Trump plans to reclassify nuclear waste - Make America Glow Again

[essentialsaltes]

I not aware that the non-solid radioactive material was part of the plan.
…
This change was only for specific solid waste that met a specific criteria.

While there is no final rule, liquid waste is part of the conversation.

The terms “highly radioactive,” and “sufficient concentrations” are not defined in the AEA or the NWPA. By providing in paragraph A that liquid reprocessing waste is HLW only if it is “highly radioactive,” and that solid waste derived from liquid reprocessing waste is HLW only if it is “highly radioactive” and contains fission products in “sufficient concentrations” without further defining these standards, Congress left it to DOE to determine when these standards are met. Given Congress' intent that not all reprocessing waste is HLW, it is appropriate for DOE to use its expertise to interpret the definition of HLW, consistent with proper statutory construction, to distinguish waste that is non-HLW from waste that is HLW.

 

[Andrew77]

While there is no final rule, liquid waste is part of the conversation.

The terms “highly radioactive,” and “sufficient concentrations” are not defined in the AEA or the NWPA. By providing in paragraph A that liquid reprocessing waste is HLW only if it is “highly radioactive,” and that solid waste derived from liquid reprocessing waste is HLW only if it is “highly radioactive” and contains fission products in “sufficient concentrations” without further defining these standards, Congress left it to DOE to determine when these standards are met. Given Congress' intent that not all reprocessing waste is HLW, it is appropriate for DOE to use its expertise to interpret the definition of HLW, consistent with proper statutory construction, to distinguish waste that is non-HLW from waste that is HLW.

Well obviously I would think the DOE is wrong to classify any radioactive liquid as not being a high priority.

Solid state radioactive material, at either high or low level, is not nearly as damaging as radioactive liquid obviously. If solid material falls over and/or breaks out of the casket, a robot can put it back in, and seal the casket back up.

Liquid is infinitely more troublesome when spilt.

I would hope that the DOE would be wise enough to never consider leaving radioactive water in containers.

You know, if political crap wasn't going on, I would say there is a solution.

The Russians already have a vitrification facility. What they don't have is deep sea clean up technology. I was reading that the Russians have already asked for help in removing waste they dumped north of Siberia.

If all this Russia threw the US election crap wasn't going on, I would suggest making a deal with Russia. We'll help clean up their waste site, in exchange for them processing this radioactive crap we have.

It will never happen though. This is why we should have outsourced the clean up decades ago, and had firms make competing bids on how to deal with it.