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."

Comments

Site is an unholy mess

[Bugler412]

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.

mdsolar

[Major Blud]

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo:

An anonymous reader named mdsolar ;-)

Re:No worries, DoE is on the job!

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:EPAAAWWWWWWHHHHH

[Required Snark]

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.