Publications

This report evaluates the feasibility of disposing U.S. high-level radioactive waste in granite several hundred meters below the surface of the earth. The U.S. has many granite formations with positive attributes for permanent disposal. Similar crystalline formations have been extensively studied by international programs, two of which, in Sweden and Finland, are the host rocks of submitted or imminent repository license applications. This report is enabled by the advanced work of the international community to establish functional and operational requirements for disposal of a range of waste forms in granite media. In this report we develop scoping performance analyses, based on the applicable features, events, and processes (FEPs) identified by international investigators, to support generic conclusions regarding post-closure safety. Unlike the safety analyses for disposal in salt, shale/clay, or deep boreholes, the safety analysis for a mined granite repository depends largely on waste package preservation. In crystalline rock, waste packages are preserved by the high mechanical stability of the excavations, the diffusive barrier of the buffer, and favorable chemical conditions. The buffer is preserved by low groundwater fluxes, favorable chemical conditions, backfill, and the rigid confines of the host rock. An added advantage of a mined granite repository is that waste packages would be fairly easy to retrieve, should retrievability be an important objective. The results of the safety analyses performed in this study are consistent with the results of comprehensive safety assessments performed for sites in Sweden, Finland, and Canada. They indicate that a granite repository would satisfy established safety criteria and suggest that a small number of FEPs would largely control the release and transport of radionuclides. In the event the U.S. decides to pursue a potential repository in granite, a detailed evaluation of these FEPs would be needed to inform site selection and safety assessment.

Most climate scientists believe that climate geoengineering is best considered as a potential complement to the mitigation of CO{sub 2} emissions, rather than as an alternative to it. Strong mitigation could achieve the equivalent of up to -4Wm{sup -2} radiative forcing on the century timescale, relative to a worst case scenario for rising CO{sub 2}. However, to tackle the remaining 3Wm{sup -2}, which are likely even in a best case scenario of strongly mitigated CO{sub 2} releases, a number of geoengineering options show promise. Injecting stratospheric aerosols is one of the least expensive and, potentially, most effective approaches and for that reason an examination of the possible unintended consequences of the implementation of atmospheric injections of sulphate aerosols was made. Chief among these are: reductions in rainfall, slowing of atmospheric ozone rebound, and differential changes in weather patterns. At the same time, there will be an increase in plant productivity. Lastly, because atmospheric sulphate injection would not mitigate ocean acidification, another side effect of fossil fuel burning, it would provide only a partial solution. Future research should aim at ameliorating the possible negative unintended consequences of atmospheric injections of sulphate injection. This might include modeling the optimum rate and particle type and size of aerosol injection, as well as the latitudinal, longitudinal and altitude of injection sites, to balance radiative forcing to decrease negative regional impacts. Similarly, future research might include modeling the optimum rate of decrease and location of injection sites to be closed to reduce or slow rapid warming upon aerosol injection cessation. A fruitful area for future research might be system modeling to enhance the possible positive increases in agricultural productivity. All such modeling must be supported by data collection and laboratory and field testing to enable iterative modeling to increase the accuracy and precision of the models, while reducing epistemic uncertainties.