RE: I love high-level nuclear waste and want some in my yard

[Tim <tstead@ntirs.org>]

Nuclear fuel in a reactor is protected with a 12"

thick pressure vessel, a confinement structure around

the reactor, and then the containment dome.



If you want to plow a plane into a plant, good luck

getting through all those barriers.  I personally do

not think one would succeed with our (USA) reactor

designs.



Spent fuel contained in dry casks is surrounded by

quite a bit of metal that has been tested by being

rammed into a wall, t-boned with a locomotive, dropped

from a helicopter, having explosives set off beside

them, etc.



The only problems noted with any casks during all of

these tests that I know of was a cask which had some

of it's lead melt because of a poor design - but that

was corrected.  Incidentally, no simulated loss of

material occurred even in that instance.  Maybe

someone a little more intimate with those tests knows

otherwise - if so, please fill me in.



I therefore do not see any credible threat to spent

fuel casks as they sit on site.  As such, although one

could make the argument that reactor fuel is more

protected due to more barriers (3 vs. 1), the fact

that spent fuel casks provide more than adequate

protection against very severe accidents makes the

comparison a moot point.  I guess it's like asking

which car can drive at 25 MPH better, a Porsche or a

Hyundai.  They both get the job done although one does

it with a little more style.



If we are to get serious with non-proliferation

issues, we need to look at ourselves first.  Although

we lag behind in nuclear technology (look at S. Africa

of all places - getting on track to build a couple

PBMR's with Exelon...) from the rest of the world, we

still need to set an example of

proliferation-resistant waste disposal.  We are not

re-processing - that is a step but there also exists

proliferation-resistant re-processing techniques. 

Before, the Pu went one way, the U went another, and

everything else went yet another but that is not

necessarily the case now.  Fissile material goes one

way and waste goes another.  With only about 3% of

spent fuel actually being "waste" it just makes sense

to reprocess.



Another possibility is MOX fuel.  Sure this is

controversial, but spike it with some nasty,

long-lived strong alpha emitters and problem solved. 

Mix in some burnable poison and you're even further on

the road to proliferation-resistant fuel - plus, we

get rid of some SSNM and SNM in the meantime (and it

becomes really proliferation-resistant after it comes

out of the Rx).



Yucca mountain just makes sense.  I've read much of

the EIS (not all, I'm not that much of a sadist) and

while I disagree with a few points in it, I agree with

the general conclusions.



Let's start becoming examples for the world to see

that we are serious about proliferation issues and

start at home.  MOX fuel and Yucca Mountain are just a

start and will make the entire world that much of a

safer place to live.



Regards,

Timothy C. Steadham, P.E.



P.S. Since re-processing in the USA is all but dead,

why not seal the casks permanently (e.g. weld the lid

shut - a good friction weld should work)?  Any

thoughts on the issue?



--- "Estabrooks, Bates (IHK) " <IHK@Y12.doe.gov>

wrote:

> Ruth Weiner noted:

> 

> 

> > Finally, support of Yucca Mountain is not

> newsworthy and not lurid.  By

> > supporting the project one cannot conjure up

> images of death and

> > devastation, the way one can by opposing it.  

> > 

> > Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. 

> > ruthweiner@aol.com

> > 

> > 

> Regrettably, the reality of the situation may be

> quite different.  In light

> of events of recent months, dry-cask storage of

> spent fuel at nuc. plants

> can readily conjure up these images.  Correct me if

> I'm wrong, but current

> spent fuel storage doesn't benefit from the same

> hardened structure that the

> reactor does with its containment.  Years back, I

> spoke to citizen's groups

> in Santa Fe trying to help them understand that

> drums of waste at LANL were

> a bigger risk than drums of waste at WIPP.  In my

> mind, just as the public

> is safer with TRU waste underground at WIPP, it's

> safer with spent fuel at

> Yucca.  I stand open to correction.

> 

> BTW, Ruth, what about Anna Karenina's mind reflects

> something that we would

> hope most (all) women should have/be?  As I recall,

> she had a very

> unpleasant, self-appointed, rendezvous with a

> locomotive.  :-(

> 

> Respectfully,

> 

> Bates Estabrooks   

>

************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing

> list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put

> the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe

> archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

> 





__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 

http://auctions.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/