Slashdot Mirror


Energy Department Permanently Closes Damaged Hanford Nuclear Reservation Tank (tri-cityherald.com)

The Department of Energy has decided to close the oldest double-shell tank at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The department says that Tank AY-102 has widespread damage and should not be repaired. The Tri-City Herald reports: DOE was required by Ecology, a regulator for Hanford's tanks storing radioactive and chemical waste, to empty enough waste from the tank to determine the cause of the leak by spring 2017. DOE confirmed in 2012 that waste from the inner shell of the tank was slowly leaking into the space between its inner and outer shells. No waste is known to have breached the outer shell to contaminate the soil beneath the tank. One of the goals of the inspection was to decide whether the tank could be repaired and returned to service, a scenario that appeared unlikely. Hanford has just 27 double-shell tanks, excluding Tank AY-102, to hold waste emptied from 149 leak-prone single shell tanks until the waste can be treated for disposal. Plans call for glassifying much of the waste at the vitrification plant under construction at Hanford. The waste is left from World War II and Cold War production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program.

69 comments

  1. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who's the dumbfuck who place the "Power" icon on this story?

    1. Re:So by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Who's the dumbfuck who place the "Power" icon on this story?

      The development of nuclear weaponry during WWII gave the U.S. the destructive power to end the Pacific theater conflict, and political power to help push the war to its conclusion. : D

    2. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your use of quotes has caused a disturbance in 'The Irony'. The Hanford reactors were designed for purpose and indeed produced A LOT of "Power".

      1.) Direct and immediate power in the form of electricity
      2.) Unleashed potential power in the form of heat, light and kinetic energy during weapon tests
      3.) Stored potential power in the form of physics packages inside warheads sitting in stores, silos, subs and hangers
      4.) Useful power in the form of world wide political/military/economic influence

      If trolling, very well played. If not, I recommend Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

    3. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was already indicated by the American flag tag, no need to be redundant.

    4. Re:So by brausch · · Score: 2

      Only one reactor (N) produced electricity (in addition to its primary isotope mission). The other dozen or so reactors were isotope production only.

      --
      "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
    5. Re:So by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      The power icon is always with the 'murika flag.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  2. Re: Because you have the power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mdsolar

  3. Hanfordâ(TM)s tanks ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck is Hanfordâ(TM)s tanks?

    Why the fuck /. editors won't do their job??

    1. Re: Hanfordâ(TM)s tanks ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. U do not need to know. Instead, u should consider finding the fries that you are short of a happy meal.

    2. Re:Hanfordâ(TM)s tanks ? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I think msmanisHD has trademarked a hat, or something.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Hanfordâ(TM)s tanks ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handford stanks.

  4. Lol douchebag moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You modded Mr. MAGA down. Little do you know it actually means Make America Great Again.

    1. Re:Lol douchebag moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You modded Mr. MAGA down. Little do you know it actually means^B^B^B^B6B Makes America Great Again.

    2. Re:Lol douchebag moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make America grate again.
      FTFY.

    3. Re:Lol douchebag moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAGA rapidly became Make America Go Away for most of the world's peoples.

      Trump is proof that Americans cannot drain the swamp by installing a YUUGE sewage outflow pipe.

  5. Location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    For anyone else who doesn't know everything DOE, it is located in southern Washington State.

    1. Re: Location by wookin_pa_nub · · Score: 1

      And it's leaking into the Columbia River

  6. Repurpose it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would make excellent housing for Seattle's homeless population.

    1. Re:Repurpose it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can imagine it now. The first taker comes in to work after the first evening after soaking in radioactive sludge.
       
        BeauHD: Now with 50% MORE radiation!

    2. Re:Repurpose it by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Flaws (in otherwise perfect and well thought out plan)...Superpowers. SuperBum, InvisibleBum, SpiderBum, SchizoCatWoman...also that's how you get zombies.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm missing something, but a tank had a leak, but since it is double walled nothing escaped and they agreed to stop using it and have a plan to deal with the waste.

    Am I missing something?

    Is the fact that the federal government does have competent people in it that can do their jobs really news? I could see maybe if there was a political angle, where despite Trump's best efforts the EPA managed to get significant work done, but it is not even that.

    Is there some imminent danger I'm missing?

    1. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^But there's RADIASHUN you moran!

    2. Re:Point? by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Am I missing something?

      Why yes. Yes you are.

      This is an opportunity to condemn the US for its reckless cold war behavior. Also, there are obvious and fun equivalences your supposed to make between the Soviet Union and the US. Further, there are tangential green energy angles to this as well, which you should have picked up on by the subtle conflation of weapons production with and energy supply among the icons assigned to the story. These arguments should to be at hand at all times in case some trumpanzee mentions Chernobyl or Kysthym and you need to step in with the necessary whataboutism.

      Remember, the US is a xenophobic, homophobic planet wrecking slave state infested by genocidal Christian white life and we're relying on people like you to keep yourself armed with the correct views at all times.

      Carry on, Internet warrior!

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you've forgotten that not all news has to be bad.

      This is a system working as designed. In this specific case, the newsworthiness comes from the rarity of the event, not the crying need to sack everyone concerned.

    4. Re:Point? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spot on. Primary containment fails: decision tree is to repair or take out of service prior to a sufficiently high risk that the secondary containment fails.

      Since the vitrification plant is behind schedule and has some risks in terms of long-term effectiveness, the loss of the tank is a disappointment, but not the end of the world.

    5. Re:Point? by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

      God, I wished I had mod points for this...

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    6. Re: Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Having competence and not having something devolve into a completely horrible shit show at Hanford actually is news. This is the most polluted site in the US, an area bigger than Los Angeles, with 53 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste and caustic solvents of largely unknown mixture in shoddy tanks, as well as 25 million cubic feet of solid radioactive waste, sitting on top of 200 square miles of contaminated groundwater from said leaky shoddy tanks, right next to the major watershed for the Pacific Northwest, which they also have dumped millions of terabecquerels of radioactive material in over the years of operation.

      From having lived downwind of this fucking apocalyptic shithole, it actually does come as a surprise that they haven't completely fucked the dog for once.

    7. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many radiashuns are we talkin'?

    8. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no fucking kidding. I'd give it 3 or 4 downmod points at least.

    9. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I didnt already use up all my modpoints, I would downmod you, xenophobic racisst

    10. Re:Point? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

      Maybe I'm missing something, but a tank had a leak, but since it is double walled nothing escaped and they agreed to stop using it and have a plan to deal with the waste.

      Am I missing something?

      Is the fact that the federal government does have competent people in it that can do their jobs really news? I could see maybe if there was a political angle, where despite Trump's best efforts the EPA managed to get significant work done, but it is not even that.

      Is there some imminent danger I'm missing?

      The real problem here is what the tanks contain. Nobody is really sure, just bad stuff that's highly radioactive.

      They contain waste from Platinum production, mostly waste after the platinum is pulled from the fuel elements. The waste could be anything, no records were kept.

    11. Re:Point? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe I'm missing something, but a tank had a leak, but since it is double walled nothing escaped and they agreed to stop using it and have a plan to deal with the waste.

      Am I missing something?

      Why, yes: This leak has essentially rendered the new double-walled tank into a single walled tank.

      Now, what is the Hanford site most famous for? It's the fact that so many of its single-walled tanks have leaked like sieves. So now we have a new potential sieve.

    12. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xenophobic racisst

      I know a snake when I see one.

      What's wrong, lizzie, did your mind-control laser overheat with all that grandstanding?

    13. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHY did the tank leak?
      They know what the tanks are made of, and the corrosiveness of the contents. I expect they chose not to do maintenance or pumping to save money, even though with 27 tanks they have a fair idea the risk is a certainty. Or more likely they would be yelled at for asking for necessary money. Good to see glass of CSIRO synrock improvements being deployed.

    14. Re:Point? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean Plutonium, not Platinum?

    15. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Russians have a really good record on nuclear safety. Mostly as the places where the accidents occurred did not exist Kyshtym actually Chelyabinsk-65 (which was renamed Ozyorsk in the early 1990s), or is it City 40

    16. Re: Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans excel at creating potential end-of-world opportunities and pushing them up to the edge. It'll be "interesting" to see which one goes over.

    17. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about 50 shillion nukers

    18. Re:Point? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They know what the tanks are made of, and the corrosiveness of the contents.

      Do they actually know how corrosive the contents are? My understanding is that they barely even know what's in the tanks.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Point? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean Plutonium, not Platinum?

      Yes, thank you.

    20. Re:Point? by brausch · · Score: 1

      "platinum production"

      We wish! :-) Actually, plutonium production.

      The waste isn't "anything". It is reasonably well characterized, and there are plenty of records. It's just that there is no cheap way to deal with it.

      --
      "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
    21. Re:Point? by brausch · · Score: 1

      The tanks are old. They are actually still in service past their design life.

      --
      "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
    22. Re: Point? by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 2

      This is the most polluted site in the US

      Child, please. It's not even in the top twenty.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    23. Re:Point? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      They do not know the corrosiveness of the contents. The hell mix inside those tanks is a self-heating ongoing chemical reaction in a pressure cooker that involves unstable radioactive isotopes that are changing from one element to another. They know that whatever is in there now is very different from the highly corrosive and radioactive materials that were put into the waste stream 70+ years ago. And if any government agency had actually kept a record of what was put into that waste back then, they are not talking about it.

      There is known to be stratification with different processes going on at different levels. Instruments inserted into the depths of the hell mix fail rather quickly and the data they do produce may not be accurate. We know that there is active chemistry in the sludge floating at the top; we expect that there is very active chemistry in the "yellow cake" precipitate at the bottom. We don't have a clue as to what is really going on in any of these regions.

      These double walled tanks were installed and filled between the late 1960s and the 1980s using the best materials engineering of the time. That engineering was fully mature: we would not be able to do any better today. And yet something has happened in the hell mix and one of the walls of this best-possible material is leaking....

      I am no expert about Hanford or the physics or chemistries that are involved. Since I am one of the millions who live downstream from Hanford, I do read everything I come across concerning that horrendous hazard. The damn thing should have been situated in Washington District of Columbia (not Washington state). That would have motivated the US politicians to have done it safely --or not done it at all.

    24. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a partisan issue, because all parties are responsible for both the good and the bad.

      Assuming that nothing has escaped the second containment layer (yes, we are totally assuming that) then this is indeed a success story... sort of! The material that was removed from leaking single-walled tanks was placed in double-walled tanks that were then allowed to remain in use well past their designed lifetime, until they too began to leak. This shows that we learned something!

      What we learned was that double wall tanks allow better monitoring and containment when a site or technology is being operated in "cut funding until failure" mode. I think this would be unsurprising to the average engineer, but to the politicians and taxpayers who are not engineers, this is apparently a huge surprise?

      BTW most US boiling water reactor installations are being run in "cut funding until failure" mode ever since the Bush/Cheney/Obama government tore the lid off US nuclear plant regulation. The Peachbottom plant had visible cracks in the outside building walls when it was reauthorized to run well past its design lifetime, and according to the truckers who deliver supplies there, it's still a total decrepit dump right now. You aren't allowed to see much of that, though, because terrorrrrrrrrrrrr

    25. Re:Point? by mlyle · · Score: 2

      > They do not know the corrosiveness of the contents. The hell mix inside those tanks is a self-heating ongoing chemical reaction in a pressure cooker that involves unstable radioactive isotopes that are changing from one element to another.

      A nuclear reaction. It's radioactive decay that makes them hot. The reasons why they're corrosive can be broadly understood pretty easily, too-- warm. liquid-phase stuff with a lot of salts in it eats metals; you can do things for corrosion resistance but given decades the warm salty mixture will win.

      There's some good news, in that radioactive decay that's capable of warming something means relatively short half lives, and so it's getting less warm all the time, and the hazard from radioactivity is similarly decreasing with time.

      It should probably be further diluted (more dilute == less heat/volume and less salty) and spread over a few more tanks.

    26. Re: Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want to read about the Hanford superfund sites. This is just one of four:

      https://cumulis.epa.gov/superc...

    27. Re:Point? by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      po-TAY-toe
      po-TAH-toe

      ;)

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  8. Re:you inseNsitive clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm going to allow it this time

  9. Sell it... Step 3: Profit by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, nuclear waste from WWII? Sell little fragments of that shit as keepsakes in a special decay absorbing Lexan.

  10. Permantly Closed? by tquasar · · Score: 0

    Nuke waste in kinda permanent. Call me in ten thousand years. Oh, wait. My phone won't work in the future.

    1. Re:Permantly Closed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is what the pro-nuke people never address - we are gradually turning the world into a dumping ground for nuclear waste, starting with the cooling pools at thousands of reactors worldwide. Hanford has been leaking really nasty stuff into the soil and the Columbia River. There were glass bottles of plutonium found buried in the soil. It's a f*cking disaster, and nobody wants to clean it up.

      But hey, let's keep pumping out the nuclear waste, build new nuclear plants, make new nuclear weapons, etc. If North Korea goes at it, you're going to see nuclear fallout spread all over the globe, even if a full scale war doesn't break out. Humans are not competent, responsible, or stable enough to handle nuclear material. History has shown it, and now we're doing it all over again.

      I'll believe the pro nuke crowd when they agree to fund the complete cleanup of all nuclear spills in the US, and the emptying of most of the major cooling pools of old rods. Until then it's just lip service.

    2. Re:Permantly Closed? by doom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what the pro-nuke people never address-- we are gradually turning the world into a dumping ground for nuclear waste

      This is waste from cold-war era weapons production, it has nothing to do with waster from power production.

      starting with the cooling pools at thousands of reactors worldwide.

      The dry storage of high level wastes at nuclear plants is actually working fine, because among other things the amount of waste is small, certainly compared to the amount of energy generated. (There isn't another power source that could possibly do this, by the way: "oh well, let's just keep it all here for now".)

      You see, you are not some genius who's discovered a problem no one has ever thought about, and no, there is no vast conspiracy to prevent clean-ups of spills.

      There is, however an interesting feature planted inside your skull that prevents you from hearing anyone who says anything remotely sensible on the subject-- no doubt we're all shills from the conspiracy, right?

    3. Re:Permantly Closed? by Barsteward · · Score: 0, Troll

      doesn't matter where the nuclear waste comes from, its still toxic and it being around is an accident waiting to happen so its a potential danger for a very long time.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    4. Re:Permantly Closed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't the only one to try and mod your comment up, along with the other AC. Pretty cynical behavior from the Nuclear shills, they have no answer to your comment so they try to silence you.

    5. Re:Permantly Closed? by brausch · · Score: 1

      "thousands of reactors worldwide"

      Actually the world has built way fewer than even one thousand reactors.

      And don't confuse commercial power nukes with the Hanford stuff. That was WW II and cold war production and they made a mess. Cleaning it up is a difficult technical challenge.

      The commercial nuclear stuff is a much smaller problem, mostly financial. The actual physical volume of used fuel rods in the world isn't that great compared to many other pollution problems.

      --
      "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
    6. Re:Permantly Closed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference, however. Solar and wind are both incapable of producing steady power 24/7, which nuclear generators do handily. To make solar and wind capable of base load, massive battery systems will need to be constructed. Batteries have their own hazardous waste issues, though of course nuclear wastes are far more dangerous and long-lived. There are some promising technologies, specifically organic-electrolyte flow batteries, that show potential for large-scale power storage for smoothing out wind and solar power profiles.

      One of the challenges next-generation nuclear will face is the ability of the nascent technologies to make use of what is currently stored as nuclear waste, extracting more energy from it and in turn decreasing its long term toxicity.

    7. Re:Permantly Closed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the amount of waste is small, certainly compared to the amount of energy generated.

      No, it is not. Solar or Wind would have created zero operating waste for the same amount of generation, and have a cheaper lifespan to boot. That means that nuclear literally produces infinitely more operating waste than is necessary.

      there is no vast conspiracy to prevent clean-ups of spills.

      There is a vast conspiracy to prevent paying for the clean-up of the waste we've already produced from all industries. It's called corporatism.

      Wind generators are very expensive and require constant maintenance, which is why they're taking over energy production at a snails pace.

      Also, do you know what happens to the waste products used during manufacturing of solar panels ( eg: sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid ) ? I didn't think so.

      The reason we aren't using more solar and wind is because they are both technologically and economically inferior to existing methods.

    8. Re:Permantly Closed? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      don't expect anything less from those with their head in the sand - its a sign I'm not wrong if they have no argument to make

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  11. Browse at 0:Nuclear Mod trolls are out in force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter which comment I tried to mod up to insightful that already was modded insightful it all ends up being modded troll. This is ridiculous censorship of a really important topic to make a political point.

    You people that are getting paid to do this, paid shills to control the conversation, should be ashamed of yourselves.

  12. Point answered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm missing something,

    Yes you are. Where do they put the stuff that is in there and how do they get it there? That is a hard problem to solve.

    Now they have an unknown deadline before it starts leaking into the groundwater through the last wall. You don't expect the last tank to last forever do you?

  13. It's already happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To make solar and wind capable of base load, massive battery systems will need to be constructed

    That's feasible today. The Tesla battery system recently installed in Australia is already demonstrating how this can work.

  14. Just plain wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason we aren't using more solar and wind is because they are both technologically and economically inferior to existing methods

    Exactly the opposite : renewables have taken off in a massive way precisely because they are technologically and economically superior. That's why renewables generated three times as much power as coal in the UK in 2017. That's why last year the UK had its first coal-free day since the industrial revolution.