[ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility

Thu Mar 7 17:03:44 CST 2013

Back in the day they did it in Idaho, at the Idaho National Laboratory.
I don't know if they still do it there, of if they do it at all, any
more.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of McCloskey, Pat
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:39 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility

Mike,

Where does the US Navy reprocess their spent fuel?

Pat McCloskey,CHP CSP CHMM PMP

________________________________

From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Thu 3/7/2013 4:26 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility

The Navy has been recycling their spent fuel almost from the beginning
of the Navy Nuclear Power Program.  Reprocessing Navy fuel is more
economic because of the MUCH higher enrichment factor, which means there
is more U235 to recover.  Recycling has become less pressing for the
Navy for two reasons: (1) the large reduction in the size of the fleet
means fewer ship needing fuel and (2) the latest designs for Naval
Reactors use a variety of techniques to extend the useful life of the
fuel to the expected lifetime of the ship.

The easiest solution to the high activity waste from reprocessing is
time.  The longer you wait, the lower the activity from fission
fragments.  On the other hand, the U235 and Pu pretty much remain
constant.  We are reaching the point where the oldest spent fuel has
decayed down to where handling it shouldn't be too difficult, and the
wastes won't be particularly hot.  When you factor in improvements in
all sorts of technologies since the 70s, we are in better shape to start
reprocessing now than we have ever been, and will be in even better
shape a couple of decades from now.  On the other hand, if the
leadership doesn't become more rational about storing spent fuel (which
isn't very hard), they will create a crisis where none is needed.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Egidi, Philip
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:10 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility

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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <http://health.phys.iit.edu/> 