Slashdot Mirror


Organic Cat Litter May Have Caused Nuclear Waste Accident

mdsolar (1045926) writes in with a story about how important buying the right kind of kitty litter can be. "In February, a 55-gallon drum of radioactive waste burst open inside America's only nuclear dump, in New Mexico. Now investigators believe the cause may have been a pet store purchase gone bad. 'It was the wrong kitty litter,' says James Conca, a geochemist in Richland, Wash., who has spent decades in the nuclear waste business. It turns out there's more to cat litter than you think. It can soak up urine, but it's just as good at absorbing radioactive material. 'It actually works well both in the home litter box as well as the radiochemistry laboratory,' says Conca, who is not directly involved in the current investigation. Cat litter has been used for years to dispose of nuclear waste. Dump it into a drum of sludge and it will stabilize volatile radioactive chemicals. The litter prevents it from reacting with the environment. And this is what contractors at Los Alamos National Laboratory were doing as they packed Cold War-era waste for shipment to the dump. But at some point, they decided to make a switch, from clay to organic. 'Now that might sound nice, you're trying to be green and all that, but the organic kitty litters are organic,' says Conca. Organic litter is made of plant material, which is full of chemical compounds that can react with the nuclear waste. 'They actually are just fuel, and so they're the wrong thing to add,' he says. Investigators now believe the litter and waste caused the drum to slowly heat up 'sort of like a slow burn charcoal briquette instead of an actual bomb.' After it arrived at the dump, it burst."

36 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. More Cold War Waste by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It should be noted that this waste is from cold war era defense programs, and not used commercial nuclear fuel which is much easier to handle and store. It should also be noted that although the writers make every effort to call the WIPP a "dump" in order to conjure up images of a simple landfill, it is actually an underground geological (saltbed) monitored storage facility created for storage of radioactive waste.

    Unlike chemical from many industries that are dumped in many places with much less control, this is an example of quick recognition and response to a problem. Cold war nuclear waste comes in all kinds of nasty liquid, solid, and semi-solid forms and will continue to bring challenges as the slow cleanup slog continues.

    Of course, this slashdot submission is one of an ongoing number of agenda driven submissions that intends to obfuscate the challenges of cold ware era defense program neglect with commercial nuclear power. Fortunately, most slashdot readers pick up on the obvious.

    1. Re:More Cold War Waste by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      um, no. How can you call it quick recognition when we're talking about cold-war era waste and products from decades ago and the only reason they realized something was wrong was because of an 'explosion'?

      I was talking in terms of the waste facility where the waste is being moved to, not the cleanup sites where it originated.

    2. Re:More Cold War Waste by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...this is an example of quick recognition and response to a problem.

      um, no. How can you call it quick recognition when we're talking about cold-war era waste and products from decades ago and the only reason they realized something was wrong was because of an 'explosion'?

      It can be called "quick recognition" because it actually was "quick recognition" of a problem that simply didn't happened before the new litter was used.

    3. Re:More Cold War Waste by Jmc23 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Really? I quote

      The Board identified the root cause to be a failure to fully understand, characterize, and control the radiological hazard among management at WIPP, the operating contractor, and the Carlsbad Field Office.

      Not sure why I was modded down for pointing out you were making an assumption without any data. Slashdots seems to be turning into a hangout for believers and ignorant retaliatory tribes.

      For you to be even technically correct, they would have had to identify what exactly was the problem, and as anybody who can navigate a website can see, they still aren't sure and they still do not know when their second report on the actual causes will be out.

      They did respond quickly though, so that's good.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    4. Re:More Cold War Waste by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      There you go, this has nothing to do with the nuclear power industry. Exactly the association the submitter wanted you to make, though.

    5. Re:More Cold War Waste by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It even looks to me like it's trying to be critical of the organic movement. I'll reserve my opinion of that kind of thing, but in this case, "organic" means what it actually means, not the hippie non-term it has become. I'd rather they say it was because they switched from clay-based to plant-based kitty litter.

      In my experience organic cat litter is inferior, in every meaningful measure. Clumping, odor control, and the most important one: My cat's willingness to use it, vs. expressing her disapproval by shitting on the carpet, which she has done every time I've tried a non-clay litter, no matter how gradually it was introduced.

      Can't say that I have any hands on experience with radioactive waste disposal, but I'll certainly be sticking with clay litter for my more mundane needs.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:More Cold War Waste by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 2

      Yes let's not confuse cold war era waste with easily handled nuclear fuel? Thanks for throwing in how we are smart enough not to fall for this obvious "agenda" We know who has the agenda, to create a "safe use" of leukemia causing substances that apparently no one wants to deal with except some "monitored salt mine" it has been said from the beginning that by the time you extract the uranium and go through building a nuclear reactor which involves demolishing it too, it it hardly pays off. We end up using plenty of carbon based fuel building them. Trojan which was the only reactor in Oregon where I used to live right next door to did NOT pay off and there are still spent fuel rods being stored there in pools because nobody wants them at ANY price. The reactor was shipped upstream on the Columbia river to Hanford for burial. The agenda remains for who knows how many years...safe, secure, and permanent.

    7. Re:More Cold War Waste by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Unlike chemical from many industries that are dumped in many places with much less control, this is an example of quick recognition and response to a problem."

      Quick recognition would be not mixing compostable organic stuff with something that has to be stored for 200.000 years.

    8. Re:More Cold War Waste by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      I would never imply that waste from nuclear power plants is not a problem. It certainly is. I was clarifying the differences between spent fuel "waste" and the stuff which is coming from these federal sites. Cold war and pre-cold war activities produced stuff of all types of liquid and semi-liquid compositions that is a nightmare to deal with. Yes, in comparison, solid nuclear fuel rods are quite easy to manage. Those differences are real despite your opinion of nuclear power.

      I don't want to get off topic and into a benefits of nuclear power vs. its waste debate here. There's plenty of other opportunities on slashdot for that.

    9. Re:More Cold War Waste by Mockylock · · Score: 2

      I currently work with reclaiming nuclear facilities. There's a mandatory "Environmental Sustainability" form which has to be completed with any new purchase that has to go through procurement. If at any time a product that's purchased has an environmentally friendly or energy-saving substitute, you have to use it or fill out more information as to WHY you need to use the product which is not environmentally friendly. This may not be the case, and I'm not completely certain what the situation is, but I'm sure that in some way it's essentially the same type of management for this contract. We're required to follow EPEAT regulations and LEED certification rules for nearly everything. EPEAT is pretty much a joke, considering you merely have to pay for certification, but so is almost everything else in the government.

      --
      "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    10. Re:More Cold War Waste by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      We have tried a few kinds now and our cat has never seemed to dislike any of them in particular. The problem with most of this stuff is its too light. That is great when you are bringing in a massive bag of it, but it means the individual litter particles are light too and get EVERYWHERE.

      Our most recent attempt has been some stuff that is comrpessed into small pellets that break down into more of a powder in the box as its being used. That stuff is much better at stayin in the litter box and the pad in front of it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    11. Re:More Cold War Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We switched from clay to recycled newspaper pellets with great success. The pellets absorb the urine, and the poops just hang out until scooped. Clumping not necessary.

  2. I still cant log in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You still have a bad cert, Slashdot. What's going on?

    1. Re:I still cant log in! by c0d3g33k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is /., not your bank. There is no army of Chinese hackers anxiously waiting for your password so they can assume your identity and become internet superstars. You didn't re-use an important password for /. did you? Just check the IP address for plausibility and accept the expired cert.

      That's some astonishingly bad advice.

    2. Re:I still cant log in! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? If someone compromises my slashdot account, what can they do? Nothing. So there's no need to trust it at all. Sure, I use the same password on multiple sites, but I have levels of password, and the one they'd get if they compromised my slashdot account would only get them into forums. I don't care. So why should I use any security for an insecure site?

    3. Re:I still cant log in! by sjames · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but I didn't even get a lousy tee shirt :-)

    4. Re:I still cant log in! by Talderas · · Score: 2

      Only those with 1000 or lower got free t-shirts.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  3. Got it, lesson learned by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't go green.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Got it, lesson learned by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      clay is as "green" as it gets, pure natural inert material with practically infinite supply

    2. Re:Got it, lesson learned by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's considered a nuisance in this context because it's largely inert (and often formulated for absorbency and clumping, so people are advised not to flush it): Once used, the clay just adds weight and bulk to the solid waste stream and won't be going anywhere in approximately geologic time. Aside from very modest risks from mineral dusts, it's harmless enough; but it's not wildly efficient to landfill something that's mostly clay just to deal with animal feces that would degrade in a few weeks to months under proper conditions.

  4. More Cold War Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is absolutely an agenda submission. It even looks to me like it's trying to be critical of the organic movement. I'll reserve my opinion of that kind of thing, but in this case, "organic" means what it actually means, not the hippie non-term it has become. I'd rather they say it was because they switched from clay-based to plant-based kitty litter. The risks of this should have been obvious to someone working with radioactive disposal.

  5. Where do you get the "jet" part from? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Jet fuel would be a hydrocarbon. Organic kitty litter would be essentially cellulose, a carbohydrate.

    Both are fuels, in that they will combust when heated, unlike clay.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Where do you get the "jet" part from? by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Holy crap, am I seeing things that aren't there.

  6. Re:What dumbass wrote this? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

    The dumbass who wrote "jet fuel" is you.

    The word "jet" does not appear in the summary nor does it appear in the article. Nobody else is referring to kitty litter as jet fuel. Just you.

  7. Re:Better headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's worse than two kinds of concrete.

    It's like approving concrete originally, then switching to bamboo fiber mash. Yes, someone should have known better, as they're not even close to the same thing.

  8. Well Duh! by lgftsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because a material has a everyday name, it doesn't mean that the original specification didn't have a chemical/mechanical/biological/radiological/whatever reason for specifying it.

    If all the material property requirements were met with a commonly available product that didn't require an expensive supply chain, then that's great.

    HOWEVER...

    I suspect that originally somewhere in the nuclear disposal system, a group identified the need, a solution was found and a materiel was specified. Along the line or through the years, the REASON for that specification was lost to the end of the purchasing chain and the poor sod who orders the stuff was given a directive to "buy sustainably" and substituted the new material without being aware of the original intent.

    That person probably wasn't even been aware of the use of the material - they may have though it was used in the kennels for the guard dogs. It's a nuclear material disposal site. Need to know is important. (1) The suppler wouldn't have known, either.

    There's lots of complaints of expensive procedures and materials(2), but this is a perfect example of the need for a formal supply chain system with provable provenance. You may BUY a commonly available kitty litter to fulfill the order, but what arrives in the sacks will have to match the specification sheet.

    1. Yes, this is irony. The accident may have been prevented if the purchasing officer knew what it was for. Then again, maybe not.

    2. Ferrous hammers are a bad idea around strong magnetic fields. If you're in a lab with a MRI or similar and lots of delicate equipment, a hammer to undo the dog on a vacuum chamber had better be a very special hammer. The kind that you can buy today for less than a hundred bucks, but in the 60's had to be engineered from scratch. Thank someone else's R&D for the fact you can buy a (nearly) chemically inert, non-ferrous, non-sparking hammer for a pittance.

  9. More Cold War Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not to mention, it wasn't the kitty litter that caused this.

    Newsflash: If you work with nuclear waste, don't go around changing the recipes without asking your boss!

  10. Re:Better headline... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is unrelated to "nuclear energy" and was for bombs.

  11. In other news... by QuadEddie · · Score: 5, Funny

    The nuclear accident is now known by the operation handle: Katpiss Evergreen

    1. Re:In other news... by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Funny

      May the odds of surviving the nuclear incident be ever in your favor.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  12. Re:Better headline... by brambus · · Score: 5, Informative

    First off, this is from the weapons program, not power. Also, not all waste is created equal. Drums are only used for low level stuff - think lab coats, glassware, tools, etc. that at some point might have come into contact with radioactive stuff and so can have trace residue on it. This is *NOT* spent fuel. If you had cared to read the original articles, you'd know that the incident was the first in this facility's 15 year history, wasn't their fault, was extremely small, was immediately contained and rootcaused so that corrective measures could be taken. From where I'm standing, this is a good example of safety working as intended. Unlike your average coal ash spill.

  13. Re:"They have an agenda" have an agenda by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't take my word for it, look at who submitted this article, as well as a string of negative nuclear related headlines going back quite some time, for long stretches almost on a daily basis. You'll find its good ole mdsolar. So yes, I'll remind the community of it, because some folks don't really pay attention. I guess that includes yourself.

  14. Re:"They have an agenda" have an agenda by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't drive the content toward anything on this site. I do have my opinions, and I am very up front about them.

    Anything I 'discredit' is done without relation to the submitter, his credibility, or lack thereof. I speak to the content of the article and the subject matter. I did not dismiss anything in this article. In the past I have shown how some of the articles submitted by the same person are misleading or dead wrong and many points, and directly from sources that are not credible. This article isn't one of those, but it was one of many written on this event, but one of the few to repetitively use the term "dump".

    If you read the comments, these headlines breed confusion. Many people associate this type of waste with nuclear power fuel waste, and its a very different animal. Its a clarification that is perfectly reasonable for someone to make.

    So, be specific. What truth don't I like that I am discrediting? Or did you just throw out that accusation with nothing to back it up? I certainly backed up mine.

  15. Explanation of "reaction" is misleading by ckedge · · Score: 4, Informative

    The "organics" did not react with the "nuclear" part of the "nuclear waste", they reacted with the 1% acid that was still in the solution.

    A pure chemical reaction.

    (Made complicated/ugly by the combustion products carrying away small amounts of nuclear waste, for sure.)

  16. Re:"They have an agenda" have an agenda by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is not an Ad Hominem falacy to point out that the person in question posts many negative nuclear related articles.

    From your own quote:

    "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

    It would be ad-hom to say "ignore this because mdsolar has bad morals". It is not ad-hom to say "beware, mdsolar is obsessed with nuclear energy".

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  17. Re:Better headline... by brambus · · Score: 2
    It was "hot" in a chemical, not radioactive sense. From James Conoca's article on the subject:

    Beginning over 30 years ago, activities involving separating americium (Am) from old weapons materials generated a moderate amount of transuranic waste contaminated with americium (Am), plutonium, uranium and minor amounts of other radionuclides, and containing various metal-nitrate salts (strong oxidizers), such as (Mg,Ca)(NO3)2 with minor amounts of Fe, Na and K. When dewatered, these hot evaporator bottoms were poured onto a tray, vacuum dried, flashed crystallized, rinsed with cold water and put in bags, where they sat for 30 years.

    [...snip...]

    It was recommended sometime later that inorganic kitty litter made from silicate minerals be added as a sorbent (widely used in radiochemistry as well as the home litter box), but also to dissipate heat and generally mitigate auto-oxidation reactions of the kind we think occurred in these drums in WIPP. Anhydrous citric acid (a reducer) was used to bring the pH down if over-adjusted.

    For reasons perhaps related to good intentions, or merely related to dust generation, the inorganic kitty litter was replaced by organic wheat-based litter early on in the process. There were a few other components of not much import in the drums, but additional organic components just added more fuel.

    Some decisions regarding these additives are vague and not attributable to a real chemist.

    So it seems it was a case of a well meaning idiot making stupid decisions.