Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Possible Radioactive Leak Investigated At Washington Nuclear Site (upi.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the going-for-Geiger-counters dept.

Authorities are investigating radioactive material found on a worker's clothing one week after a tunnel collapse at the waste nuclear waste site in the state of Washington. Around 7 p.m. Thursday, Washington River Protection Solutions, a government contractor contractor in charge of all 177 underground storage tanks at the nuclear site. detected high radiation readings on a robotic device that seven workers were pulling out of a tank. Then, contamination was also discovered on the clothing of one worker -- on one shoe, on his shirt and on his pants in the knee area.

"Radiological monitoring showed contamination on the unit that was three times the planned limit. Workers immediately stopped working and exited the area according to procedure," said Rob Roxburgh, deputy manager of WRPS Communications & Public Relations said to KING-TV. Using leak-detection instruments, WRPS said it did not find liquid escaping the tank. "Everybody was freaked, shocked, surprised," said a veteran worker, who was in direct contact with crew members. "[The contamination] was not expected. They're not supposed to find contamination in the annulus [safety perimeter] of the double shell tanks."
Washington's attorney general, urging a federal clean-up of the site, insists "This isn't the first potential leak and it won't be the last."

7 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. I used to work at Hanford Site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and three times the planned limit is nothing. Before I quit, we had a scare where the monitors said there was a "major" problem, but it was someone that had an old smoke detector in their backpack that they brought from home that they forgot about. If a smoke detector is considered safe in your home, then having one at a radioactive dump shouldn't be considered a problem, but it was. This is just people being overly cautious.

    1. Re: I used to work at Hanford Site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      This. People on Seattle just like to whine.

    2. Re:I used to work at Hanford Site... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps exposure to radiation is what made him so strong? Having said that there's no evidence that he was green, but then again colour film hadn't been invented then.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:I used to work at Hanford Site... by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, but you don't set such limits to detect catastrophes. You set such limits to detect unforeseen circumstances that might, perhaps in rare situations, lead to catastrophe.

      A worker being exposed to harmful levels of radiation is catastrophic. A worker being exposed to a level of radiation that is medically harmless but which should not have occurred is a situation that requires investigation, because that means something about your assumptions isn't quite right. That doesn't mean you ought to panic; in any sensibly conservative procedure you have to accept that false positive concern is a routine event -- as in your story of the smoke detector.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:I used to work at Hanford Site... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you work at a site that stores and tracks nuclear waste, then you probably know that a smoke detector contains radioactive materials and so shouldn't be just thrown away. You put it in your backpack to take it somewhere to dispose of safely. You forget that you did it and go into work with that backpack. Not a particularly far-fetched set of circumstances...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. Re:I'm a downwinder by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with the "cleanup" is that once you have "cleaned up" the radiation, where are you going to put it? In a landfill? That is just moving the problem from one place to another. A geological repository like Yucca Mountain doesn't work, because that is for small amounts of high level waste, not large amounts of low level waste like we have at Hanford.

    There really aren't any good solutions, but in politics "something must be done" so paying contractors to play environmental theater while they move stuff around in circles is about the best we can do.

  3. What is this stuff? by seven+of+five · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Radioactive waste" doesn't tell me much. What are the nuclides, how many curies?