High-level radioactive waste managementconcerns how radioactive materials created

during production of nuclear power and nuclear weapons are dealt with. Radioactive waste
contains a mixture of short-lived and long-lived nuclides, as well as non-radioactive
nuclides.[1] There was reported some 47,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste stored
in the USA in 2000.the most troublesome transuranic elementsin spent fuel are neptunium-
237 (half-life two million years) and plutonium-239 (half-life 24,000
years).[2] Consequently, high-level radioactive waste requires sophisticated treatment
and management to successfully isolate it from the biosphere. This usually necessitates
treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving permanent storage,
disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[3] Radioactive decay follows
the half-liferule, which means that the rate of decay is inversely proportional to the
duration of decay. In other words, the radiation from a long-lived isotope like iodine-129
will be much less intense than that of short-lived isotope like iodine-131.[4]

Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and
disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been
limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions.[5] This is
partly because the timeframes in question when dealing with radioactive waste range
from 10,000 to millions of years,[6][7]according to studies based on the effect of
estimated radiation doses.[8]

Thus, engineer and physicist Hannes Alfvénidentified two fundamental prerequisites for
effective management of high-level radioactive waste: (1) stable geological formations,
and (2) stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of years. As Alfvén
suggests, no known human civilization has ever endured for so long, and no geologic
formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been
discovered that has been stable for so long a period.[9] Nevertheless, avoiding
confronting the risks associated with managing radioactive wastes may create
countervailing risks of greater magnitude. Radioactive waste management is an
example of policy analysis that requires special attention to ethical concerns, examined
in the light of uncertainty and futurity: consideration of 'the impacts of practices and
technologies on future generations'.[10]
There is a debate over what should constitute an acceptable scientific and engineering
foundation for proceeding with radioactive waste disposal strategies. There are those
who have argued, on the basis of complex geochemical simulation models, that
relinquishing control over radioactive materials to geohydrologic processes at repository
closure is an acceptable risk. They maintain that so-called "natural analogues" inhibit
subterranean movement of radionuclides, making disposal of radioactive wastes in
stable geologic formations unnecessary.[11] However, existing models of these
processes are empirically underdetermined:[12] due to the subterranean nature of such
processes in solid geologic formations, the accuracy of computer simulation models has
not been verified by empirical observation, certainly not over periods of time equivalent
to the lethal half-lives of high-level radioactive waste.[13][14] On the other hand, some
insist deep geologic repositories in stable geologic formations are necessary. National
management plans of various countries display a variety of approaches to resolving this
debate.
Protests break out in TN village over proposed facility in Kudankulam nuclear plant

Protests broke out in Vijayapathi village after a gram sabha resolution on a proposed facility at
the Kudankulam plant was not recorded by district officials.

Over five years after massive agitations against the Kudankulam nuclear plant were quelled in
Tirunelveli district, protests in connection to the reactors broke out once again on Friday. As
gram sabha meetings were held across the state of Tamil Nadu, villages around the contentious
reactors moved a resolution to put a stop to the government's plans to construct an Away From
Reactor (AFR) facility on the premises of the nuclear power plant.

The AFR is a storage unit meant to store spent fuel generated at the two nuclear plants in
Kudankulam. While a Deep geological disposal is widely agreed to be the best solution for final
disposal of radioactive waste, the AFR is meant to store spent fuel till the construction of the
former.

And while resolutions passed at four villages - Kavalkinar, Vadakankulam, Perumanal and
Kudankulam
were recorded by district authorities, a similar move in the village of Vijayapathi was stopped.
The decision led to protests at around 11 am in the village and was forcefully dispersed by the
police.

CHENNAI: The country’s first ‘away from reactor’ (AFR) facility to store spent
nuclear fuel is likely to come up at Tirunelveli in
Tamil Nadu

. It will store spent fuel generated at the two

nuclear power

plants at Kudankulam.

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) will conduct a public hearing in this
connection on July 10.

The Russia-supported Kudankulam power plants are run by Nuclear

Power Corporation of India Ltd

(NPCIL), a Union government entity. Environmental activists have condemned the

proposal, citing safety concerns.
The decision comes after the Supreme Court, in July last year, extended the
deadline to build an AFR facility at Kudankulam from July 2018 to April 2022.

Damage can be huge in case of a tsunami: Activists

According to the TNPCB’s draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report, a

pool building and a utility building will be the AFR’s main components. Spent fuel
will be transported from the reactor to the pool building in containers using
overhead cranes.

The fuel pool will be based on tank-in-tank concept (a water-filled pool surrounded
by an outer tank at the bottom and the four sides). Spent fuel assemblies will be
stored underwater in fuel racks in the pool using specialised handling machines.
The pool will be lined with stainless steel plates and will have a provision for leak
detection. Other systems for water cooling, purification and ventilation will also be
present. The utility building will have support systems to store spent fuel. This
includes a control room and alarms. The fuel pool has the capacity to
accommodate spent fuel generated up to seven years of reactor operations, the
EIA summary said.

However, activists are upset. “Without having a permanent facility (deep geological
repository) in place, setting up AFRs as a temporary option is dangerous. Even
worse, the AFR is located in the same compound where the reactor is functioning.
Damage can be massive in case of a tsunami,” said G Sundarrajan of NGO
Poovulagin Nanbargal, referring to the 2011Fukushima nuclear accident. “Usually
spent fuel is reprocessed and vitrified into glass. But there is no re -processing
facility available in India,” he added. The EIA said it has assessed all potential
environmental impacts and they are “manageable”. Poovulagin Nanbargal had
approached the Supreme Court in 2012 seeking closure of Kudankulam plant.