Tesla_WTC_Solution
22nd June 2013, 18:25
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/us/washington-hanford-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130621191927-02-hanford-nuclear-site-story-top.jpg
U.S. engineers to inspect possible leak at Hanford nuclear site
By Michael Martinez, CNN
updated 12:09 AM EDT, Sat June 22, 2013
(CNN) -- U.S. inspectors are investigating a possible leak at the Hanford nuclear site after an elevated contamination reading was found in a leak detection pit, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said Friday.
The elevated reading, however, doesn't pose an immediate public health threat, Inslee said.
"This is most disturbing news for Washington," the governor said in a statement. "The discovery was made during a routine pumping outside the tank when pumps are also surveyed for radioactivity."
The leak detection pit is located outside and adjacent to a double-shell tank identified as AY-102, the governor said.
"It is not clear yet whether that contamination is coming directly from the outer shell of the AY-102 but it must be treated with the utmost seriousness," Inslee said.
The U.S. Department of Energy has assigned engineers to analyze the source of contamination through sampling and video inspection, a process that could take several days, the governor said.
The Hanford site, which once produced plutonium for atomic weapons, borders the Columbia River.
"Given the relatively early detection of this potential leak, the river is not at immediate risk of contamination should it be determined that a leak has occurred outside the tank," Inslee said.
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz just paid his first visit to the Hanford site on Wednesday.
Even before learning of a possible leak, Inslee told Moniz he has "serious concerns regarding the pace of addressing the leaking tanks," Inslee said.
"We will be insisting on an acceleration of remediation of all the tanks, not just AY-102. USDOE has a legal obligation to clean up Hanford and remove or treat that waste, and we ensure that legal obligation is fulfilled," the governor said.
_______________________________________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Spent_nuclear_fuel_hanford.jpg/220px-Spent_nuclear_fuel_hanford.jpg
Spent nuclear fuel stored underwater and uncapped in Hanford's K-East Basin
Under the Tri-Party Agreement, lower-level hazardous wastes are buried in huge lined pits that will be sealed and monitored with sophisticated instruments for many years. Disposal of plutonium and other high-level wastes is a more difficult problem that continues to be a subject of intense debate. As an example, plutonium has a half-life of 24,100 years, and a decay of ten half-lives is required before a sample is considered to be safe.[68][69] The Department of Energy is currently building a vitrification plant on the Hanford Site. Vitrification is a method designed to combine these dangerous wastes with glass to render them stable. Bechtel, the San Francisco based construction and engineering firm, has been hired to construct the vitrification plant. Construction began in 2001. It was originally scheduled to be operational by 2011, with vitrification completed by 2028.[64][70][71] As of 2012, according to a study by the General Accounting Office, there were a number of serious unresolved technical and managerial problems.[72] As of 2013 estimated costs were $13.4 billion with commencement of operations estimated to be in 2022 with about 3 decades of operation.[73]
________________________________________________________________
http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/K-Basins
http://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-99-267
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Department of Energy's (DOE) efforts to improve the storage of spent nuclear fuel from its nuclear reactors at DOE's Hanford Site in Washington State, focusing on: (1) its status; (2) what problems might affect achieving cost and schedule estimates; and (3) whether changes have been sufficient to address management weaknesses.
GAO noted that: (1) although DOE has increased confidence that the project eventually will begin to remove fuel from the water storage basins, uncertainty remains over when the project will be finished and how much it will cost; (2) completion is scheduled for July 2007 at a cost of $1.7 billion--about 6 years and $1 billion beyond the original estimates made in 1995; (3) however, the new completion date includes $133.5 million and about 2 years for work activities not included in the original estimate; (4) compared with conditions that GAO reported on in May of last year, the amount of progress is substantial, with considerable construction completed and equipment installation under way; (5) since the schedule was established in December 1998, the estimated date for completing safety documentation has slipped, operational readiness issues have become major challenges, and most of the extra time built into the schedule for addressing contingencies has already been used up; (6) DOE's contractors have addressed the three main problems that existed earlier in the project--an unrealistic schedule, poor control over the project's baseline, and unresolved technical issues--but still have several matters to resolve before being able to provide assurance that cost and schedule estimates can be met; (7) the time required to reassess the procedures for removing loaded fuel-shipping casks from the basins and the compressed schedule to complete safety documentation and pass readiness reviews place in jeopardy a project milestone to begin removing fuel from the first storage basin by November 2000; (8) to process the fuel within the project's completion dates and cost targets, DOE and its contractors must ensure the reliability of complex one-of-a-kind equipment that has not yet been operated as a system; (9) DOE's contractor must also overcome challenges in hiring operations staff and in processing the spent fuel at a rate that can meet the project's milestones; (10) corrective actions have addressed some but not all of the management weaknesses on the project; and (11) although DOE's contractor responsible for overall management of the Hanford Site has consolidated its control over the project and made other changes to strengthen the project's performance, it has been slow to address problems with safety documentation and quality assurance.
_______________________________________________________________
http://www.asminternational.org/portal/site/csc/Details/?vgnextoid=1d0cb2c38cc32210VgnVCM100000701e010aRCRD&campaign=recommends-personal
Interim Storage of Hanford Spent Fuel & Associated Sludge
Author(s): MAKENAS, B.J.;
From: DOE Technical Report Server (U.S. Department of Energy)
Published: 2008
Description: The Hanford site is currently dealing with a number of types of Spent Nuclear Fuel. The route to interim dry storage for the various fuel types branches along two different paths. Fuel types such as metallic N reactor fuel and Shippingport Core 2 Blanket assemblies are being placed in approximately 4 m long canisters which are then stored in tubes below grade in a new canister storage building. Other fuels such as TRIGA{trademark} and Light Water Reactor fuel will be relocated and stored in stand-alone casks on a concrete pad. Varying degrees of sophistication are being applied with respect to the drying and/or evacuation of the fuel interim storage canisters depending on the reactivity of the fuel, the degree of damaged fuel and the previous storage environment. The characterization of sludge from the Hanford K Basins is nearly complete and canisters are being designed to store the sludge...
____________________________________________________________
http://www.hanfordwatch.org/introduction.htm
Waste tanks
About 53 million gallons of high-level radioactive and chemical waste are stored in 177 underground tanks the size of three-story buildings, buried in Hanford’s central area, about 12 miles from the river. Over the years 70 of the tanks have leaked about one million gallons of waste into the soil. At least some of the leaked tank waste has reached the groundwater, which eventually flows into the river. Estimated time for the tank waste to reach the river is anywhere from 7 to 20 years to a couple generations. How badly it damages the river depends on how much gets there and when.
Presently DOE does not have a plan for intercepting the tank waste before the waste reaches the river. To prevent more leaks, DOE has been pumping liquid waste out of the leaking single shell tanks into the newer, not yet leaking, double shell tanks. The pumping is going well and is on schedule.
The long-term plan is to "vitrify" the waste by combining it with molten glass to produce glass logs which will be stored in a dry underground vault in Hanford’s central area. The vitrification plant is now being built.
_______________________________________________________
http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html
What We Regulate
There are two acceptable storage methods for spent fuel after it is removed from the reactor core:
Spent Fuel Pools - Currently, most spent nuclear fuel is safely stored in specially designed pools at individual reactor sites around the country.
Dry Cask Storage - If pool capacity is reached, licensees may move toward use of dry storage systems.
For additional information, see our Spent Fuel Storage in Pools and Dry Casks, Key Points and Questions & Answers page.
________________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool
Spent fuel pools (SFP) are storage pools for spent fuel from nuclear reactors. They are typically 40 or more feet (12 m) deep, with the bottom 14 feet (4.3 m) equipped with storage racks designed to hold fuel assemblies removed from the reactor. A reactor's pool is specially designed for the reactor in which the fuel was used and situated at the reactor site. In many countries, the fuel assemblies, after being in the reactor for 3 to 6 years, are stored underwater for 10 to 20 years before being sent for reprocessing or dry cask storage. The water cools the fuel and provides shielding from radiation.
While only about 8 feet (2.4 m) of water is needed to keep radiation levels below acceptable levels, the extra depth provides a safety margin and allows fuel assemblies to be manipulated without special shielding to protect the operators.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that many of the nuclear power plants in the United States will be out of room in their spent fuel pools by 2015, most likely requiring the use of temporary storage of some kind.[1]
If there is a prolonged interruption of cooling due to emergency situations, the water in the spent fuel pools may boil off, resulting in large amounts of radioactive elements being released into the atmosphere.[5]
In the magnitude 9 earthquake which struck the Fukushima nuclear plants in March 2011, one of the spent fuel pools lost its roof and was reported to be emitting steam. According to The Nation, "Spent fuel pools at Fukushima are not equipped with backup water-circulation systems or backup generators for the water-circulation system they do have."[6] Later, there was some disagreement among sources as to whether the pool had boiled dry.[7][8][9]
_____________________________________________
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/28/world/asia/japan-nuclear
Former Japanese leader: 'I felt fear' during nuclear crisis
By Kyung Lah, CNN
updated 6:45 AM EDT, Mon May 28, 2012
"I would like to say to the Japanese and to the world -- the safest nuclear policy is not to have any nuclear plants."
______________________________________________________
Re; Terrapower's TWR: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/sharif2/
Traveling Wave Reactor Uncertainties and Risks
Because no TWR facilities have yet been built, the actual economics of these reactors have yet to be realized. Additionally, the U.S. does not yet have a certification process for TWRs; as such, it may be a decade or more before a TWR test reactor could be built in the U.S. [2] With respect to safety concerns, like other breeder reactor designs, TWRs use liquid sodium as coolant; liquid sodium reacts strongly with air and water and thus poses a significant hazard. [1,3]
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301397
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130621191927-02-hanford-nuclear-site-story-top.jpg
U.S. engineers to inspect possible leak at Hanford nuclear site
By Michael Martinez, CNN
updated 12:09 AM EDT, Sat June 22, 2013
(CNN) -- U.S. inspectors are investigating a possible leak at the Hanford nuclear site after an elevated contamination reading was found in a leak detection pit, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said Friday.
The elevated reading, however, doesn't pose an immediate public health threat, Inslee said.
"This is most disturbing news for Washington," the governor said in a statement. "The discovery was made during a routine pumping outside the tank when pumps are also surveyed for radioactivity."
The leak detection pit is located outside and adjacent to a double-shell tank identified as AY-102, the governor said.
"It is not clear yet whether that contamination is coming directly from the outer shell of the AY-102 but it must be treated with the utmost seriousness," Inslee said.
The U.S. Department of Energy has assigned engineers to analyze the source of contamination through sampling and video inspection, a process that could take several days, the governor said.
The Hanford site, which once produced plutonium for atomic weapons, borders the Columbia River.
"Given the relatively early detection of this potential leak, the river is not at immediate risk of contamination should it be determined that a leak has occurred outside the tank," Inslee said.
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz just paid his first visit to the Hanford site on Wednesday.
Even before learning of a possible leak, Inslee told Moniz he has "serious concerns regarding the pace of addressing the leaking tanks," Inslee said.
"We will be insisting on an acceleration of remediation of all the tanks, not just AY-102. USDOE has a legal obligation to clean up Hanford and remove or treat that waste, and we ensure that legal obligation is fulfilled," the governor said.
_______________________________________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Spent_nuclear_fuel_hanford.jpg/220px-Spent_nuclear_fuel_hanford.jpg
Spent nuclear fuel stored underwater and uncapped in Hanford's K-East Basin
Under the Tri-Party Agreement, lower-level hazardous wastes are buried in huge lined pits that will be sealed and monitored with sophisticated instruments for many years. Disposal of plutonium and other high-level wastes is a more difficult problem that continues to be a subject of intense debate. As an example, plutonium has a half-life of 24,100 years, and a decay of ten half-lives is required before a sample is considered to be safe.[68][69] The Department of Energy is currently building a vitrification plant on the Hanford Site. Vitrification is a method designed to combine these dangerous wastes with glass to render them stable. Bechtel, the San Francisco based construction and engineering firm, has been hired to construct the vitrification plant. Construction began in 2001. It was originally scheduled to be operational by 2011, with vitrification completed by 2028.[64][70][71] As of 2012, according to a study by the General Accounting Office, there were a number of serious unresolved technical and managerial problems.[72] As of 2013 estimated costs were $13.4 billion with commencement of operations estimated to be in 2022 with about 3 decades of operation.[73]
________________________________________________________________
http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/K-Basins
http://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-99-267
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Department of Energy's (DOE) efforts to improve the storage of spent nuclear fuel from its nuclear reactors at DOE's Hanford Site in Washington State, focusing on: (1) its status; (2) what problems might affect achieving cost and schedule estimates; and (3) whether changes have been sufficient to address management weaknesses.
GAO noted that: (1) although DOE has increased confidence that the project eventually will begin to remove fuel from the water storage basins, uncertainty remains over when the project will be finished and how much it will cost; (2) completion is scheduled for July 2007 at a cost of $1.7 billion--about 6 years and $1 billion beyond the original estimates made in 1995; (3) however, the new completion date includes $133.5 million and about 2 years for work activities not included in the original estimate; (4) compared with conditions that GAO reported on in May of last year, the amount of progress is substantial, with considerable construction completed and equipment installation under way; (5) since the schedule was established in December 1998, the estimated date for completing safety documentation has slipped, operational readiness issues have become major challenges, and most of the extra time built into the schedule for addressing contingencies has already been used up; (6) DOE's contractors have addressed the three main problems that existed earlier in the project--an unrealistic schedule, poor control over the project's baseline, and unresolved technical issues--but still have several matters to resolve before being able to provide assurance that cost and schedule estimates can be met; (7) the time required to reassess the procedures for removing loaded fuel-shipping casks from the basins and the compressed schedule to complete safety documentation and pass readiness reviews place in jeopardy a project milestone to begin removing fuel from the first storage basin by November 2000; (8) to process the fuel within the project's completion dates and cost targets, DOE and its contractors must ensure the reliability of complex one-of-a-kind equipment that has not yet been operated as a system; (9) DOE's contractor must also overcome challenges in hiring operations staff and in processing the spent fuel at a rate that can meet the project's milestones; (10) corrective actions have addressed some but not all of the management weaknesses on the project; and (11) although DOE's contractor responsible for overall management of the Hanford Site has consolidated its control over the project and made other changes to strengthen the project's performance, it has been slow to address problems with safety documentation and quality assurance.
_______________________________________________________________
http://www.asminternational.org/portal/site/csc/Details/?vgnextoid=1d0cb2c38cc32210VgnVCM100000701e010aRCRD&campaign=recommends-personal
Interim Storage of Hanford Spent Fuel & Associated Sludge
Author(s): MAKENAS, B.J.;
From: DOE Technical Report Server (U.S. Department of Energy)
Published: 2008
Description: The Hanford site is currently dealing with a number of types of Spent Nuclear Fuel. The route to interim dry storage for the various fuel types branches along two different paths. Fuel types such as metallic N reactor fuel and Shippingport Core 2 Blanket assemblies are being placed in approximately 4 m long canisters which are then stored in tubes below grade in a new canister storage building. Other fuels such as TRIGA{trademark} and Light Water Reactor fuel will be relocated and stored in stand-alone casks on a concrete pad. Varying degrees of sophistication are being applied with respect to the drying and/or evacuation of the fuel interim storage canisters depending on the reactivity of the fuel, the degree of damaged fuel and the previous storage environment. The characterization of sludge from the Hanford K Basins is nearly complete and canisters are being designed to store the sludge...
____________________________________________________________
http://www.hanfordwatch.org/introduction.htm
Waste tanks
About 53 million gallons of high-level radioactive and chemical waste are stored in 177 underground tanks the size of three-story buildings, buried in Hanford’s central area, about 12 miles from the river. Over the years 70 of the tanks have leaked about one million gallons of waste into the soil. At least some of the leaked tank waste has reached the groundwater, which eventually flows into the river. Estimated time for the tank waste to reach the river is anywhere from 7 to 20 years to a couple generations. How badly it damages the river depends on how much gets there and when.
Presently DOE does not have a plan for intercepting the tank waste before the waste reaches the river. To prevent more leaks, DOE has been pumping liquid waste out of the leaking single shell tanks into the newer, not yet leaking, double shell tanks. The pumping is going well and is on schedule.
The long-term plan is to "vitrify" the waste by combining it with molten glass to produce glass logs which will be stored in a dry underground vault in Hanford’s central area. The vitrification plant is now being built.
_______________________________________________________
http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html
What We Regulate
There are two acceptable storage methods for spent fuel after it is removed from the reactor core:
Spent Fuel Pools - Currently, most spent nuclear fuel is safely stored in specially designed pools at individual reactor sites around the country.
Dry Cask Storage - If pool capacity is reached, licensees may move toward use of dry storage systems.
For additional information, see our Spent Fuel Storage in Pools and Dry Casks, Key Points and Questions & Answers page.
________________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool
Spent fuel pools (SFP) are storage pools for spent fuel from nuclear reactors. They are typically 40 or more feet (12 m) deep, with the bottom 14 feet (4.3 m) equipped with storage racks designed to hold fuel assemblies removed from the reactor. A reactor's pool is specially designed for the reactor in which the fuel was used and situated at the reactor site. In many countries, the fuel assemblies, after being in the reactor for 3 to 6 years, are stored underwater for 10 to 20 years before being sent for reprocessing or dry cask storage. The water cools the fuel and provides shielding from radiation.
While only about 8 feet (2.4 m) of water is needed to keep radiation levels below acceptable levels, the extra depth provides a safety margin and allows fuel assemblies to be manipulated without special shielding to protect the operators.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that many of the nuclear power plants in the United States will be out of room in their spent fuel pools by 2015, most likely requiring the use of temporary storage of some kind.[1]
If there is a prolonged interruption of cooling due to emergency situations, the water in the spent fuel pools may boil off, resulting in large amounts of radioactive elements being released into the atmosphere.[5]
In the magnitude 9 earthquake which struck the Fukushima nuclear plants in March 2011, one of the spent fuel pools lost its roof and was reported to be emitting steam. According to The Nation, "Spent fuel pools at Fukushima are not equipped with backup water-circulation systems or backup generators for the water-circulation system they do have."[6] Later, there was some disagreement among sources as to whether the pool had boiled dry.[7][8][9]
_____________________________________________
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/28/world/asia/japan-nuclear
Former Japanese leader: 'I felt fear' during nuclear crisis
By Kyung Lah, CNN
updated 6:45 AM EDT, Mon May 28, 2012
"I would like to say to the Japanese and to the world -- the safest nuclear policy is not to have any nuclear plants."
______________________________________________________
Re; Terrapower's TWR: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/sharif2/
Traveling Wave Reactor Uncertainties and Risks
Because no TWR facilities have yet been built, the actual economics of these reactors have yet to be realized. Additionally, the U.S. does not yet have a certification process for TWRs; as such, it may be a decade or more before a TWR test reactor could be built in the U.S. [2] With respect to safety concerns, like other breeder reactor designs, TWRs use liquid sodium as coolant; liquid sodium reacts strongly with air and water and thus poses a significant hazard. [1,3]
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301397