U.S. Nuclear Cleanup Carries Major Risks

Roland Piquepaille writes "New Scientist reports in this pretty alarming article that there is a 50-50 chance of a major radiation or chemical accident during the cleanup of the dirtiest nuclear site in the U.S. There are indeed lots of things to clean at the Hanford complex in Washington state: 67 tons of plutonium and 190 million liters of liquid radioactive waste stored in underground tanks. A third of them, dating from the Cold War, have already leaked 4 million liters in the environment, contaminating the groundwater and a river. Meanwhile, officials at the DOE, who'll spend $50 billion between now and 2035 on this cleanup, seem less worried than the different specialists interviewed by New Scientist. Please read this overview for selected quotes from the article and from the Hanford site. You'll also find a slide from the DOE showing the timeframe for the cleanup."

Comments

Russia?

[garcia]

I thought that Russia was going to make it their problem? Russia wants to allow the imports of nuclear waste into their country. I can't find it now but I thought that even though world-wide organizations are denouncing this thought the US was happy to ship some over there for permanent storage.

So what happens if this stuff does leak out? Would that be considered a Superfund site? Funding for ecological disaster recovery was slashed by the current administration.

Our world looks better and better ever day.

To the sun!

[Kozz]

Not an original idea, I grant you, but I always thought it'd be neat to be able to take this nasty stuff and launch it into the sun. That'd clean up pretty well then, I think.

But what would be the problem with doing so? Is it a matter of dangers of rocket failure (e.g. huge atmospheric dirty-bomb), or is it also quantity of waste to be disposed of and the cost?

Re:To the sun!

[strictnein]

I thought that would be a great idea too, until I realized how much waste there was.

67 tons of plutonium and 190 million liters of liquid radioactive waste stored in underground tanks

So, at $1000 or so a pound... well, you do the math.

Re:To the sun!

[Niles_Stonne]

How about a Space Elevator? It would still need an engine of some sort to get out of orbit, but that could be shipped up seperately.

If the space elevator fails, it would be unlikely to explode. Add a "recovery system" to the capsule that carries the radioactive material (think parachute), and potential problems would be very small.

Price could also be greatly decreased using a Space Elevator.

Re:To the sun!

[AKAImBatman]

I'd rather see it recycled. Some of this stuff can be fused to other materials and then used in personal power generation, medical imaging, industrial tools, sensor equipment, etc. That would be far safer than moving it all into one place where the sum radiation is impossible to shield against, and will cause a health hazard for the next 100-300 years.

Re:To the sun!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Powdered plutonium is a serious carcinogen. There were major worries when Cassini was launched, with a few kilos of the stuff and you're suggesting sending TONS up?

So don't powder the stuff - armored radioisotope generators are a solved problem.

you have to do something about them

[the_2nd_coming]

personally, I think we should be reprocessing the waste into safer materials so that we can move them or reuse them.

Decommisioning

[pklong]

Look here For a video covering the decommisioning of a small experimental Oxford reactor. Very Very scary (especially pushing graphite blocks into a shredder with no more protection than blue gloves!

Tough job

[jbeaupre]

I was interviewed for 3 different jobs doing cleanup at Hanford around 10 years ago. Sort of glad I didn't take any. Talk about a thankless dirty job (we would have been using remote methods, but still). Anyway, two points: a) pollution from nuclear is comparable to pollution from other energy sources. Lead, polonium, mercury, etc just get spread thinner with other methods. Nuclear keeps it concentrated. Call it "choose your poison." Even windmills have been implicated in killing endanged animals (thwack!). b) 60+ tons of plutonium seems a bit high. Not impossible, but a bit high. Given how highly it is sought, you'd think it would have been extracted.

Nuclear waste leaks

[Grym]

I'll admit, I only know a little about the storage of nuclear waste, but can someone PLEASE explain how it could possibly be so difficult to keep the stuff from leaking?

It's not like these containers are sitting outside exposed to the elements. They're, AFAIK, stored underground in secure facilities.

People make it sound like the government spends millions of dollars to develop these high-tech facilities and then just haphazardly sprays the stuff into old, rusty oil-drums. Surely this isn't the case.... right...?

-Grym

Re:Nuclear waste leaks

[Liora]

While your post is interesting and somewhat credible, I disagree with your statement that if it does go into the Columbia River it will be diluted well below any level of concern. My dad used to work for Rockwell cleaning up the Hanford waste in the 80's (his job was in part to design ways of cleaning up the waste better), and then went on to work for PNNL. I grew up swimming in the Columbia River. When I was around fifteen he requested that we quit swimming in the river because he had access to information that led him to not want his kids swimming in it. He's a smart man, and I don't think he would have revoked our river privileges without pretty good reason. Shortly thereafter, I remember that DOE formally admitted that portions of the Columbia riverbed (and water) were radioactive.

We didn't listen to him, of course, and kept swimming in it because like all teenagers we had a stupid streak and are all right for now, but I suspect that there may be much higher than usual cancer rates for kids who grew up in the Tri-Cities and were constantly swimming downstream of Hanford in the Columbia - especially those swimming in the Columbia before the Yakima and Snake's waters are dumped in it - like me. While we will have to wait a decade or two (and maybe longer) to find out for sure, I think that caution is really key.

BTW, Kelso is really far from Hanford along the riverbank. I suspect that your nonchalance (and your uncle's) about the subject might have to do with the fact that the residents of the Kelso/Longview area are far enough away that the radiation really might be a non-issue for them.

Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants?

[networkBoy]

IAMA(nuke arms scientist)
Plutonium is far more toxic than radioactive (as far as hazards go). What I mean by that is that it takes fall less PU to kill you by poisioning than required to cook you with radiation.
-nB

What about IRAN, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hanford facility was created for the purpose of nuclear research by the world's most diverse economy.

Will the Iran's or the North Korea's of the world do any better job of cleaning up the messes they are currently creating?

Certainly, enforcing economic sanctions cannot be an answer. Can anyone name a single time those have worked?

At some point in time we have to take those countries out of the nuclear mix, less San Francisco is the target of their wrath and becomes the next nuclear wasteland we have to clean up.

Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants?

[stephanruby]

And lets see... coal dust... nuclear waste... coal dust... nuclear waste... what would you rather live by?

Let's see... filtered coal dust... water vapor... filtered coal dust... water vapor... which one would you rather inhale?

why so difficult to keep the stuff from leaking

[phyruxus]

We store acids in glass beakers because the acids don't eat the glass. The problem with radioactive "waste" is that the radiation acts to wear out the container over the long term. Right now I think we mostly mix the waste in with glass, which is better than just pouring it into a metal drum because the metal drum would wear out faster (than glass).

Radioactive materials are sometimes called "hot"; they can be warm to the touch; this comes from the fact that as decay occurs particles come shooting out of the nucleus. These particles can hit other nuclei and jostle molecules around.

IIRC, the most recent containment technology is based on storing the "waste" in crystals, eg Zircon. The upswing of crystal storage is that the "hot" material in the center of the crystal degrades the inner part of the crystal, which reacts by forming a "wall" instead of cracking or oozing. Kind of like when you crumple a piece of paper, and there's a limit to how much smaller you can make it by squeezing. Okay, maybe that's a poor analogy, since the "squeezing" comes from the inside, but you get the idea.

Here's a link.

FWIW, if we had a space elevator, would anyone object to putting nuclear plants on it? It's not in anyone's backyard, and it's well placed to sling the crud into space... if we can find a target. I say Mercury.

Nuclear is one option we should pursue. We should also keep working on bio-fuelcells and wind/wave. It all comes from the sun (well, A sun...) anyway. This is all going to be moot once we bootstrap a stellar economy.. there's more methane and natural gas to be had than well, even humans could waste (okay, maybe not, but there's a lot).

Re:FUD

[Rorschach1]

There's a 304 foot trailer on its way to my location at the moment. I've never heard anyone suggest using a monster like this for nuclear waste, though. The shipping containers I've seen have been much smaller than that.

Ouch-Nuclear terror.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also, nuclear power plant technology has vastly improved since this particlar waste repository was first opened up."

It may have improved, but it still generates nuclear waste. That's something that can't be changed. The residents of Nevada are protesting the inturment of the nations nuclear waste in their backyard. And there's tons of this stuff which is going to be criss-crossing the nation via rail, and truck, terrorist opportunities abound. Nuclear may be safe? But with a loose definition of safe. And it will never be as safe as the green alternatives. When was the last time people got thyroid cancer from hydroelectricity?

Re:Ouch-Nuclear terror.

[Rei]

Hydroelectricity used to be the environmentalists' power of choice. Now, however, from an environmental standpoint, it is hated. Hydro power devastates river ecosystems (in addition to increasing evaporation, reducing freshwater supplies).

Besides, most of our power isn't hydroelectric. It's coal. How often do people die of coal pollution? On average, once every 22 minutes (24k/yr).

Re:Ouch-Nuclear terror.

[dbIII]

Let's take California.

It's interesting to see the California power industry held up as something other than a global laughing stock. That 20% from nuclear, are those numbers from Enron or a more trustworthy source?

But to completely discount nuclear is foolhardy at best

I think we'll wait until it is discounted enough to return more than is put in by the taxpayer.

How many nuclear accidents have occurred in US history?

That information isn't available at our current clearance level. Military secrecy shouldn't apply to commercial ventures, people sometimes use it to make money in ways that would not be permitted if the secrecy did not apply.

Re:Ouch-Nuclear terror.

[dbIII]

Yes, in the 1950s, there was a lot of ignorance

My point is the nuclear power industry has been pushing the same "clean" line since its inception, environment groups have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nuclear power was first presented as the peaceful side of the bomb, so its enonomic disadvantages were forgiven. Fifty years have passed, and it's still an expensive way to boil water with extreme care. The new plants are all in Indonesia, Pakistan, North Korea etc where it is still heavily linked with weapons research.

even Greenpeace is more than ten years old

But now it is virtually mainstream, twenty years ago it was consigned to the fringes if ever thought of at all, and had no impact whatsoever on energy policy. Blaming them for the economic decisions against nuclear power back then is a cop out.

about the cleanest solution

Here we go - "clean" again, then entire nuclear industry needs a dictionary inserted where they will notice it. Nothing in heavy industry is ever clean or ever prentends to be, but that doesn't make it bad.

nuclear is damn good even when the waste is factored in

We don't really know the average decomissioning costs yet, so that claim cannot be made yet. All the plants shut down to date have cost a fortune to decomission, which has rightly been put down to inexperience, but the estimate of what a perfect decomission would cost is way to close to zero for anyone to believe.

Solar requires clean rooms for production

The sol-gel process effectively requires a bucket and a domestic oven, you'll see a lot of industrial ceramics manufactured that way in years to come. Fabricating a solar cell of any type is a trivial excercise in comparison to fabricating a steam turbine blade anyway, let alone the components that are on the radioactive loop in a nuclear power plant. You require reasonably exetotic materials to survive neutron bombardment, rapid flow of liquid sodium and all the other high tech problems in various types of reactors.

Another thing that most people do not realise is that large scale solar power generation is not about a whole lot of silicon cells in a paddock, it's about doing things with heat.

Wind isn't so bad

Oil crises and droughts show us that it is best that there is not one single method of power generation. Control systems have improved, which makes options like wind more attractive, especially for things like peak load power. In some parts of the world it could probaly be considered for base load power, but most places don't have reliable enough wind.

What happens in thirty years when all of those panels need replacement? That's a lot more material (by several orders of magnitude) than nuclear waste

They are made of silicon, copper and sometimes aluminium - how can anyone sanely compare this to nuclear waste? Is this what happens when the "all chemicals are bad" philosophy hits the "nuclear is warm fuzzy and cuddly" philosopy? Go beyond the advertisments and sound bites, there are a lot of information out there starting with basic chemistry and physics texts. Our current level of technology is built on a huge number of things that you would not want an infant putting in their mouth, which is fine, but the nuclear power industry alone portrays their dangerous goods as "clean".

Re:DO the submitters actually read the articles?

[Fnkmaster]

Yet another Roland Piquepaille submission. The point of the submission wasn't to inform us, but to direct people to his blog. This guy has been doing this like crazy to pimp his blog site for the last few weeks, if not longer (I've only recently noticed it). This is evidence of why we should be able to mod stories posted down - this Piquepaille guy ought to be banned from further submissions until he stops pimping his lame, theme-stolen blog site and trying to get hits on the ads he runs there.

His blog posts are usually quite uninformative and rather poorly written too. An overview with selected quotes from the article? So now he's summarizing for /.ers who are too lazy to read the article. I can't believe Hemos posted this crap submission without at least clipping out the lame blog link.

Green Run

[bustour]

Check out this URL regarding releases of gasses from Hanford in the 1945-1972 timeframe. http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/history /release.html

But Hanford's largest single release of iodine-131 was the result of a secret military experiment. "Green Run" refers to a secret U.S. Air Force Experiment at Hanford that released somewhere between 7,000 and 12,000 curies of iodine-131 to the air on December 2-3, 1949.

Most of my family lived 50 miles away in Yakima at the time. They did the same experiment in Oak Ridge in Tennessee, at about the same time.

Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants?

[Glock27]

Newer coal plants trap most of the coal dust and many of the other polutants. They're actually getting much cleaner.

It's the old ones (especially in places like China) that are the problem.

Er, no. Especially if you think global warming is an issue. From the article you cite:

"Berry admitted that carbon dioxide was spewing from the Polk stack, but you couldn't see it."

Also:

Even so, compared with a typical coal-fired plant with modern pollution control devices, Polk produces 85% less nitrogen oxide and 32% less sulfur dioxide, according to Tampa Electric. Environmentalists are quick to point out that's still 20-times more nitrogen oxide than a natural gas fired plant and 100 times more sulfur. Natural gas emits virtually no sulfur.

It should be pointed out that's infinitely more carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur than nuclear power plants emit.

Re:DO the submitters actually read the articles?

[AnotherBlackHat]

I used to be pro nuclear power but after witnessing the amaturish and dishonest reaction during a crisis at the nuke plant near Rochester NY (with 1 million in the greater metropolitan area), and having a very disturbing cocktail party conversation with the head of safety for a nuke plant in Louisiana, I started to investigate more. Whatever the benefits of the technology, the culture of nuclear power is one of lies, coverup and other forms of deceit.

Lying bastards are not unique to the nuclear power industry.

Besides, TANSTAAFL.
Nuclear power should be measured against the alternatives.

-- less is better.

Facts about the Hanford clean-up:

[Futurepower(R)]

It is important to realize some facts about the Hanford clean-up:

• First, the problems they are talking about happened very early in nuclear power plant research, in the 50s and earlier. They are not so sloppy now in the storage of nuclear waste. Back then, they made extremely severe problems for themselves, which are very difficult to correct.

• Second, there is a huge amount of government fraud, apparently. My uncle was the head of one of the groups at Battelle studying the problems. The way they talk now about the cleanup is exactly the way they were talking in the 70s. Apparently nothing has been done, but they continue to milk the issue for money.

There are tanks at the Hanford site that constantly boil, and have boiled for more than 40 years, because of the heat from radioactivity. They have made devices to examine the boiling. Back in the late 60s they decided they would try to stabilize the tanks by "glassifying" them. The wanted to turn the entire radioactive mass inside a tank into a solid mass of glass.

They are talking about this now, too, and they are giving the same completion date, "15 to 30 years from now". That's why I say that apparently nothing has been done, even though they have spent many, many billions.

What is apparently happening in this story is that they are trying to scare the public so that they can get even more money.

Here's more about U.S. government corruption: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

Re:rocky flats cleanup somewhat working

[swschrad]

the rocky mountain news had a little article couple weeks back about this... namely... there are no red-tape areas in the flats any more, the contamination has been adjudged removed. they're ready to knock down the last buildings. the workers surely got their 45 arms around the issue there. but it's all been put into drums, and moved elsewhere, mostly near aitkin, south carolina, to old DOE production facilities there.

Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants?

[phayes]

Sorry, you're wrong. Contrary to the anti-nuke propaganda popular with the general public, the emissions of coal fueled powered plants include silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and sulfur plus small quantities of uranium and thorium. As has been pointed out for decades, Nuclear plants actually emit less radioactivity into the environment than do Coal plants. Google for coal radioactive emissions to get an education or just click here if you're too lazy.

People near Hanford are already on borrowed time

[Anonymous Coward]

People living near Hanford are already living on borrowed time.

An environmental engineer friend of mine, Larry Cornett noticed back in 1994 during a routine survey that the temperatures and radiation levels from the nuclear waste containers at Hanford were unusually high and getting higher due to what he later discovered was the unforseen effect of the precipitation of radioactive waste in the containers (as the radioactive clumps grow bigger, they generate more heat and radiation). In his urgent report to the Department of Energy, he projected that there would be a 95+% chance of heat explosion and catastrophic release of radiation within 10 years due to the precipitation of the waste in the containers, unless action was taken.

Larry's report (which I believe he links to on his website) contains the details, but the steam jets from such a "conventional" heat/pressure explosion (which could cause many other containers already under stress to explode) would kill just about all life for miles around Hanford, and spread dangerous levels of radiation into the ecosystem for at least tens of miles around (and once radioactive waste was loose in the ecosystem, nobody knows for certain how far it would spread or how many millions of people it would affect). As you might guess, Larry was fired for his trouble and his report suppressed. According to Larry, as recently as 5 years ago the instictive reaction of the DOE was to bury a problem instead of deal with it, which I think you all should find terrifying, especially those of you in Washington State!

After a multi-year legal battle depicted on his link and in the newspaper articles he links to, Larry got his back pay and pension on whistle-blower protections and the DOE temporarily fixed the problem by diluting the waste further across more containers and installing automated stirrers in the new containers to keep the waste from precipitating, but when I talked to him a few years ago Larry thought that would only buy Hanford another 20 years or so before an explosion was 95+% likely, apparently not enough time for the DOE to evacuate the waste to Nevada...

Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants?

[Anonymous Coward]

No numbers are mentioned for contents of that 'fouir million litters' of radioactive waste that leaked. It doesn't state what was in the waste.

Because nobody knows. Seriously: Hanford is covered with these giant underground tanks that have asphalt (!) bottoms, filled with hot (in both senses) sludge of indeterminate composition.

The DOE has to regularly collect the tumbleweeds from Hanford, lest they roll off the site carrying the radionuclides they picked up from the soil.

That said, the New Scientist blurbs were bunk. Hanford is already a disaster. Who cares if the cleanup has a 50% chance of a serious leak. Doing nothing has a 100% chance of a serious leak.

Calculating the Real Cost of Energy

[EnergyEfficient]

How is the real cost of energy calculated? Think about it. When people are paying 7-12 cents per kilowatt hour, does the price include this 50 billion dollar clean up? Of course it doesn't.

Take Canada for example...
Nuclear energy subsidies from 1953 to 2001 were approximately 16.6 billion. Total loans written off to the fossil fuel industry were another $2.8 billion since 1970. Cleaning up old radioactive waste and decommissioning uranium tailings added another $850 million. This totals$20.25 billion just on nuclear subsidies and clean up costs and fossil fuel forgiven loans. If this $20.25 had been poured into wind energy programs, and R&D to new technologies, it might be powering 4.5 million homes today. And keep in mind that fossil fuel plants would still have the cost of fuel.