Characterization plan for Hanford spent nuclear fuel

Abrefah, J.; Thornton, T.A.; Thomas, L.; Berting, F.M.; Marschman, S.C.

doi:10.2172/10106575

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All of the HSNF he1 elements consisted of two concentric tubes made of relatively pure U metal that was co-extruded into Zircaloy-2 cladding [Abrefah et al 1994). The outer tube, from which test specimens for this project were cut, was approximately 6.2 cm OD x 4.3 cm ID x 66 cm long.…”

Section: Hsnf Fuel Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial results from dissolution rate testing of N-Reactor spent fuel over a range of potential geologic repository aqueous conditions

Gray¹,

Einziger²

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report was not produced under a quality assurance program that satisfies the requirements of the National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program and DOE/RW-O333P, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Quality Assurance Requirements Description. Therefore, the data in the report are not considered qualified and are not to be relied upon to address safety and waste isolation issues until an accepted qualification process has been completed. DISCLAIMERPortions of this document may be illegible electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. SummaryHanford N-Reactor spent nuclear fuel (HSNF) may ultimately be placed in a geologic repository for permanent disposal. To determine whether the engineered barrier system that will be designed for emplacement of light-water-reactor (LWR) spent fuel will also suffice for HSNF, aqueous dissolution rate measurements were conducted on the HSNF. The purpose of these tests was to determine whether HSNF dissolves faster or slower than LWR spent fuel under some limited repository-relevant water chemistry conditions.The tests were conducted using a flowthrough method that allows the dissolution rate of the uranium matrix to be measured without interference by secondary precipitation reactions that would confuse interpretation of the results (i.e., uranium concentrations were kept below the solubility limit). Similar tests had been conducted earlier with LWR spent fuel, thereby allowing direct comparisons.Six undamaged HSNF test specimens (one of the six specimens was treated to produce a thin oxide surface layer) were tested using 10 different water chemistry conditions. Six tests were conducted simultaneously, and then the water chemistries were changed to conduct the remaining four tests. In addition, two auxiliary tests were conducted to investigate one possible cause of the Stage 2 corrosion noted below.Two distinct corrosion modes were observed during the course of these 12 tests. The first, Stage 1, involved no visible corrosion of the test specimen and produced no undissolved corrosion products. The second, Stage 2, resulted in both visible corrosion of the test specimen and left behind undissolved corrosion products.During Stage 1, the rate of dissolution could be readily determined because the dissolved uranium and associated fission products remained in solution where they could be quantitatively analyzed. The measured rates were much faster than has been observed for LWR spent fuel under all conditions tested to date when normalized to the exposed test specimen surface areas. Application of these results to repository conditions, however, requires some comparison of the physical conditions of the different fuels. The surface area of LWR &el that could potentially be exposed to repository groundwater is estimated to be approximately 100 times greater than HSNF. Therefore, when compared on the basis of mass, which is more relevant to repository conditions, the HSNF and LWR spent fuel dissolve at similar rates. Also, the concentra...

show abstract

Section: Hsnf Fuel Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial results from dissolution rate testing of N-Reactor spent fuel over a range of potential geologic repository aqueous conditions

Gray¹,

Einziger²

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…characterization requirements in more detail than either the Path Forward Report or the ITA report. The characterization Plan (Abrefah 1994) issued e a r l i e r provided a general characterization basis for both the PFR and the TAP and so was included in the review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, FY 1995 through 1998). Consequently, t h i s characterization plan must represent the merging o f the accelerated Path Forward schedule with the applicable information needs identified in the earl i e r characterization p l a n (Abrefah 1994). …”

Section: Revmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Plan for characterization of K Basin spent nuclear fuel and sludge

Lawrence¹,

Marschman²

1995

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A brief description of the N-Reactor fuel element prior to irradiation is given in the folIowing paragraphs. A more detailed description is provided in Appendix A of Abrefah et al (1994).…”

Section: Materials Examination and Specimen Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%