SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
KING-TV reports that "a tunnel full of highly contaminated materials collapsed" in a reprocessing facility at the Hanford nuclear site. An official said "The facility does have radiological contamination right now but there is no indication of a radiological release." The U.S. Department of Energy released statements (archived copy) saying that employees were "told to shelter in place" and that non-essential employees were sent home.
additional coverage:
- Susannah Frame of KING-TV via Twitter (photo)
- Tri-City Herald (video)
- Western Journalism
- Yakima Herald-Republic
- Washington Post
- Seattle Times
- Popular Mechanics
- USA Today
- Fox News
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Tunnel Collapses at Hanford Nuclear Reservation
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 48 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated
computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @01:57AM (3 children)
Wait why are we paying non-essential employees? If they're not essential then they don't deserve to get paid and they don't deserve to live either. Fire all the useless employees and let them die on their own time.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 11 2017, @06:23AM
They will die faster if we provide them with free radiation poisoning, saving social security.
It's going to be a great pre-existing condition again, also cutting treatment costs.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday May 11 2017, @07:27AM
This quote from the DOE Web page might clarify:
Only essential employees needed to maintain minimum safe operations are to report to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @04:51PM
Wait why are we paying non-essential employees? If they're not essential then they don't deserve to get paid and they don't deserve to live either. Fire all the useless employees and let them die on their own time.
Just in case you are being serious...
"Essential" doesn't mean "sustainable."
For example, in a car, the only "essential" thing you need is an engine and wheels. Handy things like windshields and seat cushions don't qualify.
Another example: the only "essential" thing you need in a business is cash to pay your debts. However, without marketers to sell you product, engineers to make your product, accountants to make sure you are paying the right people, lawyers to make sure you following the laws, managers to make sure everybody is doing their job, and a plethora of "non-essential staff," your business will quickly come to an bankrupt end.
I'm sure they could keep the lights on and be safe for days, weeks, and maybe even months with a dramatically reduced staff. Just don't be surprised in 5 years when the pipes in the water supply lines start leaking and nobody knows how to fix them.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday May 11 2017, @01:58AM (4 children)
Dammit, they hacked the SCADA system controlling the lighting system causing an overload in the amplifier and the explosion which collapsed the tunnel! Can they be stopped?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:01AM
And then Lenin rises from tomb to crush capitalism, comrade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:23AM
They should have rerouted auxiliary power to the structural integrity field.
(Score: 2, Funny) by idiot_king on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)
If democracy is a joke to you, don't post on a site that encourages a democratic way of dealing with its issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:39AM
I vote to collapse the site and we all go our separate ways.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:09AM (11 children)
The Columbia River runs close to Hanford. The aquifer associated serves many people as well as agriculture.
Hanford has had leaks before and the reporting about those leaks was less than accurate. The truth may
be concealed due to a deliberate effort or the truth could be concealed due to less than complete knowledge
on the part of those reporting on the situation.
I would not expect those in charge to be honest if it serves their interests to be dishonest.
Anyone who uses the nearby aquifer might want to start doing his or her own monitoring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:25AM (3 children)
If some H1Bs were to be exposed to nuclear waste, would they evolve into a mutant race of super genius code monkeys?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:17AM (2 children)
No, but the dung piles they crap on the sidewalks will be yuuuuge!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:04AM (1 child)
Is that a phenom that is actually common in the USA?
I thought only gypsies had that asocial habit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @10:08AM
Same origin, just a (1500 years) older "H1B" wave. [livescience.com]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday May 11 2017, @04:49AM (5 children)
> The Columbia River runs close to Hanford.
On the Department of Energy page linked from the summary, if you scroll down to where it says "1:20" there is a map and they've written that the damaged PUREX facility is 6.8 miles from the river.
http://www.hanford.gov/c.cfm/eoc/?page=290 [hanford.gov]
> Hanford has had leaks before [...]
Decades ago, when the PUREX plant (to which this tunnel was attached) was operating, there were experiments done in which there were large intentional releases of radioisotopes, such as iodine-131 and xenon-133.
http://library.state.or.us/repository/2013/201309171606142/index.pdf [state.or.us]
During the "Green Run" experiment in 1949,
Sources cite 5,500 to 12,000 curies (200 to 440 TBq) of iodine-131 released, and an even greater amount of xenon-133.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Run [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:19AM (4 children)
I get the impression that no releases into the air or nearby rivers has occurred so far. The question then becomes if underground water has been tainted? or aquifers?
And there are also unrelated underground storage tanks with radioactive waste that has started to leak. Hopefully they do a full cleanup without Trump/EPA impeding such cleanup. Superfund sites are that for a reason.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:27AM (3 children)
> I get the impression that no releases into the air or nearby rivers has occurred so far.
Not from this week's event, they say. They're burying the damaged tunnel:
Workers have begun to fill the hole in the tunnel, located near the PUREX Plant in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site, with soil. Approximately 50 truckloads of soil will be used to fill the hole. There is a misting machine on the right side of the photo that is being used to control dust. The operator in the cab of the excavator is wearing a protective suit and a filtered air mask.
-- http://www.hanford.gov/c.cfm/eoc/?page=290 [hanford.gov]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:49AM (2 children)
Won't the lack of a tunnel impede operations in some way?
There must be a reason it existed to begin with.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Thursday May 11 2017, @10:16AM (1 child)
From World Nuclear News [world-nuclear-news.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday May 11 2017, @10:28AM
Maybe it would be better to have those cars properly sealed before they are buried? Lest rainwater accumulate in them and overflow down to groundwater.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 11 2017, @12:44PM
The funny thing is the Columbia River Gorge is a fantastic place for wind farms, because it's one of the consistently windiest places in the United States. It's a mecca for wind surfers for that reason. If they fully implemented wind farms along it they'd surely get enough energy to power Portland.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Troll) by idiot_king on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:28AM (17 children)
...idiots come crying out of the woodwork in defense of nuclear "BEING A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO COAL!!1"
And no, thorium is not safer, either. Radioactive waste is radioactive waste, regardless of what it's created by and who it influences. Wind and solar or bust!
(Or at least in this case, literal COLLAPSE)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:53AM
Geothermal. Suck the heat out of Mother Earth's asshole.
(Score: 4, Informative) by tftp on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:04AM (5 children)
idiots come crying out of the woodwork in defense of nuclear "BEING A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO COAL!!1"
Hanford site was built and operated by and for the military. Plenty of shortcuts were taken. The waste in question was produced when they were making the bombs. Civilian nuclear reactors run on Uranium, as I understand, not on Plutonium. Heaping sins of Cold War and of reckless military management onto the modern industry makes no sense.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by idiot_king on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:14AM (1 child)
....right on cue.
Thanks for proving my point.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:42AM
(Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday May 11 2017, @05:07AM
> Civilian nuclear reactors run on Uranium, as I understand, not on Plutonium.
Military reactors convert uranium-238 into plutonium-239. The fuel rods are removed quickly ("low burn-up") before the plutonium-239 has a chance to absorb additional neutrons and become plutonium-240, plutonium-241 etc. which are undesirable for bomb-making. In civilian reactors, the fuel rods are left in place longer ("high burn-up") so that more of the fuel may be used up. For military use, the fuel rods are chemically processed, separating the uranium from the plutonium, and removing other fission products. That reprocessing is what used to be done at the PUREX plant that this story is about.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rleigh on Thursday May 11 2017, @07:24PM
> Civilian nuclear reactors run on Uranium, as I understand, not on Plutonium
Some use mixed-oxide fuel (MOX), which is both plutonium and uranium blended together. It's been used to reduce the size of plutonium stockpiles for weapons. Russia sold a lot of its plutonium to the US for power generation use, and here in the UK MOX fuel rods are also manufactured for power generation, presumably using our Pu stocks and reprocessed fuel. Sounds like a sensible way to reduce the vast quantities of Pu created in the Cold War.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Friday May 12 2017, @08:43AM
Well.. yes, no, and no.
* Yes - standard fuel bundles ship with uranium only, so a fresh core is uranium normally
* No - Advanced fuels are U/Pu mixes (for instance MOX-fuel is 4% to 11% (avg ~9%) Pu, depending in the isotopic purity of the Pu [military Pu is the lower, the higher is high-burnup civilian Pu])
* No - breed ratio matters, over the course of the 3-4 years fuel spends in an civilian LWR-reactor about 30% of the energy released are from in-situ bred Pu (60% in a CANDU)
(Score: 4, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:21AM (1 child)
Thorium per se may not be safer, but burning up 95% of the nuclear energy instead of 1% means that you don't need to store the waste for nearly as long.
The major threat of waste reprocessing is actually nuclear weapons proliferation risk, not the toxicity.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 11 2017, @05:38PM
Compounded by the irony of the fact that coal already releases more radioactive material than existing nuclear technology. [scientificamerican.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:26AM (3 children)
Er...by your own freely-chosen username you're the king of the idiots, aren't you? You seriously might want to consider another handle.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 11 2017, @04:18AM (2 children)
Easy on him, Azuma, he has like a four digit UID!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @01:19PM
*facepalm*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @04:10PM
So, are you suggesting that the idiot king might be going senile by now? That would explain a lot.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:39AM
...idiots come crying out of the woodwork in defense of nuclear "BEING A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO COAL!!1"
Sounds like you're well positioned to give us this no-doubt intriguing viewpoint.
And no, thorium is not safer, either. Radioactive waste is radioactive waste, regardless of what it's created by and who it influences.
Except when it's not waste. The whole point behind recycling, nuclear or otherwise, is to turn waste into something useful, and hence, not waste. And you may find the rest of us hard to convince that what happens in a nuclear weapons research facility more than half a century old, due to many decades of neglect, is somehow relevant to nuclear power today.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:54AM
It's really not hard to be safer than a global extinction event. Even if all the burred nuclear waste we have around is released in the environment where it stands right now, the death toll will still pale in comparison to the damage global warming can cause.
BEING A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO COAL
There is no such thing as safety, life is a series of risks of varying degree. If you don't care to manage your own risks, mother nature will do it for you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:31AM (1 child)
Coal plants spew out mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals. So it will make air and water toxic but probably mostly an issue for the local surroundings. While global CO2 warming ain't. Nuclear on the other hand avoid most of these matters IF handled correctly. That means Hyman G. Rickover style management and banning of non-engineers on positions of decision.
The Hanford site was hasted into production in 1944 and safety was not a top priority nor were the awareness the same as it is now. So there's plenty to cleanup at the site and present day commercial sites can't really compare.
Wind and solar is great but there is a problem of storing the energy produced until it's needed. Ie no regulation on power output vs demand. This also causes electric grid instabilities. So it's a great resource but it's not a full alternative yet. A electric power mix of 10-20% seems workable currently. There's wave power to be explored to which seem to have a more continuous power output.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 11 2017, @10:16AM
Wet dreams, eh?
Wake up before you drown, though; engineers don't have enough gold to make the rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:15AM (7 children)
May wanna note where the site is located.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @04:36AM (1 child)
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say it's probably in or near Hanford.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @04:39AM
Get out. The hanford down the street next to the liquor store?
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Thursday May 11 2017, @05:16AM (1 child)
I must have assumed that readers would know from the fact that I'd linked to the Seattle Times and the Washington Post that the site is in Washington. Thank you for the feedback!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @07:47AM
Washington Post is a Washington DC paper, not Washington state. Thank you for your feedback?
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:34AM (2 children)
Near the Columbia River in the state of Washington, USA. At WGS84 decimal 46.6475, -119.598611.
Soon that Columbia River will perhaps self glow and millions of people get cancer.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday May 11 2017, @10:22AM (1 child)
I see that you found the bright side; while not necessarily economic, cancer is still growth.
And that's the truth! MAGAAAAA!!1!
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @12:45PM
Make America Glow Again?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Aiwendil on Thursday May 11 2017, @04:15PM
Tunnel sealed, most workers back to normal, no radiological contamination detected [world-nuclear-news.org]