U.S. Nuclear Cleanup Carries Major Risks 522
Roland Piquepaille writes "New Scientist reports in this pretty alarming article that there is a 50-50 chance of a major radiation or chemical accident during the cleanup of the dirtiest nuclear site in the U.S. There are indeed lots of things to clean at the Hanford complex in Washington state: 67 tons of plutonium and 190 million liters of liquid radioactive waste stored in underground tanks. A third of them, dating from the Cold War, have already leaked 4 million liters in the environment, contaminating the groundwater and a river. Meanwhile, officials at the DOE, who'll spend $50 billion between now and 2035 on this cleanup, seem less worried than the different specialists interviewed by New Scientist. Please read this overview for selected quotes from the article and from the Hanford site. You'll also find a slide from the DOE showing the timeframe for the cleanup."
Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
So, clean it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
And a 100% chance of a major radiation or chemical accident if they don't. So this really looks to be a non-issue.
Question... (Score:4, Insightful)
What I'm getting at is, how much of this waste is comparable (in terms of which specific materials, and in what volumes) to what a nuclear powerplant would produce?
I'm not trying to diminish the magnitude of the mess or the impact it has on the area, but I can already see people taking this and running in the wrong direction with it - namely, that every nuclear power plant will produce this sort of mess over time. I *believe* this is the exception rather than the rule, because this site was/is producing weapons material rather than electricity, but it'd be great if someone with hard data could confirm/invalidate that...
Xentax
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:2, Insightful)
I do agree with you, though.
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To the sun! (Score:3, Insightful)
Powdered plutonium is a serious carcinogen. There were major worries when Cassini was launched, with a few kilos of the stuff and you're suggesting sending TONS up?
Yes, it *IS* a good idea, if we can guarantee 100% safety of the launch.
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:1, Insightful)
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
-1, Paranoid Scare Tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
I've lived next to Hanford since I was 3 years old, and work a couple of miles from the nuke plant. I've toured the site many times. I've followed local news, which reports on every boring little detail since they have nothing better to do, my entire life.
Are there problems? Sure. I remember when the single walled tanks started leaking, and they pumped everything into new double-wall tanks. Will there be problems in the future? Sure. Will those problems affect me? No. The accidents that take place may be major to the people working on that particular project, but are not catastrophic in the grand scheme of things.
Look: The Hanford site has been operational for decades. The number of serious accidents is tiny, and said accidents have only affected the workers directly involved with that given project, not the rest of us. Yes, there are environmental concerns. No, they aren't as horrible as this article makes them out to be. We swim in and eat fish from the river. Our water comes from the river and local groundwater. None is contaminated enough to be detectible, let alone harm somebody. And I'm right here, a fraction of a mile downstream from the site.
Even if the clean-up goes according to plan, Boldt claims there will still be 260 square kilometres of groundwater exceeding drinking water safety limits for over 10,000 years.
He's full of himself. This is nothing more than paranoid scare tactics.
I can't see any constructive comments (Score:2, Insightful)
However, he doesn't say what he wants. Does he want to delay the process, and why does he think that will lead to a better risk management than the current plant? Has he got any suggestions for how the risks can be mitigated?
IMHO, Alvarez comes across as a person that does not want this cleanup to take place at all because that may lead to nuclear power not becoming mainstream if an accident occurs during the cleanup.
Re:To the sun! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says this waste is from nuclear power plants? It could be leftovers from nuclear weapons/research.
Also, nuclear power plant technology has vastly improved since this particlar waste repository was first opened up.
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to stop grandfathering in old power plants of all types, step up, pay some of the up-front costs, and get some good power generation going.
For the NIMBY folks, I'll volunteer to host a PBR in my backyard.
Contrary to what a lot of places would have you believe, if we'd actually shell out some cash and stop only focusing on the very bottom line for hte first year, we've got affordable, safe, and clean nuke power available to us... and it's a shame we've not made use of it.
to grandparent poster: don't be sad you live in WA, I left 11 years ago now, and I go back every chance I get... it only goes downhill from there.
Re:DO the submitters actually read the articles? (Score:5, Insightful)
But its the same players. The consultants, contractors, etc, who gave the US the radioactive disaster that is Hanford are the same ones who are running reactors all over the US and the world.
I used to be pro nuclear power but after witnessing the amaturish and dishonest reaction during a crisis at the nuke plant near Rochester NY (with 1 million in the greater metropolitan area), and having a very disturbing cocktail party conversation with the head of safety for a nuke plant in Louisiana, I started to investigate more. Whatever the benefits of the technology, the culture of nuclear power is one of lies, coverup and other forms of deceit.
It's a shame, because judged only on technology nukes come out ahead.
Re:-1, Paranoid Scare Tactics (Score:2, Insightful)
You say those problems will not affect you, but how can you make such a statement with 100% certainty? The long term effects of such groundwater pollution on the very fish that you readily admit to eating won't be immediately known.
Perhaps your perspective on these "scare tactics" will change if (God forbid) you were to be diagnosed with a related form of cancer ten years from now.
Re:LIES about nuclear waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear waste leaks (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a weapons site, so they were going as quickly as possible to beat the soviets. There was no time (so it is said) to handle this properly, so they just extracted the plutonium and put the rest of the liquid waste in large tanks underground. This went on for decades. Surprise, surprise, several decades later it was found that some of the waste spilled here, a little leak there, etc....
It's not hard to properly handle if the site was setup to handle it properly in the beginning. Unfortunately, haste makes waste, and that's the problem with Hanford, it's a hold over from the cold war. In the future, it'll be vitrified (turned into glass), and then it's not going to leak or cause any problems.
Do something now, and something better later (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti Nuke groups actually love this situation because it insures to keep the crisis mounting, and discourages any future nuclear development. Then if and when a nuclear waste incident occurs they can point and say "I told you so."
Why not go for better storage now, and keep looking for storage/disposal/reprocessing solutions to use later?
Re:-1, Paranoid Scare Tactics (Score:2, Insightful)
I live 15 miles away from the edge of the hanford reservation and do a considerable amount of work there. While there are certainly issues with an accelerated cleanup schedule, it is better than the alternatives.
Yes there is a tritium plume that may be threatening the ground water. It is being monitored using state of the art technologies. In fact this very issues has driven the technology of groundwater contamination tracking forward as millions of dollars is being spent on this topic: http://www.pnl.gov/cse/subsurface/sitescale.htm [pnl.gov]
The hanford nuclear reservation is about 560 square miles of desolate eastern washington desert. The contamination is coming from the furthest areas from civilization, the 100 and 200 areas. I know first hand the regulations that are in place for the safety of the workers and the nearby areas, and I am confident that they are as safe as can be achievable.
Re:Why not compare it with coal-fired plants? (Score:4, Insightful)
While most clouds you see coming from stacks are simply water vapor, a coal fired boiler emits a lot of particulate matter, which is harsh on the lungs, especially to those with asthma or other respiratory problems. The EPA has been focusing more on PM in the past few years. Facilities are now required to report PM emissions at 3 levels: Total PM, PM10 (PM 10 microns or smaller), and PM2.5 (PM 2.5 microns or smaller). PM2.5 emission reporting was added just this year, as it has been learned over the past 5-10 years that PM2.5 is much more harmful than less fine particulates. Current control measures for PM are in the 99% removal range, assuming the equipment is properly maintained.
Also, coal emits a lot more crap than oil or natural gas. By crap I mean trace amounts of nasty chemicals. Hydrochloric acid, hydroflouric acid, arsenic, mercury, lead, dioxins, etc. EPA's emission manual for coal combustion can be found here [epa.gov].
"Clean coal" may be a temporary measure as we begin to run out of natural gas and oil, but it is by no means a solution, as the CO2 problem is not solved.
It's the old ones (especially in places like China) that are the problem.
Yes, but the real problem is our reluctance to fund new energy initiatives and promote smart usage of energy. We waste outrageous amounts of energy in the USA. Research must not only be focused on new energy sources, but improved efficency in the transmission and use of that energy.
Re:why worry about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ingestion of plutonium
For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a lethal doze (1 cancer) for 480 mg.
Inhalation of plutonium dust
For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled. To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is estimated to be about 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms. [1] Thus botulism toxin is over a thousand times more toxic. The statement that plutonium is the most dangerous material known to man is false. But it is very dangerous, at least in dust form.
How easy is it to breathe in 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms? To get to the critical part of the lungs, the particle must be no larger than about 3 microns. A particle of that size has a mass of about 0.140 micrograms. To get to a dose of 80 micrograms requires 80/0.14 = 560 particles. In contrast, the lethal dose for anthrax is estimated to be 10,000 particles of a similar size. Thus plutonium dust, if spread in the air, is more dangerous than anthrax - although the effects are not as immediate.
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Cleanup by Reclassification (Score:3, Insightful)
blame it on terrorists (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let's save billions... (Score:2, Insightful)
I was hoping that my sarcasm was showing :-P
As others have noted the author doesn't offer an alternative. We can debate the issues surrounding the purpose of the plant or nuclear power ad nauseum but the fact remains we still have to deal with it. It appears to me that the objective of the article is ratcheting up rhetoric on the subject without adding any value to the topic.
rocky flats cleanup somewhat working (Score:3, Insightful)
War Emergency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ouch-Nuclear terror. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take California [ca.gov]. Look at the number of hydroelectric. Look at the number of wind. How many nuclear? Hard to tell on that map. Just two. Two. Two nuclear plants supply about 20% of all electricity to the state. Two nuclear plants have had less impact on the environment than all other forms of mass electricity production in the state.
And for the record, it is possible to reduce waste dramatically. This can be done with breeder-burner reactors. My personal favorites are IFR/AFR designs. Breeder-burners process the long-lived waste into shorter-lived isotopes while producing electricity.
Now then, on to your other points one by one:
No, not all residents. There are many who aren't in opposition to the internment of the waste.
Questions for you: Do you believe that the current storage pools are safer than Yucca Mountain? Do you have an answer for the existing waste that doesn't involve Yucca? If a method could be found to greatly reduce the volume and threat of existing nuclear waste, wouldn't you be in favor of it?
Breeder-burners can use the spent fuel currently sitting idle in storage pools as well as weapons material that awaits decommissioning. I am against using Yucca for long-term storage but not for the same reasons as you I think. I think Yucca should be a short-term waystation to get the material out of storage pools until breeder-burners are online. My personal favorite is the IRF/AFR model [nationalcenter.org].
And how many accidents have there been? In France where the vast majority of the electricity comes from nuclear power, how many terrorist attacks have succeeded against the rail and trucks that have criss-crossed that nation for decades? What terrorist opportunities? Please enumerate them.
You mentioned hydroelectric. Look back at that energy map of California. What do you think would happen if terrorists attacked those dams, flooding the valleys in front of them, drowning the residents, and washing away homes, businesses, and communities? Or did you think hydroelectric was warm and fuzzy since you can't get thyroid cancer from it?
Yes, it's a loose definition. That's what large-scale electricity generation entails. No form, not green, not nuclear, not fossil fuel-based is 100% safe when producing large amounts of energy on a municipal level.
You're right. It's hard to be safer than an alternative that can't run at the same capacity. 104 nuclear facilities are licensed in the US -- many of them share a physical location. Only 102 of them are actually running. 20% of all US electricity comes from nuclear. How many nuclear accidents have occurred in US history? Now look at the number of injuries and fatalities both of workers and people in
Unnecessarily evil. (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I checked, the DoE ran the Pantex nuclear weapons plant [dnfsb.gov]. The same site with some obscene safety issues [theregister.co.uk]. Accidentally drilling into the core of a nuclear device resulted in the evacuation of the entire plant. Securing a warhead with duct tape increased the chances of a flat out nuclear explosion. And that's ignoring the clichéd "OMG THREE MILE ISLAND" commentary.
+++Warning to any fool that thinks it's easy to steal radioactive material from one of these teams. You'll die twice before you get to pull your trigger once!+++
Perhaps you reached this conclusion because the security teams were cheating during their security drills [wired.com] ? Cheating. for twenty years. It's not too hard to look impenetrable when you know the exact building and wall [doe.gov] where an attack will take place. A DoE whistleblower admitted to a 50% success rate [washingtonpost.com] for security tests. Special forces teams were able to penetrate Los Alamos [pogo.org] and wander off with enough material to create a nuclear bomb. Even an freakin' journalist was able to sneak into Los Alamos [defensetech.org]. There are plenty of other issues raised [pogo.org] over at the Project On Governmental Oversight [pogo.org]. Again, that's ignoring all the major security issues with CREM's going on over the last month.
Now, you're absolutely right in the fact that we need to get that waste cleaned up. But thinking that the DoE, NNSA, or the US government on the whole is "more than capable" is bullshit. We're flirting with disaster. If we take the outlook that everything is fine and dandy, we're going to quickly hit the point where someone will cause a situation of calamatious proportions.
--LordPixie
Re:I was told exactly the same thing in the early (Score:3, Insightful)
For starters, the records are horrible. Nobody really knows what was put in those tanks.
Second - some of the waste is fairly dilute, making it much more economical to try to concentrate it before treating it (low-level waste might be stored onsite for a decade to decay it and then just dumped safely in the river or otherwise treated as non-radioactive chemical waste).
Third - little has been done to effectively study it. Lots of studies have been done, but they've all had design problems - like poor controls or no controls. Probably just an excuse to spend money.
Basically, the whole mess is a boondoggle. And who wants to actually clean it up? That means doing something. If you do something and it goes wrong, somebody gets fired - usually the guy in charge. On the other hand, if you do nothing we practically guarantee an environmental disaster - but probably not until after the guy in charge has retired. Which route would you take if you were in charge?
Congress just needs to clean house. Good luck seeing it happen though. Maybe if we have a Chernobyl of our own...
Re:War Emergency (Score:3, Insightful)
If we didn't produce enough nuclear weapons to counter Soviet aggression and expansionism, pollution was going to be the least of our problems.
Yah, we'd only be able to destroy the Soviet Union 4 times over instead of 8 times over. I'm sure the extra destructive capability was such a greater deterrant than what we already had.
Do you honestly think the Soviets would attack us, knowing they'd still have their country destroyed? An H-bomb going off in each of your major cities will destroy your civilization overnight. More destructive capability doesn't really increase that fear.