I-129 in Nuclear Waste: Much Ado About Nothing

Introduction. Policy and Nuclear Waste Management. Research and Development Priorities in the Hungarian Waste Management Program P. Ormai, et al. Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste Management in Hungary L. Juhasz, et al. Fundamental Issues. Activities of Microorganisms and Transfers of Trace Elements of Radionuclides in Microhabitats F. Hambuckers-Berhin, J. Remacle. Electrochemical Characteristics of Anticipated MIC in Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Storage Environments at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA D.A. Jones, et al. Assessment of Microbially Influenced Corrosion A.M. Pritchard. A Procedure to Evaluate the Potential for Microbially Influenced Degradation of Cement-Solidified Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forms R.D. Rogers, et al. Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion in Nuclear Waste Storage Environments B. Little, P. Wagner. Influence of the Microbiological Processes in Soil on Vertical Migration of Radionuclides Yu.I. Bondar, et al. Influence of Microorganisms on 85Sr and 137Cs Speciation in Soils I. Navarcik, et al. The Role of Microorganisms in the Mobility of Radionuclides in Soil P. Koska, et al. Basic Radiation Microbiology L.G. Gazso. Interim Storage of Spent Fuel. General and Specific Perspectives on Biological Impacts in Wet Storage Facilities for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel A.B. Johnson, Jr., S.P. Burke. Corrosion Problems in the Research Reactor 'RA' Spent Fuel Storage Pool M. Kopecni, et al. Corrosion in a Spent Fuel Storage Basin L. Nyikos, et al. Wet Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel: Corrosion Process Investigations V. Kritskij. The Potential for Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion in the Savannah River Spent Fuel Storage Pools M.R. Louthan, Jr.Biofilm Development and the Survival of Microorganisms in Water Systems of Nuclear Reactors and Spent Fuel Pools J.H. Wolfram, W.J. Dirk. Predicting the Effects of Microbial Activity on the Corrosion of Copper Nuclear Waste Disposal Containers F. King, S. Stroes-Gascoyne. Overview of the Interim Storage Systems for Spent Fuel at Swierk-Centre B. Filipiak, et al. Safety Aspects of a Dry Interim Storage Facility for Spent Fuel Cernavoda NPP M. Radu, et al. Inhibition of Microbiologically Induced Corrosion J. Telegdi, et al. Microbial Aspects of Radioactive Waste Disposal. The Microbiology of Radioactive Waste Disposal K. Pedersen. 25 Years Experience in Experimental Shallow Land Disposal of Bitumenized Radioactive Waste M. Milanov, I. Stefanova. Microbial Aspects of LLW Disposal at the UK Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site P.N. Humphreys, et al. Determination of the Physical and Chemical States of Actinoids (Th, U, Np, Pu, Am) and Fission Fragments (Cs, Sr, Tc, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd) Resulting from the Microbial Processes Yu.A. Teterin, et al. Gas Generation from Low Level Radioactive Waste: A Comparison of Model Derived and Experimental Data P.J. Agg, et al. Microbial Degradation of Eurobitum Waste Form Under Anaerobic Repository Conditions D. Springael, et al. Biodegradation, A Non-Problem if Radioactive Raw Wastes are Properly Conditioned into a Final Solid Disposal Form? E.R. Merz. In Vitro Evaluation of Microbial Effects on Bitumen Waste Form J. Jucquol, et al.

Radioactive waste levels have continued to increase due to the growth and development of nuclear energy, industrial or medical radioactive use. In this regard, conventional radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants cannot be ignored. Effective management of nuclear radioactive waste plays a vital role in alleviating negative impacts on the society and environment. Despite the progress that has been made concerning separation and recycling of spent nuclear fuel through the PUREX process, several gaps in knowledge still exist especially towards the development of a robust separation system based on solid-phase extraction using porous materials. Solid phase extraction is being viewed as one of the most convenient and effective approaches in the removal of cations in radionuclide solutions. This is due to its ability to increase the selectivity and sensitivity of the method as it permits discriminatory binding of analyte to a solid support where the analyte can be collected and thereafter eluted using small quantity of a different solvent. The review covers the current methods used in aqueous nuclear reprocessing, highlights their deficiencies and introduces the potential of applying solid-phase extraction in management of nuclear waste. This study gives the prospects of functionalized porous sorbent materials as solid support in solid-phase extraction of spent nuclear fuel elements.

A J oint I nterview with P rofessor J oonhong A hn and P rofessor C athryn C arson on N uclear W aste M anagement : a T echnical and S ocial P roblem By: Manraj Gill, Juwon Kim, Daniel Miller, Harshika Chowdhary, Kevin Nuckolls, Philippa McGuinness Dr. Joonhong Ahn is a professor in the department of Nuclear Engineering and Dr. Cathryn Carson is an associate professor in the department of History at the University of California, Berkeley. We got the opportunity to talk with both of them in a joint interview discussing topics ranging from technical aspects of nuclear waste and energy to the challenges surrounding the lack of communication between society and engineers. Berkeley Scientific Journal: How did you involved in beginning of your career. How were you exposed to this field? Professor Joonhong Ahn: I became interested in the JA: I read a book for the general public about nuclear power your field of research? utilization when I was in high school. I was fascinated by field of radioactive waste management at the beginning the fact that the nuclear waste issue was not of my career. I thought that nuclear solved or even considered at that time, so I power utilization was a crucial issue that knew that was what I wanted to pursue. needed further research in any country. Just like nuclear fusion, in the 1970s and Professor Cathryn Carson: I didn’t the 1980s, people said that at the turn of really get to know Professor Ahn until the century we would solve this issue. 2007-08. I was given a year off by the I started my career around the 1980s, history department to sit in on courses in so I thought that would be the best nuclear engineering as I had a long term topic for me to tackle because around history research project on the specialty the middle of my career I expected of nuclear engineering waste management to see major accomplishments in this that Professor Ahn was working on. I was field! The issue of nuclear energy is in a lot of his classes asking lots of non- socially very important and technically technical questions because, for me, nuclear very challenging, so I thought, “Why engineering was a perfect example of a not?” The turn of the century actually problem that was both technical and social [happened to be the beginning] of [a at the same time. lot of advances in the field] which was Figure 1. Professor Joonhong Ahn good for me as well! teaches courses in radioactive waste CC: I also found it wonderful to have management and the nuclear fuel cycle a professor of nuclear engineering who BSJ: You mentioned that you were at Berkeley. understood where those questions were interested in nuclear energy at the B erkeley S cientific J ournal • W aste • S pring 2015 • V olume 19 • I ssue 2 • 29 B S J Professor Carson’s interests in nuclear history and the relationship between scientists and non-scientists developed into a collaboration with Professor Ahn that led to the organization of an advanced summer school in social-scientific literacy. They have been working together to bridge the gap between society and engineers, a gap that was evident during the 2011 Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster. In 2015, they published together, along with other experts of nuclear engineering and education, “ Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Toward social-scientific literacy and engineering resilience ” depicting various accounts of what transpired in leading up to and in response to the event.

There has been substantial social scientific research to determine how people perceive the risks of nuclear power, wastes, and waste management, but not much attention has been given to risk perceptions of other types of nuclear activities. Knowledge about attitudes towards uranium mining and exploitation is increasing, and more attention should be paid to how people perceive the risks of both ends of the nuclear fuel cycle. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze the risk perceptions towards nuclear waste and uranium mining and how these perceptions relate to each other. The analysis is based on Finnish survey data (N = 1180) gathered in 2007. Renewed international interest in nuclear power raised the price of uranium from 2005 to 2007. International mining companies started uranium explorations in Finland because Finnish bedrock is the oldest in Europe, and it is similar to and of the same age as that of the major foreign uranium producers and exporters. Changes in Finnish nuclear power policy make this study timely: while the site for a spent nuclear fuel repository in Eurajoki was chosen in 2001, in 2010, two companies were selected to construct two new nuclear power reactor units in the country. Cross-tabulation of a series of contingency tables based on the survey was used to explore a diversity of nuclear risk perception views. We found that the perception of risks of nuclear waste is quite diversified and that there is no any clear linkage between nuclear waste attitudes and uranium mining attitudes. Although we found that there is a group of double risk deniers and a group of double risk perceivers, risk attitudes cannot be derived automatically from the attitudes towards either end of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Wilde’s Evenings

Wilde’s Evenings: The Rewards of Citizen Journalism

The management of nuclear waste poses significant technical, environmental, health, and societal challenges, underlining the need for a comprehensive understanding of public perceptions and opinions towards this issue. The growing interest in this topic requires a systematic bibliometric literature review to investigate dimensions such as the consequences of attitudes of ordinary citizens, including their acceptance, opposition or indifference towards nuclear waste disposals. However, to the knowledge of the authors, such a review does not exist. This paper aims to fill in this gap by focusing on the social science literature on attitudes and opinions towards nuclear waste management, exploring the complex interactions of factors that shape beliefs, emotions and needs of ordinary citizens.Following a two-step approach, the literature review will address one overarching research question: What are the key gaps and limitations in current social scientific literature on public perceptions of nuclear waste management, and what future research directions are needed to address these? In the first step, data will be collected relying on two of the most important social science databases (Scopus and Web of Science) to obtain a bibliometric overview of the literature, identifying trends, patterns, and key contributors to the field. The second step, instead, focuses on the so-called grey literature, including documents such as reports and policy documents that are analysed using quantitative text and text mining techniques, such as sentiment analysis and topic modelling. Thanks to employing these techniques, the paper will be able to highlight overlooked topics that may be crucial to understanding public opinions and perceptions on nuclear waste management, identifying patterns and trends in public discourse and providing valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of this topic.By adopting this approach, this paper contributes to a deeper understanding of public perceptions and opinions towards nuclear waste management, ultimately informing evidence-based policy and decision-making processes. The findings will have significant implications for stakeholders involved in nuclear waste management, such as policymakers, industry leaders, community organisations and environmental groups. By shedding light on the complexities of this topic, this paper will provide a foundation for the identification of future research directions, leading to the development of more effective policy interventions that address the concerns and needs of citizens and more inclusive and sustainable approaches to nuclear waste management.

The German selection process for a site for a deep geological repository for high-level radioactive waste was due to conclude in 2031. In recent years, the responsible organizations have independently published their doubts on this ambitious target, postponing the date for a site selection back by several decades, now ranging from 2046 to 2074 (BGE 2022; Krohn et al. 2024). With this procedural delay come not only organizational but also financial questions relating to the provision of sufficient funds until the closure of the repository itself which is now, if the site is selected on the second half of the 21st century, not expected to happen within the next century. German nuclear waste management activities are funded via the external segregated fund KENFO whose purpose is to generate sufficient returns on investments to fund the whole waste management process, from interim to final waste storage of high-level wastes, but also the storage of low- and intermediate level wastes (von Hirschhausen and Wimmers 2023). Recent market turbulences and the procedural delays place doubt on KENFO’s ability to fulfil its purpose over the coming decades. This work aims to assess the risks of KENFO’s funds running short by applying a stochastic approach to long-term funding in nuclear waste management in Germany. We determine that to ensure sufficient funding and avoid future taxpayers having to provide funding for German waste management activities, KENFO must either achieve sufficiently high returns on the investments made, or the current fund volume must be increased with a lump sum cash injection. Using a Monte Carlo simulation to determine the scenario ranges of site selection dates, we estimate the minimum returns that KENFO must achieve to consistently exceed the current target return of 3.7% by several percentage points (see Figure 1). We also find that even if the site selection process went as plans, would are unlikely to suffice, necessitating a cash injection of at least €31.07 billion at 3.7% average returns. The assessment is limited by two main components. First, the uncertainty regarding the development of investment returns, cost developments, and other relevant parameters, such as inflation, is substantial over the long time period of several decades. Second, nuclear waste management costs are largely unknown. The cost assessments used in this work depend on a 2015 costing study which in turn relied on the utilities’ provisions (WKGT 2015), and since then, there has been no independent cost study of nuclear waste management (Irrek 2023). Consequently, policymakers must address the looming challenge of funding shortfalls for German nuclear waste management. They can either address the “costs” of nuclear waste management by accelerating the site selection process, improving efficiencies, and learning from other countries’ approaches, after approximating the expected costs, or they can address KENFO’s investments and fund strategy by, .e.g, aiming for higher returns from potentially riskier investments. References (left our due to word limit but available upon request)

The strategic study "CLIMATE: Impact of Climate Change on Nuclear Waste Management" is part of the European Partnership on Radioactive Waste Management (EURAD-2) and runs from October 2024 to September 2026.The primary objective of this study is to identify knowledge gaps and provide recommendations for future research on the impact of climate change on radioactive waste management (RWM) facilities and sites across Europe. CLIMATE addresses all types of waste and storage systems (low level to high level waste; surface to deep storage). The entire lifetime of the disposal facility will be considered, i.e., construction, operation, as well as long-term post-closure phases, while pre-disposal facilities will also be included. A secondary goal of CLIMATE is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of existing regulatory and institutional frameworks on climate change impacts on RWM facilities, identifying gaps and needs while offering recommendations for future actions. Furthermore, CLIMATE aims to foster collaboration with civil society and stakeholders, by integrating societal concerns and insights into the development of climate resilience strategies for nuclear waste management and emphasising the importance of transparent communication as well as stakeholder involvement in the research and implementation process.Short-term climate scenarios that may impact construction and operational RWM phases include especially extreme events such as extreme precipitation, which can lead to severe floods and landslides, extreme storm events or temperature increases with subsequent higher wildfire risk.Long-term climate scenarios, which are relevant for the post-closure phase and which could compromise the integrity of radioactive waste repositories over time, include mainly changes in temperature conditions (global warming and global cooling including permafrost development and ice sheet advances), the geomorphological evolution of the region, sea level changes and hydrogeological shifts.Assessments of these scenarios and their safety relevance are being conducted based on selected cases representing diverse European climate zones as well as different facilities (pre-disposal/processing vs. final disposal) and waste types (low-/intermediate vs. high-level radioactive waste). In the next step, CLIMATE will also make a selection of natural analogues that represent expected/possible future climate conditions to improve safety assessments for the long-term containment of radioactive materials.As part of the large EURAD-2 partnership, CLIMATE is challenged but mostly enriched by combining different perspectives of all involved actors: waste management organisations (WMO), research entities (RE) and technical support organisations (TSO) as well as civil society organisations. The outcomes of this strategic study will provide valuable recommendations for policymakers, regulators, and the scientific community, contributing to the development of safety-oriented and effective strategies for radioactive waste management in the context of short-term (decades and centuries) and long-term (millenia and longer) climate change.

The disposal of nuclear waste involves extensive time scales. Technical experts consider up to 1 million years for the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste in their safety assessment. Yet nuclear waste is not only a technical but also a so-called sociotechnical problem and, therefore, requires interdisciplinary collaboration between technical, natural, social sciences, and the humanities in its management. Given that these disciplines differ in their language, epistemics, and interests, such collaboration might be problematic. Based on evidence from cognitive psychology, we suggest that, in particular, a concept like time is presumably critical and can be understood differently. This study explores how different scientific disciplines understand extensive time scales in general and then focuses on nuclear waste. Eighteen qualitative exploratory interviews were conducted with experts for time-related phenomena of different disciplines, among them experts working in nuclear waste management. Analyses revealed two distinct conceptions of time corresponding to idiographic and nomothetic research approaches: scientists from the humanities and social sciences tend to have a more open, undetermined conception of time, whereas natural scientists tend to focus on a more determined conception that includes some undetermined aspects. Our analyses lead to reflections on potential difficulties for interdisciplinary teams in nuclear waste management. We focus on the understanding of the safety assessment, on potential implications for communication between experts from different disciplines (e.g., between experts from the humanities and engineering for risk assessment and risk communication), and we reflect on the roles of different disciplines in nuclear waste management.

ABSTRACTThe final disposal of nuclear waste is at the interface between the technologies of the nuclear fuel cycle that produce the waste and the natural hydrologic and geochemical cycles of geologic repositories. Despite this broad interdisciplinary scope, nuclear waste management, as practiced, remains “balkanized” among the relevant disciplines. The individual subdisciplines continue to work in relative isolation from one another: materials science dealing with the immobilization of nuclear waste; engineering science dealing with the design, construction and operation of the repository; geoscience dealing with the long-term behavior of host rocks and the hydrology; health science dealing with the effects of radiation; social sciences dealing with the issues of trust, risk and ethics. Understanding how these very different disciplines interact is fundamental to creating and managing a nuclear waste organization. Based on a comprehensive review of the scholarly and scientific literature of waste management, we have analyzed the evolution and structure of research in nuclear waste management between 1979 and 2017. Focusing on materials science, we show that some research themes have been isolated from the most central themes of nuclear waste management. Moreover, we observed a relative decline of the fundamental research in materials science. This decline was evidenced by a drop in the number of articles published in the proceedings of the MRS symposia “Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management” since 2000. We argue for the need to more precisely and inclusively define the field of nuclear waste management.

Existing and future radioactive wastes from civil and military nuclear activities must be managed in such a way as to pose no significant threat to the health and safety of occupational personnel and the general public. There is broad agreement within the informed technical community that the technologies required for safe nuclear waste management and disposal can be made available. Past efforts in this area have not been successful in dispelling public concern, however, and there persists a widespread lack of confidence that the fundamental objective of waste management will be met. The future of the civil nuclear power industry in the United States and in several other countries throughout the world rests in significant part on the resolution of the nuclear waste management issue. Two sets of conditions must be realized if future nuclear waste management efforts are to be successful. First, an adequate foundation of scientific understanding and technological capabilities must be created; and second, if these capabilities are to be implemented successfully on an industrial scale, a political and institutional framework must be established which will foster the development of the necessary levels of political consensus, managerial efficiency, and operational reliability. The forthcoming technological and institutional choicesmore » are each importantly influenced by the scale of the waste management system. The present and projected requirements for treatment, transportation, and interim and final storage of the various classes of radioactive wastes are reviewed. Existing arrangements for storage of spent power reactor fuel are in urgent need of attention. Unless additional storage capacity is provided, some operating reactors will be forced to shut down in the near future. The background to the present situation is analyzed, and some recommendations for government and industry action are presented.« less

The purpose of this article is to discuss Swedish nuclear waste management policy and assess whether a transparency programme has affected the policy discourse and contributed to legitimatising the forthcoming government decision on a final solution for spent nuclear fuel. The transparency programme implemented by the National Council for Nuclear Waste (NW Council) consisted of two main activities: dialogue meetings and public hearings for deliberating on different aspects of the waste issue. Lessons are drawn from an evaluation of the programme. The article concludes that the NW Council has implemented the government's legitimatisation policy by its existence and through the transparency programme, but achieving long lasting legitimacy is a complicated matter. Dialogue meetings and public hearings are reasonable measures; whether these measures are sufficient to legitimatise the final decision also depends on how the appropriate state agencies and the government justify their assessments and decisions regarding the long-term safety, security and sustainability of the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company's proposed final repository. The dialogue policy and transparency programme, however, has failed to influence the key decisions which remain in the control of the powerful interests, most notable Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) and the government.

Chapter 11 - Radioactive waste management

Many policy issues, such as nuclear waste management, are complex and require expertise to address. In many such policy areas, decisions are made by elected officials with input largely from experts and not the public or other stakeholders. However, such top‐down approaches can create mistrust and political opposition. In the case of nuclear waste management in the United States, the selection of a single waste repository (Yucca Mountain in Nevada) by Congress led to strong opposition, stagnation, and an eventual call for a participatory, consent‐based siting approach to determine the location for a nuclear waste repository. While consent‐based siting is appealing, it is not clear if the public, broadly speaking, would support a participatory approach or an expert‐driven approach regarding nuclear waste management. In this paper, we examine public trust and public preferences for policy influence among elected officials, experts, and citizens. Specifically, we develop and test a theoretical framework that posits that the various cultural worldviews—hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism, and fatalism—shape trust in policy actors and that cultural worldviews and trust shape which policy actors the public believes should influence nuclear waste policymaking. Overall, we find the public trusts citizens and experts more than the government and elected officials. Additionally, we find that the public thinks experts should have more influence on nuclear waste policy than citizens or elected officials. Finally, regarding cultural worldviews, hierarchs tended to trust experts and elected officials and support their influence, whereas egalitarians tended to trust citizens and support their influence.