I'm not sure whether the "no reprocessing" plan would leave the fluorides and whatnot in the waste. It seems like it'd be relatively simple to separate that just to reduce the waste volume, after letting it cool for several years. I was referring to recycling the spent fuel into the reactor.
From Terrestrial Energy's page on waste:
- The IMSR burns its fuel far more efficiently than conventional reactors and leaves only one-sixth of the plutonium waste per unit of energy
- The IMSR creates power far more efficiently than conventional reactors and leaves one-third less fission product waste per kWh of electricity
- With the addition of IMSR waste fuel recycling, the IMSR can consume all its fuel and leave no plutonium waste
- Recycling liquid fuel waste is technically and economically far more viable than recycling of the solid fuel waste of conventional reactors.
From Terrestrial Energy's page on waste:
- The IMSR burns its fuel far more efficiently than conventional reactors and leaves only one-sixth of the plutonium waste per unit of energy
- The IMSR creates power far more efficiently than conventional reactors and leaves one-third less fission product waste per kWh of electricity
- With the addition of IMSR waste fuel recycling, the IMSR can consume all its fuel and leave no plutonium waste
- Recycling liquid fuel waste is technically and economically far more viable than recycling of the solid fuel waste of conventional reactors.
http://terrestrialenergy.com/waste/