Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Various proposals of classification of radioactive wastes are reviewed. It is suggested that the need for standardized waste categories could be satisfied by simply defining the meaning of the terms, presently in common use. In the past the classification of radioactive wastes has been considered necessary in order to facilitate communication, but has not been intended to provide indications on subsequent operations of treatment, conditioning, storage and disposal. In addition to a waste classification of such limited scope, it would be very advantageous to adopt a classification of an operational nature. It is suggested here that the wastes should be classified and segregated on the basis of the duration of required containment. A simple and probably sufficient subdivision would be in two groups: (1) the first one formed by wastes requiring relatively short-term containment and acceptable for disposal by shallow burial; (2) the second group would contain wastes requiring long-term containment and destined for disposal in deep geologic formations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
F. Gera (1974) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: