Adrian--
High level radioactive waste (HLRW) and low level radioactive waste (LLRW)
are two different categories of waste produced by nuclear power plants.
LLRW has had a disposal solution for a long time--near surface burial of the
waste with class A LLRW closer to the surface than class C LLRW. The
requirements for the burial site require institutional control of the burial
grounds for 100 years past closure of the burial site. After that the NRC
regulations assume that intrusion may occur but that the wastes with not
cause health problems because of their decay to non-hazardous isotopes.
For HLRW there is no accepted processing for the spent fuel which is
considered HLRW. Vitrification of spent fuel has never been an option. I
was involved with the Electromelt vitrification process in the early 80's.
It could work for very selected types of radioactive waste, but not spent
fuel. Even the liquid HLRW at Hanford could not be handled in the
Electromelt facility. It had no use at any nuclear power plant IMHO.
The designer (I have forgotten his name) of the Electromelt plant, an older
inventor from the Seattle area, knew how to make borosilicate glass and
other common types of glass, but had very little knowledge about the
problems with handling highly radioactive wastes with a variety of odd
substances, including nitrates, sulfates and other problem ions, in the
Hanford liquid waste stream.
What's more, the glass that Electromelt was suggesting as a waste form had
no long term integrity--long term with respect to the half-life the the
Hanford HLRW stream. Considering the relatively low liquidus temperature
of borosilicate glass, that glass was expected to devitrify within about
500 years and turn to a crystalized sandy substance with little or no
ability to retain long-lived radionuclides.
35 yeas ago the NRC determined that it was an impractical requirement to
establish a minimum life-time for a HLRW form such as vitrified waste form.
The simple rationale was that it is difficult, if not impossible, to make a
"silk purse out of a sow's ear". It was a much better idea to put the
requirement on the integrity of the waste package and the surrounding
engineered barriers in a geologic repository. And that is how the NRC's
requirements for HLRW disposal were written.
Bob Cook
-----Original Message-----
From: a.ashfield
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 12:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DoE Funds Two Advanced Nuclear Programs
Bob Cook wrote:
" Governments around the world have been working on that issue for about
60 years. There is not a good solution that’s within economic and
political
“reason”."
From my paper "Cleaning up the Nuclear Waste at Hanford" published in
Glass Industry Oct 2000
Electromelt designed and built a 6
ton/day vitrification furnace for the
DOE in nine months for $900,000 in
1981, the furnace produced excel-
lent glass, but, despite having commis-
sioned it, the DOE refused to inspect it.
Instead the DOE hired a local company
to cut it up and take the remains to the
local scrap year.
This furnace was designed to be built at every nuclear power plant so
that radwaste could be vitrified on site before transporting it for
storage. So solutions have been available for long time.
