Can Radioactive Material Be Recycled?

[russ_watters]

When I was working toward my doctorate at M.I.T. - I attended a seminar
by the then president of the American Nuclear Society. He stated that
in the wake of TMI, scientists and engineers could tell the CEOs of
utilities that the nuclear power plant that they were running could
financially destroy their company if they don't run it correctly!

THAT gets their attention. Then he said the good news was "...we can
help you.." - the "we" being the engineers.

For the last quarter century - that IS the way it has been in the nuclear
industry. Utilities are extremely careful in the manner in which they
operate nuclear power plants.

Slightly related/OT, but this reminds me of the Morton Thykol (sp?) Engineering Ethics case study. The management of that company overruled their engineers on an engineering decision which led directly to the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger.

The point is that managers seem to me to be equally arrogant/ignorant in dealing with engineers and engineering decisions: but only once. One error caused by not listening to engineers is enough to destroy a company or even an industry when the stakes are this high. TMI was that one error and I believe Morbius when he says 'the management' got the message.

 

[brewnog]

...but Yucca is our only hope.

So basically, that's untrue. Reprocessing, and storage elsewhere, are both perfectly viable solutions which are being constantly discredited. I now see that Rocky Flats is not even an example of a waste disposal plant, let alone an example of why reprocessing should not be carried out in the US!

If reprocessing was inherently as dangerous as is being made out, I doubt the States would be as happy to outsource nuclear waste reprocessing as they currently are.

 

[Morbius]

So basically, that's untrue. Reprocessing, and storage elsewhere, are both perfectly viable solutions which are being constantly discredited. I now see that Rocky Flats is not even an example of a waste disposal plant, let alone an example of why reprocessing should not be carried out in the US!

If reprocessing was inherently as dangerous as is being made out, I doubt the States would be as happy to outsource nuclear waste reprocessing as they currently are.

brewnog,

Reprocessing isn't being opposed because it is dangerous - but because of
the type of waste reduction it represents.

The bulk of the material discharged from a reactor is U-238. U-238
represents the bulk of the material that went into the reactor, and the
bulk of the material that comes out.

The 3-4% of the fresh fuel that was U-235 has been fissioned - and
replaced by radioactive fission products. A small amount of U-238 has
been transmuted to Pu-239 and either fissions or remains in the fuel.

However, the bulk of the spent fuel is represented by U-238 that is no
more radioactive than when it was dug out of the ground.

Reprocessing allows one to separate the U-238 from the radioactive
fission products and actinides. It's the fission products and actinides
that are the true "nuclear waste".

One can visualize the degree of waste reduction from the following.
If all the electricity for a family of 4 were generated by nuclear power
for 20 years - the waste generated would fit in a shoebox.

If one reprocesses that shoebox full of waste - one is left with an amount
of waste that fits in a common pill bottle.

That's the reason some are opposed to reprocessing - it greatly reduces
the volume of waste. Some don't want to reduce the amount of waste.
They also don't want to open a facility to store the waste. Their
objective is to totally stop the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle - to
stop any way of dealing with the waste. They want the spent fuel to
accumulate in the cooling pools at the reactors. If they can stop the
disposal of waste - and the pools fill up - then the utility can't operate
the reactor which will generate more waste. They will have succeeded
in their true objective - shutting down the nuclear power industry.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Arctic Fox]

brewnog,
They want the spent fuel to accumulate in the cooling pools at the reactors.

Sheesh, contact me via email and I'll give them a location in Mexico they can drop it off for me...

 

[brewnog]

Cheers for that Morbius, sorry, I wasn't implying that it was commonly being made out that it was dangerous, rather just that it seemed CharlesP was making it out as such.

But even with all that said, (esp. the bit about people being opposed to volume reduction), do you believe it *still* boils down to general public/political misconception?

 

[CharlesP]

Nuclear waste does decay. The longest lived nuclear waste component of any consequence is Cesium-137 which has a 30 year half-life.
So the radioactive decay of nuclear waste is bounded above by an
envelope with a 30 year half-life decay rate.

Using this as a starting point I did a rough calculation and came to the conclusion that a pill bottle of Cs137 will decay to about 600 atoms in 2100 years. (6x10E23 = 600x 10E21 = 600 x 2E70 --> 70x30 = 2100 years)
I think I could tolerate 600 radioactive atoms in my yard. That is a lot less than the cosmic ray background.
Then why does anyone care about containment longer than two thousand years?

 

[Astronuc]

Then why does anyone care about containment longer than two thousand years?

Because - some isotopes will moderate to long half-lives are still around, e.g.

Pu-239
Half life: 24,131 yr

Pu-240
Half life: 6564 years

Pu-242
Half life: 373,300 years

If particles of Pu-239 and 240 are inhaled into the lung or ingested into the body, there is a strong risk of cancer. There are those who are opposed to YM because they believe that something catastrophic will occur such that the Pu material will escape and find its way to populated areas where it will be absorbed in a favorable manner and cause cancer. Others believe that terrorists will sabotage a shipment of spent fuel on its way to YM, with the same results - dispersion of Pu and other fission products into the environment. However, shipping systems are designed to be secure and since they are massive, no one is going to grab and run off with a spent fuel container.

 

[Morbius]

Because - some isotopes will moderate to long half-lives are still around, e.g.

Pu-239
Half life: 24,131 yr

Pu-240
Half life: 6564 years

Pu-242
Half life: 373,300 years

If particles of Pu-239 and 240 are inhaled into the lung or ingested into the body, there is a strong risk of cancer. There are those who are opposed to YM because they believe that something catastrophic will occur such that the Pu material will escape and find its way to populated areas where it will be absorbed in a favorable manner and cause cancer. Others believe that terrorists will sabotage a shipment of spent fuel on its way to YM, with the same results - dispersion of Pu and other fission products into the environment. However, shipping systems are designed to be secure and since they are massive, no one is going to grab and run off with a spent fuel container.

Astronuc,

However, Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-242 are exactly the isotopes that will
be removed from the waste and recycled back to the reactor to be
fissioned if one reprocesses.

When one reprocesses nuclear waste, the Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-242
will no longer be in the waste stream that is buried.

That's another good reason to reprocess - it makes the disposal of
nuclear waste much, much easier! That's why countries other than the
USA, like Great Britain and France - reprocess their spent fuel.

It's a win-win situation; one gets additional "mileage" from the nuclear
fuel - by being able to get additional energy by fissioning the residual
Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-242 in spent fuel which will be separated out and
returned to the reactor as fuel. One eliminates the long lived isotopes
from the waste stream - so one doesn't need to worry about the long
lived isotopes - they are no longer in the waste stream.

Reprocessing just makes so much sense - which is why the obstructionist
anti-nuclear people got Congress to outlaw it in the USA back in 1978!

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

I agree that Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-242 are exactly the isotopes that will be removed from the waste stream and recycled if the US were to reprocess.

But the utilization of YM is for a once-through fuel cycle, which is where the US is today.

The point I was trying to make is that there are those opponents of YM who are afraid that these Pu isotopes will somehow leak out of YM and get into the environment. I happen to disagree with that scenario.

I would certainly be interested to see if someone in DOE or the commercial industry seriously considers reprocessing again.

 

[CharlesP]

One problem with reprocessing is that no chemical process is perfect. That means separation will be only approximate. There will be some of everything in each waste stream. That probably is not acceptable depending on the numbers which I don't have.

Then for more trouble - anyone remember Karen Silkwood? Wasn't a movie made about her?

 

[Morbius]

One problem with reprocessing is that no chemical process is perfect. That means separation will be only approximate. There will be some of everything in each waste stream. That probably is not acceptable depending on the numbers which I don't have.

Then for more trouble - anyone remember Karen Silkwood? Wasn't a movie made about her?

Charles,

Once again I have to disagree!

The chemical process that separates out Plutonium for example is a 19 step
process that switches the valence state that is being selected at each step.

In other words, the process is a 19 step gamut - and only Plutonium with
its unique set of valence states can successfully run that gamut. Thus it
makes for an extremely selective chemical process.

As for Karen Silkwood, she was a worker at the Kerr-McGee weapons
plant in Oklahoma where she prepared Plutonium fuel for the U.S.
Government's weapons production reactors.

She died in a single car accident in which she ran off the road. The
movie tried to imply that somehow she was murdered - but there has
never been any evidence of that.

One can read about the Karen Silkwood story at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/silkwood.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[hitssquad]

Karen Silkwood without tears or with distortion

One can read about the Karen Silkwood story at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/silkwood.html

Maybe not. Compared against the investigative report published in the December 1979 and January 1980 issues of the Saturday Evening Post (Nick Thimmesch. "Karen Silkwood Without Tears.") the PBS summary seems incomplete and distorted.

 

[Morbius]

Maybe not. Compared against the investigative report published in the December 1979 and January 1980 issues of the Saturday Evening Post (Nick Thimmesch. "Karen Silkwood Without Tears.") the PBS summary seems incomplete and distorted.

hitssquad,

Perhaps you could enlighten us further?

A URL or a synopsis?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Further information on the reasons for reprocessing:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Arctic Fox]

Why not shove this stuff back from where we got it - in the original Uranium mines?

 

[CharlesP]

How about all the other radioactive isotopes in a fuel rod. Doees each get a bunch of steps too? Which is first?

If uranium is not dangerous how come there is all this fuss about Uranium mine tailings?

 

[Astronuc]

In reprocessing the idea is to dissolve the fuel into some aqueous solution, e.g. nitric acid. In this solution, the desired elements (in this case isotopes of U and Pu) are selectively extracted into another solution (solvent extraction).

The U,Pu solution is then processed to remove the U and Pu which will ultimately become UO2 and PuO2 to be used in fuel again.

The other solution (the 'waste' stream) contains the undesirable fission products and perhaps transuranics which could also be extracted if the economics dictate. These can then be precipitated or absorbed preferentially on a filter, and removed from the solution. The aqueous solution can be recycled in a closed loop back to the nitric acid make up.

The precipitates of fission products in the form of oxides and hydroxides (and some other complexes) can then be dried and calcined (i.e. made into a ceramic or metal oxide). The ceramic is mixed with other (inert) glass/ceramics and vitrified into either a glass or synthetic mineral (e.g. Synroc). That material can be encapsulated in a corrosion resistant container and buried. This is pretty much the French method - burying the vitrified waste.

As with any mining operation, tailings are the spoils of the mining operation. They are more or less like sand or dirt. Rain may wash through the tailings and leach out other elements (heavy metals). In the case of uranium ore deposits, there are trace levels of decay products from the natural decay of uranium - including actinium, radium, radon, polonium, and a few other radionuclides, and lead, which is not radioactive, but is a heavy metal. Some of these elements can be found in coal deposits as well.

There are usually other elements like vanadium in some uranium ores such as carnotite and tyuyamunite. The vanadium is extracted in addition to the uranium.

 

[Morbius]

How about all the other radioactive isotopes in a fuel rod. Doees each get a bunch of steps too? Which is first?

If uranium is not dangerous how come there is all this fuss about Uranium mine tailings?

Charles,

As Astronuc points out - all the actinides can be separated from the
fission products.

The point about Uranium - is why should one demand that U-238 be be
sealed in borosilicate glass, then several layers of steel, and finally
buried in a repository - while all the time the anti-nukes are screaming
"bloody murder" - when U-238 exists in the ground naturally - and without
all the extra containment.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[CharlesP]

Whole areas of Colorado contaminated by mine tailings are considered unfit to live on. All of this is "natural" material.

 

[tumor]

Charles,

As Astronuc points out - all the actinides can be separated from the
fission products.

The point about Uranium - is why should one demand that U-238 be be
sealed in borosilicate glass, then several layers of steel, and finally
buried in a repository - while all the time the anti-nukes are screaming
"bloody murder" - when U-238 exists in the ground naturally - and without
all the extra containment.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Maybe because U-238 in nature is not as concentrated as in radioactive waste.

 

[Astronuc]

Spent fuel is mostly U238 in the form of UO2. In modern fuel cycles, the content of U235 varies between 4-5%, so 95-96% of U is U238.

During operation in a LWR core, two things happen with the U, 1) the U-235 fissions producing two fission products, and 2) U-238 absorbs neutrons to eventually produce Pu-239 (and other isotopes of Pu, Am, Cm, with the latter two being in low levels).

At discharge, modern fuel with have a burnup (energy produced/unit mass of U) of 50-60 GWd/tU. This is roughly equivalent to 5-6% of initial U consumed, which is now in the form of highly radioactive fission products. Also, part of the fissioning occurs in the Pu-239 that is produced by conversion of U-238, as Morbius pointed out elsewhere, and in high burnup fuel, as much as half the fissions are in Pu-239.

Mine tailings have 'natural' amounts of radioactive elements (related to the decay of U-235 and U-238), which are left after the U ore has been extracted.

Every mining operation (for copper, gold, silver, iron, lead, zinc, molybdenum, etc) leaves tailings which release heavy metals into the environment - so it is not just U mining that causes hazards, although due to their nature, U mine tailings would have higher level of radioactivity.

"According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, sedimentary rocks such as shale and sandstone (quarts) contain about one (1) to four (4) micrograms of uranium per gram of rock. Beach sands contain about three (3) micrograms of uranium per gram of sand. And soil contains, on average, one (1) to three (3) micrograms of uranium per gram.

Igneous rocks, such as basalt, salic and granite, can contain from 0.5 to four (4) micrograms of uranium per gram of rock. However, there can be wide variations in this range in certain regions of the world. Because of the way these rocks were formed during the cooling of magma, light-colored igneous rocks tend to have the highest concentrations of radioactivity." from http://www.iem-inc.com/askq32r.html

So radioactivity is not unique to U-mine tailings, although there is somewhat higher levels than the examples just stated.

 

[Morbius]

Maybe because U-238 in nature is not as concentrated as in radioactive waste.

tumor,

As astronuc correctly points out - the concentration of U-238 in nuclear
waste is about 96% or so.

The concentration of U-238 in natural uranium is 99.3%

So the concentration of U-238 in natural uranium EXCEEDS the percentage
in spent fuel.

So much for your argument.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[CharlesP]

The US uses depleted uranium in some munitions because of its density. There has been quite a controversy about it.

Houses were built on ground contaminated with mine tailings in Colorado and I suspect those developments were abandoned.

There was a criticality accident in Japan a few years back in which at least one person was exposed or killed. The result has been resignation of at least one corporate officer and a public relations disaster for the Japanese nuclear industry.

The continued use of fuel rod cooling pools in the US has been a very undesirable development.

I was told by an ex Navy reactor man that there is no way to safely contain nuclear waste.

 

[hitssquad]

there is no way to safely

This is a philosophy question and it belongs in the philosophy section of Physics Forums.

 

[Morbius]

I was told by an ex Navy reactor man that there is no way to safely contain nuclear waste.

Charles,

Then your ex Navy reactor man doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about.

The National Academies of Science and Engineering say that nuclear
waste can be safely contained. [ In fact it was the National Academy of
Science that first suggested a "Yucca Mountain" type repository back
in the late '50s.]


Scientists from our National Laboratories say nuclear waste can be
safely contained:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Glassley.html

Nuclear waste storage has been very thoroughly studied.

Additionally, it's not like we have any option - nuclear waste exists!
We can't "unmake" it - it HAS to be stored somewhere!

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[russ_watters]

I was told by an ex Navy reactor man that there is no way to safely contain nuclear waste.

This is obviously false at face value: nuclear waste has been safely contained for 50 years.

 

[Nereid]

Wouldn't it be nice to have some natural reactors, with buried spent fuel and decay products, to study? Maybe then we could see how many harmful effects there are, through a perfectly natural experiment We could also calibrate ... you know, near this natural reactor, there seem to have been no increases in harmful effects due to radiation, over those of similar natural sites of enhanced radiation (e.g. certain basalts and granites), and way below such unnatural activities as flying thousands of hours in jets at 35k feet (or higher ... do the calculations on the increased exposure due to cosmic rays - or don't, if you don't want to get a big shock).

Ah, but there aren't any natural reactors, are there. Too bad.

But wait! Did I hear someone say http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/index.shtml ?

 

[Morbius]

Wouldn't it be nice to have some natural reactors, with buried spent fuel and decay products, to study?

Nereid,

EXACTLY.

The natural reactors at Oklo and Gabon have been extensively studied.

It's been shown that soil is such a good ion exchange medium, that the
fission products get trapped and don't migrate very far in millions of years -
even though there were absolutely no measures taken to inhibit that
migration.

Contrast that with the Yucca Mountain repository - where the waste is
encapsulated in something like borosilicate glass, which is then encased
in steel containers...

The scientific consensus, as opined by the National Academies of
Science and Engineering, from our best Ph.D. level scientists state that
nuclear waste CAN be successfully contained, the opinions of unidentified
Navy reactor operators, nothwithstanding.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[nikkkom]

Carnot's law. The hotter the core temperature of a heat engine, absolutely relative to the coolant temperature, the more efficient it is. A heat engine (such as a turbine, which would be a poor choice for a low-temperature heat source) running off of the decay heat of spent reactor fuel would be too inefficient to produce electricity economically.

Well, nuclear fuel's temperature can be high - it all depends on how much energy you take away from it. IOW: if you have lots of spent fuel sitting in relatively well-insulated water tank and use a *small* amount of steam from it to drive a *small* turbine, then the temperature of that tank can be kept high enough to have a decent efficiency.

I guess it is just not economical.

 

[nikkkom]

How about all the other radioactive isotopes in a fuel rod. Doees each get a bunch of steps too? Which is first?
If uranium is not dangerous how come there is all this fuss about Uranium mine tailings?

Uranium mine tailings contain not so much uranium but its decay products - which are about 8 times more radioactive than uranium per se, and have varying chemical and biological properties - some are gaseous (radon), some are absorbed into the bones when ingested (radium).

 

[jim hardy]

i'd like to see mankind do a better job of isolating the "bad" components

tha actual mass of them isn't so great

i've wondered for years whether the really nasty stuff could be shot into the sun, where the extreme conditions would likely dissociate it down the curve of B.E. ?

 

[etudiant]

i'd like to see mankind do a better job of isolating the "bad" components

tha actual mass of them isn't so great

i've wondered for years whether the really nasty stuff could be shot into the sun, where the extreme conditions would likely dissociate it down the curve of B.E. ?

Given that no current space launch system has even 99% reliability, that possibility is unfortunately excluded. The failure is too messy.