Slashdot Mirror
Hanford Nuclear Waste Cleanup Makes Progress, But Questions Loom (ieee.org)
The Hanford Vit Plant in Washington state, a $17 billion federal facility for treating and immobilizing radioactive waste, is now on track to begin "glassifying" low-activity nuclear waste as soon as 2022, reports IEEE Spectrum. This is "a year ahead of a court-mandated deadline." From the report: Still, an air of uncertainty surrounds the project. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed reclassifying some of the nation's radioactive waste as less dangerous, and it's unclear how that could affect the Hanford facility's long-term prospects. Hanford houses about 212 million liters of high-level waste, the leftovers of the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
However, higher-level waste has a longer timeline. Separate pretreatment and vitrification facilities aren't slated for commissioning until 2033. All parts of the Vit Plant are legally required to begin fully operating by 2036, under a consent decree between Washington, Oregon, and the federal government. The DOE hasn't said whether, or how, its proposal to reclassify nuclear waste would affect existing plans at Hanford if adopted. The agency is not making any decisions on the classification or disposal of any particular waste stream at this time, a DOE official said by email. [...] Though current law defines high-level radioactive waste as the sludge that results from processing highly radioactive nuclear fuel, the DOE is considering slapping a new, potentially less expensive label on it if it can meet the radioactive concentration limits for Class C low-level radioactive waste. Reclassifying nuclear waste would allow the federal government to sidestep decades of cleanup work, saving it billions of dollars. The relabeling might even enable the DOE to bypass costly vitrification and instead contain tank waste by covering it with concrete-like grout, as the agency does at other decommissioned nuclear sites. Officials and citizens in Washington and Oregon oppose this method for Hanford, "citing the risk of long-term soil and groundwater contamination and the challenges of moving and storing voluminous grout blocks," reports IEEE Spectrum. "Earlier federal studies found that grout 'actually performed the worst of all the supplemental treatment options considered.' (A 2017 report to Congress, however, suggested both vitrification and grout could effectively treat Hanford's low-activity waste.)"
However, higher-level waste has a longer timeline. Separate pretreatment and vitrification facilities aren't slated for commissioning until 2033. All parts of the Vit Plant are legally required to begin fully operating by 2036, under a consent decree between Washington, Oregon, and the federal government. The DOE hasn't said whether, or how, its proposal to reclassify nuclear waste would affect existing plans at Hanford if adopted. The agency is not making any decisions on the classification or disposal of any particular waste stream at this time, a DOE official said by email. [...] Though current law defines high-level radioactive waste as the sludge that results from processing highly radioactive nuclear fuel, the DOE is considering slapping a new, potentially less expensive label on it if it can meet the radioactive concentration limits for Class C low-level radioactive waste. Reclassifying nuclear waste would allow the federal government to sidestep decades of cleanup work, saving it billions of dollars. The relabeling might even enable the DOE to bypass costly vitrification and instead contain tank waste by covering it with concrete-like grout, as the agency does at other decommissioned nuclear sites. Officials and citizens in Washington and Oregon oppose this method for Hanford, "citing the risk of long-term soil and groundwater contamination and the challenges of moving and storing voluminous grout blocks," reports IEEE Spectrum. "Earlier federal studies found that grout 'actually performed the worst of all the supplemental treatment options considered.' (A 2017 report to Congress, however, suggested both vitrification and grout could effectively treat Hanford's low-activity waste.)"
THE most important problem with nuclear power ? COST.
This argument has been going on for years. On one hand, the DOE keeps changing the rules for vitrification, and processing, and keeps the shell game going at Hanford. On the other hand, they've shut down the Savannah River reclamation project, and mothballed Yucca Mountain. So, we keep kicking the can down the road, and in the meantime, the storage containers that currently exist at Hanford are getting older and more subject to decay and leakage. It's going to take another crisis for them to make a definitive plan - but I don't know why I expect anything less....
That was the purpose of Savannah River. They were going to reprocess all the high-level waste into useful fuel for power generation. Unfortunately, what with the panicky regulations and excessive costs involved in anything that says 'nuclear', they've decided that the project won't be continued. The other issue is that while yes, some of the stuff we're talking about is still capable of generating heat, the majority of the decay is now harmful radiation. The heat generated is not on a level which permits it to be harnessed for any useful purpose. It would still suck to have it melt down, but after you shield it to the point where the harmful radiation is negated, you've absorbed all the heat with the shield.
Waste reprocessing is hazardous and expensive. It only rams home the fact that nuclear is not cost-effective. If it hadn't been sold to the people with the lie that it would be "too cheap to meter" they would never have accepted it. The small number of accidents so far is due to epic amounts of human effort that you simply don't have to expend in other cases.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Deposit the nuke waste into spent coal shafts. Since coal is clean, and the coal shafts have residual coal, which is the best for cleaning, the nuke waste is made inert in a few years give or take. Excellent. Excellent. Excellsior.
I was working for the state out there 20 years ago and they said they were making progress.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Plans and regulations changed because of the 'low-bid' mode the DOE, and every other government agency, operates under. The prime contractor for the operation of the Hanford site has changed at least a dozen times in the past 30 years. Granted, it might be because some of them didn't recognize what they were getting into, but still, it's impossible to develop a long term plan when to the DOE, long-term means a 5 year contract. Hanford is a very big deal - we're not talking about spent fuel pools here, where the bean counters know exactly what's stored in there. These containers are un-labeled, and the guys who had any clue what was in them are long gone. It's a mess, there's no arguing that, but just talking about it, which is what they've been doing for the past 30 years, isn't going to solve the problem.
Quotes from the parent comment:
... is absurdly high..."
"... the cost of constructing nuclear power plants,
Also extremely high: "the cost of dealing with the radioactive waste materials."
"the corruption and incompetence is staggering, and far outweighs the benefits of nuclear power."
The Hanford Site was established in 1943. "... decades of manufacturing left behind 53 million US gallons (200,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste..."
Perhaps every 2 years for more than 5 decades, there have been new claims about cleaning the Hanford site. This Slashdot story is a good example of demonstrating the confusion and inadequate management. One of the problems in the past is that most government officials didn't have technical knowledge, but tried to make decisions anyway.
Humans have made a mess that humans don't know how to fix. Nuclear fission plants have never made sense, partly because of the immense problems dealing with radioactive waste.
It's like a Chernobyl ... except instead of killing thousands of people it's killed zero. Otherwise, totally the same!
This stuff was mined out the ground, and a lot of effort spent on processing it to get it to a 'useful' state for boom stuff and power generation.
It's a shame that the waste/depleted version can't be reprocessed several times to get the most out of it (irrespective of cost, as I suspect that in itself may come down one enough minds set on the problem, with enough incentive to get it fixed).
I mean, it's still radioactive, still emitting particles - isn't there a proper use for a lot of this stuff somewhere(space?, thermopiles?) that isn't destructive? or is it simply 'stick it in some glass and keep it cool' the only thing we have going?
Actually, the issue isn't the reprocessing or the mess it makes. The issue is that some of the byproducts are very much in demand for building nuclear weapons. A uranium bomb is pretty big based on the size of the critical mass, but a plutonium bomb literally fits in a large suitcase because it is a lot smaller critical mass and therefore smaller.
The problem is reprocessing spent nuclear fuel produces a quantity of plutonium that cannot be exactly determined in advance, so as you process more and more spent fuel you cannot be sure you are collecting all the plutonium and none is getting pulled off into illicit uses. Eventually, the accounting may lose enough to build a weapon though this uncertainty and it's a problem that you just don't know.
So, in the 70's it was decided that it was just safer to let the spent fuel pile up, than risk nuclear weapons development by parties who may not have the world's best interests at heart and would be willing to use their weapon for reasons we wouldn't find acceptable. I don't blame Carter for this too much, he did what he thought best, but it's made the problem into a long term one as we just keep kicking the can down the road...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yeah, it would be diluted in all the oceans, and cause no further problems.
Just like mercury has.
The problems caused by using nuclear energy go away by themselves, within just a few millennia.
The problems caused by burning fossil fuels also go away by themselves. It just takes 100000 times longer.
Yeah, definitely, because all chemicals are totally the same. Thanks Dr. Science!
So you've done the research and proven that none of this witch's brew of radioactive heavy metals would bioaccumulate? Where did you publish the paper?
Also extremely high: "the cost of dealing with the radioactive waste materials."
"the corruption and incompetence is staggering, and far outweighs the benefits of nuclear power." ... ...
The Hanford Site was established in 1943. "... decades of manufacturing left behind 53 million US gallons (200,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste..."
Humans have made a mess that humans don't know how to fix. Nuclear fission plants have never made sense, partly because of the immense problems dealing with radioactive waste.
The article you link makes it very clear that Hanford is a waste site for nuclear weapons production, not nuclear power plant fuel. You're dragging nuclear electrical power production into a historical problem from the early days of nuclear weapon production.
Are you deliberately conflating the two? Can you not make your point with actual commercial nuclear power fuel production and waste storage?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Excellent observation, and one that almost everybody tends to gloss over when discussing radioactivity. I like to remind people that carbon dating is a very specific use of the measurement of half-life and remaining volatility, something that's measured (in that isotope) in MILLIONS of years. Hell, humans are mildly radioactive - but the carbon based compounds that inhabit US, again, have half-lives so extensive that it's not worth measuring or talking about. Hey, enjoy THAT panic attack.
Quoting that article: "Besides the cleanup project, Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station..."
The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima and Hanford have shown that humans cannot manage large nuclear plants of any kind. I knew one of the managers at Hanford, so I had facts from inside the organization.
We already do this to collect the closing costs of a nuclear plant. For every dollar a customer pays for electricity generated with nuclear power, a few cents go into building up a fund to pay for the cleanup of any accidents. Japan's nuclear plants have produced roughly 200 TWh per year for the last 30 years, or 6000 TWh. The Fukushima cleanup cost is currently estimated at $180 billion. So its cost relative to the amount of power generated is ($180 billion) / (6000 TWh) = $30 million / TWh = $30 / MWh = 3 cents / kWh.
So a surcharge of just 3 cents/kWh on all electricity generated by nuclear power would have paid for the Fukushima cleanup costs. As there have only been two major nuclear accidents, 3 cents/kWh is probably towards the high end. But it's small enough you could just go with it and collect that into a disaster fund. (The third-biggest accident - 3 Mile Island - had a $1 billion cleanup cost. If you amortize that over all nuclear power production in the U.S., it works out to just 0.006 cents/kWh. A Fukushima-sized cleanup here would work out to a 1.1 cent/kWh surcharge.)
And to address AC's comment, Insurance doesn't work because only a small number of nuclear plants are necessary to power the world. The U.S. has about 100 nuclear plants, which generate 20% of all our electricity. About 450 nuclear plants throughout the world provides 10% of the world's electricity. For insurance to work, insurers have to be able to reliably predict what the rate of payout will be year-to-year. This requires a huge number of individual insurance policies.
The greater your sample size (the more individual insurance policies there are), the tighter the probability distribution gets. That's what turns unexpected costs of accidents and disasters into predictable costs. To get a distribution tight enough for insurance to be reliably predictable requires at least ~10,000 individual insured. Fewer than that and it becomes dfficult to make business decisions with a high degree of certainty. (i.e. their profit margin fluctuates by several percent each year based on random chance, swamping out any effects of their actual business decisions, making it difficult for them to determine if a good year was due to good decisions or good luck, or a bad year was due to bad decisions or bad luck.)
This is why insurance on nuclear plants is astronomical. The insurers can't sell enough policies to make the risk predictable. So they end up having to charge a premium several hundred or several thousand times the expected payout to minimize their risk exposure.
'This is "a year ahead of a court-mandated deadline"'
Wow, there's a statement that instills confidence.
Remember that nuclear weapons production was primarily done via nuclear power production. You need reactors to make plutonium. Reactors generate heat. May as well use that heat to spin a turbine while you are at it.
Commercial reactor waste is not the whole problem at Hanford, but it's part of the problem. We still don't have a good solution for the commercial fuel bundles - right now the answer is "put them in a steel-lined concrete cask and let them sit on a concrete pad until we come up with something better." This is what is being done at nuclear power plants across the nation, and then we're pretending like it's a solution.
At Hanford, the real nasty shit there is the liquid crap left over from extracting the plutonium, and the horrific record keeping that was done - they have tanks there with caustic radioactive sludge that they don't really know the composition of - a toxic soup of solvents and transuranics in underground tanks that were meant to be emptied and disposed of decades ago. At least they're finally getting around to vitrifying it into something that can't seep into the Columbia River.
Yes, that's the big issue at Hanford now. But they are still going to have to deal with all the fuel bundles someday that are sitting all over the place because Yucca Mountain never opened.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Radioactive half-lives are a measure of how "hot" (radioactive) a compound is per unit time.
Something of an oversimplification. It measures how long it takes for half the radioactive atoms to decay, but what comes out with each decay, whether the decay products are also radioactive and of course what proportion of the original material is actually radioactive atoms varies.
1 mole of 1hr half-life material will kill you much faster than 1 mole of 1 billion year material.
Yes.
But the one hour half-life material will rapidly decay, after a day over 99.9999% of it is gone. So while it's intially dangerous it is not in itself a long term problem (of course it's decay products might be).
Generally the worry from a radiological point of view (chemical toxicity is also a concern with heavy elements) are the isotopes with half-lives somewhere in the middle, short enough that the substance has noticable radioactivity, but long enough that the reactivity won't reduce significantly within a lifetime.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I am saying what others are saying. The entire situation is badly managed.
I don't agree with you. You have refused to see the overall situation, in my opinion.
I have followed the "Hanford Cleanup" for literally decades. To me, Hanford has seemed badly managed.
The overall issue is that we are not seeing the necessary quality of management at ANY site involving large quantities of radioactive products.
Unfortunately the "other cases" are oil and coal, which do far more environmental damage as a condition of normal operation.
What's that going to cost?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Mostly because we haven't really cracked fusion with ideal laboratory circumstances, much less on an industrial scale using a radioactive sludge of chemical question marks as fuel.
Your comment seems predicated on the assumption that this shit at Hanford is cleanly separated and labeled materials. All the cesium over there, and all the polonium over here.
It's not. It's a soup of not-plutonium combined with caustic acids and chemicals used to extract the plutonium. It's a unique combination of massively radioactive, semi-liquid, corrosive, and chemically toxic. And after all these years, separating out anything useful is very likely impossible with our current levels of technology.
Better to make it as stable as you can (e.g. something that is not corrosive, and is a solid that isn't leaking out of 40+ year old single-walled tanks planted in the ground a couple hundred yards from a river that drains about 20% of North America, and runs through a top-25 US metro area) and inter it for long-term storage. Which is what they are doing.
Waiting around for "better" is doing nothing, which is what got Hanford to the sad state it's in today.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
partly because of the immense problems dealing with radioactive waste.
If breeder reactors were not illegal (fear of proliferation), then burning all of that "waste" down would increase the amount of energy we can derive from nuclear AND make it so once everything is said and done, the only "waste" left will be indistinguishable from background radiation that we are exposed to every day by the huge nuclear plant in the sky.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen