Recommandation 6 : Les installations de stockage doivent faire l’objet d’un suivi à long terme.

Quel serait, selon vous, le meilleur mécanisme pour assurer la surveillance des déchets et des installations aussi longtemps que les générations futures le jugeront nécessaire?

Comment Sort


BlairPBromley's avatar
sep 26, 2022 - 16:37

• Any Strategy for Radioactive Waste in Canada should make provisions and allowances for reprocessing and recycling to extract all the heavy elements and actinides (isotopes of Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu, Am, etc.) found in spent nuclear fuel or partially reprocessed nuclear fuel and targets, for subsequent recycling and reuse as new fuel for different reactor technologies (SMRs, Gen-IV, and Gen-III/Gen-III+ reactors).

• Thus, if any spent nuclear fuel is placed in a deep geological repository (DGR), then at the very least, it should be made to be easily retrievable.

• Ideally, all heavy elements / actinides found in spent fuel should be extracted and recycled for transmutation and destruction.

• Placing actinides in a Deep Bore Hole or DGR is not the best long-term strategy.

• However, placing fission products in Deep Bore Holes and/or a DGR is a reasonable strategy.

• However, provisions should also be made for extracting long-lived fission products (LLFPs) and long-lived activation products (LLAPs) for isolation and potential destruction/transmutation in targets placed in different reactor technologies, or using accelerator-based neutron sources.

• Ultimately, the only radioactive items that should be placed in Deep Bore Holes or a DGR are intermediate-life fission products and activation products (ILFPs / ILAPs) that have a half life of less than 100 years. Within 10 half lifes (~1000 years), then most of these ILFPs/ILAPs will have decayed by 3 or more orders of magnitude, with a radiotoxicity that is far below that of natural uranium ore.

• By implementing full recycling of actinides, and implementing partitioning and transmutation of LLFPs and LLAPs, it will enhance the protection of the public and the environment, and thus it will help build public confidence, assurance and support, and thus will improve public “buy-in” and and “social license” to continue using nuclear energy and radioactive sources.

  • Like this comment 0
  • Dislike this comment 0
Anonymous's avatar
oct 1, 2022 - 10:27

Like any other facility that poses such a risk long term management must include detailed procedures/processes, emergency response and drills for all potential issues. Frequent training and competency monitoring of staff is essential.
Facilities to be monitored 24/7 whether combination of in person and remotely c/w alarms, auto mitigation and the like.
All facilities should be mandated to follow the same regulatory requirements and licensing. Inspected and have frequent maintenance schedules as required. Independent audits to be conducted to ensure compliance.
Detailed records accessible to regulators, other interested parties upon request.

  • Like this comment 0
  • Dislike this comment 0
Advocate's avatar
oct 6, 2022 - 16:44

Caretaking and protection of waste disposal facilities is necessary. As long as our current conventional society exists, simple physical site protection and caretaking measures should be established and maintained (i.e., monitored security fencing, patrols, groundwater monitoring etc..) With the possibility that conventional society may not exist after a period of time, monitoring and physical barriers such as fencing and municipal records can no longer be depended upon as warning to others. For short-lived waste such as LLW, there is little needed in the way of long-term monitoring and site protection and current conventional protection should suffice. For long-lived waste such as ILW and used fuel there should be a durable means of warning future societies of the hazards bellow the site. Large stone markers with universal picture diagrams would suffice.

  • Like this comment 0
  • Dislike this comment 0