Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
20. Answers to questions
Sun Jun 23, 2013, 11:58 PM
Jun 2013

RobertEarl,

Spent nuclear power plant fuel is solid and looks just like new fuel. Spent reactor fuel is an "assembly" that looks like a square array of rods. The array for a PWR ( pressurized water reactor ) is 17 x 17. The array for a BWR ( boiling water reactor from GE ) is 9 x 9. The actual fuel is a ceramic that is inside the tubes. What happens when the fuel is "burned" in a reactor all happens at the sub-microscopic level. The assembly looks the same when it comes out as when it went in. So spent fuel consists of all these "assemblies" of fuel rods. Congress outlawed reprocessing / recycling of spent nuclear fuel back in 1978. Assemblies have to cool for years before they can be reprocessed. Because the 1978 ban came before any fuel was ready to reprocess; no commercial reactor fuel has been reprocessed. It all sits in the form of these assemblies in the pools at the plants, or they have been moved to "dry casks" that sit at the plants.

What is stored at Hanford is liquid waste from an old form of reprocessing used in the Manhattan Project. The fuel elements for the "production reactors" at Hanford, those are the reactors that made the plutonium for the Nagasaki bomb and subsequent bombs; was reprocessed using the old form of reprocessing technology. The first step in that process was dissolving the the production reactor fuel elements in nitric acid.

You can read about this in Richard Rhodes Pulitzer-Prize winning book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb". The reprocessing plants at Hanford are long buildings called "Queen Marys" because they are about that long. Inside is a big "canyon" ( the sister facilities at Savannah River are called canyons; like F Canyon and H Canyon ). The chemical processing that is reprocessing took place in this concrete canyon.

On page 604, of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", author Rhodes quotes someone who was there when the reprocessing operation first started on Dec 26, 1944. The first step was dissolving the spent fuel elements in nitric acid, and the witness tells how the concrete canyon was filled with brown smoke. The exhaust fans exhausted that smoke up the stack of the canyon, and the smoke floated away on the breeze. Of course, that smoke was radioactive, which is why Hanford was built in a remote location.

The chemical processes extracted the plutonium from the dissolved fuel / nitric acid mixture. The extracted plutonium was sent to be made into bomb components. The liquid residue was what was stored in those tanks.

After years of sitting in the tanks, the "sludge" is no longer liquid, but has a consistencies ranging between thick peanut butter up to hardened cement with some liquid interspersed.

So there's no nuclear power plant fuel at Hanford because none was reprocessed, and none was reprocessed using the old "wet" method used back in the 1940s.

I don't recall what the cost to deal permanently with the Hanford waste; but I think it is was in excess of $100 billion. So $2 billion a year doesn't cover it. We've only been spending money on cleanup since 1990 when the weapons production mission was stopped. ( See second link below ) Dealing with the tanks is only part of the problem. There was also the "cocooning" of the reactors.

Because the consistency of the sludge is so thick, it can no longer be pumped out; it's going to have to be physically scooped out.

http://www.hanfordchallenge.org/hanfords-history/

http://www.hanfordchallenge.org/the-big-issues/cleanup-progress/

http://www.hanfordchallenge.org/the-big-issues/tank-waste/

http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/TPlant

http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/100Area

http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/BReactor

http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/NReactor

The last link tells about the "N Reactor" which was the most powerful production reactor at Hanford that operated from 1963 to 1987. Shortly after its construction, Hanford N Reactor was dedicated by then President John F. Kennedy and the last link shows a picture of Kennedy speaking at the occasion.

PamW

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Fully half from russian nukes? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #1
Don't doubt it; believe it - it's TRUE PamW Jun 2013 #9
Hi Pam RobertEarl Jun 2013 #10
Not half of total PamW Jun 2013 #11
So you proved wt was wrong RobertEarl Jun 2013 #16
Not odd at all - different parts of the government PamW Jun 2013 #18
How much $$ do they need? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #19
Answers to questions PamW Jun 2013 #20
What about Columbia Generating Station? That's the operational nuclear plant on the Hanford site. suffragette Jun 2013 #21
What is "Hanford" PamW Jun 2013 #22
The State of Washington disagrees with you suffragette Jun 2013 #23
Reading Comprehension Problem??? PamW Jun 2013 #25
Compared to Pandora's Promise, the Breakthrough Institute and the nuclear industry writ large... kristopher Jun 2013 #2
This is what the corporate media uniformly do cprise Jun 2013 #3
We've shot ourselves in the foot on Iran. wtmusic Jun 2013 #4
There is no inspection regime that is good enough cprise Jun 2013 #5
I guess that's my point wtmusic Jun 2013 #6
This is a nuclear problem cprise Jun 2013 #7
You do know that it's impossible to build a weapon with reactor grade fuel, don't you? wtmusic Jun 2013 #14
"We need...a roadmap for guarding against weapons proliferation" kristopher Jun 2013 #8
100% WRONG as ALWAYS PamW Jun 2013 #12
What a fucking flake. kristopher Jun 2013 #15
Nothing of substance, I note PamW Jun 2013 #17
Ha! oldhippie Jun 2013 #24
They argeed. PamW Jun 2013 #13
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Memo to Fox News: Nuclear...»Reply #20