Vitrification Woes

Vitrification (melting things into glass objects) is often pulled out as the magic answer for nuke waste. Unfortunately, it has a bit of a dodgy record in practice. Two examples:

Problems Aplenty Hitting Washington's $6-Billion Nuke-Cleanup Plant - Site Selection Online - 2004

"'By speeding up the project, the Energy Department hasn't fully investigated alternative approaches to separating the tank waste, a key step to the treatment process that precedes . . . vitrifying it,' the GAO's report noted. 'That omission could cost the project about $50 million annually and locks it into a sole provider of a product key to the process.'

And $50 million a year times 20 to 40 years could make for a whopper of an added cost.

Sticker shock, though, is nothing new for the project. The estimated cost of building the Hanford plant has dramatically escalated several times.

The first of those increases came after DOE signed the U.S. subsidiary of BNFL (formerly known as British Nuclear Fuels Limited) in 1998 to design the Hanford facility. That contract had earlier been put out for bid as part of the DOE's privatization program, initiated in 1995 for cleaning up the agency's own contaminated sites. The British firm at the time also said that it also hoped to land the contract to build and operate the Hanford treatment plant.

Initially, BNFL (www.bnfl.com) estimated that building the vitrification plant would cost $3.2 billion. After two years of design work, though, BNFL's cost estimate had skyrocketed to $15.2 billion. That escalation, plus concerns over BNFL's work quality, prompted the DOE to drop the company with the design contract's completion in August of 2000."

'Shambolic' Sellafield in Crisis Again After Damning Safety Report -The Independent - 03 Feb 08

"The stinging report, by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, reveals the extent of the mess. After reprocessing, highly dangerous radioactive liquid waste is concentrated through evaporation and stored above ground in 21 giant steel tanks before being 'vitrified' ? bound into glass for disposal. But the report shows that every stage of this process is in crisis.

Two of the three evaporators have been shut due to safety problems, and there are continuing "difficulties" with vitrification. But the most alarming issue is the failure of equipment needed to cool the waste, which could, at worst, lead to an explosion, scattering radioactivity across much of the country. Studies suggest that for every tank that exploded 210,000 people would die from cancer."

Vitrification Woes

Vitrification (melting things into glass objects) is often pulled out as the magic answer for nuke waste. Unfortunately, it has a bit of a dodgy record in practice. Two examples:

Problems Aplenty Hitting Washington's $6-Billion Nuke-Cleanup Plant - Site Selection Online - 2004

"'By speeding up the project, the Energy Department hasn't fully investigated alternative approaches to separating the tank waste, a key step to the treatment process that precedes . . . vitrifying it,' the GAO's report noted. 'That omission could cost the project about $50 million annually and locks it into a sole provider of a product key to the process.'

And $50 million a year times 20 to 40 years could make for a whopper of an added cost.

Sticker shock, though, is nothing new for the project. The estimated cost of building the Hanford plant has dramatically escalated several times.

The first of those increases came after DOE signed the U.S. subsidiary of BNFL (formerly known as British Nuclear Fuels Limited) in 1998 to design the Hanford facility. That contract had earlier been put out for bid as part of the DOE's privatization program, initiated in 1995 for cleaning up the agency's own contaminated sites. The British firm at the time also said that it also hoped to land the contract to build and operate the Hanford treatment plant.

Initially, BNFL (www.bnfl.com) estimated that building the vitrification plant would cost $3.2 billion. After two years of design work, though, BNFL's cost estimate had skyrocketed to $15.2 billion. That escalation, plus concerns over BNFL's work quality, prompted the DOE to drop the company with the design contract's completion in August of 2000."

'Shambolic' Sellafield in Crisis Again After Damning Safety Report -The Independent - 03 Feb 08

"The stinging report, by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, reveals the extent of the mess. After reprocessing, highly dangerous radioactive liquid waste is concentrated through evaporation and stored above ground in 21 giant steel tanks before being 'vitrified' ? bound into glass for disposal. But the report shows that every stage of this process is in crisis.

Two of the three evaporators have been shut due to safety problems, and there are continuing "difficulties" with vitrification. But the most alarming issue is the failure of equipment needed to cool the waste, which could, at worst, lead to an explosion, scattering radioactivity across much of the country. Studies suggest that for every tank that exploded 210,000 people would die from cancer."