Original link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/30/finally-we-can-get-moving-on-disposing-of-our-nuclear-waste/
We might actually make a move
that brings us closer to the disposal of nuclear waste than ever
before. Give each of the two main types of nuclear waste – weapons and
power – their own deep geologic repository.
Last week, President Obama authorized the Energy Department to move forward with a plan for a separate repository for high-level radioactive waste that was created from making atomic and nuclear weapons.
Immediately, Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz announced what we’ve been wanting for decades – a separate deep geologic nuclear waste repository for our defense-generated high-level nuclear waste (HLW), separate from one for our spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from commercial power reactors (DOE Path Forward).
HLW is bomb waste. Weapons waste. Very different from commercial SNF which is not really waste at all.
Different in form – weapons waste is in various hard-to-handle forms; gunky, sludgy, nasty liquid, some solid – as opposed to dry, solid commercial spent fuel that is easy to handle and easy to store in dry casks once it is removed from the cooling pools after about 5 years.
Different in composition and types of radioactive and chemical components – SNF is primarily uranium oxide with some fission products and actinide elements produced from the fission process, but no toxic chemicals – HLW is chemically-reprocessed fuel so has residual fission products and actinide elements but lots and lots of toxic chemicals and metals used in the reprocessing.
Different in geographic location – HLW is in a relatively few locations at DOE sites like Hanford and Savannah River, while SNF is at all commercial nuclear power sites in 32 states.
Different in usefulness – HLW is from reprocessing of weapons reactor fuel and is totally waste, and of no further use. But SNF is quite useful – only about 5% of the energy contained in SNF is used after the first burning. The fuel can be recycled, but is even better saved to be burned later in fast reactors, providing about ten times the energy obtained from the original burning.
This last point is really the important one. A separate repository for useless defense waste would go faster and cheaper than a larger repository for both waste types.
Right now the “law” is that SNF and HLW have to be disposed of together at the same time, referred to as co-mingling, even if that makes no sense, and that the repository has to have a 50-year retrievability period for the spent fuel, in case we want to use it again.
The Secretary’s announcement signals an end to this nonsense, and is an attempt to bring science and common sense back into what became a horribly political process in the 1970s and 80s.
The amount of nuclear waste in America is quite small, totaling less than a soccer field. The United States has about 80,000 metric tons each of SNF and HLW, measured as metric tons of heavy metals, or MTHM. SNF doesn’t need any reprocessing or alteration to be disposed of, or shipped or just stored.
On the other hand, HLW is in different liquid, sludge and solid forms in various containers such as the 90 million gallons stored in large tanks at Hanford, Savannah River and other DOE facilities. HLW needs to be solidified and packaged by various methods, depending on where it ends up for disposal, including simple drying, grouting (cementing), vitrifying (glassification) or steam reforming (mineralization).
In addition to SNF and HLW, a minor amount of other wastes are included in the discussion of a deep geologic repository and include nuclear navy waste, weapons proliferation-related international waste, research materials and greater than Class C radioactive waste (GTCC).
Not included in this discussion is the other kind of bomb waste – defense-generated transuranic waste (TRU waste), which has its own repository at the WIPP site in New Mexico that has been operating since 1999. TRU waste includes everything from low-activity to high-activity waste like recycled spent fuel waste from old weapons reactors, and differs from HLW in where it came from in the bomb-making process.
The amount of SNF is slowly increasing as we continue to burn fuel for power, but the amount of HLW is not increasing at all, since we’re not making weapons anymore.
Secretary Moniz stated that DOE will use a consent-based approach to siting spent fuel storage and any nuclear waste repository, as recommended by the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future several years ago (BRC) and as outlined by DOE (Energy.gov).
This new plan, the framework of which was recommended by the BRC in 2011, has had bipartisan support in Congress over the last few years, primarily from Senators Alexander, Feinstein and Murkowski. The Senators recently unveiled the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2015 which would begin this process of revising our nuclear waste program.
Last week, President Obama authorized the Energy Department to move forward with a plan for a separate repository for high-level radioactive waste that was created from making atomic and nuclear weapons.
Immediately, Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz announced what we’ve been wanting for decades – a separate deep geologic nuclear waste repository for our defense-generated high-level nuclear waste (HLW), separate from one for our spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from commercial power reactors (DOE Path Forward).
If we can back-up and redo our nuclear waste
disposal program based on science, we have some relatively easy and
inexpensive paths forward. Defense waste is useless and should be
disposed of quickly and separately. Defense HLW could be disposed of in a
separate deep geologic repository, the best rock type being salt, of
which America has plenty. TRU is already being disposed of in salt at
the WIPP site in New Mexico. Or HLW could be redefined as TRU and also
sent to WIPP. Commercial spent nuclear fuel should be set aside in dry
cask storage to be burned later in fast reactors, or just disposed of if
we decide it’s easier. Fast reactors produced waste that is easier to
deal with and can be disposed of in boreholes deep in the Earth’s crust.
Of course, if we can’t work out a deal that everyone accepts, the waste
will stay right where it is, which isn’t as bad as it sounds from its
environmental impact. Sources: DOE, Sandia, NEI, FR – Copyright
TerraPower, LLC.
HLW is bomb waste. Weapons waste. Very different from commercial SNF which is not really waste at all.
Different in form – weapons waste is in various hard-to-handle forms; gunky, sludgy, nasty liquid, some solid – as opposed to dry, solid commercial spent fuel that is easy to handle and easy to store in dry casks once it is removed from the cooling pools after about 5 years.
Different in composition and types of radioactive and chemical components – SNF is primarily uranium oxide with some fission products and actinide elements produced from the fission process, but no toxic chemicals – HLW is chemically-reprocessed fuel so has residual fission products and actinide elements but lots and lots of toxic chemicals and metals used in the reprocessing.
Different in geographic location – HLW is in a relatively few locations at DOE sites like Hanford and Savannah River, while SNF is at all commercial nuclear power sites in 32 states.
Different in usefulness – HLW is from reprocessing of weapons reactor fuel and is totally waste, and of no further use. But SNF is quite useful – only about 5% of the energy contained in SNF is used after the first burning. The fuel can be recycled, but is even better saved to be burned later in fast reactors, providing about ten times the energy obtained from the original burning.
This last point is really the important one. A separate repository for useless defense waste would go faster and cheaper than a larger repository for both waste types.
Right now the “law” is that SNF and HLW have to be disposed of together at the same time, referred to as co-mingling, even if that makes no sense, and that the repository has to have a 50-year retrievability period for the spent fuel, in case we want to use it again.
The Secretary’s announcement signals an end to this nonsense, and is an attempt to bring science and common sense back into what became a horribly political process in the 1970s and 80s.
The amount of nuclear waste in America is quite small, totaling less than a soccer field. The United States has about 80,000 metric tons each of SNF and HLW, measured as metric tons of heavy metals, or MTHM. SNF doesn’t need any reprocessing or alteration to be disposed of, or shipped or just stored.
On the other hand, HLW is in different liquid, sludge and solid forms in various containers such as the 90 million gallons stored in large tanks at Hanford, Savannah River and other DOE facilities. HLW needs to be solidified and packaged by various methods, depending on where it ends up for disposal, including simple drying, grouting (cementing), vitrifying (glassification) or steam reforming (mineralization).
In addition to SNF and HLW, a minor amount of other wastes are included in the discussion of a deep geologic repository and include nuclear navy waste, weapons proliferation-related international waste, research materials and greater than Class C radioactive waste (GTCC).
Not included in this discussion is the other kind of bomb waste – defense-generated transuranic waste (TRU waste), which has its own repository at the WIPP site in New Mexico that has been operating since 1999. TRU waste includes everything from low-activity to high-activity waste like recycled spent fuel waste from old weapons reactors, and differs from HLW in where it came from in the bomb-making process.
The amount of SNF is slowly increasing as we continue to burn fuel for power, but the amount of HLW is not increasing at all, since we’re not making weapons anymore.
Secretary Moniz stated that DOE will use a consent-based approach to siting spent fuel storage and any nuclear waste repository, as recommended by the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future several years ago (BRC) and as outlined by DOE (Energy.gov).
This new plan, the framework of which was recommended by the BRC in 2011, has had bipartisan support in Congress over the last few years, primarily from Senators Alexander, Feinstein and Murkowski. The Senators recently unveiled the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2015 which would begin this process of revising our nuclear waste program.
Of course, this new (and
better) strategy will have to be hammered out amongst all the relevant
parties and stakeholders, but the separation of these very different
waste types can only make the final job of disposal easier and cheaper.
The present plan,
enshrined into law in 1982 and 1987, had so many flaws that the cost has
just skyrocketed and the schedule has been pushed out almost a hundred
years.
But we might just get back on track!
Follow Jim on
https://twitter.com/JimConca and see his and Dr. Wright’s book at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1419675885/sr=1-10/qid=1195953013/
