[ RadSafe ] Long-lived Radioactive Waste

Fri Mar 8 14:40:12 CST 2013

Could someone provide a logical explanation for something that has always 
bothered me. Why is the management
(disposal) of HLW and/or other wastes containing long-lived radionuclides, 
(i.e. plutonium), of such
inordinate concern while similar concern is not directed toward wastes 
containing toxic stable elements,
such as Pb, Cd, Hg, etc. which will exist forever? Just a thought..... If 
all of the HLW ever produced were to be
uniformly distributed throughout the worlds oceans, the health impact would 
be negligible relative to the
naturally-occurring radioactivity that is already there (U, Ra, K,etc)
Jerry Cohen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility

> 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/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 