[ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility

[Egidi, Philip]

Another reason that reprocessing is not viable is that it results in mass quantities (a technical term coined by a certain cone head in the late '70s) of high-level mixed waste.  Until West Valley, Hanford and Savannah River are dealt with, it is unlikely IMHO that reprocessing will be on any investor's radar. The liabilities associated with managing and disposing of high-level mixed waste are abundant. Whether taxpayer or private sector funds are used, it is not economic.  It is my  understanding that the vitrification plant at Hanford is way over budget and behind schedule. Can someone update the list as to the status of West Valley and Savannah River activities relative to treating and disposing of their high-level mixed wastes???? This is not my area of expertise, so I would like to hear from others who are knowledgeable in this area.

Phil Egidi

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of edmond0033 at comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:01 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility

Dear Colleagues:

Back in the 60's, there was a pilot nuclear fuel reprocessing plant built in the state of New York.  Apparently someone (NIMBY) didn't like it or for whatever reason, it was closed.  I don't remember exactly where, but we did a lot of sample analyses for a long period.  Maybe some of the reasons, was the reason it was closed.

Ed Baratta

edmond0033 at comcast.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan McCarn
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:03 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility

Dear Ed:

I agree.

The answer is that there is no profit to be made in reprocessing because of the relative abundance and low cost of uranium reserves and resources driving a once-through "fuel-cycle", if it can truly be called a "cycle".
And there are several reasons that it is easier and cheaper to make new fuel.

That said, the actual cost for the nuclear fuel for a reactor is not a primary driving factor. Comparing the fuel cost with virtually any other form of energy production e.f. coal, gas, etc. it's really pretty cheap.
Given that, additional costs for reprocessing & MOX fuel are probably acceptable in the grand scheme of things, but there has to be an incentive for a company to go that route.

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com


On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Stroud - CDPHE, Ed
<ed.stroud at state.co.us>wrote:

> Jerry,
> The simple answer is profit. That is, with uranium prices where they 
> are, it's simply cheaper to make new fuel instead of reprocessing. In 
> Colorado, there's a new uranium extraction mill in the planning stages.
>
> Ed Stroud, Compliance Lead
> Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Miller, Mark L <mmiller at sandia.gov>
> wrote:
>
> > .....Same problem with calling Yucca Mtn a "disposal facility" 
> > rather
> than
> > a "repository".
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted de Castro [mailto:tdc at xrayted.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 7:50 PM
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
> > List
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change
> >
> > I guess its our own fault for calling it "REPROCESSING" instead of 
> > "RECYCLING" - in which case instead of being prohibited - it would 
> > be required!
> >
> > On 3/6/2013 6:16 PM, Jerry Cohen wrote:
> > > It has been over 30 years ago that president Carter established 
> > > the "no reprocessing" policy.
> > > Can anyone explain how, over this span on time, such an obviously 
> > > stupid policy has not been rescinded.
> > > Jerry Cohen
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> > understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other 
> > settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu