Slashdot Mirror
Radioactivity Cleanup At Hanford Nuclear Reservation, 25 Years On
Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "The cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington was supposed to be entering its final stages by now. The reality is far from that. The cleanup was to be managed under the 'Tri-Party Agreement', signed on May 15, 1989, which was supposed to facilitate cooperation between the agencies involved. Today, underfunded and overwhelmed by technical problems, the effort is decades behind schedule. Adding to the frustrations for stakeholders and watchdogs is a bureaucratic slipperiness on the part of the Federal Department of Energy. As one watchdog put it, 'We are constantly frustrated by how easily the Department of Energy slips out of agreements in the Tri-Party Agreement.'"
This seems fairly typical of what happens, and not just with nuclear. Lots of industrial sites need expensive clean-up when they are decommissioned and of course no-one wants to pay for it because it isn't making any more money at that point. Contractors doing the clean-up want to milk it, and often we find that things turned out worse than expected and there are new technical problems that arose because we came to understand the science better in the years since the facility was built. Sometimes the original designers were just overly optimistic or cheap.
Then the blame game starts, and nothing gets cleaned up. Happens over and over.
Prediction: The rest of the discussion will be nuke fans lamenting the lack of proper storage facilities and breeder reactors, without proposing any practical solutions. In other words, more blame, mostly aimed at environmentalists even though this is primarily a financial and regulatory problem.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why is it that, when faced with especially unpleasant materials, we always seem to end up burying them? That's the strategy that makes it hard to check for leaks, puts them close to groundwater, and makes it quite difficult to do any sort of repairs to the containment without heroic burrowing around, which is difficult and expensive at best, and liable to cause further damage at worst.
Shouldn't the really dreadful stuff be stored above ground, ideally with the ground floor left open to make detecting leaks a trivial matter? Are underground tanks just that much cheaper, or do we just feel that much better with everything neatly buried and out of sight, out of mind?
That method is only approved for chemical weapons.
Prediction: The rest of the discussion will be nuke fans lamenting the lack of proper storage facilities and breeder reactors, without proposing any practical solutions.
Bad prediction. Some proponents of moving off of fossil fuels include nuclear along with renewables and point out that 4th gen nuclear reactors will consume the waste of previous gen reactors as fuel, and the waste from 4th gen only remains hazardous for a few centuries rather than tens of thousands of years. So there, a practical solution to getting rid of current waste. Practical as in 4th gen test reactors are up and running.
There we have it, a forward looking plan for a solution. Not a backward looking lament about what we could have but did not do or did not build.
In other words, more blame, mostly aimed at environmentalists even though this is primarily a financial and regulatory problem.
Actually various environmentalists are coming over to the above. They've looked at the science and realize that renewables alone won't prevent the continued use of coal and other fossil fuels as billions of people in the developing world demand more and more electricity. They admit that 3rd gen reactors are far safer then current reactors and that 4th gen can help eliminate a very dangerous existing stockpile of waste.
the Department of Energy slips out of agreements in the Tri-Party Agreement."
This is why socio-political conservatives don't trust Government to solve problems. Similarly, that same slipperiness is why socio-political liberals don't trust Business.
I trust my wife, but that's about it...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The Tri-Cities (Richland-Pasco-Kenniwick) area has been dependent on the Hanford project for prosperity forever. There is absolutely no local motivation to complete the cleanup when thousands semi-skilled workers are making $40/hr+ +benefits. The project will certainly be dragged out until every possible drop is drained from the milchcow.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
You do know that Hanford was exclusively devoted to making atomic bombs and not generating power, don't you? No amount of pollution was too much when we 'needed' to make sure we could destroy the red menace more times than they could destroy us.
There IS a good reason for burying these things in the deep earth.
Some of the radionucleides' Gammas and Neutrons are good for 10 feet of dirt for 50% absorbtion.
100 to 1000 feet is where I'd start considering storage, due to shielding. Remember, neutrons will extend the zone of radioactivity over time. :)
IDK if Yucca mountain is the best possible place to store this stuff, but based on Fukushima, where it is now is much, much worse.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Right, that means nuclear energy has a hidden cost for cleanup. Perhaps we should think again next time we dismiss an alternative as being too costly.
But there another problem: who makes the gains from operating a nuclear plant, and who pays the hidden cost?
Hanford did generate a lot of power, and still does. Columbia Generating Station is a commercial nuclear plant.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
They will keep doing that.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Columbia Generating Station is a commercial nuclear plant.
Located approximately 16 miles away from Hanford; they're separate activities.
Unless you have some evidence that Columbia is responsible for an unusual amount of that pollution?
I don't read AC A human right
If you're really going to be fair about it, you'd need to ask the same question for coal, natural gas, even wind and solar.
Nuclear is unusual in that like wind&solar, it's mostly direct cost, not indirect cost. The only reason the government is on the hook for Hanford is that it was a government site. Who typically pays decommissioning expenses for a nuclear plant? The owning company. It's part of the reason that the owners don't want to turn them off.
I don't read AC A human right
A Billion dollars a year just to "keep the lights on" at the site? And only one of the four superfund sites there in 1989 has been fully cleaned & removed from the list? Even assuming that there are no more delays or unexpected challenges it is estimated to cost an additional $113 Billion to finish cleanup. Something is definitely wrong here, I realize that dealing with nuclear materials is difficult but this is obscene.
Hanford Nuclear Resevation has nuclear reactors >>>to generate electricity. Has had them for years. 2 of them under construction were mothballed (WPPS) after 3 mile island. To be sure, during WWII they used to just dig a trench in the earliest days. But lately the "leak-proof" containment has become >>> NOT. And too HOT to handle. Now it's on an underground migration to the Columbia River from which there appears no stopping it's eventual contamination of the largest river in the west. Or correct me if I am wrong please.
The reactors were primarily to produce plutonium for the bombs.
No power plant has ever been managed so poorly nor would the NRC ever allow it.
There was also the N-reactor which produced both plutonium and civilian electrical power.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The power generation was a secondary function. All that energy they liberated in the process of making plutonium had to go somewhere.
As several astute readers who bothered to read the first fucking sentence of the linked article have pointed out, Hanford was used to produce nuclear material for weapons, not for energy. So let's save the energy debate for another thread.
I'm not particularly pro-nuclear, but I think it's always important to obtain a clear understanding of the details before assimilating a presented fact into my framework for thinking about things. In this case, that means not conflating nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Humans will mess up anything if oversight is lax, but I think historically we've been better at fucking up things that are related to weapons and war (because of large and opaque budgets and lack of regulation due to classification) than things related to energy, commercial stuff, transportation, etc (although we're no slouches at doing royal fuckaroos on those, too, when we find ourselves temporarily short on farce).
I stated working at Hanford in 1979 on the cleanup. We had many plans including a deep underground basalt storage system and glassification of radioactive waste. I even spent one year working on the instrumentation for the underground basalt storage system before I went on to other things. Hanford was screwed up then and it will still be screwed up when I die!
Yet every delay seems to be caused by inadequate funding at the Federal level, to the point where the deadlines have been pushed back beyond the projections for when waste is likely to reach the Columbia River. What's that going to do to the local economy?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Completely naive question here - civilised answers welcomed.
I've heard that the new generation reactors will be able to use 'old waste' for fuel. Does this include all sort of waste, or only some of it? For example, I believe that "nuclear waste" doesn't just mean Homer Simpson like glowing green spent fuel rods, but lots of things that have to get packaged up and safely disposed of like technicians' work wear, equipment, anything that comes into contact with radioactive sources. Am I right that this is also called "nuclear waste" (apologies, I really don't know much about the topic). If so, can this be used in the new reactors (I am guessing not all of it)? Does it represent a lot of volume / long term risk to be disposed of?
I get the impression that the term nuclear waste is used in a pretty homogeneous way but that it represents a wide variety of materials. I suppose in the case of decommissioned reactors this probably means some of the structure of the buildings themselves (tonnes of old concrete etc). I'm guessing that this can't get poured into a new reactor as fuel? Is this the big issue with decommissioning, not just old fuel rods but all the surrounding materials?
cheers for any measured responses on such an emotive issue.
Yet every delay seems to be caused by inadequate funding at the Federal level, to the point where the deadlines have been pushed back beyond the projections for when waste is likely to reach the Columbia River. What's that going to do to the local economy?
Actually, it improves the potato crop. (FIVE GUYS needs every potato they can lay their hands on!) The waste has also sped up work at the prehistoric Kennewick Man site, and has increased sales of all kinds of abatement gear (and anti-roadrunner technology) from ACME in nearby Walla-Walla.
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
Here is a better take on reality. A 4th gen reactor group that the US Dept of Energy helped start.
VHTR: The very-high-temperature reactor is a further step in the evolutionary development of high-temperature reactors. The VHTR is a helium-gas-cooled, graphite-moderated, thermal neutron spectrum reactor with a core outlet temperature higher than 900 C, and a goal of 1 000 C, sufficient to support high temperature processes such as production of hydrogen by thermo-chemical processes. The reference thermal power of the reactor is set at a level that allows passive decay heat removal, currently estimated to be about 600 MWth. The VHTR is useful for the cogeneration of electricity and hydrogen, as well as to other process heat applications. It is able to produce hydrogen from water by using thermo-chemical, electro-chemical or hybrid processes with reduced emission of CO2 gases. At first, a once-through LEU (
SFR: The sodium-cooled fast reactor system uses liquid sodium as the reactor coolant, allowing high power density with low coolant volume fraction. It features a closed fuel cycle for fuel breeding and/or actinide management. The reactor may be arranged in a pool layout or a compact loop layout. The reactor-size options which are under consideration range from small (50 to 150 MWe) modular reactors to larger reactors (300 to 1 500 MWe). The two primary fuel recycle technology options are advanced aqueous and pyrometallurgical processing. A variety of fuel options are being considered for the SFR, with mixed oxide preferred for advanced aqueous recycle and mixed metal alloy preferred for pyrometallurgical processing. Owing to the significant past experience accumulated with sodium cooled reactors in several countries, the deployment of SFR systems is targeted for 2020.
SCWR: Supercritical-water-cooled reactors are a class of high-temperature, high-pressure water-cooled reactors operating with a direct energy conversion cycle and above the thermodynamic critical point of water (374C, 22.1 MPa). The higher thermodynamic efficiency and plant simplification opportunities afforded by a high-temperature, single-phase coolant translate into improved economics. A wide variety of options are currently considered: both thermal-neutron and fast-neutron spectra are envisaged; and both pressure vessel and pressure tube configurations are considered. The operation of a 30 to 150 MWe technology demonstration reactor is targeted for 2022.
GFR: The gas-cooled fast reactor combines the advantages of a fast neutron core and helium coolant giving possible access to high temperatures. It requires the development of robust refractory fuel elements and appropriate safety architecture. The use of dense fuel such as carbide or nitride provides good performance regarding plutonium breeding and minor actinide burning. A technology demonstration reactor needed for qualifying key technologies could be in operation by 2020.
LFR: The lead-cooled fast reactor system is characterised by a fast-neutron spectrum and a closed fuel cycle with full actinide recycling, possibly in central or regional fuel cycle facilities. The coolant may be either lead (preferred option), or lead/bismuth eutectic. The LFR may be operated as a breeder, a burner of actinides from spent fuel, using inert matrix fuel, or a burner/breeder using thorium matrices. Two reactor size options are considered: a small 50-150 MWe transportable system with a very long core life, and a medium 300-600 MWe system. In the long term a large system of 1 200 MWe may be envisaged. The LFR system may be deployable by 2025.
MSR: The molten-salt reactor system embodies the very special feature of a liquid fuel. MSR concepts, which may be used as efficient burners of transuranic elements from spent light-water reactor (LWR) fuel, also have a breeding capability in any kind of neutron spectrum ranging from thermal (with a thorium fuel cycle) to fast (with a uranium-plutonium fuel cycle). Whether configured for burning or breeding, MSRs have conside
One of the biggest problems with the vitrification plant is that once they actually start processing the waste it will be way to radioactive for any human to enter it ever again. They have to set it up so all maintenance and repair can be done remotely.
The radiation from coal plant emissions doesn't come anywhere close to the nastiness of some of the stuff that came from the production of plutonium.
Inadequate funding is part of it but there is also the difficulty of building a vitrification plant that once it starts processing the waste will be too radioactive for a human to enter regardless of how much shielding they're wearing. All maintenance and repair for the plant will have to be done remotely.
Yes, there were reactors. Yes, the generated electricity. But, it was a byproduct of the primary reason for the reactors - creating plutonium. They used a short fuel cycle in the purpose-built reactors specifically tuned to create the most Pu-239 possible.
The facilities there were never intended to be efficient at commercial electrical generation. They were meant to create stuff to kill people. It just turns out that the people being killed by it is our own citizens because of the incredibly poor way they handled the gigantic mess they created.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.