioactive waste in the very long term (high-level and long-lived intermediate-level waste, or HLW/ILWLL). This decision came after a process of evaluating several possible options. Three approaches defined by the 1991
law have been more specifically explored:-

The search for solutions enabling the partitioning and transmutation of long-lived radioactive elements
present in high-level waste;-

the study of the possibilities of reversible or irreversible containment in geological formations;-the study of long-term packaging and surface storage processes for this waste.

1

The "controversy clarification" process was initiated by the CPDP before the public debate on the PNGMDR. It is aimed at providing
members of the public who are not specialists, but are anxious to obtain good technical information to understand the various
arguments expressed by experts or institutional bodies on issues covered by this plan. The following institutions, companies or
associations took part in this process: Andra, IRSN, EDF, Orano, CEA, Wise Paris, Global Chance, France Nature Environment (FNE), andCruas CLI.
2
The project management comprises the French Directorate-General for Energy and Climate (DGEC), on behalf of the French Ministry
for the Ecological and Solidary Transition, and the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN).
3
Ed. note : non-official translation.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 5/49

The results obtained for these three approaches and the criteria for selecting the choice set forth in the law of 2006
are presented in the project management report for the public debate on the French National Plan for the Managementof Radioactive Materials and Waste.
The project management report also includes a reminder that deep geological disposal presents exceptional challenges
due to its deployment duration, which spans more than a century, and that it must therefore be designed to integratetechnological advances and to meet the expectations of civil society throughout its lifetime.
In order to meet these challenges, the legislature established a principle of containment reversibility for a period ofat least one hundred years. Retrievability is one of the ways envisaged for the application of this principle. It offers
future generations the opportunity to reconsider the choice of deep geological disposal as a radioactive waste
management method, by making it possible to retrieve packages of waste already disposed of and to implement a
possible alternative solution. "The President of the CNDP said that the panorama of alternatives should enable the information contained in the project
management report to be completed by providing a summary description of the main options that have been exploredin the past on an international level, as well as the state of the research currently underway worldwide for developing
alternative management solutions to deep geological disposal.

In order to respond to the CNDP’s request, IRSN has carried out a thorough literature review, although it does not claim
to be exhaustive. Publications produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Energy
Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/NEA) constitute one of the importantsources of information used. The national reports prepared by the contracting parties of the Joint Convention on the
Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management within the context of periodic
reviews organised under the aegis of IAEA have been particularly helpful to find out the management options currently
in use or envisaged. Further research was conducted to reconstruct the history of the discussions. The documents
published by the national agencies of the main countries with nuclear industry have been favoured for this purpose.
Scientific publications presenting academic research and publications by non-governmental organisations were also
taken into account if they made it possible to complete or widen the panorama. All of the information sources used are
public; most of them are available directly on the websites of the organisations that produced them.

Several major families of alternatives are presented in the document. The first, which is the subject of Chapter 3,
concerns the storage of waste. Different variants are mentioned. All can be considered as standby solutions requiring
human intervention. Some, however, tend to move closer to geological disposal by incorporating "passive safety"
provisions (that is, not requiring human action) and seeking to enhance the level of protection against natural hazards
and certain risk situations. Chapter 4 is devoted to partitioning and transmutation options. It summarises the researchundertaken to modify the characteristics of waste and reduce its harmfulness or life span. Chapters 5 and 6 present,
respectively, the deep borehole and sub-seabed disposal options. Chapter 7 is devoted to the two other options
identified through the bibliographical study: the launching of waste into outer space or its disposal in polar ice sheets.
The use of desert areas or volcanoes has also been suggested by scientists, particularly in France. In the absence of
substantial documentation to support them, the corresponding solutions were however considered to be too anecdotal
to merit specific development. Ceasing to produce radioactive waste, sometimes cited as an alternative, is also notcovered by the panorama proposed since it does not, strictly speaking, constitute an alternative to geological disposal
for waste that has already been produced.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 6/49

In each of the chapters, the main principles are successively presented, together with the history of the research carriedout worldwide and the current state of the art, including, where applicable, current research underway and, finally,
the work and discussions more specifically conducted in France in connection with each of the options considered.
Although the panorama proposed focuses on HLW/ILW-LLW and spent fuel (SF) management options, since the latterare considered as waste, the management of other types of waste is mentioned in some cases for illustration purposes.
The level of detail and the amount of information may vary significantly from one chapter to another. This disparity
reflects, in part, the inhomogeneity of the documentation collected, but also and especially the very different degrees
of maturity that each of the alternatives has reached.

3
3.1

STORAGE
What does it involve?

In nuclear terminology, the storage of radioactive waste means "the operation of temporarily placing [waste] in a
facility specially designed on the surface or near-surface for this purpose." According to this definition included in theEnvironmental Code4, storage is distinct from disposal because it constitutes a temporary management solution (asopposed to disposal, which is considered as a definitive solution): After a given period, the radioactive waste placed ina storage facility is intended to be removed and the facility dismantled.
The previous distinction between storage and disposal induces practical differences in the design of these two types offacilities and in defining the requirements that are applicable to them in terms of safety. Unlike other solutions discussed
in this report, storage is a "conventional" nuclear facility. Its safety is based on both technical devices and organisational
provisions, intended to keep the facility in a safe state, to prevent possible incidents and to control the consequencesof accidents. Storage thus falls under a so-called "active safety" principle, that is to say, requiring human intervention(maintenance, monitoring) to ensure its proper operation, while disposal is based on a passive safety device after its
closure. This notion of passive safety is also an expectation for the alternative solutions mentioned in the other chaptersof this report.
Based on the above definitions, storage is not, strictly speaking, an alternative to geological disposal as a definitive
management solution for HLW/ILW-LL, since it implies an intent to remove waste again. Many countries that haveretained geological disposal as the reference solution for the management of their HLW/ILW-LL, thus resort to storage
facilities for the duration needed to develop their disposal project. In other cases, opting for storage can be a deliberatealternative to creating a disposal solution by allowing the choice of a definitive solution to be postponed. Storage
therefore responds to the desire to give future generations the time and opportunity to opt for solutions other thanthose currently available.
Many storage facilities already exist, or are planned, or have been studied, around the world. They are intended toaccommodate radioactive waste of all categories, and are usually located on the surface but may in some cases be built
underground. Some, which can be qualified as "conventional", are authorised to operate for periods on the order of afew decades. Their safety is based on maintenance and active monitoring. Their useful life and their degree ofrobustness5 and passivity can, nevertheless, vary according to design choices.
The remainder of this chapter is not intended to cover the diversity of existing or studied facilities, but rather, it
specifically addresses the case of those whose purpose is to extend the duration of the storage period beyond the time

4

Article L. 542-1-1 of the Environmental Code.

5

For a nuclear facility, robustness refers to the ability to withstand various types of aggression and events.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 7/49

that would be needed to develop a geological disposal solution. Thus, so-called "long-term storage" (LTS) and"permanent storage" are distinguished.
An LTS facility refers to storage facility, either on the surface or underground, whose lifespan is longer than that ofconventional storage facilities and can last up to a few hundred years.
The concept of "permanent storage" refers to storage times greater than a few hundred years. Two methods can be
distinguished to try to achieve these lifetimes:The successive use of conventional storage facilities. The construction of a new facility and repackaging of
the waste are then required, with a frequency on the order of a hundred years;The use of a facility likely to remain intact over very long periods, up to tens of thousands of years. This typeof surface (or near-surface) structure is sometimes called a "monolith" or "mausoleum". The need formaintenance and monitoring leads to the principle of "guardianship", according to which it is up to successive
generations to monitor and supervise waste.

A last variant that can be likened to an alternative to disposal consists in using an underground storage facility designed
to be eventually converted into a geological disposal solution. Although its intention is different, this solution is similar
to the principle of reversible geological disposal.

3.2

Ways explored around the world

Several countries, such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Canada studied LTS facilities as a possible long-term
surface management option for high-level waste until the mid-2000s [2][3][4][5].
In the United Kingdom, the expert panel before the authorities, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, or
CoRWM, drew up in 2004 a list of around 15 options for radioactive waste management [2]. After applying a series ofcriteria, including the feasibility of the solution, the impact on the environment, the burden for future generations,safety and health, the choice was restricted to various disposal options (geological or in boreholes) and LTS options(either centralised or not, and either on the surface or underground). These different options were then ranked by
combining a set of additional criteria that included the expectations of civil society. At the end of this work, the CoRWM
proposed that geological disposal be favoured for the long-term management of the aforementioned waste [3].
Since the 1970s, in Switzerland, the national program developed by the Swiss agency in charge of waste management,
Nagra, was aimed at creating geological repositories for all types of waste. In 1997, following a public referendum heldin the Canton of Nidwalden, it was decided to suspend the low and intermediate level waste disposal project planned
for the Wellenberg area. In response to this situation, the Canton of Nidwalden and the federal government set up
several work groups. In 1998, the work of these groups resulted, among other conclusions, in the recommendation todevelop a management solution that would allow the geological disposal options promoted by nuclear power plant
operators to be combined with the concept of active monitoring of a permanent storage facility defended byenvironmental protection organisations [6]. The expert group for radioactive waste management, EKRA, was set up inJune 1999 to take on this task. At the end of its work, EKRA recommended that long-term storage options be excluded
due to the lack of guarantee, over the periods considered, of the integrity of the facility and the uncertainties regarding
social changes [4][7].
In Canada, the Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO) was established in 2002 to study three options for the
long-term management of spent fuel and then to implement the option ultimately selected: geological disposal, storage
on reactor sites, and centralised storage (deep or surface). For the last two options, the complete renovation or
replacement of facilities is considered to be necessary every 100 to 300 years. Research and public consultation onthese options led the NWMO to propose a fourth "Adaptive Phased Management" (APM) option. This integrates theI R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 8/49

advantages of the three initial options, while striving to avoid their drawbacks [5]. The drawbacks pointed out by the
NWMO are, for the storage an indefinite monitoring, replacement and renovation activity cycle, and for the public lackof decision and transfer of responsibility to future generations. Geological disposal, for its part, requires further researchand is associated in the public mind with notions of permanence and irretrievability. APM comprises three successive
phases. During a first phase of approximately 30 years, the waste is stored on the reactor site and a site research
program including the construction of an underground laboratory is implemented in order to decide whether or not tobuild a centralised underground storage facility at shallow depth. During the second phase, consisting in the centralised
storage or on-site storage of spent fuel, also planned over a thirty-year period, the desirability of constructing ageological repository is planned, based on the site analysis results obtained by the underground laboratory. This APM
principle, the last phase of which may consist in constructing the geological repository itself, was accepted by the
Canadian safety authority CNSC in 2007 [8].
Finally, it should be mentioned that Finland [9] and Sweden [10] have examined situations (called "zero-option") that
could lead to a lack of decision with regard to the creation of a geological repository. The challenge of this exercise
was not to identify the causes of such situations, but rather to assess the resulting safety implications for existing spent
fuel storage facilities, which would become de facto LTS facilities, or even permanent storage facilities. The
assessments concluded that it would still be possible to operate these facilities safely provided that the storages wereconstantly maintained. In particular, with regard to the Oskarshamm underground underwater storage facility in Sweden(CLAB: Figure 1), the findings indicate that maintaining the structures and infrastructure for up to 200 years would
require the reinforcement of the rock support. These conclusions also hold the possibility of maintaining the integrityof the spent fuel over a long period provided that it remains under water, while underlining that it does not appear
possible to ensure this beyond 100 years based on the experience and R&D available to date. Lastly, the assessments
established that the abandonment of the storage facility before the age of 250 years, which is a period of high heatrelease by the spent fuel, would notably have significant consequences for the environment due to the evaporation of
the pool water [10].
The concept of monolithic or "mausoleum" storage systems was also raised in the late 1980s [12], as an alternative tothe principle of definitive geological disposal (e.g., [13]). These facilities are inspired on the Egyptian pyramids. They
are imagined as being massive, resistant to alterations due to natural phenomena (hydro-meteorological in particular)
and to intrusion, to the point of being able to remain passively intact for tens of thousands of years. The waste would
be deposited within them in a form that would limit the risk of dispersion of their contents. Marking intended to warn
future generations of danger is also envisaged. The principle of such facilities was examined in the United Kingdom. In
2002, Nirex pointed out that the implementation of this solution would require research, particularly on packaging thatwould allow the waste to maintain its integrity over very long periods of time, as well as on the architecture of such
facilities, in order to allow extensive package monitoring and retrievability compatible with the need to isolate waste
and deter human intrusion [14]. A comparison by multi-criteria analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of different
forms of storage and disposal facilities, led the group of experts advising the UK authorities, the CoRWM, to recommend
the abandonment of the monolithic storage option in 2006 [3]. The documentary research carried out to produce thispanorama suggests that this concept is currently not being used or studied in any country.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 9/49

Figure 1: The Swedish underground storage facility CLAB (about 30 m deep) for spent fuelin water [11].

3.3State of the art and perspectives

Today, without excluding the option of geological disposal, several countries are planning to implement LTS, or evenpermanent storage, pending better visibility on the future of nuclear energy or on the development of treatment
techniques to reduce the harmfulness of waste and modify the constraints associated with its long-term management:


The Netherlands are not considering the commissioning of a deep geological repository before 2130 [15].
This is conditional on the emergence of a regional project associating several radioactive waste producing
countries, or the cumulative production of a quantity of waste sufficient to justify, from an economic pointof view, the implementation of a national geological repository. In the meantime, the Dutch waste
management policy provides for the surface storage of all radioactive waste in structures designed to: i)resist the most extreme external aggression, ii) operate in the most passive way possible, and (iii) allow
the retrieval of packages for a period of at least one hundred years. Long-term storage requirements wereconsidered in the design of the facilities: the capacities of the storage sites are sized to receive theestimated waste production of the next hundred years [16];

The United Kingdom relaunched in 2014 a site search process to implement one or more geologicalrepositories. This is based on the principle of voluntary participation of potential host communities [17].
In 2015, following a public consultation, Wales agreed to enter this process. Scotland, for its part, choseto remain out of it and considers that waste should be managed in near-surface facilities, located as close
as possible to the site where the waste is produced. The Scottish program, established to last beyond 2070,
provides for the construction of successive generations of near-surface storage facilities [18];Italy does not envisage geological disposal for intermediate and high-level waste, but is currently seeking
a site for long term storage, without specifying the duration [19];I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 10/49

In the United States, the storage of spent fuel on the reactor site where they are produced is considereda standby solution until a repository is available. Since the Yucca Mountain disposal project was suspended
in 2010, three scenarios are being considered by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the
existing spent fuel storage facilities in on-site pools or off reactor sites (dry cask or underwater), dependingon the date of availability of such a facility: (i) storage over a period of time exceeding the duration of
the reactor operating license by 60 years, (ii) storage over a period of time exceeding the duration of thereactor operating license by 100 years, and (iii) indefinite storage, in the event that no repository iscommissioned [20]. For these three scenarios, the NRC is assessing the safety of these storage facilities
and the possible radiological consequences of accident situations. The NRC has concluded that it istechnically feasible to ensure safety of these provided that they are continuously managed in accordancewith sound regulatory requirements, in particular to ensure that maintenance and monitoring devices aremaintained.

An international conference on LTS
In June 2003, IAEA organised a conference in Vienna on the sustainability and safety of the LTS of radioactive
waste (IAEA, 2003). During this meeting, international experts pointed out the following:•

the longer the storage period, the greater the deterioration of structures and packages will be, andtherefore the radiological risk will be high for workers having to handle the packages when they arebeing transferred to another storage facility or to a repository;•

storage facilities are at risk of inadvertent or malicious intrusion if they are not permanently protected.
Currently, they are generally placed on nuclear sites (reactors, treatment plants, etc.) and benefit fromthe general security features of the site, which may no longer be the case when the other facilities are
dismantled;•

the retrievability of packages is at first glance easier for surface storage (if maintenance is ensured
throughout the storage period) than for deep disposal. However, a deep repository can be designed tobe reversible with progressive closure in stages, corresponding to a gradual decrease in reversibility;•

LTS requires a considerable transfer of information to future generations. Long-term safety requiresthat future societies be able to exert active control and maintain an effective transfer of
responsibilities, knowledge and information from generation to generation. The safety of LTS is only
sustainable if future societies can maintain these responsibilities, which cannot be guaranteed
perpetually.

3.4

And in France?

In France, the packaging and storage of HLW was one of the three approaches defined by the 1991 law on radioactive
waste management research ("Bataille law", 1991 [22]). It was then a question either of refurbishing the current storage
facilities at the end of their life, or deciding from the outset to develop storage facilities designed for periods of several
centuries.
In 2005, the CEA, which was in charge of the implementation of this line of research, submitted a study report [23]presenting four storage concepts (Figure 2), distinguishing between a surface concept and a sub-surface concept (10 to
150 m depth, on a hillside) for ILW-LL, a concept for HLW and one for SF. These facilities, placed on a fictitious site,were assumed to be in operation for 300 years with a package receipt and storage phase estimated at 50 years for HLW

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 11/49

and SF, and at 30 years for ILW-LL, then a long storage phase (monitoring and maintenance), and finally an unloading
phase with a similar duration to that of the loading phase.
With regard to the storage of HLW and SF, the design relies essentially on a robust package (metal container), naturalventilation ensuring the durability of the package by its cooling, and a moisture control that minimises corrosion. The
CEA focused on the evacuation of the heat released by relying on its Marcoule expertise centre (Southern France) withregard to the packaging and storage of radioactive materials (CECER), which studied on a mock-up the functioning of
the storage galleries, air circulation and convective heat dissipation. These studies led the CEA to dismiss the poolstorage concept for HLW and SF because, with reduced monitoring, the risk of loss of technical control of the poolcooling over very long durations was too important. This led to the adoption of a dry cask storage solution cooled bynatural convection, in which packages would be stacked in wells and air circulation would be passively ensured by achimney effect. The CEA concluded that it was possible to build a HLW and SF storage facility that would be safe for
centuries, but that despite design efforts, safety and durability could not be achieved without a maintenance requiring
human intervention.
With regard to the storage of ILW-LL, the CEA concluded that, thanks to all of the measures taken during construction
and preventive maintenance during the lifetime, the facilities would have a lifespan of 300 years.
The assessments of the studies conducted by the CEA [24][25] point out that only preliminary studies have been proposed
and that they are based on a fictitious site, which does not make it possible to identify any benefits conferred by thesurrounding rock for the sub-surface concepts, or by the location of the site for the risks of a flood or falling aircraft,for example, for surface concepts. These assessments highlighted a number of long-term issues, such as naturalventilation, the durability of concrete, and the long-term monitoring of the facilities, which cannot be guaranteed for
periods longer than a few hundred years and which postpone the burden of waste management onto future generations.
In addition, the scenario of a total abandonment of the facility could lead to unacceptable radiological consequences
for the population.

1
2
fü
f
r (1) surface storage, (2) sub-surface storage [80].
ü 2: CEA Concept for HLW and SF storage facilities:
Figurerar
di Evaluation Commission (CNE), published as an appendix
In 2006, G. rde Marsily, then a member of the French Nationaloato the CNE evaluation
report on the results of the studies relating
to the three approaches of the “Bataille law” [24], aadkt
personal opinion on the possible transformation of an underground
LTS facility into a repository. He suggested buildingiiv
a LTS facility
a secular period of observation of the waste and theo for ILW-LL directly at depth, in order to haveeAenvironment,
the conviction that the site is well suited for disposal.
a on the order of 200 to 300 years, in order to acquirebkOtherwise, or if a better option was found, the waste could then be removed.
fä
ti
ll
v
e
e
1
A
b
Page: 12/49
I R S N Report/2019-00318
f2äIn order to maintain the possibility of eliminating waste definitively in the future, Global Chance [26] and Greenpeace[27] proposed the use of reversible disposal or dry cask storage for spent fuel in shallow galleries, for example, in theside of granite mountains, if necessary over long periods of time, considering that these solutions would facilitate themonitoring of facilities and ensure the possibility of removing these fuels in the event of a better technical solution
being found.
The law of 28 June 2006 [28] entrusted Andra with the responsibility of carrying out, or having carried out, researchand studies on storage in addition to deep geological disposal, in accordance with the French National Plan for theManagement of Radioactive Materials and Waste (PNGMDR). These research and studies are aimed, in particular, atincreasing the life of storage facilities from fifty to a hundred years and to have more modular storage facilities toanticipate the needs for waste storage prior to their disposal in deep geological layers.

4
4.1

PARTITIONING-TRANSMUTATION
What does it involve?

The insert "Radioactivity, nuclear reactions and spent fuel" below provides some general elements for understanding
this chapter on partitioning and transmutation processes.
When developed as part of a radioactive waste management strategy, the goal of transmutation is to transform thevery long radioactive half-life radionuclides contained in the spent fuel of nuclear reactors into stable or shorter-lived
atoms. The idea of transmutation is thus to facilitate the management of the most dangerous radioactive waste in thelong term and possibly not have to fall back on geological disposal.
Although other types of transmutation have been studied (see Chapter 4.5), the principle of transmutation generally
consists in causing neutron absorption by the nucleus of a radionuclide (a phenomenon called neutron capture). This
results in a change in its atomic mass and its radioactive half-life, or a fission reaction of the nucleus (see Figure 3).
Transmutation reactions can be induced in thermal or fast neutron power reactors (see Chapter 4.3) or in systems
dedicated to transmutation (see Chapter 4.4).
The transmutation of long-lived radionuclides first requires their partitioning from the other constituent elements ofthe spent fuel (see the insert "Partitioning, recycling of recoverable materials, and transmutation modes" andChapter 4.2). The partitioned radionuclides are then converted to an oxide or metal element, and incorporated into
fuels or "transmutation targets" for irradiation.
The interest of applying a transmutation strategy to all or some of the long-lived radionuclides of spent fuel dependon the type of nuclear reactors and the associated "fuel cycle", possible transmutation efficiencies according to available
technologies and the physical characteristics of the radionuclides (mobility, dangerousness and life span). The expectedadvantages for geological disposal consist in a reduction in the inventory and the harmfulness of waste and a decrease
in its thermal power, allowing its handling to be optimised. These advantages are to be considered with regard to theconsequences resulting in particular from the emission of neutrons and the very high thermal emissions associated withthe materials to be transmuted, when they pass through nuclear reactors, their treatment in "fuel cycle" facilities andduring their transport. As such, "scenario" studies, incorporating hypothetical facility changes over time and different
recycling options, are conducted to evaluate the interest of implementing transmutation.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 13/49

Figure 3: Transmutation by fission (left) or by simple capture of a neutron (right) (according to [29], modified).

Radioactivity, nuclear reactions and spent fuel1) Radioactivity
protonneutronelectron
Figure 4: The atom.
Every element in our Universe, from the Sun to our body, whether it is solid, liquid or gaseous, is composed of
atoms. Very small in size - a tenth of a millionth of a millimetre - atoms (Figure 4) are themselves composed ofthree types of particles:Protons, which have a positive charge;

Neutrons, which have no charge (protons and neutrons make up the nucleus);Electrons, which have a negative charge and orbit around the nucleus.

An atom can be stable or unstable. When it is unstable, it naturally tends to evolve towards a more stable stateby emitting radiation (emission of energy and/or particles); the atom is then called a radionuclide. This reaction
is characterised by a radioactive period (or half-life), which is the time that it takes for half of the nuclei of aradionuclide in a sample to naturally decay. The radiation may consist of:A helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons), commonly called alpha radiation;

An electron or positron, commonly known as beta minus or beta plus radiation;

Photons (waves composing light), commonly known as X-ray and gamma radiation.

2) Nuclear reactions
Fission is the splitting of a heavy atom into lighter atoms (known as fission products) following an interaction
between an atom and a neutron, for example. This reaction is accompanied by the emission of neutrons andphotons, and leads to the release of energy.
Fusion consists in bringing two hydrogen atoms (deuterium6 and tritium7) to temperatures of several million
degrees, like in the cores of the stars. The fusion reaction between these light nuclei leads to the emission of ahelium atom (alpha radiation) and a neutron, as well as to the release of energy.
Nuclear transmutation consists in the transformation of one atom into another by modifying its nucleus. The
natural decay of radioactive elements, as well as nuclear fission and fusion reactions, are examples oftransmutation.

6
7

A deuterium atom is a hydrogen isotope with a neutron in the nucleus.
A tritium atom is a hydrogen isotope with two neutrons in the nucleus.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 14/49

3) Spent fuel from nuclear reactors
After being used in a reactor, spent nuclear fuel contains uranium and plutonium, which are considered to be
recoverable in the nuclear power industry, as well as fission products and minor actinides8 (essentially,
americium 241 and 243, curium 244 and 245, and neptunium 237). In addition, spent fuel assembly structurescontain radioactive elements produced by the activation of impurities (especially chlorine 36, calcium 41 andcarbon 14).
Most fission products have a half-life of less than 30 years and only a small fraction corresponds to radionuclides
with very long radioactive half-lives (notably technetium-99, iodine-129 and cesium-135). Minor actinides havevery long radioactive periods (from several thousand to millions or even billions of years).
With regard to spent fuel management, two major strategies stand out on an international level:The first considers spent fuel as waste; it is called the “open cycle” strategy;The second consists in treating the spent fuel and then recycling the materials (U, Pu, Th) into newfuels; it is called "closed cycle" strategy. There are several types of "closed cycle", differing in particularby the type of recycled materials and the number of recycling processes carried out (mono-recycling or
multi-recycling).

The "fuel cycle" management implemented in France is described as "closed cycle". The details of its
implementation are presented in the report published in July 2018 by the French High Committee forTransparency and Information on Nuclear Safety (HCTISN) [30].

4.2

Partitioning processes and strategies

4.2.1

Ways explored around the world

Depending on the characteristics of the spent fuel, two main treatment routes can be used to partition the elements tobe transmuted (see the insert "Partitioning, recycling of recoverable materials and transmutation modes):hydrometallurgical processes and pyrochemical processes.

Partitioning, recycling of recoverable materials and transmutation modes
In countries that have chosen a "cycle" of "closed" fuel, uranium and plutonium from spent fuels are partitioned fromfission products and other actinides for recycling. With some adaptations, the fleet of reactors and partitioning
processes that they have can then form the basis of a first transmutation strategy. This can be complemented by thedevelopment of new partitioning processes and the deployment of new reactors within a fleet specifically adapted
to the purpose of waste transmutation.
Two modes of transmutation, conditioning in particular the choice of partitioning processes, are conceivable:

A so-called "homogeneous" mode: the radionuclides to be transmuted are incorporated, up to a few percent,in all the fuel of the reactor or of the dedicated system;A mode known as "heterogeneous" radionuclides to be transmuted are introduced, at significant levels (onthe order of 10 to 20%), in supporting elements that differ from the "standard" fuel elements of the reactor
or of the dedicated system.

8

Actinides are a family of elements of the periodic table. They are heavy metals, radioactive and fissile. Uranium and thorium are themost abundant actinides on Earth. In a nuclear reactor, other actinides are formed by neutron capture. Plutonium is the main one; theothers are called "minor actinides".

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 15/49

Hydrometallurgical processes
The so-called hydrometallurgical processes consist in partitioning and purifying the materials of interest of the spent
fuel by subjecting them to a solubilisation step and then a liquid phase extraction using a suitable "extractant" molecule(or solvent). These processes have been the subject of many international developments. For example, the PUREX
process (Plutonium and Uranium Refining by Extraction), developed since 1947 in the United States, allows the recovery
and purification of plutonium and uranium contained in spent fuel mainly from light water reactors.
Although the joint partitioning of uranium, plutonium and neptunium is already possible by adapting the PUREX process,the retrieval of americium and curium is almost impossible with the solvent (TBP) used in this process. Innovative
processes involving selective minor actinide extractants have been developed for more than 20 years in Europe, Japanand the United States (TRUEX and TALSPEAK processes). They are intended to be used downstream from the PUREX
process and are aimed at recovering almost all of the americium and curium. These processes have been tested at thelaboratory scale. New even more selective extractants have been studied in Japan, France and, more generally, in
Europe (ACSEPT [31], SACSESS, and GENIORS projects). Japan has also developed a multistage process to retrieve only
americium (SELECT method).
For fission products, the main radionuclides for which a transmutation strategy has been considered are technetium,
iodine and caesium isotopes. They contribute in a significant way to the estimated dosimetric impact for a geologicalrepository, because of their very long radioactive periods, their mobility in the environment and their radiotoxicity. The
research carried out has shown that the PUREX process makes it possible to partition the first two elements almost
completely. Other processes have been developed and tested, particularly in France and the United States, to extract
caesium [32].
Pyrochemical processes
Pyrochemistry encompasses all operations involving high-temperature chemical reactions (between 500°C and 1000°C).
It is characterised by the use of non-aqueous solvents, such as gases, molten salts or liquid metals, and the use of very
diverse partitioning techniques (electrochemistry, precipitation, distillation, etc.). These processes are particularly well
suited to dissolving fuels that are difficult to dissolve in an aqueous medium, such as metal fuels.
Pyrochemical techniques for nuclear applications were developed in the United States in the 1930s to obtain metallic
uranium and then became the subject of important studies. Thus, the application of pyrochemical processes to thetreatment of spent fuels has been studied since the 1960s, mainly in the context of the development of the fast-neutron
reactor sector, particularly in the United States, Russia and France.
Two processes, developed on a pilot scale, can be mentioned: the electrolytic treatment of MOX fuels9 ("Dimitrovgrad"or DDP process) and the electrorefining treatment of U-Zr metal fuels (within the context of the "Integral Fast Reactor"
or IFR concept).
Manufacture of targets or fuels carrying minor actinides
Once partitioned, actinides must be converted into a chemical form suitable for the production of targets or fuels(mixed oxide most often) that will be used for transmutation. For this purpose, co-precipitation and conversion of allor some of the actinides are necessary. "Oxalic" co-precipitation is currently preferentially used in studies. Other
alternatives are also being studied on an international level (co-gelification, codenitration, etc.).

9

Mixture of plutonium OXide and uranium OXide, obtained by the recycling of uranium and plutonium from spent fuel.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 16/49

At the end of these steps, it is necessary to manufacture the fuel or targets for transmutation. This key step includes
the operations of development and forming of the fissile compound (grinding of actinide oxide powders, pressing of thepowders, and sintering of the pellets obtained) and closing of the fuel elements.
These operations are the subject of numerous studies aimed, in particular, at adapting the processes to the particularconstraints of thermal powers and the high neutron emissions attributable to actinides. These constraints induce, inparticular, stringent requirements in terms of radiation protection.

4.2.2

State of the art and perspectives

Hydrometallurgical processes benefit from an important industrial experience feedback, the PUREX process being the
one used in all of the spent fuel treatment plants in the world. In the studies carried out, they are thus chosen as apriority to isolate minor actinides and possibly fission products for their transmutation. The purpose of ongoing researchis aimed at defining new extractant molecules that are more selective, perform better with regard to charge capacity
and are robust to irradiation.
Pyrochemical processes are of potential interest for the treatment of the very strongly irradiating spent fuels of future
reactors (fast type). The latest US studies on the IFR concept have led many countries (Japan, South Korea, India,
France, etc.) to re-evaluate the potential of these processes for the treatment of future fuels (metal, oxide, nitride or
molten salt) or transmutation targets.
Manufacture of targets or fuels carrying minor actinides
Fuel pellets including minor actinides have already been manufactured in France for irradiation experiments in the
PHENIX reactor (FUTURIX, EUROTRANS, COPIX programmes, etc.).
Nevertheless, the alpha and neutron emissions of minor actinides, in particular americium and curium, constitute animportant constraint for the production of targets and fuels from actinide compounds. These intense alpha emissions
cause, in particular, the production of helium and damage the matrix in which the actinides must be placed before they
can be transmuted. A lot of research is underway to evaluate the importance of these degradations.
The intensity of the alpha radiation of the materials handled is also a major constraint in terms of radiation protection.
This constraint requires that the production of contaminating and irradiating dust be limited as much as possible. It is
the subject of studies currently underway, particularly in France and in Europe (ASGARD and GENIORS projects, etc.),
to simplify and optimise fuel manufacturing processes. One of the main challenges faced by current research is to qualify
these processes on an industrial scale, which requires the availability of pilot facilities and experimental irradiation
capabilities.

4.3

Transmutation in nuclear reactors

4.3.1

Ways explored around the worldTransmutation tools
Transmutation of long-lived radionuclides (minor actinides, fission products and activation products) in thermal or fastneutron nuclear reactors has been the subject of numerous studies.
Although thermal neutron reactors constitute almost all of the reactors installed worldwide, the fast neutron reactor
sector is a preferred route in studies carried out on the transmutation of minor actinides. Fast neutrons favour thefission reactions of these minor actinides, whereas thermal neutrons favour neutron capture reactions. Thus, whensubjected to a thermal neutron flux, minor actinides can lead to the formation of other minor actinides of higher atomic
mass, which are more radiotoxic or have a longer decay period, whose management as waste is not simpler than thatof the original minor actinides.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 17/49

Moreover, under the standard irradiation conditions in reactors (whether thermal-neutron or fast-neutron), all of thetargeted elements are not transmuted in a single irradiation cycle. It is therefore necessary to carry out several
partitioning-transmutation operations, each for a duration of at least several decades, to approach a fission rate of100%.
The FNR fleet in the world is currently limited to 4 reactors located in Russia (BN600 and BN800 in Beloyarsk), China(CEFR experimental reactor) and India (FBTR in Kalpakkam). Two others are under construction in China (CDFR-600 in
Xiapu [33] [34]) and India (PBFR also in Kalpakkam [35]). About 15 other FNR have been exploited in France (Phénix andSuperPhénix) in the United States (EBR-I and EBR-II, e.g., [36][37]), in the United Kingdom (Dounreay PFR, e.g., [38]),
Japan (Joyo and Monju, e.g., [39][40]) and Kazakhstan (BN-350 [41]), but are currently shut down. Various FNR
technologies have been studied or are under study, notably within the framework of the Generation IV International
Forum (GIF [42], see [43]). These reactors are cooled by sodium but also by lead (BREST project [44]) in Russia, leadbismuth [45], gas (see [46]), or are molten salt reactors (SAMOFAR project [47]; MOSART project [48]).
Neutron capture by fission products generally generates a stable body. They could therefore be transmuted in the
installed thermal neutron reactors.

4.3.2

State of the art and perspectives

Transmutation tools
The potential yield of minor actinide transmutation in thermal neutron reactors in the current fleet worldwide is limited(see Chapter 4.3.1). On the other hand, significant yields can be obtained in the FNR.
For activation products (chlorine 36 and calcium 41), reducing the content of impurities in new materials is preferred.
In addition, the transmutation of these radionuclides is of little interest because of their presence in limited quantities
in the waste.
The transmutation of long-lived fission products (mainly iodine, technetium and caesium), if theoretically possible,
raises implementation difficulties on an industrial scale that have not been resolved to date. This remains an outstanding
issue on an international level [49]:At this stage, the known iodine-129 compounds, which are thermally and chemically unstable under irradiation,raise safety concerns for reactors, mainly because of the fuel corrosion that they cause. The transmutation
speeds are also low (a few tens of years to transmute half of the initial mass). Some studies, however, continue
on an international level (see the international program EFTTRA [50]);

The transmutation of technetium 9910 could theoretically be implemented in thermal-neutron reactors.
Nevertheless, the transmutation yields remain low for this radionuclide. To achieve a significant reduction ininventories (for example, by a factor of 10), several cycles are necessary, which implies the deployment of theprocess over secular times. In addition, it would be necessary to improve the efficiency of the technetium
partitioning process. Given these difficulties, few teams or countries are studying the transmutation of thiselement.

Finally, the transmutation of caesium 135 would be difficult to implement, since it would first require acomplex isotopic partitioning operation from its stable isotope, caesium 133. Very few studies are being carriedout on the transmutation of this element [32].

10Technetium Tc-99, a long-lived fission product (210,000-year period), is transformed through neutron capture into Tc-100, which has
a short radioactive half-life (15.8 seconds). Through radioactive decay, the latter is transformed into the ruthenium isotope Ru-100,
which is stable.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 18/49

4.4
4.4.1

Transmutation in dedicated systems
Ways explored around the world

The idea of coupling a particle accelerator with a subcritical nuclear reactor11 dedicated to the transmutation of nuclear
waste is the result of research by K. Furukawa [51], C.D. Bowman [52] and finally C. Rubbia (e.g., [53]). The
corresponding system is called ADS (for Accelerator Driven System). The CERN has implemented two experiments tostudy this system:

FEAT (First Energy Amplifier Test, 1995 [54]), to show that this system was able to produce more energy thanit consumed;



TARC (Transmutation by Adiabatic Resonance Crossing, 1996 [55]), to show that it was suitable for thetransmutation of some nuclear waste.

On an international level, efforts have been focused on the development of an experimental reactor within theframework of the European project EUROTRANS, with the objective of demonstrating the technical feasibility oftransmutation in such a system. The MYRRHA project ("Multi-Purpose Hybrid Research Reactor for High-tech
Applications"), developed in Belgium, is today the most advanced in Europe (see the MYRRHA website [56] and Figure5). The MYRRHA reactor project is based on an accelerator that, by projecting protons onto a target (lead-bismuth liquidspallation target12), generates fast neutrons, which will maintain the fission reactions in the reactor. The reactor, which
is subcritical, is cooled by a lead-bismuth alloy.

Figure 5: Myrrha (SCK • CEN), with its large hall for the LINAC accelerator [56].
Other projects intended to study this transmutation system are currently underway in the world, in particular:

In China, the CiADS project (China Initiative Accelerator Driven System) relates to an ADS with a FNR-Pb [34];11

A reactor is said to be subcritical when the fission reactions that occur in it generate neutrons in an amount that is insufficient tomaintain the chain reaction by itself. It must be fed with neutrons from an external source.
12
Spallation is a high-energy nuclear reaction in which a target nucleus, struck by an incident particle (neutron, proton, etc.) or ahigh-energy electromagnetic wave, emits a stream of lighter particles. A fission reaction is possible if the spallation target is surrounded
by a nuclear fuel assembly, such as fissile isotopes of uranium or plutonium (see Figure 3) or thorium 232, capable of producing
uranium 233.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 19/49



In South Korea, a minor actinide transmutation program by ADS is being developed by the Nutreck Institute(Nuclear Transmutation Energy Research Centre of Korea) and Seoul National University (SNU);In India, design studies are underway to achieve a thorium and natural uranium reactor, fed by an accelerator(ADS).

4.4.2

State of the art and perspectives

In the above studies, the benchmark technology for the accelerator part of the ADS system is a continuous-wave
superconducting linear accelerator (LINAC). Programmes in recent decades have led to significant experimental
innovations and advances; however, the feasibility of a complete system on an industrial scale remains to be established.
Research is ongoing based in particular on the experiments developed for the MYRRHA demonstrator project. They
concern the control of the reactivity during the operation of the system, the behaviour of materials subjected to astrong high-energy neutron flux and the development of inert fuels containing high levels of minor actinides. Moreover,scenario studies simulating the use of ADS systems in addition to a fleet of nuclear power reactors (so-called "double
stratum" scenarios) show that, in order to stabilise plutonium and actinide inventories, it is necessary to multi-recycle
minor actinides in ADS and plutonium in the fleet reactors. Even in this case, a significant amount of minor actinides ispermanently present in the facilities necessary for the "cycle" of ADS systems.
An alternative technology to the LINAC relies on a laser-generated-plasma-based particle accelerator concept13, called
Laser Wakefield Acceleration (LWFA) [57]. This concept is based on the laser technique called "Chirped Pulse
Amplification" or CPA14, which won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physics for Gérard Mourou and Donna Strickland [58]. The
design of the LWFA, made more compact and less expensive by many international programmes (e.g., [59]), could leadto the building of extremely powerful accelerators of reduced dimensions. Recently, teams working with Gérard Mourou(e.g., [60][61]) proposed the use of this laser technology to accelerate deuterium ions intended to cause a fusion
reaction (see the "Radioactivity, nuclear reactions and spent fuel" insert above). Neutrons15 would then be used tofeed a molten salt reactor containing elements to be transmuted by fission.

4.5

Other types of transmutation

4.5.1

Ways explored around the world

Biological transmutation
The theory of biological transmutations was in particular developed by the Frenchman C.L. Kervran over the 1960s1970s (e.g., [62]). It is based on the observation, during the mineral nutrition of plants and animals, of thetransformation of elements, such as potassium or magnesium, into calcium (respectively by incorporation of an oxygen
nucleus and by incorporation of a proton). Such a transformation would be made possible by the presence of enzymes
activated by a fossilized algae. This theory is disputed by various authors [63][64][65][66]: the "transmutations" observed
result from erroneous interpretations of non-zero mineral balances or small statistically insignificant differences.

Tajima & Dawson [57] had the idea that a very high-power laser could generate a plasma wave that can accelerate electrons to anenergy of 1 GeV over a distance of 1 cm. Today, at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (California), a petawatt laser accelerates
electrons up to 4.2 GeV over a distance of 9 cm.
14
Proposed in 1985 as the foundation of Donna Strickland's thesis [58], CPA technology temporally lengthens (or modulates) laser pulses
to reduce peak power, then amplifies them before eventually compressing them, thus increasing their intensity. It became possible tobuild high-power ultra-short pulse laser systems. In addition, their size is small and their use simple. This technique is applied tocurrent high-power lasers and is used worldwide, particularly in the fields of eye surgery and micromachining.
15
The neutrons would be generated by the laser irradiation of a sheet of deuterium of nanometric thickness; deuterium atoms would
be accelerated to interact with a solid or gaseous tritium target. The fusion of a deuterium atom and a tritium atom is accompaniedby the emission of a neutron.
13

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 20/49

Recently, publications have again tried to show the existence of biological transmutations, following the documentation
by Kervran [67][68][69].
Cold fusion
British researchers M. Fleischmann and S. Pons announced in 1989 through the press [70] that an experiment16 performedat ambient temperature and pressure caused a release of heat disproportionate to the amount of electrical energy
received, called "cold nuclear fusion". Preliminary elements of this experiment were published in a "Preliminary Note"[71]; the full version promised by these researchers in the journal Nature was never published. Researchers from several
laboratories, such as those of the United States Department of Energy (DOE) [72], tried to reproduce the results
obtained by Pons and Fleischmann without success. The apparatus used for the purposes of their experiment also seems
to not have had the expected traces of a nuclear fusion reaction. In October 1989, the DOE therefore concluded that
there was no evidence of cold fusion [72]. However, this theory continued to be defended in the mid-1990s, more often
under the term "Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions" (LENR) to refer to heat production caused by an unknown process taking
place at the atomic scale and not accompanied by ionising radiation.
Direct laser transmutation
Nuclear fission by laser pulses in the visible spectrum (or photofission) directly applied to sources to be transmuted wastested on uranium with the PCA technique (Chapter 4.4.2) by the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL, United
Kingdom [73][74]) using a VULCAN petawatt laser, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL, USA[75][76][77]) with the NOVA laser.
In 2003, the laser fission of uranium 238 and thorium 232 was performed by a German team [78], with a Jena laser. In
the same year, a British team [79] used a VULCAN laser with a gold target to transmute long-lived radioactive iodine
129 to iodine 128 (see Figure 3).

4.5.2

State of the art and perspectives

To IRSN's knowledge, the research mentioned above is not the subject of specific developments within the context ofnational HLW/ILW-LL management programmes.

4.6

And in France?

France has been one of the main contributors to advances in partitioning and transmutation [80] within the frameworkof the application of the “Bataille law” of 1991 [22].
In particular, the CEA has developed a number of actinide partitioning processes (COEX™, DIAMEX-SANEX, GANEX or
EXAm).
The research carried out by the CEA, within the framework of the waste law of 2006 [28] in particular, made it possible
to validate at the laboratory scale, on real fuels, the processes developed for the retrieval of minor actinides, to prepare
the experimental irradiations for the various transmutation concepts envisaged, and to specify the conditions for theindustrial implementation of the various options [81]. Given the very significant difficulties associated with the recyclingof curium, the research carried out since 2012 at the CEA only concerns the partitioning and transmutation of americium
alone [82]; research on other actinides is nevertheless being studied in a European context.

16

The experiment described by Pons and Fleischmann consists in producing the electrolysis of heavy water (D2O) with a palladium
negative electrode, a platinum positive electrode and a lithium salt (LiOD) as electrolyte. They claim to have thus observed a heatproduction higher than that normally due to the electrical energy supplied to the system, which they attribute to the fusion of thedeuterium nuclei (D), which according to them would have gathered on the palladium electrode (source : www.vulgarisationscientifique.com/wiki/Pages/Que_sont_la_fusion_froide_et_les_LENR).

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 21/49

The FNR-Na are considered as the benchmark sector in France, in particular because of the ample feedback from theinternational community on this technology. Research for industrial implementation is supported by the CEA, throughthe Astrid project [83].
The possible industrial deployment of a transmutation option is envisaged within the framework of a future nuclear
fleet comprising fast-neutron reactors suitable for the transmutation of minor actinides, or in dedicated systems.

5

BOREHOLE DISPOSAL

5.1

What does it involve?

Borehole disposal consists in placing waste in vertical structures drilled into rock, in order to isolate them from natural
surface phenomena, to reduce the possibility of their contact with humans by reducing their accessibility and, finally,
to prevent the dispersion of their contents into the environment. Through these objectives and because it involves thegeological environment, this option is very similar to the deep geological disposal option. However, it differs in certain
important specificities. Although geological disposal is based on the digging of an underground facility into which thewaste is conveyed and then set in place inside specially designed and equipped cells, all of the borehole disposal
operations are carried out from the surface, from the digging and the handling of the packages to the closing operations.
For one same type of waste (HLW or ILW-LL), the target depth for some borehole disposal concepts can be much greaterthan that of a geological repository.
Three types of borehole disposal can be mentioned according to the type of waste:Embedding of exothermic waste17 (such as vitrified waste or spent fuel) in a vitreous gangue resulting fromthe melting of the host rock. In order to trigger the melting phenomenon, the waste must be placed in a rockthat dissipates little heat and whose melting temperature is sufficiently low; this is particularly the case of
granitic rocks. Since temperature naturally increases with depth, the use of deep boreholes can be a favourable
element;Injection of liquid waste directly into the rock. In this case, the rock, located several hundred meters deep,
is chosen for its injection capability (characterised in particular by its porosity), as well as for its
hydrogeological characteristics, the objective being that they make it possible to limit horizontal and verticaltransfers;Stacking of solid waste packages in a borehole. In this case, the waste is placed at a depth that depends inparticular on its nature, and then the borehole is sealed.

5.2
5.2.1

Embedding of exothermic waste in molten rock (“rock melting”)
Ways explored around the world

The paths to achieving this option explored around the world consist in placing the waste in cavities or boreholes madein magmatic rocks18 so that the heat that they generate leads to the melting of the materials around them. In someconcepts, the waste is placed in a capsule designed to maintain its integrity while the rock that surrounds it melts andwill form a protective gangue during its cooling. In other concepts, waste is intended to mix with the rock and can beinjected in a liquid form. The objective is that, during cooling, the whole forms a vitreous mass that incorporates the17

Release of heat by waste due to its radioactivity (energy released during radioactive decays).
Magmatic rocks (granite, basalt…) result from the crystallization of magma. Granite begins to melt at 900°C, and basalt begins tomelt at 1200°C.
18

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 22/49

radionuclides, potentially in a larger volume than initially (thus of weaker mass activity). Most of these concepts havebeen explored in the United States. We can mention in particular (see [84]):


The Deep Underground Melt Process (DUMP) concept, developed by the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in the 1970s [85][86][87]. This project consisted in introducing exothermic waste into a cavity madefrom a borehole, either using conventional explosives or by means of a nuclear explosion, at a depth of between
2 and 4 km. The goal is to place a large amount of waste in the same cavity;



The Deep Self Burial (DSB) concept (Figure 6-1), originally developed by Sandia National Laboratories [88][89].
This concept consists in taking the waste down to a depth of 2 km, enclosed in high-density containers, possiblycooled in cased boreholes, then if necessary in disconnecting the cooling system so that the waste melts as it
sinks deep into the liquefied rock, under the effect of its own weight. Renewed interest in an option derived
from this concept emerged in the 1990s, particularly in Russia, China and the United Kingdom, aimed ateliminating small quantities of high-level waste [90][91]. The new option was only aimed at partial melting of
the host rock, the waste itself being protected by a container19 not intended to melt and mix with the molten
rock;



The Deep Rock Disposal (DRD) concept (Figure 6-2), also developed by Sandia National Laboratories [92][93].
The concept combines elements of the two previous concepts: the targeted wastes are essentially liquid
effluents from spent fuel reprocessing plants. The project does not envisage them being placed in containers,
but rather directly injected in liquid form into deep boreholes, where, due to their exothermicity, they would
melt the surrounding rock;The solidified Waste In Situ Melting Concept [94] (Figure 6-3) consists in mixing the solid waste with rubble
inside a cavity. The average thermal load of the waste-rubble unit should allow the melting of the rubble tobe carried out while avoiding a thermal degradation of the rock beyond the molten rock zone. Likewise, thevoids in the embankment are imagined to allow the expansion of the rock during the melting, thus reducing
the risk of causing the surrounding formations to fracture.

19

The melting temperature of steel (which begins to melt at 1400 °C) is higher than that of a basalt.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 23/49

1
f
ü
r
r
a
d
i
o
a
k
ti
v
e
A
b
f
ä
ll2
efü
1r
ra
di
o
1a
fkt
iv
ü
e
rA
rb
afä
dll
ie
o1

a
k
ti2
vfü3
fü
er
r
Figure 6: Various typesAraof disposal by rock melting: 1) the DSB concept (according to [89], modified); 2) the DRD
raconcept (according to [92],modified); 3) the initial device of the Solidified Waste In Situ Melting Concept (accordingbdi
dito [94], modified).
fo
o

äaa
kt
llkt
iv
eeiv
1Ae
A
b
b
fä
fä
ll
ll
1e
e
f11

ü

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 24/49

5.2.2

State of the art and perspectives

The various initial concepts presented in the previous chapter are currently no longer, to IRSN's knowledge, the subjectof official studies. On the other hand, an option derived from DSB is still under study in the United States[95][96][97][98]. In particular, it is considered as a disposal solution for Hanford caesium and strontium sources (seeChapter 5.4.2 below). Its principle is based on the partial melting of a granite-based material ("rock welding”, see Figure7) placed around or above the waste packages. The heat released by the waste is, for this concept, high enough tocause the melting of the material that surrounds it but remains low enough not to deteriorate the containers in which
it is enclosed. When cooling, it is expected that the granite-based material will naturally seal the area around the waste
in the deep boreholes. Current research focuses on materials (especially crushed granite) that would allow effective
recrystallisation for sealing.

Figure 7: Granite core (2 cm long) partially melted after 570h at 800°C (at 2.55% humidity).
The arrows indicate "glass" areas (uncrystallised molten mass because rapidly cooled) [96].

5.2.3

And in France?

The embedding of exothermic waste in molten rock has not been the subject of dedicated work of significant magnitudein France.
However, the French nuclear test programme carried out in French Polynesia in the years 1970-1990 shed some light on
the mechanisms of fracturing, rock melting and the trapping of radioactive substances in molten rocks. Someexperiments carried out in this context consisted in placing test devices at the bottom of vertical wells a few hundred
meters deep, filled with drilling rubble and basaltic sand, and then sealed with cement. The results made it possible tostudy the capacity of the lava formed by the melting of the basaltic sand to trap the radioactive products contained in
the device [99][100]. These experiments did not have any particular follow-up in the research programme on radioactive
waste disposal.

5.3
5.3.1

Liquid waste injection in deep boreholes
Ways explored around the world

Direct injection of waste in liquid form (or incorporated in a solution after crushing in the manner of a cement grout)in a geological layer requires that the rock be sufficiently porous and permeable to allow injection. Its characteristics
must also make it possible to limit the horizontal or vertical migration of radionuclides. The choice of a porous andpermeable geological formation, but with weak hydraulic gradients and framed by formations of low permeability, istherefore favourable.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 25/49

In the United States, after initial tests in 1959 and 1960, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee has regularly
conducted radioactive effluent injection operations. Between 1966 and 1979, about 7,500 m3 of waste was injected in
the form of cement mortar at a depth of about 300 m [101][102], in shales previously treated to increase their porosityand permeability based on hydraulic fracturing techniques. These experiments were followed up by IAEA [103]. In 1972,
high-level waste injection in crystalline rock under the Savannah River site (South Carolina) was abandoned prior to its
implementation, due to public concern [104].
In Russia, injection operations have been carried out since 1962 in sedimentary rocks on three sites: in limestone andsandstone formations at a depth of 1400 meters in Dimitrovgrad (injections on this site have now ceased), as well as intwo porous sandstone beds capped with clay at a depth of 400 meters in the Krasnoyarsk-26 ("Severny" site) and the
Tomsk-7 (Sversk Sites 18 and 18a) [105]. On the Krasnoyarsk-26 site, since 1962, eight boreholes were used for the
injection of intermediate and high-level liquids and four boreholes were used for the injection of low-level liquids. For
all of the sites, in total a few tens of millions of m3 of high and intermediate-level waste were injected.

5.3.2

State of the art and perspectives

In Russia, four of the boreholes near the reactor site and the spent fuel reprocessing plant in Krasnoyarsk are still being
used to inject low-level effluents. The volumes injected have, however, considerably decreased since the shutdown in1992 of two plutonium production reactors and the slowdown of the fuel reprocessing activities on this site [106].
In 2013, the practices of injecting waste and effluent into rocks were the subject of a technical review under the
auspices of IAEA. This review was based on the standards laid down by the agency20 , which require, under the principleof " in-depth defence ", that a geological disposal system be designed according to a multi-barrier device, in which the
failure of one element can be compensated for by the existence of others. According to this principle, the performanceof the disposal system must be based not only on the host rock but also on engineered barriers. The interpretation ofthese standards (e.g., [107]) was discussed during this review and the compatibility of the direct injection of liquid
effluents into rocks with fundamental safety principles remains today a subject of dissent within the international
community [105].
In the United Kingdom, the injection of liquid radioactive waste into rocks, after examination based on the work donein the United States and Russia [108][109], is now considered to be contrary to UK regulations in force, the latter
requiring in particular that the waste be managed exclusively in solid form.
To IRSN's knowledge, rock injection is now not being considered by any country as a definitive management option forintermediate or high-level waste.

5.3.3

And in France?

In France, studies and research on the injection of radioactive waste and effluents performed in the 1970s wereconducted in connection with similar discussions initiated by other industrial sectors. In particular, these studies
contributed to the development of hydraulic fracturing techniques used by the oil and gas industries to improve reservoir
productivity and to participate in the campaigns for nitrated effluent injection at a depth of 1,800 m performed by theIle de France fertilizer company in Grandpuits [110]. These investigations were gradually abandoned in France at theend of the 1980s, with the radioactive waste management programmes revolving partly around the exploitation of
surface disposal centres, and partly around research structured along three approaches defined by the “Bataille law”
of 1991 [22].

20

See Requirements 7 and 8 of the IAEA Guidelines “SSR-5” of 2011, in particular.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 26/49

5.4

Solid and packaged waste disposal in boreholes

5.4.1

Ways explored around the world

The first concept of solid waste disposal in boreholes was developed by the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates in 1957 [111]. It consisted in drilling boreholes, at sea or from the mainland, in crystalline or sedimentary rocks
to a depth of up to 5,000 m and then placing packages of radioactive waste in them. Research on this option wasabandoned in the 1970s in favour of that on disposal concepts in mines or underground facilities, because of the
difficulties encountered in attempting to drill boreholes with sufficiently large diameters and depths using thetechnologies then available.
The significant technological advances of the past thirty years have recently led some countries to re-examine thisoption. In the United States, a benchmark concept has been proposed by Sandia National Laboratories at the requestof the Department of Energy (DOE) [112]. This consists in placing 400 waste containers at the bottom of a deep boreholeof approximately 5,000 m. Above the 2,000 m in which the waste would be deposited, Sandia proposes the constructionof a seal consisting of bentonite and concrete that would occupy an uncased part of the 1500 m long borehole. The
upper part, also representing a length of 1500 m, would be filled according to standard methods.
Research on disposal in deep boreholes has also been conducted in several countries such as Denmark, Switzerland,
Sweden (e.g., [113]), Finland (see [114]) and the United Kingdom [115][116].

Figure 8: The concept of multi-barrier disposal applied to borehole disposal (according to [118], modified).
The principle of solid waste disposal in boreholes is of particular interest to countries with very limited amounts ofwaste consisting mainly of small objects, such as sealed radioactive sources from medical and industrial applications.
In 2009, IAEA published a guide (SSG-1 [118]) specifically dedicated to the borehole disposal of sealed radioactive
sources withdrawn from service and small volumes of waste. The solution described in this document (see Figure 8)
consists in the drilling of boreholes with a diameter of at most a few tens of centimetres and with depths varying
between a few tens and a few hundred meters, depending on the activity of the waste. It proposes a "multi-barrier
concept" comprising the waste and its container, the rubble and the borehole casing, and, finally, the host rock. These
successive barriers are designed as obstacles against the transfer of radionuclides to the biosphere. The guide specifies
that, for waste placed in a borehole less than 30 meters deep, it is advisable to refer to the safety principles for waste
placed at a depth of more than 30m and to the safety principles for disposal in deep geological layers [119][120].

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 27/49

5.4.2

State of the art and perspectives

Since the issuance of the IAEA Guide "SSG-1" [118] mentioned above, extensive research and development has focusedon the concept of borehole disposal for implementation in a number of weakly-nuclearized or non-nuclearized countries.
For the long-term management of sealed radioactive sources, countries such as Ghana, Malaysia, the Republic of
Cyprus, Moldova and Brazil have adopted the concept proposed by IAEA as a benchmark option. For small volumes ofwaste (excluding high-level waste), the United Arab Emirates has also adopted this concept as a benchmark, while thisoption is under consideration in the United States, Australia, Cuba and Jordan [121]. The quantities and activities of
the waste concerned by these various programmes are incommensurate with those of HLW/ILW-LL resulting from theoperation of a fleet of nuclear power reactors.
In the case of nuclearized countries, some maintain a watch on the subject (e.g., Sweden [122]) and others consider
borehole disposal as a possible option, the same as a geological repository (e.g., Belgium [123][124]), but only theUnited States are pursuing advanced studies:A report published in October 2013 by Sandia National Laboratories [125] indicates that preliminary deep
borehole disposal assessments show significant and robust waste isolation potential, and that the concept could
be a faster to implement definitive management solution for some types of waste than geological disposal in
an underground facility. This position has recently been developed in several scientific articles published inleading international journals (e.g., Nature [126] and Science [127]). More specifically, studies on the disposalof civilian spent fuel estimate the number of boreholes required for the reference design described in Chapter
5.4.1 at around 800 [128]. These studies have found particular acceptance in the United Kingdom [117] andGermany [129].



In January 2016, the company Battelle was commissioned by the DOE to drill a 4,880-meter test-borehole in a
crystalline basement of North Dakota for the disposal of caesium and strontium sources that are currently
stored at the Hanford site, as well as possibly high-level calcinates and salts resulting from theelectrometallurgical treatment of sodium fuels [130]. The site identified in North Dakota having beenabandoned as a result of protest movements, the DOE and Battelle have successively considered several othersites for this test-borehole (South Dakota, New Mexico, Texas, etc.), but have had to abandon them in turn
due to local opposition [131]. The DOE announced the termination of its test-borehole project on the 23rd ofMay, 2017 (see [130]).

Although the studies underway in the United States cover a priori all types of waste, borehole disposal is currently notretained by the DOE for the long-term management of spent fuel [132][133].
In terms of research, the knowledge needs for the development of this type of solid waste disposal are quite similar to
those explored in geological disposal projects in an underground facility. They include: geodynamics, the identificationof potential natural resources, the characterisation of the properties of host rocks at the site-selection stage, and thecriticality for the assessment of risks in operation, etc. Some specificities stand out nevertheless from the past or
current discussions. They relate more particularly to package-handling techniques while they are being placed inboreholes, as well as the sealing methods, which, although they are also required for underground facilities associatedwith geological disposal, require specific techniques in the case of borehole disposal.
In terms of handling, the techniques explored by the DOE [132] are: i) free fall slowed down by the viscosity of theborehole fluid and the clearance between packages and casing (this solution is, however, excluded for deep boreholes,
with the fall of a package having been studied only for the purpose of risk analysis), ii) the use of cables, iii) the use ofdrill pipes like in the oil industry.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 28/49

In terms of sealing techniques, there is ongoing research on an option derived from the concept, described in Chapter
5.2.1, of rock-melting around exothermic waste. The solution explored consists in promoting the melting of a granite
backfill by introducing an electric heating element [128][95][96].

5.4.3

And in France?

Like for the injection of liquid waste in deep boreholes, the option of borehole disposal of waste packages has not been
considered in France.

6

SUB-SEABED DISPOSAL

6.1

What does it involve?

The disposal of radioactive waste in the seabed involves moving the waste away from any human presence by placing
it at the bottom of the ocean. Several options have been considered for this. They consist in:depositing the waste in areas where water depth is great or sedimentation is rapid. These areas correspond,in particular, to the abyssal plains of the oceans, or to the "deep seabed". The height of the water column canreach about 5,000 to 6,000 meters. Under this option, the waste would be either placed on the seabed in
anticipation of being covered by sedimentation, or buried in the unconsolidated sediments that cover the
bedrock, usually comprised of basaltic formations;

placing the waste to the right of the so-called "subduction" zones, where the oceanic plate sinks into the
Earth's mantle (see below). This configuration has led to imagining the possibility of sending the waste to themantle by placing it on the "treadmill" constituted by the oceanic plates.

Depending on the location of the area, the disposal operation can be carried out at sea, from a boat or an offshore
structure, by means of boreholes or "penetrators" (heavy containers falling in free-fall into soft sediments, see thechapter here-after) or possibly from land, through a tunnel.

6.2

Ways explored around the world

6.2.1

Deep seabed disposal

The study of the definitive disposal of high-level waste on the seabed is a continuation of the low-level radioactive
waste disposal operations at sea carried out by most nuclearised countries in the 1950s and 1970s, and in a much more
limited way until the 1990s (see the insert: "Disposal of radioactive waste at sea"). It started in the United States in1973 (e.g., [133]) and the work then focused mainly on the abyssal plains of the Pacific Ocean. At this time, the ideaof disposal on the floor of the deep seabed was related to the weak interest that these areas were expected to showwith regard to human activities. It was also justified by the conditions considered to be a priori favourable - from thepoint of view of dilution/dispersion and corrosion - ensured by the slow ocean currents and the expected low
temperatures at the bottom of the oceans. The MPG programme (Mid Plate/Mid Gyre), which is part of this research,focused on the study of the water column properties and the evaluation of their ability to constitute a barrier preventing
the transfer of radioactivity to areas in which human activities take place. The results of these investigations showedthat the water column was not as stable as envisaged and that exchanges were established between the surface andthe bottom.
The research then focused on the possibility of burying waste in marine sediments. In this context, sediments wereconsidered as a barrier against the migration of radioactive substances, the ocean itself being considered as anenvironmental compartment in which transfers are possible but slow. One of the research challenges was to establish

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 29/49

that dilution-diffusion kinetics were slow enough to allow radioactive decay (and therefore a significant decrease inactivity) before the radionuclides reach humans. The option of burying waste in the marine sediment was consideredmore acceptable than disposal at sea, in that it did not consist in deliberately diluting and dispersing the radioactivity
in the ocean, but rather in confining the waste in a thick layer of sediments on the seabed with the capacity to absorb
the radioactive substances.
Sediment burial studies began in 1976 with the "Sub-seabed Disposal Programme". This international cooperation
programme under the aegis of the NEA involved the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Japan; Canada,
the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Organisation of European Communities also
contributed (e.g., [135][136]).

2
1
fü
f
r
ü The two concepts for placing the waste in seabed sediments:
Figure 9:1) using a penetrator; 2) by drilling ([144]raraccording to Sandia under the Sub-seabed Disposal Program, modified).
di
r
o
a
a
The work resulted in two main options:dkt
iiv Figure 9-1). This option consisted in placing the wasteInsertionof waste into sediments using penetrators (seeeoin sufficiently heavy warhead-shaped containers and droppingthem in free-fall at around 30 m/s. In the 1980s,
Aab penetration tests of mock containers in sediments,thek United Kingdom and the United States conducted
fä
ti
under
a water-depth of a few hundred meters ([137][138]).
The experiments showed that the containers sankllvemore than 30 meters and that the holes created were ultimately
filled with remediated sediments of a densitye1
equivalent
to that of the sediments initially present [138];Ab

Drillingof boreholes, inside of which stacks of packaged waste would be placed (see Figure 9-2). A depth off800
ä meters below the sea floor was targeted, with the2top of the stack of containers being located 300 meters
fü
ll
below
the sea floor. The initial projects studied in the rUnited States by the non-profit company Battelle [139]eprovided for the boreholes to pass through all of theraloose sediments to anchor into the bedrock, generally
1dibasaltic, in which the waste containers were to be placed.
oaStudies carried out have focused on heat transfer [141], diffusivetransport [142], and radiological impact [143]. In 1986,
kt
1iv
the United States DOE, which was the largest contributor to the Sub-seabed Disposal Program, decided to cease fundingfe
it in order üto fully devote its attention to the "geological disposal" project, thus ending the programme (see [144]).
A
b
r
fä
r
ll
a
e
d
1
i
o
a
k
2
fü
ti
r
v
ra
e
Page: 30/49
I R S N Report/2019-00318
di
A
o
b
a

Disposal at sea of radioactive waste
The disposal at sea of radioactive waste consists in dropping containers filled with waste from the deck of a ship.
These containers can be either designed to implode at depth under the effect of water pressure, or to flow intact
to the seafloor. The principle of this management method is to choose an immersion zone characterised bysufficiently strong dispersion and dilution conditions. Disposal on the seafloor also makes it possible to consider
sorption of radioactive substances into the sediments of the seabed.
Between 1946 and 1982, 14 countries regularly dumped radioactive waste into the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
The first disposal at sea was conducted 80 km off the coast of California. The last disposal at sea by a westerncountry took place in 1982 in the Atlantic (1993 by Russia), about 550 kilometres off the European continental
shelf.

Figure 10: Sites of radioactive waste disposal at sea around the world and percentage of total radiologicalactivity (85,000 TBq21) ([146][147]).
Of the approximately 85,000 TBq of submerged waste (activity at the date of the operation [147]), half wascarried out off the European coasts in the Atlantic and the English Channel (low-level, liquid or solid waste). It
should be noted that most of the activity of submerged waste in the Arctic Ocean comes from damaged (highlevel) spent fuel in the reactors of six submarines and an icebreaker belonging to the former USSR [147].
With regard to the disposal at sea in the North Atlantic, from 1949 to 1963, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser
extent, Belgium have submerged their waste at various sites. The one closest to the French coast is Hurd's Deep
(150 m deep), 15 km northwest of Cap de la Hague (60 TBq). The following operations have been coordinated by
the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the OECD (then known as the European Nuclear Energy Agency) [148][149].
France participated in two of the campaigns organised within this context (see Figure 11).


Between May and August 1967, Germany, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands
submerged about 11,000 tonnes of waste (about 300 TBq, including 219 TBq submerged by France) at asite 400 km off the coast of Galicia (Spain) to a depth of more than 4,600 meters.

21

1 TBq = 1012 Bq = 1 000 000 000 000 Bq (Becquerel)

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 31/49



In July-August 1969, a new operation, this time involving Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy,
the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland, involved submerging approximately 9,000 tonnes (on theorder of 900 TBq, including 134 TBq submerged by France) at a site 900 km west of Brittany, to a depthof between 4,000 and 4,600 meters.

The following campaigns of disposal at sea, off the Bay of Biscay, were again supervised by the NEA. More
important in terms of activity (36,000 TBq), they were conducted by Belgium, the United Kingdom, theNetherlands and Switzerland. France ceased to take part in these operations after the commissioning of theCentre de la Manche disposal facility in 1969. The disposal at sea of waste resulting from nuclear tests carriedout in Polynesia (0.083 TBq) continued in French waters in the Pacific until 1982 [146].

Figure 11: Campaigns for the disposal at sea of radioactive waste in the North-East
Atlantic - Location, date and radiological activity of submerged waste ([146], source [147]).
Dotted circles: sites used by France.
Following the entry into force of the London Convention [150] prohibiting the dumping of radioactive waste (seethe insert "Changes in Maritime Law"), a moratorium on dumping was adopted in 1983 [151] and in 1993 thesignatories of the London Convention decided to prohibit the disposal at sea of any type of radioactive waste.

The changes in maritime law and the international initiatives undertaken to protect the oceans (see the insert "Changes
in Maritime Law") have progressively led to a slowdown in research on the disposal of waste under the seabed and thento their ceasing following the moratorium on the disposal of waste at sea in 1983 [151]. This change resulted both fromthe development of knowledge and the possibilities of exploitation of natural resources present on the seabed (metal
nodules, hydrocarbons, etc.), as well as from a growing awareness of the need to preserve the marine environment.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 32/49

Changes in Maritime Law
The principle of "freedom of the sea" set forth since the 17th century, defining the sea as a territory open to all
and belonging to no one, gave way in the 1970s to that of "international management of the seabed" [152]. The"1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter", the so-called
London Convention [150], which entered into force in 1975 (see the insert "Disposal at sea of radioactive
waste ") associates the term pollution with a deliberate release of substances that may have adverse effects on
the marine environment. This convention covers radioactive substances, regardless of their level of activity since
the amended version of 1983. To date, 87 States have ratified it.
The 1972 Treaty was supplemented and modernised in 1996 by the "1996 Protocol to the 1972 Convention on thePrevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter", called the 1996 Protocol. The latterprohibits the disposal at sea of any substance other than those appearing on a list of authorised substances whoseradioactivity levels do not exceed the exemption thresholds defined by IAEA. This protocol, ratified in 2006, now
has 48 contracting parties.
In the case of disposal at sea, since the risk of accidental harmful effects cannot be totally ruled out, the conceptof "acceptable risk" and its compatibility with international law were discussed during the negotiations leading
up to the adoption of the 1996 Protocol. In particular, due to the impossibility of excluding the risk of an accident
during the transport of waste at sea and its transfer into the sediments, it was considered that this concept was
not in accordance with various international conventions (e.g., [153]). Ethical and political considerations, suchas the notion of "common heritage of humanity" for the high seas and the finding of unequal access to the sea
among countries, were added to the debates. The legal issues remain unresolved (e.g., [154]) and extend beyond
the case of radioactive waste. For example, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Sea (UNCLOS
or UNCLOS III), which came into effect in 1998, has still not been signed by some UN members, such as the UnitedStates.
After many discussions, one aspect is currently the subject of a consensus: to create a repository at sea fromland (by tunnels, descendants, etc.) is compatible with international law (e.g., [155]).

6.2.2

Disposal in subduction trenches

Current knowledge of plate tectonics, including their formation in rifts and their convergence at subduction zones (seethe insert “The subduction phenomenon”) or their collision (mountain chains), only emerged in the 1960s, within thecontext of the first seabed exploration campaigns22 [156]. The idea, proposed in the 1970s in the United States, of
placing radioactive waste in subduction trenches - and thus using a natural mechanism to send them into the Earth's
mantle - (e.g., [157]) results directly from this evolution of scientific knowledge. At the time when the work began, thedata and the understanding of the phenomena on which they are based was limited and fragmented. In 1972, geologist
E.A. Silver of the US Geological Survey emphasised in Nature magazine [158] the slowness of the subduction phenomenon
and the even slower rate of sedimentation processes. He added that the subduction zones showed signs of strong seismic
activity (deformations and faults). Finally, in slow-subduction zones, the observations suggested that sediments on the
top of the subduction plate did not penetrate the mantle, but rather were levelled off during the sinking of the plate
and accumulated on the surface.

22

Seabed topography then revealed the existence of ocean ridges and rifts.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 33/49

The subduction phenomenon
When an oceanic lithosphere (crust) plate meets a continental plate, it passes beneath it - this is called"subduction" – due to its lower density. It then sinks into the Earth's mantle, generating an ocean trench. Disposal
in a subduction zone consists in placing the waste in the ocean trench so that it is carried away with the subductedcrust.

Figure 12: Diagram of a subduction zone (Wikipedia, according to K.D. Schroeder).
The subduction process is slow, with the plate sinking about 1 to 10 centimetres per year (maximum speed in
the western Pacific Ocean). Friction produces earthquakes and the melting of the oceanic crust from a certain
depth leads to a rise of magma and therefore explosive volcanism on the surface (volcanic arc). During the
subduction of the oceanic crust, its upper part, consisting of unconsolidated marine sediments, accumulates on
the surface to form a mountain range (accretionary prism).

The possibility of the waste remaining on the surface with sediments has not been fully clarified to date (e.g., [159]).
Finally, the conclusions by A. Alden, in 2017 [160], note the difficulty raised by the slowness of the subduction
phenomenon, already mentioned by E.A. Silver [158]. He points out that in the Peru-Chile subduction zone, the Nazca
plate sinks under South America at an angle of 30 degrees and at a rate of about 7-8 centimetres per year, making it
the fastest subduction zone in the world. Under these favourable conditions, he deduces that it would take 10,000 years
for waste to move horizontally 600-700 meters and vertically 350-400 meters.
Although the need for geological research was identified in the 1980s (e.g., [161][162]), the expert group advising theUnited Kingdom authorities, the CoRWM, noted in 2004 a lack of knowledge regarding the subduction zone disposal
option [163]. In particular, very few studies were available to assess the long-term future of the waste that would beplaced there. The group also highlighted the international legal obstacles against various forms of disposal in the seabed(see insert "Changes in Maritime Law"), which is a finding subsequently shared by the UK radioactive waste
management agency [164][165].
The option for disposal in the subduction trenches was removed from the list of those to be considered by Canada in2005 [5], because of: a) the distance of potential sites and therefore the great distance that the waste would be required
to travel, (b) difficulty - judged to be greater than that associated with geological disposal - to maintain monitoring andensure the retrievability of waste, (c) uncertainty as to the fate of the waste (in particular, of its potential return tothe surface during volcanic eruption) and, finally, d) the probable incompatibility of this option with international
conventions, since it is implemented from the sea. Some authors (e.g., [166][167]), however, consider that this option
is still possible in the Juan de Fuca Trench (Figure 13) by accessing it from land from the Brooks Peninsula on Vancouver
Island.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 34/49

Juan de Fuca Trench

Fosse Juan de Fuca

Fosse Juan de Fuca

Fosse Juan de Fuca

Figure 13: Location of the main subduction zones in the world (Live Science, according to USGS, modified).

6.3

State of the art and perspectives

Of the two options for seabed disposal mentioned in this chapter, none are currently the subject of work within theframework of national radioactive waste management programmes.
Regardless of technical progress or difficulties, the option of deep seabed sediment disposal has been progressively
abandoned as a result of changing ethical considerations and the progressive structuring of a more protective
international maritime law. Only the option of disposal at sea accessible from land is considered, which in practice isvery directly related to geological disposal in an underground facility, for example in the United Kingdom (see [168]).
Although not dedicated to high-level waste, it can also be mentioned that facilities, accessible from land but locatedbelow sea level, are currently being exploited in Finland and Sweden:The Loviisa repository in Finland (90 km east of Helsinki) houses low and intermediate level waste. It is carved
out of granite about 110 m deep in the Gulf of Finland, from a peninsula of the same name. An extension ofthis facility is planned to place the waste produced during the dismantling of the nuclear power station locatedon the same site [169];

The Forsmark "SFR" storage facility in Sweden (140 km north of Stockholm), commissioned in 1988 and operated
by SKB, is dedicated to short-lived low-level and intermediate-level waste resulting from the operation of
nuclear power plants, as well as medical, industry and research applications. It comprises four 160 m longcavities and a 50 m high silo, carved out of the crystalline rock 50-60 m below the level of the Baltic Sea.
Access to the facility is from land through two parallel tunnels one kilometre long. In 2018, the Swedish safety
authority [170] approved the plant operator's application for extension of the facility in 2014 [171], to carve
six new cavities at a depth of 120 m.

The subduction zone disposal option is, to IRSN's knowledge, currently not being studied by any of the agencies in chargeof radioactive waste management.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 35/49

6.4

And in France?

The various options for disposal at sea and in subduction zones have been studied in France (e.g., [145]), particularly
through participation in Sub-seabed Disposal Program until 1986.
France on particular conducted research expeditions to the Cape Verde Abyssal Plain in 1979 and 1980, and in northern
Bermuda in 1978. The studies included geological investigations to define the site and studies to characterise thebiology. France has also conducted engineering studies on the insertion of penetrators and biological studies on the
uptake and transfer of radionuclides by organisms from samples collected during missions [172]. Since then, no technicalwork or discussion has been pursued.

7
7.1
7.1.1

OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The launching of radioactive waste into outer space
What does it involve?

The principle of this option is to permanently rid the Earth of the most harmful radioactive waste, by launching it into
space beyond the atmosphere, using spacecraft. One of the discussions of the teams that worked on the subject relates
to the packaging of the waste. This must indeed be designed to remain intact in all accident scenarios considered.
Several ultimate destinations have been considered for waste, including the sun.

7.1.2

Ways explored around the world

The shipment of waste into outer space was mainly studied in the United States by NASA in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Studies focused on long-lived high-level waste resulting from reprocessing spent fuel, this option being therefore
considered by the US authorities. However, the use of this option for the management of spent fuel has never been
considered, given the great mass of the fuels and the packaging in which it would be necessary to place them, andtherefore the energy cost and financial cost of sending such cargoes into space. Studies published in 1974 by Battelle[140] at the request of the US Atomic Energy Commission, assume the reprocessing of the spent fuel, the partitioningof recoverable materials (uranium and plutonium), the packaging of the waste resulting from the reprocessing (mainlyminor actinides and long-life fission products) - see the insert "Radioactivity, nuclear reactions and spent fuel",
Chapter 4.1), the launching of this packaged waste into a low Earth orbit (150-500 km) on board a space shuttle, andthen its transport to its final destination using a space tug.
Studies published by NASA in 1978 [173] consider five possible destinations for waste. The surface of the moon(achievable in a few days) and an orbit around the sun (in six months) are those considered to be the most interestingfrom the point of view of safety. The option of a storage facility on the moon was mentioned, but its cost seemedunacceptable [173].
Among the means envisaged, a space shuttle with an in-orbit transfer vehicle, or a heavy launcher23 (a process alreadytested in 1978 during missions on the moon but considered as requiring a technological leap to lighten the cost), wereidentified as the most suitable.
In its report, NASA also discusses the study programme implemented to design waste packaging. For this design work,
thermal resistance and mechanical resistance are particularly important parameters. The waste package must indeed
withstand situations of atmospheric transfer and falling to the ground that could result from an accident of the23

A launcher is a rocket capable of placing a payload in orbit around the Earth or sending it into interplanetary space. It is called aheavy launcher when it is able to place at least 20 tons of payload in low orbit.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 36/49

spacecraft, while remaining extremely light (see also [140], mentioning the need for R&D). The development of a
retrievability demonstrator in space for a package that was incorrectly sent was also considered by NASA.
NASA’s projects have been abandoned due to the excessively high cost and risk of launch failure. More punctual work
has however been pursued by researchers from the American aerospace world. In particular, they led to a more thoroughexamination of launch techniques [174][175], accident risks and economic viability [176]. Raising the risk of future space
exploration craft colliding with waste sent insufficiently far from the Earth and astronomical observations being
disrupted by these local sources of radiation, Brookhaven National Laboratory researchers have studied the possibilityof using an electrostatic gun placed on a shuttle in low orbit or on the moon to send waste containing fission products
out of the solar system [177]. The use of an ion thruster as a rocket has also been considered, since this technique isconsidered to be less energy-consuming than a "conventional" orbit transfer vehicle [178].
Launching waste into outer space has also been studied by other countries, including the USSR (e.g., [179][180]) andKazakhstan. Pshenin and Suimenbaev (1996 [181]) studied the shipping of high-level radioactive waste by shuttle fromthe Kazakhstan base to an intermediate orbit, and assessed the safety during the various stages. They suggested that,for political and economic reasons, the legal, methodological and scientific aspects should be jointly investigated byseveral countries under the auspices of the United Nations and IAEA.

7.1.3

State of the art and perspectives

In addition to the high costs associated with it (e.g., [163][182][183]), the option of launching radioactive waste into
outer space has faced the difficulty of reliable space technology. This difficulty to control risks was highlighted by theaccidents of the space shuttles Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003. These accidents led to the discontinuation of
the research (e.g., [5]).

7.1.4

And in France?

The option of launching radioactive waste into outer space has not been specifically developed in France.

7.2
7.2.1

Disposal of waste in ice sheets
What does it involve?

The disposal of exothermic radioactive waste24 in the thick layers of polar ice ("ice sheets") of Antarctica or Greenlandconsists in placing the containers either on the ice or at shallow depths, so as to cause them to sink gradually by themelting of the ice around them. Depending on the mechanism considered, the melting would lead to the gradualdescent of the waste into the core of the ice and its imprisonment due to the refreezing of the water at the end of theirtransit.

7.2.2

Ways explored around the world

Disposal of exothermic waste in ice sheets was investigated by the United States until the 1980s (e.g., [140][184][185]).
Several options have been considered (Figure 14). They consist in:allowing the waste packages to gradually descend to the base of the ice on the bedrock;

restraining waste packages with cables a few hundred meters long, thus preventing their descent, in order toallow their retrievability for a few hundred years, and allowing an electrical connection to monitor instruments
placed at depth;

24

Exothermic waste gives off heat because of its high radioactivity (energy released during radioactive decay).

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 37/49

building a surface repository that allows the heat to dissipate and allows the waste packages to be retrievable
until the snow finally buries the facility.

Figure 14: Illustration of concepts as envisaged in the United States in 1974 (from [140], modified).
After the first investigations, the glaciologists revealed the presence of salted pockets trapped in the ice and stressed
the risk of extremely rapid corrosion of steels that they could cause. Stability problems associated with the movementof ice on the bedrock and the impossibility to rest assured that the ice caps will remain for the hundreds of thousandsof years necessary for the decay of the waste were also put forward [186][187].
Finally, it should be mentioned that this option raises the same concerns as disposal in a marine environment, in termsof the risks associated with the long-distance transport of radioactive waste by ship [140].

7.2.3

State of the art and perspectives

The possibility of disposal of radioactive waste in the South Pole ice sheets is formally excluded by the 1959 Antarctic
Treaty. It is also unworkable for countries committed to managing their radioactive waste within their national borders.
An amendment proposal to the 1959 Treaty has, however, been submitted by some signatories (such as the UnitedStates: see [140]) who wanted to place high-level waste there. Disposal under the Greenland icecap has also been
considered several times [188][140].

7.2.4

And in France?

The option of radioactive waste disposal in ice sheets has not been contemplated in France.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 38/49

8

REFERENCES[1]

CNDP, 2019. Lettre de la Commission nationale du débat public au Directeur Général de l’IRSN. 15 février 2019.

[2]

CoRWM, 2005. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management report of Phase 2 of our work programme – August
2005. Document 1210. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management: London, UK.

[3]

CoRWM, 2006. Managing our radioactive waste safely – CoRWM’s recommendations to Government. CoRWM Doc
700, July 2006, 195 p.

[4]

EKRA, 2000. Disposal Concepts for Radioactive Waste, Final Report. Swiss Federal Department of Environment,
Transport, Energy and Communication, Federal Office of Energy, Bern.

[5]

NWMO, 2005. Chosing a way forward – The Future Management of Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel. Draft study
report, 304 p.

[6]

LAKA.

Documentation

andResearch

Centreon

Nuclear Energy.

2-

discussions,8-

Switzerland.

www.laka.org/info/publicaties/afval/2-discussions-00/8-switzerland.htm[7]

Hufschmied P., Wildi W., Aebersold M., Appel D., Buser M., Dermange F., Eckhardt A., Keusen H. D., 2002.
Monitored long-term geological disposal: a new approach to the disposal of radioactive waste in Switzerland.
European Nuclear. Conf. Lille, France, 2002, Transactions ENC, Lille, France.

[8]

CNSC, 2007. La science derrière le stockage sûr des déchets nucléaires : des décennies de recherche en
réglementation. Planche publiée le 18 décembre 2017. www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/fra/pdfs/DGR/DGRchronology-full-graphic-fra.pdf[9]Vira J., 2003. Discussion on the “zero-option” in the context of Posiva’s environmental impact assessment andapplication for the decision-in-principle. Topical Session on Overall Waste Management Approaches. NEA/RWMC(2002)6, Paris, France, 14th March 2002, p. 13-14.

[10] Hedman T., 2003. Discussion and studies in Sweden on the “zero-option”. Topical Session on Overall Waste
Management Approaches. NEA/RWMC (2002)6, Paris, France, 14th March 2002, p. 15-16.
[11] Sweden, 2008. Sweden’s third national report under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent FuelManagement and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. Ds 2008:73, Ministry of Environment.
[12] Buser M., 2003. Long term waste management - Historical considerations and societal risks. Proceedings of anInternational Conference “Issues and trends in radioactive waste management”, organized by IAEA incollaboration with the European Commission and the OECD NEA hosted by IAEA, Vienna, 9–13 December 2002,
p. 161-182.
[13] Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, 1987. Radioactive Waste
Management: The Environmental Approach. Briefing paper. November 1987.
[14] Nirex, 2002. Options for Radioactive Waste Management that have been considered by Nirex. Nirex Report No:
N/049, May 2002, 39 p.
[15] Netherlands, 2018. Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management - National Report of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the Sixth Review Meeting. Ministryof Infrastructure and the Environment, The Hague, October 2017, 130 p.
[16] Netherlands, 2010. Net-Enabled Radioactive Waste Management Database (NEWMDB), Country Waste Profile
Report for Netherland for IAEA. Report published on July 8. 2011, 29 p.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 39/49

[17] United Kingdom, 2014. Implementing Geological Disposal. Policy paper published 24 July 2014 by Departmentof Energy & Climate Change, UK government, 55 p.
[18] United Kingdom, 2017. The United Kingdom’s Sixth National Report on Compliance with the Obligations of the
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management. Department for business,
energy & industrial strategy, October 2017, 221 p.
[19] Italy, 2017. Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management - Fifth Italian National Report. ISPRA, October 2017, 193 p.
[20] NRC, 2014. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel - Final
Report- Public Comments. NUREG-2157 Volume 2, Published September 2014, 717 p.
[21] AIEA, 2003. The long term storage of radioactive waste: safety and sustainability – A position paper ofinternational experts. IAEA, Vienna, June 2003, 24 p.
[22] « Bataille Law », 1991. Loi n°91-1381 du 30 décembre 1991 relative aux recherches sur la gestion des déchets
radioactifs. www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000356548&categorieLien=id[23] CEA, 2005. Les déchets radioactifs à haute activité et à vie longue – Recherches et résultats - Séparationtransmutation des éléments radioactifs à vie longue, Axe 1 – Séparation-transmutation des éléments radioactifs
à vie longue, Axe 3- Conditionnement et entreposage de longue durée. Enjeux, questions et réponses. Débat
public,

juin

2005,

20

p.

cpdp.debatpublic.fr/cpdp-dechets-radioactifs/docs/pdf/docs-

complementaires/contribution-cea.pdf[24] CNE, 2006. Rapport global d’évaluation de recherches conduites dans le cadre de la loi du 30 décembre 1991.
Rapport de la Commission Nationale d’Evaluation des recherches sur la gestion des déchets radioactifs, janvier
2006, 38 p.
[25] ASN, 2006. Avis de l’ASN du 1er février 2006 sur les recherches relatives à la gestion des déchets à hauteactivité et à vie longue (HAVL) menées dans le cadre de la loi du 30 décembre 1991, et liens avec le PNGDRMV.
[26] Global Chance, 2018. L’entreposage à sec des combustibles nucléaires irradiés : pas si bête... Bernard
Laponche, Le Club Mediapart, vendredi 4 mai 2018. www.global-chance.org/L-entreposage-a-sec-descombustibles-nucleaires-irradies-pas-si-bete[27] Greenpeace, 2019. La crise mondiale des déchets nucléaires - Rapport commandé par Greenpeace France,
janvier 2019, 106 p.
[28] Loi n°2006-739 du 28 juin 2006 de programme relative à la gestion durable des matières et des déchets
radioactifs. www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000240700[29] DOE, 1999. A Report to Congress: A Roadmap for Developing Accelerator Transmutation of Waste. (ATW)
Technology, DOE/RW-0519. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, October 1999, p. 1–4.
[30] HCTISN,

2018.

Présentationdu“Cycleducombustible”

français

en

2018.

www.hctisn.fr/IMG/pdf/HCTISN_rapport_cycle_2018_cle0af1f2.pdf.
[31] ACSEPT, 2012. Actinide reCycling by SEParation and Transmutation. Deliverable D0.1.14, FINAL PROJECTREPORT Part I: Publishable Summary & Part II: Use & Dissemination of Foreground, 64 p.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 40/49

[32] Nash, K.L, Lumetta, G.J., 2011. Advanced separation techniques for nuclear fuel reprocessing and radioactive
waste treatment. Woodhead Publishing Limited, 15th March 2011, 512 p.
[33] WNN, 2017. China begins building pilot fast reactor - World Nuclear News - 29 December 2017. www.worldnuclear-news.org/NN-China-begins-building-pilot-fast-reactor-2912174.html[34] CIAE, 2017. The Progress of the Gen-IV Reactor in China. Fast Reactor Development Council Strategy Working
Group (4) - Handouts 4th Strategy Working Group. Thursday, September 14, Ministry of Economy, Heisei, Japan.
[35] WNN, 2019. Indian government takes steps to get nuclear back on track - World Nuclear News - 11 February
2019. www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Indian-government-takes-steps-to-get-nuclear-back.
[36] ASME, 1979. Experimental Breeder Reactor I - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. A National Historic
Mechanical Engineering Landmark, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 15 June 1979.
[37] Westfall C., 2004. Vision and reality: The EBR-II story. Nuclear News, p. 25–32, February 2004.
[38] Jensen S.E., Olgaard P.L., 1995. Description of the Prototype Fast Reactor at Dounreay. Nordic nuclear safety
research NKS/RAK-2 (95) TR-C1, December 1995, 45 p.
[39] Soga T., Ito C., Aoyama T. and Suzuki S., 2009. Fuels and materials research under the high neutron fluence
using a fast reactor Joyo and post-irradiation examination facilities. Conference: Joint 14th international
conference on fusion reactor materials, ICFRM-14 and IAEA satellite meeting on cross-cutting issues of structural
materials for fusion and fission applications. September 2009, Sapporo, Japan.
[40] Yanagisawa

T.,

2011.

Monju,

modified.

NuclearEngineering

International,

4

March

2011.

archive.is/20130130012503/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2059044[41] Nuklearforum, 1999. Le Kazakhstan arrête le BN-350. 28.06.1999. www.nuklearforum.ch/fr/actualites/ebulletin/le-kazakhstan-arrete-le-bn-350[42] GIF, 2014. Technology roadmap update for Generation IV Nuclear energy systems - Document created by Le
GIF in January 2014.
[43] OCDE, 2009. Forum international Génération IV (GIF). Rapport AEN annuel 2009, p. 39. www.oecdnea.org/pub/activities/ar2009/fr/gif.pdf[44] Powermag, 2016. Russia Accelerates Efforts to Build Advanced Nuclear Reactors. Sonal Patel. 10/01/2016.
www.powermag.com/russia-accelerates-efforts-build-advanced-nuclear-reactors/[45] Nilsen T., Kudrik I., Nikitin A., 1997. Bellona Report nr. 2:96. spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/705.htm[46] van Rooijen W.F.G., 2009. Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor: A Historical Overview and Future Outlook. Science andTechnology of Nuclear Installations 2009(2), 11 p.
[47] Kloosterman J. L., SAMOVAR consortium, 2017. 20 - Safety assessment of the molten salt fast reactor(SAMOFAR). In: Molten Salt Reactors and Thorium Energy, Ed. Thomas J. Dolan, Woodhead publishing, p. 565570.
[48] Ignatiev V. V., Feynberg O., · Gnidoi I., Merzlyakov A., Surenkov A., Uglov V., Zagnitko A. V., Subbotin V.,
Sannikov I., Toropov A., Afonichkin V., Bovet A., Khokhlov V. A., Shishkin V., Kormilitsyn M. V., Lizin A. A.,
Osipenko A., 2014.· Molten salt actinide recycler and transforming system without and with Th-U support: Fuelcycle flexibility and key material properties. · Annals of Nuclear Energy, 64, p. 408-420.
[49] OCDE, 2012. Vers un cycle du combustible nucléaire durable. Rapport AEN n°6981, Agence de l’OCDE pourl’énergie nucléaire, 203 p.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 41/49

[50] Ichimura E., Takaki N., Schram R.P.C., Klein Meulekamp R., Bakker K., 2004. Iodine transmutation studies using
metal iodide targets. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 334, p. 149–158.
[51] Furukawa K., Kato Y., Ohmichi T., Ohno H., 1982. The combined system of accelerator molten-salt breeder
and molten-salt converter reactor. Proceedings of the Japan-U.S. Seminar on Thorium Fuel Reactor, Nara,
Japan, October 18-22, 1982, p. 271-281.
[52] Bowman C.D., Arthur E.D., Lisowski P.W., Lawrence G.P., Jensen R.J., Anderson J.L., Blind B., Cappiello M.,
Davidson J.W., England T.R., Engel L.N., Haight R.C., 1992. Nuclear energy generation and waste transmutation
using an accelerator-driven intense thermal neutron source. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research Section A, Volume 320, Issue 1-2, p. 336-367.
[53] Carminati F., Geles C., Klapisch R., Revol J. P., Roche Ch., Rubio J. A., Rubbia C., 1993. An Energy Amplifier
for Cleaner and Inexhaustible Nuclear Energy Production Driven by a Particle Beam Accelerator. CERN/AT/9347 (ET).
[54] Andriamonje S. et al., 1995. Experimental determination of the energy generated in nuclear cascades by a highenergy beam. Physics Letters, Volume 348, Issue 3-4, 6 April 1995, p. 697-709.
[55] Arnould H. et al., 1999. Experimental verification of neutron phenomenology in lead and transmutation byadiabatic resonance crossing in accelerator driven systems. Physics Letters, Volume 458, Issue 2-3, p.167-180.
[56] MYRRHA. Site internet myrrha.be/fr/myrrha-en-bref/[57] Tajima T., Dawson J.M., 1979. Laser electron accelerator. Physical Review Letters, 43, p. 267.
[58] Strickland D., Mourou G., 1985. Optics Communications. Vol.56 (3), p. 219-221.
[59] Schroeder C. B., Leemans W., Esarey E., 2009, Eds., Proceedings of the Advanced Accelerator Concepts
Workshop (AIP, New York), Vol. 1086.
[60] Tajima T., Necas A., Mourou G., Gales S., Leroy M., 2018. Laser-Driven Fusion-Triggered Liquid Transmutator.
8th ICUIL Conference, Lindau, Germany, Sept. 12, 2018.
[61] Necas A., Tajima T., Binderbauer M., Mourou G., Gales S., Leroy M., Tanner J., Hatfield K., TAE Team , 2018.
A Beam-Fusion-Triggered Transmutator; Transparent, Monitored and Controlled Realtime Bulletin of theAmerican Physical Society, 2018/11/7.
[62] Kervran C.L., 1962. Transmutations Biologiques, Métabolismes Aberrants de l'Azote, le Potassium et leMagnésium, Librairie Maloine S.A., Paris.
[63] Guéguen L, Allez M, 1970. Quelques considérations sur les prétendues transmutations biologiques. Comptes
rendus Acad. Agric. France, séance d’octobre : 2018-1027.
[64] Heller R., 1972. Les sursauts inquiétants des «transmutations biologiques». In: Raison présente, n°23, Juillet –Août – Septembre 1972. Crise de la science ou crise de la société ? p. 99-106.
[65] Guéguen L., 1972. Mise au point sur les prétendues transmutations biologiques. Bulletin INRA, 72, p.1-4.
[66] Guéguen L., 1972. L’agriculture a-t-elle besoin de transmutations biologiques ? Agriculture, 357, 4 p.
[67] Vysotskii V.I., Kornilova A.A. (2010). Nuclear transmutation of stable and radioactive isotopes in biologicalsystems. Pentagon Press, New Delhi.
[68] Takashita K., 2012. The reality of frittage. Ed. Sakumei-sha, Japon, 172 p.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 42/49

[69] Bibérian J.P., 2012. Biological transmutations: historical perspective. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 7, p. 1125.
[70] New Energy Times, 2016. University of Utah, Simple experiment' results in sustained n-fusion at room
temperature for first time. newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/UniversityOfUtahPressRelease.shtml[71] Fleischmann M., Pons S., and Hawkins M., J., 1989. Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium.
Electroanal. Chem., 261, p. 301.
[72] DOE, 1989. A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy,
Novembre 1989, DOE/S-0073 DE90 005611.
[73] Ledingham K. W. D., Spencer I., McCanny T., Singhal R. P., Santala M. I. K., Clark E., Watts I., Beg F. N., Zepf
M., Krushelnick K., Tatarakis M., Dangor A. E., Norreys P. A., Allott R., Neely D., Clark R. J., Machacek A. C.,
Wark J. S., Cresswell A. J., Sanderson D. C. W., Magill J., 2000. Photonuclear Physics when a Multiterawatt
Laser Pulse Interacts with Solid Targets. Physical Review Letters, 84, p. 899.
[74] Al-Khalili J, Gelletly B, Ireland D and Nuttall W J, 2003. EPSRC Report: Nuclear Waste Transmutation Research- UK Perspectives. www.ph.surrey.ac.uk/npg/transmutation[75] Perry M. D., Stuart B. C., Tietbohl G., Britten J. A., Brown C., Herman S., Golick B., Kartz M., Miller J., Powell
H. T., Vergino M., Yanovsky V., 1999. Petawatt laser pulses. Optics Letters, Vol. 24, Issue 3, p. 160-162.
[76] DOE, 1999. Report to Congress: A Roadmap for Developing Accelerator Transmutation of Waste (ATW)
Technology DOE/RW-0519.
[77] Cowan T. E., Hunt A. W., Phillips T. W., Wilks S. C., Perry M. D., Brown C., Fountain W., Hatchett S., Johnson
J., Key M. H., Parnell T., Pennington D. M., Snavely R. A., Takahashi Y., 2000. Photonuclear Fission from HighEnergy Electrons from Ultraintense Laser-Solid Interactions. Physical Review Letters, 84, p. 903.
[78] Schwoerer H., Ewald F., Sauerbrey R., Galy J. , Magill J., Rondinella V., Schenkel R., Butz T., 2003. Fission ofactinides using a tabletop laser. Europhys. Lett. 61 (1), p. 47.
[79] Ledingham K., Magill J., McKenna P., Yang J., Galy J., Schenkel R., Rebizant J., McCanny T., Shimizu S., Robson
L., Singhal R. P., Wei M. S., Mangles S. P. D., Nilson P., Krushelnick K., Clarke R. J., Norreys P. A., 2003. Laserdriven photo-transmutation of 129I - A long-lived nuclear waste product. Journal of Physics D Applied Physics
36 No 18, p.79-82.
[80] CEA, 2005. Les déchets radioactifs à haute activité et à vie longue – Recherches et résultats - Séparationtransmutation des éléments radioactifs à vie longue, Axe 1. Rapport final, décembre 2005, 157 p.
[81] CEA, 2012. Séparation-transmutation des éléments radioactifs à vie longue. Tome 2, décembre 2012, 85 p.
[82] CEA, 2015. Avancées des recherches sur la séparation-transmutation et le multi-recyclage du plutonium dansles réacteurs à flux de neutrons rapides. Juin 215, 352 p.
[83] CEA, 2016. Astrid, an integrated technology demonstrator for the fourth generation of nuclear reactors.
Published on 12 December 2016. http://www.cea.fr/english/Pages/research-areas/nuclear-energy/astrid-anoption-for-the-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactors.aspx?Type=Chapitre&numero=3[84] Heuze, F.E., 1981. On the Geotechnical Modelling of High-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal by Rock Melting.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA. UCRL-53183.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 43/49

[85] Cohen J. L., Steinborn T. L., 1979. The Rock-Melt Approach to Nuclear Waste Disposal in Geological Media. In:
G. J. McCarthy et al. (eds.), Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management, Plenum Press, New York, p. 261264.
[86] Cohen J. J., Lewis A. E., Braun R. L., 1972. In Situ Incorporation of Nuclear Waste in Deep Molten Silicate Rock,
Nuclear Technology, 14:1, p. 76-88.
[87] Schwartz L. L., Cohen J.J., Lewis A.E., Braun R.L., 1978. High-Level Radioactive Waste Isolation by
Incorporation in Silicate Rocks. Peaceful Nuclear Explosions V, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
Austria, IAEA-TC-81-5/4.
[88] Hardee H. C., Sullivan W. N., 1974. An Approximate Solution for Self-Burial Rates of Radioactive Waste
Containers, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, SLA-73-0931.
[89] Logan S. E., 1974. Deep Self-Burial of Radioactive Wastes by Rock-Melting Capsules, Nuclear Technology, 21:2,
p. 111-124.
[90] Kascheev V.A., Nikiforov A.S., Poluektov, P.P., Polyakov A.S., 1992. Toward a theory of self-disposal of highlevel waste. Atomnaya Energiya 73, 215–221.
[91] Chen W., Hao J., Chen Z., 2013. A Study of Self-Burial of a Radioactive Waste Container by Deep Rock Melting.
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations, Volume 2013, Article ID 184757, 6 p.
[92] Klett R.D., 1974. Deep Rock Nuclear Waste Disposal Test: Design and Operation. Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM, USA. SAND-74-0042.
[93] Bertram L. A., 1976. Mechanics Analysis for Deep Rock Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA, SAND-76-007.
[94] Angelo J. A., 1976. Nuclear Waste Management by In Situ Melting, Ph.D., Department of Nuclear Engineering,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
[95] Gibb F.G.F., 1999. High-temperature, very deep, geological disposal: a safer alternative for high-level
radioactive waste? Waste Management, 19, p. 207–211.
[96] Gibb F.G.F., 2003. Granite recrystallization: the key to the nuclear waste problem? Geology, 31, p. 657–660.
[97] Attrill P.G., Gibb F.G.F., 2003. Partial melting and recrystallization of granite and their application to deep
disposal of radioactive waste: Part 1—Rationale and partial melting; Part 2. Recrystallization. Lithos, Volume
67, Issues 1–2, p. 103-117, p. 119–133.
[98] Yang P., Wang Y., Rodriguez M. A., Brady P. V., 2019. Rock-welding materials development for deep borehole
nuclear waste disposal. Materials Chemistry and Physics, 221, p.178–187.
[99] AIEA, 1998. Situation radiologique sur les atolls de Mururoa et de Fangataufa. Radiological assessment reports
series. Rapport principal, 310 p.
[100] Sénat, 2012. Proposition de loi relative au suivi des conséquences environnementales des essais nucléairesfrançais en Polynésie française. Rapport du Sénat n°244, par R. Courteau, enregistré à la Présidence du Sénatle 11 janvier 2012, 46 p.
[101] Sun R.J., 1980. Site Selection and Investigation for Subsurface Disposal of Radioactive Wastes in Hydraulically
Induced Fractures, US Geological Survey, Open-file Report 80450 US GS, Reston, VA.
[102] Weeren H.O., Coobs J.H., Haase S.C., Sun RJ. Tamura I., 1982. Disposal of Radioactive Wastes by HydraulicFracturing Rep. ORNL/CF-81/245, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (may 1982).

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 44/49

[103] AIEA, 1983. Disposal of radioactive grouts into hydraulically fractured shale. AIEA Technical Report Series
n°232.
[104] NRC, 1972. An Evaluation of the Concept of Storing Radioactive Waste in Bedrock Below the Savannah River
Plant Site. National Research Council.
[105] Russia, 2017. The Fifth National Report of the Russian Federation on compliance with the Joint Convention on
the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. Moscow, 2017, 140p.
[106] Compton K. L., Nivikov V., Parker F. L., 2000. Deep Well Injection of Liquid Radioactive Waste at Krasnoyarsk26: Volume I. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, RR-00-1, February 2000,
113 p.
[107] Savaleva E. A., Utkin S. S., Ponizov A. V., Sharafutdinov R. B., Dorofeev A. N., Kudryavtsev E. G., Pron I. A.,
Konovalov V. Yu., 2017. Evolution of the safety case for liquid radioactive waste geological repositories.
Radioactive Waste N°1, 2017, p. 37-43.
[108] CoRWM, 2004a. Direct Injection. CoRWM Document 623, NNC Report prepared on behalf of CoRWM, August
2004.
[109] Nirex, 2005. Review of CoRWM Document No. 623 - Direct injection. Document Number 472939, April 2005, 23
p. www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000240700[110] Martial J. S., 2005. Injection dans un aquifère volcanique côtier : approche hydrogéologique d'une alternative
à la gestion d'effluents : cas de la distillerie de Savanna, Bois Rouge, ile de la Réunion. Thèse de doctorat deGéologie, Université de la Réunion, 2005.
[111] National Academy of Sciences, 1957. The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land. Report of the Committee on
waste disposal of the division of earth science. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
Publication 519, September 1957.
[112] Arnold B.W., Brady P.V., Bauer S.J., Herrick C., Pye S., Finger J., 2011. Reference Design and Operations for
Deep Borehole Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste. SAND2011-6749. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National
Laboratories.
[113] Juhlin C., Walroth T., Smellie J, 1998. The Very Deep Hole Concept – Geoscientific Appraisal of Conditions at
Great Depth. SKB Technical Report 98-05, Stockholm, Sweden.
[114] AEN, 2003. Topical Session on Overall Waste Management Approaches. NEA/RWMC (2002)6, Paris, France, 14th
March 2002.
[115] Nirex, 2004. A Review of the Deep Borehole Disposal Concept for Radioactive Waste. Nirex report no. N/108,
Nirex (UK Nirex Ltd), UK.
[116] Chapman N., Gibb F., 2003. A truly final waste management solution – is very deep borehole disposal a realistic
option for HLW or fissile material? Radwaste Solutions 10 (4), p. 26–35.
[117] Beswick A.J., Gibb F.G.F. and Travis K.P., 2014. Deep borehole disposal of nuclear waste: engineering
challenges. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Energy, 167 (2), p. 47-66.
[118] AIEA, 2009. Borehole disposal facilities for radioactive waste. Specific Safety Guide n°SSG-1.
[119] AIEA, 2017. Generic Post-closure Safety Assessment for Disposal of Disused Sealed Radioactive Sources in
Narrow Diameter Boreholes. IAEA-TECDOC-1824.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 45/49

[120] AIEA, 2017. Model Regulations for Borehole Disposal Facilities for Radioactive Waste. IAEA-TECDOC-1827.
[121] AIEA, 2018. Document Preparation Profile DDP n°512. Revision of SSG-1, version 1 dated 26 April 2018.
[122] SKB, 2013. Review of geoscientific data of relevance to disposal of spent nuclear fuel in deep boreholes incrystalline rock. Niko Marsic, Bertil Grundfelt, Kemakta Konsult AB, September 2013, SKB P13-12, 28 p.
[123] AFCN, 2011. Avis de l'AFCN sur les documents de l’ONDRAF : Projet de Plan Déchets (PPD) et Evaluations desIncidences sur l’Environnement (EIE). Note 10-149-F, 02/02/2011-05-07, 7 p.
[124] AFCN, 2015. Avis de l'AFCN sur le Programme National du 10 avril 2015. Note externe 2015-04-29-AW-5-4-1-FR
2015-05-07, 5 p.
[125] Sandia, 2013. Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection Guidelines, Borehole Seals
Design, and RD&D Needs. Sandia for U.S. Department of Energy, FCRD-USED-2013-000409, SAND2013-9490P
October 25, 2013, 149 p. + annexes.
[126] Tollefson J., 2014. US seeks waste research revival. Nature, 507, p. 15–16.
[127] Cornwall W., 2015. Deep sleep, boreholes drilled into earth's crust get a fresh look for nuclear waste disposal.
Science, 349, p.132–135.
[128] Brady P. V., Freeze G. A., Kuhlman K. L., Hardin E. L., Sassani D. C., MacKinnon R. J., 2016. Deep borehole
disposal of nuclear waste. Geological Repository Systems for Safe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuels andRadioactive Waste, Chapter X, 2nd Edition Ed. Joonhang Ahn and Michael Apted.
[129] Bracke G., Charlier F., Liebscher A., Schilling F. R., Röckel T., 2017. About the Possibility of Disposal of HLRWin Deep Boreholes in Germany. Geosciences 2017, 7, 58, 17 p.
[130] DOE, 2016. Studying the feasibility of deep boreholes. Department of Energy, USA, December 19, 2016, 4 p.
[131] Science, 2017. Protests spur rethink on deep borehole test for nuclear waste. By Paul Voosen, Sep. 27, 2016.
[132] DOE, 2014. Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear
Fuel. October 2014, 46 p.
[133] USA, 2017. Sixth National Report for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the
Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. U.S. Department of Energy, USA, October 2017, 215 p.
[134] Bishop W. P. & Hollister C.D., 1974. Seabed disposal: where to look. Nuclear technology, 24 (3), p. 425-443.
[135] Talbert D.M., 1980. Subseabed Radioactive Waste Disposal Feasibility Program: Ocean Engineering Challenges
for the 80's. Conference: OCEANS '80, October 1980.
[136] Hollister C. D., Anderson D. R., Heath G. R., 1981. Subseabed Disposal of Nuclear Wastes. 213 Sci. 1321, p.
1321–1326.
[137] Seabed Programs Division, 1983. The Subseabed Disposal Program: 1983 Status Report, SAND83-1387, Sandia
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
[138] Ove Arup, 1984. A Review of Emplacement Studies, DOE/RW/84/070, Department of the Environment, UK.
[139] Nirex, 2004. Description of Long-term Management Options for Radioactive Waste Investigated Internationally,
United Kingdom Nirex Limited, N/050, May 2004.
[140] Battelle, 1974. High-level radioactive waste management alternatives. Ed. K. J. Schneider and A. M. Platt,
BNWL-1900, May 1974, Prepared for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission under contract AT(45-1):1830, Volume
1: summary, background and data base, evaluation methodology, 494 p.; Volume 3: ice sheet disposal, seabed

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 46/49

disposal, 329 p.; Volume 4: waste partitioning, extraterrestrial disposal, transmutation processing, 504 p.; May
1974.
[141] Hickox C.E., Gartling D.K., McVey D.F., Russo A. J., Nuttall H.E., 1980. Analysis of heat and mass transfer in
sub-seabed disposal of nuclear waste. Marine Geotechnology 5(3-4).
[142] Nuttall H. E., Ray A. K, Davis E. J., 1981. An Analysis of Diffusional Ion Transport in Ocean Sediments:
Subseafloor Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Nuclear technology 52(2), p. 260-272.
[143] Phillips C. R., Pai H. L., 1977. Environmental impact of radioactive waste management in the nuclear industry.
Water Air and Soil Pollution 8(2), p. 145-163.
[144] Nadis, 1996. The Sub-Seabed Solution. The Atlantic Monthly; October 1996; Volume 278, No. 4, p. 28-39.
stoppingclimatechange.com/Barge%20-%20Sub-Seabed%20Waste%20Solution%20-%2096.10.pdf[145] Porcheron J., 1983. Stockage de déchets de haute activité dans les sédiments marins profonds – I Généralités.
IPSN/DSN/SRS/SESTR, RAPPORT SESTR 82/88.
[146] Andra, 2017. Les déchets radioactifs immergés - Dossier thématique de l’Inventaire national des matières etdéchets radioactifs, 16 p., mars 2017.
[147] AIEA, 1999. Inventory of radioactive waste disposals at sea. AIEA - TECDOC 1155- August 1999.
[148] OCDE, 1968. Disposal of radioactive waste into Atlantic ocean, OCDE NE (68)3 - 21 Mars 1968.
[149] OCDE, 1990. Coordinated research and environmental surveillance programme (CRESP) related to sea disposalof radioactive waste – OCDE, rapport d’activités 1986-1990.
[150] « Convention de Londres », 1972. Convention sur la prévention de la pollution des mers résultant de l'immersion
de déchets ou LC72, Londres, 1972. Entrée en vigueur le 30 août 1975. www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classifiedcompilation/19720413/201307310000/0.814.287.pdf[151] AIEA, 1989. L'immersion de déchets radioactifs dans l'océan: le point sur la question. Dominique P. Calmet,
AIEA BULLETIN, 4/1989, p. 47-50.
[152] Reyners P., 1981. Aspects juridiques de l'évacuation des déchets radioactifs sous les fonds marins. Associationinternationale du droit nucléaire, Palma de Mallorca, 27 sept.-1 oct. 1981.
[153] OCDE, 2000. Geological disposal of radioactive waste – Review of developments in the last decade. 109 p.
[154] Miles E.L., 2014. Sub-seabed disposal of high level radioactive waste: The policy context then and now. The
Oceans in the Nuclear Age: Legacies and Risks: Expanded Edition, pp. 125-143.
[155] Salter I., Wilson W., 2013. Sub-seabed disposal of radioactive waste. International Journal of Nuclear Law(IJNUCL), Vol. 1, No. 2.
[156] Isacks B.L., Oliver J., Sykes L., 1968. Seismology and the New Global Tectonics. Journal of GeophysicalResearch, Vol 73, No 18, p. 5855-5899.
[157] Bostrom R. C., Sheriff M. A., 1970. Disposal of Waste Material in Tectonic Sinks. Nature, vol. 228, p. 154-156.
[158] Silver E.A. 1972. Subduction Zones: Not Relevant to Present-day Problems of Waste Disposal. Nature, volume239, p. 330–331.
[159] Lallemand S.E., P. Schnurle and J. Malavieille, 1994. Coulomb theory applied to accretionary and nonaccretionary wedges - Possible causes for tectonic erosion and/or frontal accretion. J. Geophys. Res., 99, B6,12033-12055.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 47/49

[160] Alden A., 2017. Why Not Dispose of Waste in Ocean Trenches? ThoughtCo. Updated March 17, 2017.
www.thoughtco.com/dont-dispose-waste-in-ocean-trenches-1441116[161] Fyfe W.F., Babuskat V., Price N.J., Schmid E., Tsang C.F., Uyeda S., Velde B., 1984. The geology of nuclear
waste disposal. Nature, 310, p. 537- 540.
[162] Fyfe W.S., 1999. Nuclear Waste isolation: an urgent international responsibility. Engineering Geology, 52, p.
159-161.
[163] CoRWM, 2004. Disposal in Subduction Zones, CoRWM Document No 627.
[164] Nirex, 2005. Review of CoRWM Document No. 625 Subseabed disposal. April 2005 Document Number 471699
Nirex (UK Nirex Ltd), UK.
[165] Nirex, 2005. Review of CoRWM Document No. 627 Disposal in subduction zones. April 2005 Document Number
472942 Nirex (UK Nirex Ltd), UK.
[166] Baird

J.,

2005.

Disposalofhigh-levelmaterialinsubduction

zones

-

a

rebuttal.

www.nwmo.ca/~/media/Site/Reports/2015/11/11/06/32/1287_baird-submissiononthetopic_cho.ashx[167] Ottensmeyer F.P., 2008. Subduction for permanent disposal of long-lived highly radioactive nuclear waste.
CNS/CNA student conference on sustainable development through nuclear technology; Toronto, Ontario(Canada); 1-4 Jun 2008.
[168] Royal Society, 2006. The long-term management of radioactive waste: the work of the Committee onRadioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). The Royal Society report, Policy document 01/06, January 2006, 12p.
[169] STUK, 2017. Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management - 6th Finnish National Report. STUK-B 218, October 2017, 120 p.
[170] SSM, 2018. Spent nuclear fuel repository. www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/en/areas/radioactivewaste/spent-nuclear-fuel-repository/[171] SKB,

2018.

Extending

the

SFR.

January

2018.

www.skb.se/publikation/2570733/Fact-

sheet_Extending_the_SFR.pdf[172] Carlin E. M., Hinga K. R., Knauss J. A., 1984. The international program to study suseabed disposal of highlevel radioactive wastes. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory under agreement B-A2978-A-G, Battelle,
PNL-4938, UC-70, January 1984, 68 p.
[173] NASA, 1978. R. E. Burns, W. E. Causey, W. E. Galloway and-R. W. Nelson, Nuclear Waste Disposal in Space.
NASA technical paper 1225, May 1978, 178 p.
[174] Salked R., Beichel R., 1980. Nuclear waste disposal in space: implications of advanced space transportation.
Acta Astronautica Vol. 7, p. 1373-1387.
[175] Coopersmith J., 1999. Disposal of high-level nuclear waste in space. Space Studies Institute (SSI), p. 111-115.
[176] Rice E.E., Denning R.S., Friedlander A.L., Priest C.C., 1982. Preliminary risk benefit assessment for nuclear
waste-disposal in space. Technical Report, NASA/CR-162028, United States.
[177] Takahashi H., Chen X., 1996. Disposal of type-II long-lived fission products into outer space. Report BNL-64127,
STAIF 96: space technology and applications international forum; Albuquerque, NM (United States); 7-11 Jan
1996, 7 p.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 48/49

[178] Takahashi H., Yu A., 1997. Use of an ion thruster to dispose of the type II long lived fission products into outerspace. STAIF-97: Space technology and applications international forum; Albuquerque, NM (United States), 2630 Jan 1997, AIP Conference Proceedings, v. 387(1), p. 1347-1352.
[179] Egorov, N. N. et al., 1991. Fuel Management in the USSR and New Way to Solve the Problem. Moscow RadioTechnical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Atomic Energy Industry Radioactive Waste Handling
Problem, ISBN 5-201-09424-4.
[180] Cherkashin Y.G. 2004. Zakhoronenie radioaktivnykh i drugikh vysokotoksichnykh otkhodov vblizi poverkhnosti
solntsa. Atomnaya Strategiya, 21, September 2004, p. 21-22.
[181] Pshenin, E., Suimenbaev, B., 1996. Selection of the trajectory for radioactive wastes disposal in the outerspace. International Science and Technology Center (Kazakhstan); National Nuclear Center of the Republic of
Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan) ; 22-26 Oct 1996; Proceedings, Akhmetov, T.; Vagin, S.; Urezchenko, V. (eds.), 357
p; p. 110-111.
[182] Walthert O., 1981. Nuclear waste disposal in outer space. Journal Umschau in Wissenschaft und Technik; v.
81(6); p. 183-184.
[183] DEFRA, 2002. Identification of Information Needed to Decide with Confidence on the Long Term Managementof Options for Long Lived Radioactive Waste. Wilkinson Environmental Consulting Ltd., October 2002, DEFRA
Report No: DEFRA/RAS/02.014.
[184] Schneider K.J., Platt, A.M., 1974. High-level radioactive waste management alternatives. Chapitre 5. Ice sheet
disposal. Report BNWL—1900 (VOL.3), May 1974; 310 p.
[185] Gould L.M., 1975. Permanent disposal of high level radioactive wastes in the Antarctic ice sheet. Hetrick, D.L.
(ed.); p. 322-326; 1975; p. 322-326; American Nuclear Society; Hinsdale, IL; ANS topical meeting on nuclear
safety; Tucson, Arizona, USA; 5 Oct 1975.
[186] Bentley C., Colqui B., Nye J., Schapiro G., Vaugelade J., Zeller E. and the members of SCAR Working Groupon Glaciology, 1975. The disposal of radioactive wastes in the antarctic ice sheet. Polar Record, Volume 17,
Issue 110, May 1975, p. 578-579.
[187] Mathers C., 1978. Disposal of high level waste in polar ice sheets. Australian Physicist; v.15 (2), p. 24-25.
[188] Zeller E.J., Saunders D.F., Angino E.E,·1973. Putting Radioactive Wastes on Ice- A Proposal for an International
Radionuclide Depository in Antarctica. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Volume 29, Issue 1.
[189] Goguel et al., 1988. Le rapport Goguel, stockage des déchets radioactifs en formations géologiques – Mini
dossier, Supplément au bulletin mensuel n°64, septembre 1988, 27 p.

I R S N Report/2019-00318

Page: 49/49