[ RadSafe ] Long-lived Radioactive Waste

Fri Mar 8 15:27:30 CST 2013

Hi All

Just recently, General Atomics has announced that they have a new  
reactor design that can use existing spent fuel, now in storage, in  
their reactor that can be built in a factory!!
Then delivered to your "licensed" site.

READ ALL ABOUT IT!! at their web site ga.com.

Sounds very interesting.  I will wait to read the comments you nuclear  
power experts can share. I just happened to catch it on the weekly  
news program "White House Chronicles".
Jim

Quoting "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>:

> I have a colleague who asked almost that exact question of an activist
> at a public meeting, once, and was told in a rather snotty way, "That's
> because toxic waste eventually stops being toxic, but radioactive waste
> is radioactive forever."  The activist apparently was uninterested in
> explaining why he thought that was the case, or in listening to
> explanations as to why it wasn't.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 12:40 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Long-lived Radioactive Waste
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>