DOCSLIB.ORG

And Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste, Stationary Facilities for The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
And Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste, Stationary Facilities for The Statement of the Nuclear Waste Management Commission, revised version of 18.10.2013 Note: This is a translation of the statement entitled “ESK-Stresstest für Anlagen und Einrichtungen der Ver- und Entsorgung in Deutschland Teil 2: Lager für schwach- und mittelradioaktive Abfälle, stationäre Einrichtungen zur Konditionierung schwach- und mittelradioaktiver Abfälle, Endlager für radioaktive Abfälle”. In case of discrepancies between the English translation and the German original, the original shall prevail. E S K STATEMENT of the Nuclear Waste Management Commission (ESK) ESK stress test for nuclear fuel cycle facilities in Germany* Part 2: Storage facilities for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, stationary facilities for the conditioning of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, disposal facilities for radioactive waste STATEMENT Revised version of 18.10.2013 Compared to the original version of 11.07.2013, an incorrect statement was corrected in Chapter 5.6, second last bullet point: company Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GmbH does not operate a storage facility at the Braunschweig site. ________________________ *Translator’s note: In the German original, the terms "Anlage" and "Einrichtung" are used. Both terms are translated by "facility" since, in this Statement, reference is always made to a facility of the nuclear fuel cycle (NFCF). Contents 1 Background information and request for advice ................................................................................. 3 2 Consultations ....................................................................................................................................... 4 3 General approach ................................................................................................................................ 4 4 Approach in particular ........................................................................................................................ 5 5 Storage facilities and conditioning facilities for low- and intermediate-level waste .......................... 6 5.1 Questions in the ESK stress test .......................................................................................................... 6 5.2 Assessment criteria ............................................................................................................................. 8 5.3 Description of the storage facilities and conditioning facilities for low- and intermediate-level waste ................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.4 Damage pattern types ........................................................................................................................ 11 5.4.1 Description of damage pattern types ................................................................................................. 11 5.4.2 Derivation of package inventory types ............................................................................................. 13 5.4.2.1 Waste in storage facilities from operation, decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear power plants and research reactors .............................................................................................................. 14 5.4.2.2 Radioactive waste in Land collecting facilities, from isotope production and from nuclear industry.............................................................................................................................................. 14 5.4.2.3 Radioactive waste in conditioning facilities ..................................................................................... 15 5.4.2.4 Summary of package types, activity inventories and nuclide vectors ............................................... 16 RSK/ESK Secretariat at the Federal Office for Radiation Protection Page 1 of 65 Statement of the Nuclear Waste Management Commission, revised version of 18.10.2013 5.4.3 Assessment of potential releases on the basis of the derived release fractions of the different package types .................................................................................................................................... 16 5.4.3.1 Release fractions of the different waste packages ............................................................................. 17 5.4.3.2 Thermal impact ................................................................................................................................. 18 5.4.3.3 Mechanical impacts ........................................................................................................................... 19 5.4.3.4 Flooding for ten days ........................................................................................................................ 21 5.4.3.5 Tidal wave through the storage building ........................................................................................... 22 5.4.4 Determination of radiation exposure due to potential releases ......................................................... 23 5.4.4.1 Model sites ........................................................................................................................................ 23 5.4.4.2 Determination of radiation exposure ................................................................................................. 24 5.4.4.3 Assessment of the radiation exposure determined for the damage pattern types and model sites .... 26 5.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 27 5.6 Summary assessment and recommendations with regard to storage facilities for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste and conditioning facilities ...................................................... 27 6 Disposal facilities for radioactive waste............................................................................................ 30 6.1 Questions in the ESK stress test ........................................................................................................ 31 6.2 Disposal facilities considered in the stress test ................................................................................. 32 6.2.1 Asse II mine repository ..................................................................................................................... 32 6.2.2 Morsleben repository for radioactive waste (ERAM) ....................................................................... 32 6.2.3 Konrad mine repository .................................................................................................................... 33 6.3 Summary assessment and recommendations with regard to the disposal facilities .......................... 34 7 References ......................................................................................................................................... 35 Annex 1 (editorially revised version of 30.7.2013) .......................................................................................... 59 RSK/ESK Secretariat at the Federal Office for Radiation Protection Page 2 of 65 Statement of the Nuclear Waste Management Commission, revised version of 18.10.2013 1 Background information and request for advice The earthquake off the Japanese coast on 11.03.2011 and the subsequent flooding caused by a tsunami triggered a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima site. Although the initiating events of the nuclear disaster in Japan, especially the magnitude of the earthquake and the height of the tidal wave, are not directly applicable to conditions in Europe and Germany, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) considers it necessary, as a consequence of these events, to not only perform a robustness assessment for German nuclear power plants, but also a stress test for spent fuel and radioactive waste management facilities in Germany. Against this background, the BMU commissioned the NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (ESK) by letters dated 22.06.2011 [1] and 18.07.2011 [2] to develop appropriate review concepts for facilities in operation or under construction for the treatment, storage and disposal of spent fuel, heat-generating and other types of radioactive waste and for the plants for uranium enrichment in Gronau and fuel fabrication in Lingen. These types of facilities are all facilities serving the purpose of fuel supply or waste management. There are also other facilities in which radioactive materials are handled, e.g. for research or the production of isotopes. These facilities are not included in the request for advice to the ESK and have therefore not been considered in the statements of the ESK on the stress test. For a better structuring of its approach, the ESK applied an internal classification of the facilities according to different categories. With its statement of 14.03.2013 [3], the ESK already assessed the robustness of nuclear fuel supply facilities, storage facilities for spent fuel and heat-generating radioactive waste and facilities for the treatment of spent fuel against beyond design basis events. In this second part, the ESK assesses the robustness of storage facilities and conditioning facilities for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste and disposal facilities for radioactive waste (Asse II mine, Morsleben repository for radioactive waste (ERAM) and the Konrad mine repository). In order to ensure separation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "The German Approach to the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes."
    The German Approach to the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Ernst Warnecke Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Bundesallee 100 D-3300 Braunschweig Finnish-German Seminar on Nuclear Waste Management Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland September 23-25, 1986 THE GERMAN APPROACH TO THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES Ernst Warnecke Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Bundesallee 100 D-3300 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of Germany Abstract In the Federal Republic of Germany the PTB is responsible for the construction and operation of the repositories in which radioactive wastes will be disposed of. Two repository ries are planned: - Gorleben (salt dome; for all types of radioactive wastes) - Konrad (abandoned iron ore mine; for radioactive wastes with negligible thermal influence upon the host rock). The safe operation of the repositories has to be demon- strated to the licensing authorities. These are the respon- sible Ministers of the Federal States (Lander) and the mining authorities. According to the "safety criteria for the disposal of radioactive wastes in a mine", the safety of a repository has to be demonstrated by a site specific safety assessment for the normal operation of a repository, for incidents in the operational phase, and the post-opera- tional phase. These assessments result in waste acceptance requirements. The compliance of the waste packages to be disposed of with the waste acceptance requirements is checked with a waste package quality control either by random tests on waste packages or a qualification and in- spection of waste conditioning processes. Preliminary waste acceptance requirements have been set up for the planned Konrad repository. In the Kernforschungsan- lage Julich (KFA) a group for the quality control of radio- active waste has been established on behalf of the PTB.
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Project Team Visit to Federal Republic of Germany & Belgium To
    'rI 1- . I Il I0 111~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WM Recorde~r FileI4VI VIM Project~J~ - I 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W :Ut x .9. /0~~~~~~~~~~~~~.I Doc~~~~~~~~~~~;~etNo. WtiIDOCK ET CONTROL PDR &_ CENTER Distribution: = LPJR - .J,&.VJA6f-j #_C II fi e4 . '84 JUN 12 P2:29 _,- (Return to WM, 623-SS) REPORT ON OFFICIAL TRAVEL SALT PROJECT TEAM visit to FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY and BELGIUM to discuss NUCLEAR WASTE ACTIVITIES April 23 - May 4, 1984 4071701 9E4050 4 . MtDWASTER Wi16 a- VJ-V,,,,5g5, i '6.1r p TRIP REPORT Visit to FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND BELGIUM April 23 - May 4, 1984 A team of seven people associated with the U.S. DOE salt project visited facilities in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and Belgium. The trip started on April 23 and was completed on May 4, 1984. The objectives of the team visit were to (1) tour the underground and surface facilities related to nuclear waste disposal in Germany and Belgium; (2) discuss possible cooperative activities with the Germans, Belgians, and the European community; and (3) establish the process for agreement at the German-U.S. bilateral meeting in late August on activities to be performed in support of salt. Nuclear waste disposal activities in these countries are very similar to many of the activities planned for the Salt Repository Program. The FRG waste disposal program includes disposal of HLW in salt. The Belgium program is of interest principally because of the freezing technique used to construct their shaft. Members of the U.S. team are: NAME ORGANIZATION U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS
    THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg This report would have not been possible without the generous support of a diverse group of friends and partners, in particular – listed in alphabetical order – the Altner-Combecher Stiftung, Bäuerliche Notgemeinschaft Trebel, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz (BUND), Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg e.V., Climate Core and Green/EFA MEPs Group in the European Parliament, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (HBS) and its offices in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Prague, and Washington DC, KLAR! Schweiz, Annette und Wolf Römmig, and the Swiss Energy Foundation. Thank you all for making this possible! THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT — 2019 3 FOREWORD More than 40 years ago in my home region, the forest near the village of Gorleben was chosen as the location for the German National Nuclear Waste Disposal Center. The site, which is now at the country’s center but at the time was located directly on the border between East and West Germany, was meant to host all facilities for reprocessing, treatment, storage, and a deep geological repository. The company responsible (which has long since closed) intended to open the repository for spent fuel in the salt dome named Gorleben-Rambow in 1999. After Fukushima, the German government decided to phase out nuclear energy for the second time. The experience of the nuclear catastrophe in Japan in 2011 also set in motion the review of the plans for the repository at Gorleben. After around 40 years of debating and fighting over Gorleben, the German government and parliament decided in favor of a new participatory site selection process for the repos- itory for high-level nuclear waste.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives of Radioactive Waste Disposal in Germany – 10448 Rev
    WM 2010 Conference, March 7-11, 2010 Phoenix, AZ Perspectives of Radioactive Waste Disposal in Germany – 10448 rev. Peter W. Brennecke Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Salzgitter, Germany ABSTRACT In the Federal Republic of Germany the disposal of all types of solid and solidified radioactive waste in deep geological formations is still the preferred option. Within the last decade the principal issues in radioactive waste disposal may be subdivided into activities further developing and detailing the revised German radioactive waste disposal concept as well as activities concerning the operation of the Konrad, Gorleben, Morsleben and Asse II sites. Of this, the Safety Requirements on the Disposal of Heat-Generating Radioactive Waste presented by the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU - Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit) in July 2009, the licensing of the Konrad repository in May 2002 and, subsequent to the rejection of all lawsuits, the start of its construction in May 2007, as well as taking over of the responsibility for the Asse II mine by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS - Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) in January 2009 are the most important topics. Future developments in the German radioactive waste disposal policy are indicated in the October 2009 coalition agreement of the new Federal Government. INTRODUCTION In the Federal Republic of Germany, the agreement between the Federal Government and the nuclear utilities which was initialled on June 14, 2000, and signed on June 14, 2001, served as basis for nuclear energy use and radioactive waste management issues during the last decade. According to this document, the former Government and the utilities agreed to limit the future utilization of the existing nuclear power plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Anniversary Report 2018
    Bundesgesellschaft für Endlagerung mbH (BGE) Eschenstrasse 55 31224 Peine Germany T +49-5171 43-0 F +49-5171 43-1218 [email protected] www.bge.de As of June 2019 Editor: Dagmar Dehmer (DD), Martina Schwaldat (MS), Ursula Ahlers Anniversary Report Design: BUSCHBRAND grafikdesign 2018 Printing: Druckhaus Giese & Seif OHG Photography: Christian Bierwagen, Janosch Gruschczyk printed on FSC-certified recycled paper Die heilige Barbara - Schutzpatronin der Bergleute Glück auf! For you as employees and for us as management, the 2018 financial year was largely determined by the development of a new organisational structure for BGE. Nonetheless, you have shown exemplary commitment to the implementation of BGE projects with your professional competence in an environment marked by change. We thank you for this loyalty and look forward to advanc- ing BGE together with you and the representatives of the works’ council. The management board Cover: A platform being used for safety work at the Morsleben final repository. 2 3 Table of contents 4 Supervisory board report 26 Financial statements for fiscal 2018 6 Opening remarks from 28 Profit and loss account management: Safety at BGE - 30 Development of fixed assets a topic with many facets 32 Management report 8 Social security – why it’s important that 34 Economic report/business development company partners work together. 40 Earnings, financial position and net assets 10 Communication, openness, and 46 Staff and social report flexibility ensure safety 48 Forecast, opportunity and risk report 14 Safety is priority #1 – 52 Annex for the fiscal year Scenes from everyday work safety 20 Guest contribution | Reporting flaws: Moving beyond ”please use handrails”.
    [Show full text]
  • February 1987 Monthly Report Salt Repository Project (Srp) Representative to the Federal Republic of Germany (Frg)
    FEBRUARY 1987 MONTHLY REPORT SALT REPOSITORY PROJECT (SRP) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (FRG) General The GSF/IfT has a central role in the waste management research and development in the FRG. They operate the Asse salt mine which has been used for radioactive waste disposal and for development and testing of safe geological storage for high-level wastes (HLW) in salt. As indicated on the attached map, (Attachment 1) the Asse mine is situated just to the southeast of Braunschweig. To the southwest of Braunschweig is the Konrad mine, a former iron ore mine for which mining was discontinued in 1976 due to economic reasons. The GSF/IfT has also carried out research and development at the Konrad mine to demonstrate its suitability for the final disposal of waste which has a negligible thermal effect on the surrounding rock. Detailed reports concerning activities at both the Asse and Konrad mines will be submitted at a later date. The Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB -- Federal Science/Engineering Laboratory) is also located in Braunschweig. Under the FRG Federal Ministry for Science and Technology (BMFT), the PTB has responsibility for developing and licensing radioactive waste repositories. Attachment 2, provides a brief description of the final disposal of radioactive waste in the FRG, was published by the PTB over a year ago, but should provide the reader with a general understanding of the developments at the Asse and Konrad mines, as well as the candidate salt repository site for HLW at Gorleben.The Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR -- Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Wiederaufarbeitung von Kernbrennstaffen mbH (DWK -- German Reprocessing Company) are two important installations located in Hannover.
    [Show full text]
  • DGR Joint Review Panel International Visit Report Konrad Repository ‐ Salzgitter, Germany October 22-23, 2012
    Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel DGR Joint Review Panel International Visit Report Konrad Repository ‐ Salzgitter, Germany October 22‐23, 2012 Attendees: Stella Swanson, Gunter Muecke, Jamie Archibald – Joint Review Panel Members Kelly McGee, Debra Myles – Panel Secretariat Members Dr. Ben Samwer – Konrad Project Management, Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz (BfS)/Federal Office for Radiation Protection Dr. Peter Brennecke – BfS Contractor/Advisor Purpose: To contribute contextual understanding to the Joint Review Panel’s review of the proposed DGR project Information exchanged in advance of the visit: • Records in relation to the Konrad Repository provided to the Joint Review Panel by Dr. Brennecke (CEARIS Doc #755) • DGR Joint Review Panel information sheet provided to Dr. Samwer (Appendix 1, Page 3) Photos: Photos taken during the visit (Appendix 2, Page 6) Monday, October 22, 2012 – Salzgitter 10:00am Arrival at BfS office; introductions 10:20am Short walk to Info-Stelle Konrad; observe informational video and exhibits 11:00am Session 1 – BfS presentations to the Joint Review Panel • Geology of the Konrad Area (Appendix 3, Page 10) • Konrad Site Geology and Hydrogeology (Appendix 4, Page 47) • Safety Assessment Example: Konrad Repository (Appendix 5, Page 63) • Waste Acceptance Requirements Summary Presentation Slides (Appendix 6, Page 102) Extended Presentation Slides (Appendix 7, Page 126) 4:00pm End of meeting Konrad Visit Report Page 2 of 291 Tuesday, October 23, 2012 – Konrad Repository Site Additional Attendees: Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • T H Y S S E N M I N I
    www.thyssen-schachtbau.com THYSSEN MINING Report 2017/18 | English Edition THYSSEN MINING THYSSEN English Edition English www.thyssen-schachtbau.com 2017/18 COMPETENCE BY EXPERIENCE. YOUR PARTNER. IMPRINT Publisher: Editing: Photos: Cover picture inside: THYSSEN SCHACHTBAU GMBH Jeanette Meier Employees TS Group THYSSEN SCHACHTBAU – company Sandstraße 107-135 Joachim Ravenstein Archive TS building with special division shaft 45473 Mülheim an der Ruhr Markus Westermeyer Archives TS-Subsidiaries sinking and drilling Phone +49 208 3002 - 0 Employees from project partners Fax +49 208 3002 - 219 Translation (english): Printing: [email protected] KeyCom Konferenzdolmetschen Druckhaus Cramer, Greven www.thyssen-schachtbau.com Christa Gzil www.cramer.de Translation (russian): All rights reserved www.thyssen-schachtbau.com Lisa Zaydman Cover picture: © THYSSEN SCHACHTBAU GMBH Ursula Ahlers Copy and storage on digital media Layout: Mining activities of not without prior permission of the Iris Huber, denkbetrieb.de, Werl TIMPRHYSSEN SCHACHTBAU publisherINT THYSSEN MINING Report 2017/18 CONTENT 2 A Word from the Management Board 6 THYSSEN MINING – Local Challenges – Global Solutions 7 The Thyssen Mining Group: Global partners 14 THYSSEN SCHACHTBAU GMBH – occupational health and safety ROADway DriVage 18 Ibbenbüren colliery – anthracite coal with international reputation 21 Driving deep-level face headings at Prosper-Haniel colliery 27 The Donskoi GOK project: status report on roadway drivage operations Mining 30 TMCC – Mining for Barrels 33 Byrnecut
    [Show full text]
  • Original Signed By
    Tell us what you think. Our aim is to create transparency and being more available to citizens. Enter into dialogue with us – we are looking forward to it. How satisfied are you in general with the transparency of Konrad and our availability to citizens? Creating confidence through safety. Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied Reason: How do you like this information brochure? Creating confidence through safety. I like it a lot I like it Don’t like it Reason: How satisfied are you with the Konrad communication in the Federal Office for Radiation Protection’s information centre INFO KONRAD (exhibition, touchscreens, film, shaft model, personal talk)? Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied No experiences yet Reason: Konrad repository. Place for further questions and suggestions: Answers to the most frequently asked questions. " Challenge us – or ask for more material. We would like to answer all your questions about the Konrad topic. Enter into dialogue with us – we are looking forward to it. I would like to make an appointment for a personal talk. Please call me about this issue. Yes, I would like to go more in depth. Please call me to arrange an appointment with me for visiting the INFOKONRAD Konrad mine. Chemnitzer Strasse 27 38226 Salzgitter, Germany I am interested in topics other than Konrad the Federal Office for Radiation Protection deals with. Phone +49 (0)5341 867 3099 Fax +49 (0) 3018 333 1285 I am planning a mobile exhibition on the topic in a public institution. [email protected] Please call me about this issue. www.endlager-konrad.de 43 Title/First name/Last name* POSTAGE PAID Street* City/town/postcode* ReplY to thE Daytime telephone no.
    [Show full text]
  • Bundesgesellschaft Für Endlagerung Mbh (BGE) Annual Report 2019
    Bundesgesellschaft für Endlagerung mbH (BGE) Unternehmenskommunikation und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Eschenstraße 55 31224 Peine T 05171 43-0 F 05171 43-1218 www.bge.de www.einblicke.de As of: June 2020 Concept, layout and texts: Dagmar Dehmer (dd), Monika Hotopp (mh), Martina Schwaldat (ms), Ursula Ahlers Annual Report Design: BUSCHBRAND grafikdesign 2019 Print: Gutenberg Beuys Feindruckerei GmbH Photography: Christian Bierwagen There is no progress without innovation Cover photo: Haulage system for transporting for system Haulage photo: Cover miners during construction of the bunker and for the planned installation of an inner lining Dear Employees, In the past fiscal year, we all worked together at our construction sites and on our pro- jects, site selection, and product control. We also used this time to reorganise ourselves, and our plan is to continue modernising and developing our company in the future. Inno- vation is an important driver of progress, change, and acceleration. Let us use our creativi- ty to continue moving BGE forward! We thank you for your commitment and loyalty. Glück auf! The management board Room for mine rescue equipment, Morsleben repository 5 There is no progress without innovation 6 Contents 6 Report of the supervisory board 34 E-mobility goes underground 8 There is no progress without innovation 38 Sustainability management at Opening remarks from management BGE – future task and 10 How BGE came to its mission statement challenge at the same time 16 Digitalisation helps us to be 42 Always out in front – or
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Underground Mines in Europe
    CHAPTER 2 Need and potential for underground disposal – survey of underground mines in Europe D. Kaliampakos1, A. Mavropoulos2 & M. Menegaki1 1School of Mining & Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece. 2EPEM, Greece. Abstract This chapter considers the need as well as potential for disposal of hazardous waste in underground mines and provides a comparison between surface and under- ground hazardous waste disposal including typical costs. A survey on underground mines in Europe is provided including some that are currently used or considered for disposal of hazardous waste in the future. The survey shows that the number of deep mines that are suitable for disposal of hazardous waste is large in Europe, especially considering that a certain number of currently used mines are expected to cease their operation in the near future. In particular, 15 EU countries are included in this survey: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands and UK. This does not mean that the number of suitable mines in other European coun- tries is negligible, but it only indicates that at this moment there is no sufficient data to report. It is expected that the number of suitable underground mines for hazardous waste disposal in Eastern European countries would be quite high, which offers an alternative and affordable way of dealing with hazardous waste in these countries. 2.1 Surface vs. underground hazardous waste disposal facilities Underground hazardous waste disposal facilities present some significant advan- tages compared to the respective surface installations, which can be summarized WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, Vol 26, © 2006 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line) doi:10.2495/978-1-85312-750-2/02 34 DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN UNDERGROUND MINES as follows [1]: • Underground facilities take advantage of the protection, isolation and security of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 6Th US/German Workshop on Salt Repository Research, Design, and Operation Ii January 11, 2016
    Proceedings of the 6th US/German Workshop on Salt Repository Research, Design, and Operation ii January 11, 2016 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the US Government. Neither the US Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the US Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the US Government or any agency thereof. Sandia National Laboratories is a multiprogram laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]