Hanford facility

In 1998, the CORPEX technology was evaluated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) at the Hanford facility in Richland, Washington. The process solution cost 60/gal for a 55-gal purchased quantity. The DOE reported that CORPEX appeared to offer substantial cost savings compared with existing baseline technologies (D23002U, p. 2). 

Allied Technology Group (ATG) hired PEAT, Inc., to build a TDR system to treat mixed waste from the DOE s Hanford facility in Richland, Washington. The PEAT system will treat 250 lb of mixed waste per hour (D186838, p. 1). The total value of the DOE contract is 24 million and the TDR contract is worth 4.3 million. This calculates a treatment cost of approximately 4700/m of waste treated. At the other DOE sites, treatment costs for other vitrification technologies are estimated between 5600 and 6400/m (D186838, p. 1 D18248T, p. 55). 

In the fall of 1999, a pilot zeolite barrier was installed at the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) in Western New York. The WVDP is an environmental management project being conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with the cooperation of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Details of the installation are reported by Moore et al. (2000). The clinoptilolite material used in the barrier had previously been studied by Cantrell (1996) for a proposed installation at the DOE Hanford Facility, by Fuhrmann et al. (1995) for use at the WVDP, and by Lee et al. (1998) for the 1998 installation at Chalk River, Ontario. The range of previously estimated distribution coefficients (Kd) was from 650 mL/g (Fuhrmann et al.) to 2600 mL/g (Cantrell). The variation across these studies is most likely attributable to differences in the source water and experimental conditions, although the data interpretation... 

Evidence gathered in 1997 at the Hanford facility for nuclear waste storage shows some leaking into the surrounding soil. On the other hand, the most potent nuclear waste products (plutonium, cesium, and strontium) do not move far (they become adsorbed on soil), although technetium (with a half-life of 250,000 years) has reached the water table. 

An excellent resource for fire safety and fire extinguishers can be found at http //www.hanford.gov/fire/safety/extingrs.htm. This website is maintained by the Hanford Fire Department in Richland, WA, which oversees fire safety and operations for the DOE s Hanford facility. 

Biomarkers of exposure to plutonium include the presence of plutonium in urine, which is identified by measuring alpha activity. From the levels of radioactivity in the urine, body burdens of plutonium may be estimated by the use of models. Body burdens of plutonium in several populations, including workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Rocky Flats facility, and the Hanford facility, have been estimated from urinalysis data. However, whole body burdens determined from selected tissues obtained at autopsy have generally been lower than those estimated from urinalysis data (Voelz et al. 1979). The presence of radioactivity from plutonium in urine is specific to plutonium exposure. Plutonium may be found in the urine after any exposure duration (e.g., acute, intermediate, chronic). Although it can be assumed that exposure to greater levels of plutonium would result in the presence of greater levels of radioactivity in the urine, no information was located to directly quantify this relationship. 

M July 1942 Compton set up a health division at the Met Lab and put Robert S. Stone in charge. Stone established emission standards and conducted e3Q)etiments on radiation hazards, providing valuable planning information for the Oak Ridge and Hanford facilities. 

Earth and Environmental Services, Westinghouse Hanford Company. 1996. Annual Report for RCR A Groundwater Monitoring lYojects at Hanford Facilities for 1995. l)()F7Rl,-96-0l. Revision 0 UC-702. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 

The Bush Administration (1989-1993) had a similar free marketplace philosophy as Reagan, hut faced the daunting task of having to start directing billions toward cleaning up after forty years of neglect at the contaminated weapons complex, particularly the federal facilities at Savannah River South Carolina, Hanford Washington, and Rocky Flats Colorado. The cleanup plan was fourfold characterize and prioritize all waste cleanups at departmental sites, con-... 

Large-scale plutonium recovery/processing facilities originated at Los Alamos and Hanford as part of the Manhattan Project in 1943. Hanford Operations separated plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel, whereas Los Alamos purified plutonium, as well as recovered the plutonium from scrap and residues. In the 1950 s, similar processing facilities were constructed at Rocky Flats and Savannah River. 

Plutonium Scrap Processing. In addition to recovering plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel, a Plutonium Reclamation Facility (PRF)( 7,8) is operated at the Hanford site to recover, separate, and purTfy kilogram amounts of plutonium from a wide range of unirradiated scrap materials. A 20 percent TBP-CC1 k solution is used to extract Pu(IV) from HN03-HF-A1(N03)3 solutions of dissolved scrap. 

The work presented in this article represents the combined effort of a large number of dedicated scientific workers at many Department of Energy facilities located throughout the United States. Particular credit must be given to the staff at Los Alamos, Argonne, Rocky Flats, Livermore, and Hanford. Without their diligent effort the pyrochemical process technologies described above would not have been developed. 

PRF—See Plutonium reclamation facility, Hanford site Procedure... 

FIGURE 17.30 This 35-year-old drum of radioactive waste has corroded and leaked radioactive materials into the soil. The drum was located in one of the nuclear waste disposal sites at the U.S. Department of Energy s Hanford, Washington, nuclear manufacturing and research facility. Several storage sites at this facility have become seriously contaminated. 

The third example is compact cleanup units for waste treatment, mainly in consideration of the numerous radioactive sites, stemming from cold-war military developments [106]. The Hanford, Washington, USA, site with a multitude of seriously contaminated tank wastes is among them. Due to the unknown character of most polluting species, the installation of a central waste-treatment facility is said to be not the best and most inexpensive solution. Rather, small modular units, able to be individually adapted to various separation tasks, which are inserted into the tanks and perform cleanup on site, are seen as the proper solution. 

Berry JR, McMurray BJ, Jech JJ, et al. 1983. 1976 Hanford americium exposure incident Decontamination and treatment facility. Health Phys 45(4) 883-892. 

PNL. 2000. Hanford site environmental report for calendar year 1994. Air surveillance, airborne radionuclide concentrations in the Hanford Environs, 1994 compared to values from the previous 5 years. Facility Effluent Monitoring. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, http //www.pnl/gov/. December 12, 2000. 

In addition, previous studies have been conducted that monitored the performance of ET covers. Selected studies include the following integrated test plot experiment in Los Alamos, New Mexico, which monitored both types of ET covers from 1984 to 198786 Hill Air Force Base alternative cover study in Utah, which evaluated three different covers (RCRA Subtitle D, monolithic ET, and capillary barrier ET) over a 4-year period87 and Hanford field lysimeter test facility in Richland, Washington, DC, which monitored ET covers for 6 years.88... 

Scott D. Elliott is manager of the Waste and Transportation Services Department for Duratek Federal Services at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, Washington. Elliott has worked in the fields of nuclear operations, training, and waste treatment for 24 years and has additional experience as a nuclear facility building emergency director. He is presently a nuclear, biological, and chemical operations instructor for the U.S. Army Reserves. 

Hanford and Richland, Washington, was selected for industrial-scale plutonium production and chemical separations facilities on January 16, 1943. This site was named the Hanford Engineer Works (later named the Hanford Site). 

Gerber, M.S., The Plutonium Production Story at the Hanford Site Processes and Facility History, WHC-MR-0521, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA, 1996. 

After a demonstration at the Hanford Site C Reactor in 1998, the DOE estimated that it would cost approximately 50,000 to remediate the 1956 contaminated lead bricks on site. Costs would range from 0.96 per pound if the bricks were presurveyed for contamination levels to 0.99 per pound if the bricks were not presurveyed. The presurveying option is less expensive because not all of the bricks would require decontamination. These estimates do not include money earned from the salvage value of the bricks (D198327, pp.l6, 17). The DOE notes that TechXtract was not cost effective at Hanford due to the cheap costs of landfill disposal at the facility (D222719, p. 6). 

A CRYOCELL system was proposed for use at the Hanford U.S. DOE facility in the State... 

The first LDUA was delivered to the DOE facility at Hanford, Washington, in April 1996. In all, four LDUAs have already been delivered or scheduled for deployment at DOE sites. The technology is commercially available. 

In 1995, the total cost to remediate 187,000 m of liquid high-level radioactive waste (HEW) at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, was estimated to be 6,543 billion. Approximately 163 million was allocated to purchase the resin. The costs of the facilities and operations were estimated at 530 million. The remaining 5,850 billion were associated with the vitrification and disposal of the used resin (D19431U, pp. 5, 11). 

Over 5001 of HLW have been vitrified in France and Germany. In the USA, the HLW at the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in West Valley Plant, New York, have been vitrified (300 two-ton canisters) and vitrification is ongoing at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) at Savannah River, South Carolina 1600 canisters by February 2004). A vitrification plant is under construction at Hanford, Washington. Vitrification of all of the HLW in the USA will generate approximately 20 000 canisters, which are destined for disposal at the geological repository at Yucca Mountain. 

Hanford, D. Eli Lilly Continue to Work with FDA on Mfg Facilities, Dow Jones News Service, January 24, 2002 ... 

The other three major activities within the waste isolation program are specific to particular sites. We are currently evaluating the potential of deep basalt flows below the Hanford reservation in the State of Washington. This work is managed by the Richland Operations Office and is being conducted by the Rockwell Hanford Company. An evaluation of a potential site is underway in southeast New Mexico for the location of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) which is primarily a facility for the placement of transuranium contaminated wastes (TRU) from the defense program. 

We are presently constructing a near-surface test facility at the Hanford reservation which will be located in a basaltic flow in the side of a mountain there. This facility will have electrical heaters emplaced in it in 1979 and by 1980 we expect to emplace encapsulated cylinders containing spent fuel elements there. A second project under development will provide placement of spent fuel in similar containers in a deep granite facility at the... 

---