Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Report Says Radioactive Monitors Failed at Nuclear Plant (apnews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

A new report says mistakes and mismanagement are to blame for the exposure of workers to radioactive particles at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state. From the report: Contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation on Thursday released its evaluation of what went wrong in December during demolition of the nuclear reservation's highly contaminated Plutonium Finishing Plant. The Tri-City Herald reports the study said primary radioactive air monitors used at a highly hazardous Hanford project failed to detect contamination. Then, when the spread of contamination was detected, the report said steps taken to contain it didn't fully work.

At least 11 Hanford workers checked since mid-December inhaled or ingested small amounts of radioactive particles. Private and government vehicles were contaminated with radioactive particles. The sprawling site in southeastern Washington contains more than 50 million gallons of radioactive and toxic wastes in underground storage tanks. It's owned by the U.S. Department of Energy, which hires private contractors to manage the cleanup work. Hanford was established during World War II and made the plutonium for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. The 560-square mile site also made most of the plutonium for the nation's nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.

4 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Bad title... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Nuclear plant" makes it seem like it's a nuclear power plant. The nuclear power industry in the US has been extremely safe, and subject to extreme safeguards, to the point of unprofitability.

    No, Hanford is a former military plutonium production facility, dating from the early 1940s -- things were done hastily at first due to WW2, then without good oversight and often without knowing better. They made a hell of a radioactive mess that will take decades to clean up, assuming we can find a place to put the waste (WIPP in NM needs to open).

    If you're on the West Coast and worry about Fukushima, stop worrying, and start worrying about Hanford. If an old tank full of 50 year old radwaste (which is often nitrate-based, and thus also explosive) fails, it will be nasty.

    1. Re:Bad title... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative

      EDIT: There is actually a commercial nuclear oower plant on the Hanford site, but that isn't the problem.

    2. Re:Bad title... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The nuclear power industry in the US has been extremely safe, and subject to extreme safeguards, to the point of unprofitability.

      You can't call it safe until the waste has been safely managed. Until the waste has been interred someplace sensible, nobody knows how safe nuclear will have turned out to be.

      If you're on the West Coast and worry about Fukushima, stop worrying, and start worrying about Hanford. If an old tank full of 50 year old radwaste (which is often nitrate-based, and thus also explosive) fails, it will be nasty.

      I can worry about two things at once! Three, if you count my ulcer.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Bad title... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can't call it safe until the waste has been safely managed. Until the waste has been interred someplace sensible, nobody knows how safe nuclear will have turned out to be.

      The kind of radioactive waste you're talking about isn't really "waste", since it can be processed to remove the elements that poison fission reactions and then turned back into perfectly functional fuel rods.

      And never mind the possibilities inherent in breeder reactors, which can turn U-238 (for which read: most of the uranium in a civilian reactor) and turn it into a useful fissionable.

      Alas, the anti-nuke hysterics have pretty much eliminated the possibility of reprocessing spent fuel rods, so we dump a metric-fuckton of usable uranium into cooling tanks, let it sit for decades (or forever, since the anti-nukes have fought tooth and nail to prevent the building of reprocessing facilities), then throw it away

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"