[ RadSafe ] Long-lived Radioactive Waste

Fri Mar 8 15:56:33 CST 2013

While the idea of reactors that can uses spent fuel is cool, there are
some rather non-trivial problems to be addressed.  

If each fuel rod needs to be characterized before it can be used, in
order to understand the geometry of the neutron flux and fission within
the reactor, spent fuel may be more expensive than fresh fuel.

The specs call for this reactor to run very hot, compared to a PWR or
BWR.  Without water to interact with the cladding that is probably OK in
normal conditions, but a loss of helium that lets air get into the
reactor would be bad.  Very, very, bad.

There could be an issue with moving spent fuel to the reactor site.
This is a nonissue if the reactor is set up next to an existing nuclear
power plant facility (which simplifies other issues, too), and isn't a
technical challenge, especially if they use older spent fuel, but that
may be hard to explain to the mob with torches and pitchforks.  

Still, I wish them luck, and would love to chat with the designers.  

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of James Tocci
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 1:28 PM
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Long-lived Radioactive Waste

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
>

_______________________________________________
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