Handford's Dirty Secrets

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by freestoneangler, Apr 23, 2013.

  1. GAT

    GAT Active Member

    You'd think a nuke plant would be a little more exact when it comes to building the joint.
     
  2. Krusty

    Krusty Active Member

    They probably peruse the contracting engineers' submittals more carefully than most (I would hope, anyway).

    There's a fascinating book focusing on the first reactor constuction at Hanford....and what amazed the various contractors was the incredible detail the plans contained....but it wasn't done to that level out of safety; they segmented the work (simultaneously)to different contractors, so where one contractor ended the other could assume it would all it fit together perfectly. It was done for secrecy....they didn't want any one contractor having possession of the entire facility design so they might figure out what was being constructed.

    Such level of design is incredibly expensive...conduit, piping, and mechanical systems from different contractors had to line up perfectly. A normal design provides a rough estimate of location, and the contractor gets some flexibility.....which is fine if good contractor designs are approved, AND you get accurate' as-builts'.
     
  3. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Gene,

    I think "as builts" are slightly different for all structures including nuke plants. The original architect and engineer drawings invariably make certain assumptions about the construction site. Job sites always are different in some way from the original assumptions. In can be simple, like the slope of the land differs from prior survey measurements, or maybe there's a giant boulder where some piping is supposed to go. It's cheaper to go around the rock than drill or blast through it. So as built drawings are important to have for any complex structure. And Hanford easily qualifies as complex.

    Sg
     
    Jim Ficklin and Krusty like this.
  4. cmann886

    cmann886 Active Member

    Krusty is right about the as-built process---and not just how it is completed at Hanford or Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.

    Jim is correct that clean up is costly. However, DOE is notoriously expensive the way it doesn't manage. Several cost effective and adequately safe alternatives to the vitrification plant were available but not pursued. The problem is that for some, the higher price and slower task completion is better... Also Jim--make certain that your lead lined waders are not Pb-212.

    GAT---I'm sorry that your family has a history of thyroid problems. It would be an interesting study to evaluate all potential causes and the incident rate in Le Grand compared to other down wind communities. I don't remember the history of the Iodine plume tests nor the dates of the green runs at PUREX---I haven't been at Hanford for over 23 years now. These studies could have had an impact---I just don't know enough to make an informed opinion. The half life of Iodine 131 is short enough that any Iodine released during the studies and green runs would not impact Le Grande in any significant way today.
     
  5. Rick Sharp

    Rick Sharp Member

    Still have use a head lamp, but I do have some tying material that never looses it's glow, lol

    Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2
     
    Bert likes this.