ML20148K868
| ML20148K868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/02/1980 |
| From: | Cromer S Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Lawroski S Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-CT-1286, NUDOCS 8012080202 | |
| Download: ML20148K868 (2) | |
Text
y l"
october 2, 19 e 7..jp gg I
(
1 MEMORANDUM FOR:
S. Iawroski, Chaiman Subecessittee on Radioactive Waste Management FRCM:
Sylvan Cramer ACRS Consultant
SUBJECT:
Geologic Disposal of Spent Fuel Fran the infomation furnished on the Disposal of High Imvel Waste by Garry G. Young, there appears to be no technical reason why spent fuel elements cannot be safely disposed of in geologie repositories. Although at present there appears to be little economic incentive for reprocessing spent fuel, there appears to be a number of reasons why it should not be considered as waste and buried.
W principal reason is it's value as a source of energy.
J It is estimated that a light water reactor utilizing the present once through fuel cycle would produce about one sixtieth of the l
energy that might be produced in a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor. Our domestie uranium reserves are not unlimited. The Atomio Industrial Forum estimates they are adequate for only about 10,000 GW years of light water reactor operation and would be exhausted by year 2040 High level was+e from reprocessed fuel offers th*o*following advantages our spent fuel for geologie disposal.
1.
High level waste may be put into the best available form, glass, oeramics, etc. for disposal.
2 Heat generation is lower and would therefore reduce the size of the repository.
3.
N rmal decay is faster.
4.
Toxicity reaches that for ore in about 500 years % bout one-half the timo required for spent fuel.
5.
The potential energy available in a repository filled with spent fuel would provide a powerful incentive to open it and recover the uranium and plutonium if it is needed for power or defense purposes in the future.
6.
Safe underwater interim storage of spent fuel has been deme,nstrated for over thirty years.
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES
<" 012 0 gg 902
i l-l i
The following have endorsed W practice of underwater storage of spent fuel in their Statements of Position PR-50,51 l
l M FR 61372:
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Scientista and Engineers for Secun Energy, Connecticut Chapter American Nuclear Society State of Ohio Atonio Industrial Fons Utility Wasta Management Group. Edison Electrio Institute hnnessee Valley Authority All exoopt the State of Ohio and The Tennessee Valley Authority specifically recommended reprocessing prior to disposal.
Seventeen Countries are planning or developing High Invol Waste Disposal Facilities. All seventeen are looking at Geologio Disposal as % preferred method. For the most part the ultisste waste fom will be solid vitrified waste produced from reprocessed spent fuel. All propose over twenty-five years of interim under-water storage to provide initial cooling. Sweden plans e forty year cooling period.
It would therefore seem reasonable to roccamend that intwria -
underwater storage be continued to provide time for a demonstration of the Breeder Reactors now being built and in operation throu6 out h
~
the wor?'
9
,ri