Slashdot Mirror


Tunnel Collapses At Nuclear Facility Once Called 'An Underground Chernobyl Waiting To Happen' (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Managers at the Hanford Site in Washington State told workers to "take cover" Tuesday morning after a tunnel leading to a massive plutonium finishing plant collapsed. The emergency is especially worrisome, since Hanford is commonly known as "the most toxic place in America," with one former governor calling it "an underground Chernobyl waiting to happen." Worrisome might actually be an understatement. An emergency has been declared. The accident occurred near the 200 East Area, the home of several solid waste sites. More specifically, the tunnel that collapsed was one filled with highly radioactive train cars that once carried spent fuel rods containing deeply dangerous plutonium and uranium from a reactor on the Columbia River to the processing facility. Those reactors once produced plutonium for America's nuclear arsenal, though production ended in 1980. The cleanup process that followed has gone on for nearly 30 years. Back to the poor workers, though. They've been instructed to stay indoors, and one manager reportedly sent out a message telling workers to "secure ventilation in your building" and "refrain from eating or drinking." When you can't even have a glass of water, you know the nuclear emergency is bad. The U.S. Department of Energy sent out a press release around 1pm EST that said "facility personnel have been evacuated," while workers at nearby sites have been instructed to stay indoors. A spokesperson also told the press that "there was no evidence to suggest that radioactive materials had been released and that all of the workers in the area were accounted for."

35 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    How about we don't try to produce energy with the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered?

    1. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about we don't try to produce energy with the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered?

      You mean carbon?

    2. Re:Here's an idea by klingens · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is no nuclear facility you can "improve", which you can make better in any way: it's a waste dump of highly toxic, highly volatile materials. These exist and transmutation of them is a bullshit theory of people too stupid for physics (meaning it is damn expensive in research and then energy to transmute, so expensive it's a pipedream one stop below a perpetuum mobile).

      This is one of many waste dumps around Hanford that you have to watch over for a few tens of thousands of years. Now think what happens in 12.000 AD: does anyone then even know that there might be a radioactive waste dump in the area when such a hole opens?

    3. Re:Here's an idea by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about we don't try to produce energy with the most toxic and deadly materials mankind has ever discovered?

      The waste at Hanford is from producing weapons, not energy. This has nothing to do with nuclear power.

    4. Re:Here's an idea by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, you're still producing energy. Just... a lot faster.

    5. Re:Here's an idea by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually it's got both military and civilian waste, and there is still very interesting ongoing work on reprocessing at the place which is described on their website.
      It's a very large site and a lot of activities have occurred there in different buildings over many years.
      The rolling stock that's mentioned in the summary is not exactly Chernobyl material - just something radioactive enough to be too dangerous to stand next to for a while. It's a good example of the vast amount of low level radioactive waste existing that the "there is no nuclear waste, only fuel" people try to pretend does not exist for some bizzare reason (I don't know why they do this since the low level stuff is not so difficult to store).

    6. Re:Here's an idea by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      This is slashdot. People who love science but are mostly ignorant of it.

    7. Re:Here's an idea by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Well, you're still producing energy. Just... a lot faster.

      First Law of Thermodynamics disagrees. You're never producing energy.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  2. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A giant lizard like creature has been spotted in the river approaching Portland.

    1. Re:In other news... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      He was heard shouting "A 15-minute call could save you 15 percent (or more) on car insurance."

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  3. I love seeing technophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On a news site supposedly devoted to technology and science.

    It's not a "Chernobyl waiting to happen" because they're not running the reactor hard to test the safety systems.

    They're worried about a release of radiation into the air through the permeability of the tunnel collapse and that's presuming the train cars were damaged in the collapse as well - if there is leakage we're looking at another Three Mile Island (and all the hysteria that went along with that)

    The bigger story here is why don't we have a more secure disposal facility for nuclear waste... oh wait... we DID and Harry Reid shut it down so the waste had to stay in this "Chernobyl like" facility.

    1. Re:I love seeing technophobia by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      The left likes to bitch about nucs too. If you want to wean us off carbon, nuclear will be necessary.

  4. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by DickBreath · · Score: 2

    While the EPA may declare this an environmental disaster. The DOE needs to reclassify plutonium as a mineral. The FDA can come up with an RDA for plutonium. The workers and nearby population can be told there is nothing to worry about. Go about your business as normal. Move along. Move along.

    RDA = Recommended Daily Allowance, like the vitamins listed on your breakfast cereal boxes.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  5. 30 yr gig by ghoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    30 year gig to "clean up" a site. Wish I had founded a company to snag this sweet gig. The profits would have enormous - funding the anti nuke nuts would have been a small portion of the profit margin.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  6. perhaps stay out of the area by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    Hanford. I remember friend and I drove to the road adjacent to this property to view the total eclipse in 1979 (wide open flat area). Looks like have to find another location to view total eclipse this August.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  7. News by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find the prose and opinion in these kinds of news stories to be annoying. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the bias of this particular story, the "Back to the poor workers, though" bit had me wondering if one of the worker's grandmothers wrote this news or what.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  8. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is it you think the EPA was going to do about a tunnel collapse exactly?

  9. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Just think of all the money we'd save on electricity if everyone just glowed in the dark.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  10. Site is an unholy mess by Bugler412 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've done engineering work on the site (new storage tanks). This site is a perfect example of how technical neglect or ignorance (the early days of nuclear) combined with entrenched bureaucracy and underfunding of the cleanup project can land you in a giant mess that's difficult (at best) to resolve. Hanford is and was an accident waiting to happen, and it could happen at literally any time, contaminating beyond any reasonable ability to cleanup the entire Columbia river basin when the big accident finally happens. And with current funding and environmental attitudes of the current regime, it's not going to get better.

  11. Scaremongering by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work a mile from the site border, and connect remotely to the government network there for my job, and have worked on site.

    There was no radiological release; no contamination was spread.

    Employees were instructed to shut off HVAC and to avoid eating and drinking for several hours; these moratoriums have been lifted.

    The site has essentially been evacuated. All non-essential employees have been released for the day. Swing shift cancelled (again, except non-essential personnel).

    Can we please stop with the scaremongering? The worst thing about Hanford is that no work ever gets done out there because safety is quite literally job number 1: they've extraordinarily happy that you don't get any work done as long as you're safe not doing it. Hanford's just a huge money sink.

    Hell, I didn't even hear about it until my mother in law halfway across the state texted me.

    1. Re:Scaremongering by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Scaremongering really is needed though. The only way anything's going to get done, not just at that site but with all of the old sites, is if people start worrying about their back yards.

      Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear regime has directed all of the scariness of nuclear in the wrong direction: We're petrified of new, safer nuclear options while we simultaneously ignore the old, decaying nuclear sites that already exist and are at moderate to extreme risk of disaster due to neglect and simply being well past their design spec age.

      So what we need is not to stop the scaremongering. What we need to do is redirect the scaremongering to the issues that are actually relevant now rather than theoretical future issues that may or may not ever come up.

    2. Re:Scaremongering by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 2
      +1 for this. I live in the area and don't work there (well, a couple trips to the vit plant 10 years ago as a contractor) but have plenty of friends that do and am familiar with the safety culture out there.

      Of course they are going to lock down and then evacuate until they determine the (non-)criticality of this event. Safety is so important out there they can't take the risk of being wrong (if for no other reason than the safety dude's job depends on it). Don't take it as an indication of the severity of the event.

      Also, there's no motive for any cover ups or conspiracies out there. When they say something about the problem, believe them. Failures like this just make their cleanup job harder (and might eventually get them more funding if this gets enough press). These aren't the guys who made the waste, it's not still being made, most of those people are retired or dead. They're just there to clean it up.

      --
      Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    3. Re:Scaremongering by pakar · · Score: 2

      My guess is that thorium reactors are the closest to made commercially possible. Safe in terms of the nuclear reaction since they cannot melt down or have their pressure-vessel explode... Would produce less waste. Can be used to consume the existing spent fuel-rods reducing the amount of waste we have. Will produce things that are highly radioactive, but so radioactive that we only have to store it for a few hundred years. (The more radioactive something is the faster it decays) Does have some technical issues, but not unsolvable, before it could be widely deployed.

      Fore other types of reactors have a look at http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclear... under the section "The Fourth Generation Reactors".

      From the above link above:

      The Fourth Generation Reactors
      In 2002 the Gen iV Internation Forum (GIF) nations (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Switzerland, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States of America) proposed a long term research and developement program to investigate 6 promising new reactor designs.
      The six design concepts are:
      The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)
      Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)
      Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR)
      Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)
      Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)
      Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)

      These reactor concepts are designed to address the energy needs of the World into the far future (post 21st century).
      They efficiently utilize Uranium (many can employ depleted Uranium or "spent" fuel from current reactors).
      Destroy a large fraction of nuclear waste from current reactors via transmutation.
      Generate Hydrogen for transportation and other non-electric energy needs.
      Be inherently safe and easy to operate.
      Provide inherent resistance to Nuclear Weapons proliferation.
      Provide a clear cost advantage over other forms of energy generation.
      Carry a financial risk no greater than other forms of energy generation.

  12. Emergency -- yes. Catastrophe -- no. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been following this situation, and the shelter in place order and early worker release are just sensible precautionary measures. At present there is no reason to expect any release of contamination.

    Not that this is exactly a feather in the cap for the site's management; obviously it should never have happened. But the response at least is responsible: when the unexpected happens, you assume more unexpected events are in store until you're sure as sure can be.

    What some politician called the site in the past is totally irrelevant to the present situation. This should, however, remind us that we do have a pretty big nuclear waste problem slowly building; and because it's slow we've been kicking the ball down the road and hoping for the best. That isn't a good enough. Unexpected things happen, and even if this event proves to be harmless, as is likely, they don't always happen in harmless ways.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Emergency -- yes. Catastrophe -- no. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

      FYI, "emergency" is not a recognized classification. Considering the press's slavish attention to detail during the last election, I'm amazed that not even a single news report that I've seen so far has got it right.

      According to the site's official website this is a Site Area Emergency, which is the higher of the two possible classifications. As shown on the NRC's website, both classifications are filled with weasel words. An event may occur that could lead to a significant release of radioactive materials, and the release, if any, could require off-site help to contain.

      Triggering an event classification, or upgrading an ongoing one, causes various agencies and offices to take action. The specifics for this type of event will be in countless binders and charts in dispatch centers and EOCs around the region. On site, the priorities are typically 1) lockdown, 2) deploy survey gear, 3) evacuate non-responder staff when/if safe to do so. Staff are told not to eat or drink during lockdown in case there is any radioactive dust around.

      Volunteers have probably been asked not to leave town in case they need to open an evacuee reception center. Local first responders with counterterrorism and radiological training probably picked up their DRDs. HAMs and nerds in the area probably turned on the public access feeds on the Geiger counters they keep in their attics.

      From the sounds of things, 8 feet of shielding got moved a bit closer to some waste containers. If someone had thought to put it on the calendar, no one would ever have heard about it, but because the earth decided to do it without asking what the plant management thought, it automatically turns into a shitshow.

      I'll raise a glass tonight to the guys in tyvek suits. I know exactly how unpleasant they are to wear, and I'll pray that everyone wearing one this week remains annoyed by them, and never thankful.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  13. mdsolar by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo:

    An anonymous reader named mdsolar ;-)

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  14. Re:No worries, DoE is on the job! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea that concrete can contain such waste is absurd, and Chernobyl demonstrates that. Concrete is not some sort of an impermeable layer. Apart from the fact that it's possible the decay of whatever is down in that tunnel will probably eat at the concrete over time, concrete is vulnerable to water damage, and more importantly to cracking. Ask anyone who has poured a concrete slab, if you don't have stable soil and fill beneath a slab, and if you don't put control joints into a slab, it will crack. That's not even talking about other potential issues like frost heave or the potential that such waste could still find its way out of its "tomb" and into the water table.

    Dumping tons of concrete into the hole is not a long term solution. I wouldn't even call it a medium term solution, and doing it will likely complicate future cleanup or containment.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  15. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Seems a fairly astute observation. Left to his own, and to Bannon, I'm sure Trump would have killed the EPA entire.

    Of course, things aren't that simple, and if the rumors are true, the delay in Trump's grand commitment to exiting the Paris agreement is because Kushner, Tillerson, and dare I even say it, no less than Rick Perry himself think the US should stay in it, with Bannon and Pruitt fighting to pull the US out. I find it fascinating that every hot button issue now has Kushner on one side, and Bannon on the other.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  16. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Informative
    The EPA is directly involved with the Hanford cleanup operation. The work is being done under the direct management of the DOE, but their results are reviewed by the EPA.

    CERCLA 121(c) requires five-year reviews on remedial actions when hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain on site above levels that allow for “unlimited use and unrestricted exposure”. A general overview of the review process can be found in this presentation. The first Five-Year Review was completed in 2001 by EPA staff. The Department of Energy (DOE) chose to conduct the second Five-Year Review which had draft 0 completed in 2006. When DOE performs the review, as in 2006, EPA is still required to review the report and provide comments/concurrence in a letter of review.

    Given how poorly the Hanford cleanup has gone under the leadership of the DOE, more involvment by the EPA might lead to a better result. If you carefully read the preceding paragraph, you will note that the DOE took over the review process from the EPA after the first report. Having a department review it'sown work is not exactly the best way to insure that they are doing a good job. After this latest failure, it is obvious that the DOE is not doing a very good job.

    There is a cosmic irony in the juxtaposition of this problem at Hanford and the shutdown of scientific advisory panels at the EPA and the Department of the Interior. Inevitably some of these efforts involve the Hanford site. It is a stark reminder that ignoring science is always a bad idea.

    By the way, why are you picking on the EPA in the first place? I detect the stench of a right wing troll.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  17. Re:Was the summary written by a third grader? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is not a nuclear power plant. It is a wast dump from cold war activities. How stupid to say it is another Chernobyl waiting to happen. That screams ignorance.

  18. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by dbIII · · Score: 2

    I'd say it's extremely obvious sarcasm but don't let that stop you doing some political cheerleading.

    I don't think this is about "left" or "right" anyway. Nixon had a lot to say about pollution. The Soviets had Lysenkoism and current trends seem to be going in that direction - reality being defined by what the State says it is and don't let those pesky facts get in the way.

  19. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

    I would not put Kushner in too good of a light. I'd rate him right up there with the Jewish money changers christ threw out of the temple. Except there was no one to throw him out of the white house when they were selling EB-5's in china for the family biz. At first I thought he was only complicit. Now I think he is all in.

  20. Re:"Nuclear is the safest energy source" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    This is the problem with nuclear power: people hate it so much they'll lump in everything with it, relevant or not. This is all about weapons production waste. You might as well blame solar energy for the majority of gun deaths because most shootings are done with the aid of sunlight to see.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  21. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    Thank God for Coal /s

    Russia will quake in their boots at the thoughts of our ICBMs with Coal Warheads.

    Return Crimea to Ukraine you commie dogs or we will fill your cities with smog by launching our coal warheads at you.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  22. Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    Just think of all the money we'd save on electricity if everyone just glowed in the dark.

    The movie industry would have a new scape goat for theatres not filling. It's too bright in the cinema with everyone glowing, no one can see the picture.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch