DOCSLIB.ORG

Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site PNNL-13909 Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site A Ten-Year Trend Report 1991 Through 2000 B. G. Fritz G. W. Patton May 2002 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 This document was printed on recycled paper. (8/00) PNNL-13909 Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site A Ten-Year Trend Report 1991 through 2000 B. G. Fritz G. W. Patton May 2002 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Summary This report describes the air pathway effects of Hanford Site operations from 1991 through 2000 on local air quality. The end of production of nuclear materials onsite has greatly reduced the atmospheric emissions of radionuclides. This has led to concentrations in air on and around the Hanford Site that are near background levels for most radionuclides. A trend analysis such as this one allows scientists to look at data over a 10-year period and increases their understanding of air emissions. This was done by evaluating trends in air concentrations of selected radionuclides at numerous onsite and offsite locations, comparing measured concentrations to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) concentration guides, evaluating hypothetical maximally exposed indi- vidual doses over the decade, and evaluating the contribution of individual radionuclides to overall dose. The data for this report come from routine environmental monitoring activities conducted by Surface Environmental Surveillance Project personnel. Routine samples were collected onsite, at the Hanford Site perimeter, in local communities, and at distant locations. Data were used to evaluate concentration gradients, concentration variations over time, and correlations between upwind and downwind locations, onsite emissions, and local meteorology. During the period of this report (1991 through 2000), there were no measured concentrations that exceeded DOE derived concentration guides (Appendix A, Table A.1). The closest any air sample came to the DOE derived concentration guide level was a December 1991 tritium sample that had a measured concentration approximately 5% of the DOE derived concentration guide. The estimated maximally exposed individual doses for the years 1991 through 2000 were thousands of times below the DOE dose limit of 100 mrem per year for a member of the public. The highest estimated maximally exposed individual dose was 0.051 mrem per year in 1994. The air pathway contributions to the maximally exposed individual dose estimates were well below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency limit of 10 mrem per year. iii Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge R. W. Hanf, T. M. Poston, and John Glissmeyer for their valuable peer review. Launa Morasch provided editorial review and Kathy Neiderhiser and Lila Andor provided text processing. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of B. M. Gillespie who managed the Surface Environmental Surveillance Project air sampling task from 1996 to 2000. v Contents Summary............................................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................. v 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background Information .......................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Hanford Site Fire.............................................................................................................. 3 3.0 Site Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 Maximally Exposed Individual ................................................................................................ 5 5.0 Air Pathway Surveillance......................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Sample Collection and Analysis Methods ....................................................................... 8 5.2 Sampling Locations.......................................................................................................... 8 6.0 Analytical Results .................................................................................................................... 9 6.1 Gross Alpha..................................................................................................................... 9 6.2 Gross Beta........................................................................................................................ 12 6.3 Tritium............................................................................................................................. 13 6.4 Strontium-90 .................................................................................................................... 15 6.5 Iodine-129........................................................................................................................ 16 6.6 Uranium ........................................................................................................................... 19 6.7 Plutonium......................................................................................................................... 20 6.8 Cesium-137...................................................................................................................... 21 7.0 Dose Contribution from Radionuclides in Air ......................................................................... 23 8.0 Evaluation and Conclusions..................................................................................................... 25 9.0 References................................................................................................................................ 25 vii 10.0 Bibliography............................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix – Data Tables..................................................................................................................... A.1 Figures 1 Hanford Site and Surrounding Areas......................................................................................... 2 2 Annual Onsite Atmospheric Emissions..................................................................................... 5 3 Reported Maximally Exposed Individual Annual Dose Estimate............................................. 7 4 Contribution of Air Pathway to Estimated Maximally Exposed Individual Dose..................... 7 5 Map of Air Sampling Locations ................................................................................................ 10 6 Gross Alpha Concentrations in Air............................................................................................ 12 7 Gross Beta Concentrations in Air.............................................................................................. 13 8 Tritium Concentrations in Air ................................................................................................... 14 9 Annual Average Tritium Concentrations in Air ........................................................................ 14 10 Strontium-90 Concentrations in Air .......................................................................................... 16 11 Quarterly Iodine-129 Concentration in Air ............................................................................... 17 12 Annual Average Iodine-129 Concentrations and Stack Emissions ........................................... 18 13 Annual Iodine-129 Stack Emissions and Estimated Fugitive Emissions .................................. 18 14 Uranium Concentrations in Air ................................................................................................. 20 15 Plutonium Concentrations in Air............................................................................................... 21 16 Plutonium-239/240 Concentrations in Air at Onsite and Perimeter Locations ......................... 22 17 Cesium-137 Concentrations in Air ............................................................................................ 22 18 Concentrations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation
    Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues that Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues That Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Jean M. Bahr, Ph.D., Chair University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Steven M. Becker, Ph.D. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia Susan L. Brantley, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania Allen G. Croff, Nuclear Engineer, M.B.A. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Efi Foufoula-Georgiou, Ph.D. University of California Irvine, Irvine, California Tissa Illangasekare, Ph.D., P.E. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado Kenneth Lee Peddicord, Ph.D., P.E. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Paul J. Turinsky, Ph.D. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Mary Lou Zoback, Ph.D. Stanford University, Stanford, California Note: Dr. Linda Nozick of Cornell University served as a Board member from July 28, 2011, to May 9, 2019. During that time, Dr. Nozick provided valuable contributions to this report. iii This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Staff Executive Staff Nigel Mote Executive Director Neysa Slater-Chandler Director of Administration Senior Professional Staff* Bret W.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Reactor and Small Modular Reactor Licensing
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is managed and operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy. PNNL Points of Contact: Tara O’Neil Nuclear Regulatory Sub-Sector Manager [email protected] (541) 738-0362 PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL Bruce McDowell Advanced Reactors Program Manager [email protected] LABORATORY’S EXPERIENCE IN (509) 375-6668 ADVANCED REACTOR AND nuclearenergy.pnnl.gov PNNL-SA-138133 | September 2018 SMALL MODULAR REACTOR LICENSING INFRASTRUCTURE or more than 30 years, • Supported the development of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) High Priority Regulatory Topical the Nuclear Regulatory Reports related to NGNP Licensing (see SECY-10- 0034, Potential Policy, Licensing, And Key Technical Commission has reached Issues for Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Designs). out to Pacific Northwest National • Provided recommendations to NRC on modifications F of health physics codes for SMRs, and to update the Laboratory at critical stages of Gaseous And Liquid Effluent (GALE) codes. nuclear plant design for assistance • Supported development of American Nuclear Society (ANS) 53.1 Nuclear Safety Criteria and Safety Design in developing and applying new Process for Modular Helium-Cooled Reactor Plants, and ASME/ANS S1.4, Standard for Probabilistic Risk standards for safety reviews of Assessment for Advanced Non-Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants. new plant designs. • Prepared “High Temperature Gas Reactors: Assessment of Applicable Codes and Standards” (PNNL-20869, October 2011) in support of NRC’s Advanced
    [Show full text]
  • Fast-Spectrum Reactors Technology Assessment
    Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 4: Advancing Clean Electric Power Technologies Technology Assessments Advanced Plant Technologies Biopower Clean Power Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Value- Added Options Carbon Dioxide Capture for Natural Gas and Industrial Applications Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies Crosscutting Technologies in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Fast-spectrum Reactors Geothermal Power High Temperature Reactors Hybrid Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems Hydropower Light Water Reactors Marine and Hydrokinetic Power Nuclear Fuel Cycles Solar Power Stationary Fuel Cells U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle ENERGY Wind Power Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Fast-spectrum Reactors Chapter 4: Technology Assessments Background and Current Status From the initial conception of nuclear energy, it was recognized that full realization of the energy content of uranium would require the development of fast reactors with associated nuclear fuel cycles.1 Thus, fast reactor technology was a key focus in early nuclear programs in the United States and abroad, with the first usable nuclear electricity generated by a fast reactor—Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I)—in 1951. Test and/or demonstration reactors were built and operated in the United States, France, Japan, United Kingdom, Russia, India, Germany, and China—totaling about 20 reactors with 400 operating years to date. These previous reactors and current projects are summarized in Table 4.H.1.2 Currently operating test reactors include BOR-60 (Russia), Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) (India), and China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) (China). The Russian BN-600 demonstration reactor has been operating as a power reactor since 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options
    Order Code RL34579 Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options July 11, 2008 Mark Holt Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options Summary Current U.S. nuclear energy policy focuses on the near-term construction of improved versions of existing nuclear power plants. All of today’s U.S. nuclear plants are light water reactors (LWRs), which are cooled by ordinary water. Under current policy, the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from LWRs is to be permanently disposed of in a deep underground repository. The Bush Administration is also promoting an aggressive U.S. effort to move beyond LWR technology into advanced reactors and fuel cycles. Specifically, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), under the Department of Energy (DOE) is developing advanced reprocessing (or recycling) technologies to extract plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel, as well as an advanced reactor that could fully destroy long-lived radioactive isotopes. DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative is developing other advanced reactor technologies that could be safer than LWRs and produce high-temperature heat to make hydrogen. DOE’s advanced nuclear technology programs date back to the early years of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1940s and 1950s. In particular, it was widely believed that breeder reactors — designed to produce maximum amounts of plutonium from natural uranium — would be necessary for providing sufficient fuel for a large commercial nuclear power industry. Early research was also conducted on a wide variety of other power reactor concepts, some of which are still under active consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a of Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Lev
    Appendix A Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A. Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials ................................................................................................................................. A-1 A.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Inventory Data Summary .................................................................................................... A-2 A.1.1.1 Sources ......................................................................................................................... A-2 A.1.1.2 Present Storage and Generation Status ........................................................................ A-4 A.1.1.3 Final Waste Form ......................................................................................................... A-6 A.1.1.4 Waste Characteristics ................................................................................................... A-6 A.1.1.4.1 Mass and Volume ................................................................................................. A-6 A.1.1.4.2 Radionuclide Inventories ...................................................................................... A-8 A.1.1.4.3
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Technology Development Plan Sodium Fast Reactor Mechanistic Source Term – Metal Fuel Radionuclide Release
    ANL-ART-38 Regulatory Technology Development Plan Sodium Fast Reactor Mechanistic Source Term – Metal Fuel Radionuclide Release Nuclear Engineering Division About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Online Access: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991 and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available free via DOE’s SciTech Connect (http://www.osti.gov/scitech/) Reports not in digital format may be purchased by the public from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS): U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd Alexandria, VA 22312 www.ntis.gov Phone: (800) 553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 Fax: (703) 605-6900 Email: [email protected] Reports not in digital format are available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI): U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P. O . B o x 6 2 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 www.osti.gov Phone: (865) 576-8401 Fax: (865) 576-5728 Email: [email protected] Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • RETHINKING the CHALLENGE of HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE Strategic Planning for Defense High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal
    RETHINKING THE CHALLENGE OF HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE Strategic Planning for Defense High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal Prepared by The Yakama Nation Russell Jim, Project Manager Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies Brian Barry, Environmental Scientist Sponsored by a Grant from the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund RESOLVE, Inc. Grant Number: MTA-05-001 1 RETHINKING THE CHALLENGE OF HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE Strategic Planning for Defense High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal May 10, 2007 I. Nuclear Waste Disposal Challenges Recognizing that spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste is among the planet’s most dangerous material, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) in 1982. The law required all such nuclear waste to be disposed of in a deep geologic repository so as to protect humans for at least hundreds of millennia. Under the Act, intact spent fuel rods from power reactors were to be sent directly to a repository -- a “once through” nuclear fuel cycle. High level waste from nuclear weapons production, much of which requires processing before disposal, was also designated for permanent burial deep underground. Twenty-five years after the NWPA was signed into law, the government's nuclear waste disposal program is being impacted by legal challenges, technical problems, scandal and congressional funding cuts. The Department of Energy is in the midst of yet another contentious impasse over the disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel. Legal and policy uncertainty have left the high level waste disposal program with uncertain goals and diminishing prospects for success. Delays in deciding the scientific feasibility of permanent disposal at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada continue.
    [Show full text]
  • Neutron Fluxes in Test Reactors
    INL/EXT-17-40962 Revision 0 Preliminary Options Assessment of Versatile Irradiation Test Reactor: Neutron Fluxes in Test Reactors Gilles J. Youinou January 2017 The INL is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory operated by Battelle Energy Alliance u Idaho National Laboratory DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. INL/EXT-17-40962 Revision 0 Preliminary Options Assessment of Versatile Irradiation Test Reactor: Neutron Fluxes in Test Reactors Gilles J. Youinou January 2017 Idaho National Laboratory INL ART TDO Program Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 http://www.inl.gov Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 INL ART TDO Program Comparison of Neutron Fluxes in Selected High Power Test Reactors INLIEXT-17-40962 Revision 0 January 2017 Author: 1/30/2017 Gilles J.
    [Show full text]
  • Spent Fuel Lessons Learned, Sandra Birk
    INL Spent Fuel Management Observations Sandra Birk Idaho National Laboratory January 2011 INMM Spent Fuel Management Seminar XXX January 2015 Business Sensitive INL Spent Fuel Storage Facilities (~290MTHM) • CPP-666 –Fuel Storage Area (Basin) • CPP-603 –Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility • CPP-1774 –TMI-2 Independent Spent fuel Storage Installation (NRC licensed) • Ft. St. Vrain, Independent Spent fuel Storage Installation (NRC licensed), Colorado • CPP-2707 –Cask Storage Pad • CPP-749 –Underground Fuel Storage Facility • MFC Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility • Advanced Test Reactor Canal • Inventory includes 2lb-1/2ton specimens; Al, SS, Zr clad; sodium- bonded, epoxy-bonded; Be and carbon matrix fuels; intact and damaged fuel; various enrichment 1 Path Forward for SNF Management • Inventory is expected to grow slightly – Domestic and Foreign Research Reactor (D/FRR) receipts will continue – ATR will continue to generate SNF – DOE-NE – Some fuel may be received and stored for research • Idaho will continue to safely manage SNF in existing facilities – Authorization basis through 2035 (continuous surveillance and maintenance) – Ft. St. Vrain (CO) and TMI NRC regulated facilities continue operation – License renewal for TMI ISFSI will be submitted in 2019 – Storage of fuels for research will continue • Focus on aging management and management alternatives 3 Key State Drivers/Court Order • 1991 - Idaho files suit asserting DOE violated NEPA by not analyzing environmental impacts of spent fuel storage and transportation • 1995 – 1995 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0203) and RODs • October 1995 – Lawsuit settled. DOE, Navy, and State of Idaho execute a Settlement Agreement [Consent Order in United States of America v.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery of Information from the Fast Flux Test Facility for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
    Recovery of Information from the Fast Flux Test Facility for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Reactor Campaign/Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative D. L. Nielsen B. J. Makenas D. W. Wootan S. Butner R. P. Omberg Pacific Northwest National Laboratory September 2009 AFCI-TIO-PMO-QA-FM-2009-00052 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency. Recovery of Information from the Fast Flux Test Facility September 2009 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative iii Summary The Fast Flux Test Facility is the most recent Liquid Metal Reactor to operate in the United States. Information from the design, construction, and operation of this reactor was at risk as the facilities associated with the reactor are being shut down. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative is a program managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]
  • 13 Lessons Learned from Fast Flux Test Facility Experience
    1 13 Lessons Learned from Fast Flux Test Facility Experience Published in the IAEA Proceedings of the International Conference on Fast Reactor and Related Fuel Cycles June 26-29, 2017 – Yekaterinburg, Russia D. W. Wootan1, R. P. Omberg1, C. Grandy2 1Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 2Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois E-mail contact of main author: [email protected] Abstract. The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) is the most recent liquid-metal reactor (LMR) to operate in the United States, having operated from 1982 to 1992 and played a key role in LMFBR development and testing activities. In addition to irradiation testing capabilities, FFTF provided long-term testing and evaluation of plant components and systems for LMFBRs. The FFTF was highly successful and demonstrated outstanding performance during its nearly 10 years of operation. The technology employed in designing and constructing this reactor, as well as information obtained from tests conducted during its operation, can significantly influence the development of new advanced reactor designs in the areas of plant system and component design, component fabrication, fuel design and performance, prototype testing, site construction, and reactor operations. Efforts have been made to preserve important lessons learned during the nearly 10 years of reactor operation, and a brief summary of these Lessons Learned will be discussed. Key Words: FFTF; Lessons Learned; Liquid Metal Fast Reactor; reactor operations. 1. Introduction The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) is the most recent liquid metal reactor (LMR) to operate in the United States, having operated from 1982 to 1992 (FIG. 1). FFTF is located on the DOE Hanford Site near Richland, Washington.
    [Show full text]