[ RadSafe ] Long-lived Radioactive Waste

Sat Mar 9 11:51:36 CST 2013

Victor,
Just curious--How, what, when does toxic waste stop being toxic..   Jerry
BTW, do you live in Elk grove?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Victor Anderson" <victor.anderson at frontier.com>
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Long-lived Radioactive Waste

> Good Evening,
>
> Elk Grove-Sacramento, CA weather is good.  Not too hot and not too cold.
> Sort of like the proverbial porridge.  Fascinating program about Egyptian
> tombs on H2.  I digress, the GA idea is indeed interesting.  There seems 
> to
> be two ways to use spent fuel.  One is disassemble each bundle carefully 
> and
> as pointed out below characterize each fuel rod and make a new bundle that
> can be part of the new reactor that will run supercritical under the 
> correct
> conditions.  The other is to reprocess the fuel and make into new fuel for
> the new reactor design.  High temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGR) go 
> way
> back.  My old alma mater, the US Army Nuclear Power program had one 
> portable
> helium cooled, truck mounted HTGR that was run in the early sixties.
> According to the more senior members of the program, the mobile reactor
> produced about 600 kW of electric power and took a convey of 40 vehicles 
> to
> support.  Still it was truly portable.  GA does have the experience to 
> build
> Helium cooled HTGRs.  The issues of nuclear safety and making reuse of 
> spent
> fuel economic appear to be the two biggest hurtles.  An alternative of 100
> MW plants might make it easier to design, build, operate such plants.  As 
> an
> old rent-a-tech buddy of mine used to say: "Small plant; small problems.
> Big plant; big problems."
>
> Victor Anderson
> ex MOS 52L2I  Health Physicist/Plant Chemist
> U.S. Army
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
> (DOH)
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 1:57 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Long-lived Radioactive Waste
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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 