Report Says Radioactive Monitors Failed at Nuclear Plant (apnews.com) 83
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.
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.
Bad title... (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.
Re:Bad title... (Score:5, Informative)
Bad title indeed (Score:3)
If your monitors are radioactive, safely dispose of them and buy new ones!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bad title because the monitors aren't radioactive (we hope!).
Radiation Monitors, maybe.
Radioactivity Monitors works.
Radioactive monitors? Shows that neither submitter nor editor has a clue, at best....
Re:Bad title... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Bad title... (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Even where they do reprocess fuel, you don't get to reprocess all of it, and the waste from reprocessing is nasty af.
Re:Bad title... (Score:4, Informative)
while nasty, it's also relatively short-lived in comparison to unprocessed waste (hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands) and very small volume in comparison to unprocessed waste. You're removing the 1-2% of really nasty shit that prevents the other 98% of fuel from being used.
That 2% of really nasty shit can then be vitrified to make it easier to handle and store for the orders of magnitude less time until it becomes essentially inert.
Now only if we were actually doing that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Alas, the "nuclear power is perfectly safe, it will be too cheap to meter" nonsense of the pro-nuke crowd has made everyone who can think justifiably suspicious that maybe nuclear reactors aren't such a great idea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't equate the failure of a plant processing nuclear weapons waste with a plant that is processing nuclear power waste. Anyone that can think should be justifiably suspicious of people that need to use the failure of a military weapon producing plant to prevent contamination to argue against civilian nuclear power.
Nuclear power is in fact very safe. I'll see opinion articles mention the deaths caused by mining uranium and such as a case against nuclear power but make no mention of how many deaths there
Re: (Score:3)
Don't equate the failure of a plant processing nuclear weapons waste with a plant that is processing nuclear power waste. Anyone that can think should be justifiably suspicious of people that need to use the failure of a military weapon producing plant to prevent contamination to argue against civilian nuclear power.
Nobody is doing that. Someone brought up a point, and I addressed it.
Nuclear power is in fact very safe. I'll see opinion articles mention the deaths caused by mining uranium and such as a case against nuclear power but make no mention of how many deaths there are from wind and solar power.
Wind and solar power mostly kill installers and maintenance personnel. Nuclear is harmful to everyone, like coal. And again, you still don't get to call it safe until the waste is safely managed, which it mostly ain't. It's just sitting around waiting for something bad to happen.
Re:Bad title... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
>If an old tank full of 50 year old radwaste (which is often nitrate-based, and thus also explosive) fails, it will be nasty.
The tanks are already leaking. There are 177 tanks, 28 of which are double-shell and several of the double-shell detected leaks. The remaining single-shell tanks are undoubtedly leaking as they are of a similar design, but without the extra layer. You couldn't pay me enough to live down wind of Hanford, or to swim in the Columbia near it.
http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/h
Re: (Score:2)
If an old tank full of 50 year old radwaste (which is often nitrate-based, and thus also explosive) fails, it will be nasty.
Just because something is nitrate based does not make it explosive. Reactions with nitric acid to form soluble metal nitrates are common for extraction and purification. The big advantage of plutonium over uranium for bombs is that it is extracted chemically instead of via expensive isotope separation.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets hope this gets more funding for Transatomic (Score:2)
Re:Lets hope this gets more funding for Transatomi (Score:4, Interesting)
The Transatomic design doesn't do anything yet, and clean nuclear energy is always 10 years away. Also, Leslie Dewan is mostly famous for being famous at this point. She's the engineering equivalent of a Kardashian until she actually gets one of her products to market.
Re: (Score:2)
"engineering equivalent of a Kardashian "
Ouch:)
LFTR is a superior waste-consuming reactor (Score:2)
Faux-environmentalists love to misrepresent "spent fuel" as "nuclear waste", even though >96% of the former it is just unused fuel, with the balance rapidly decaying to stability. Readers should appreciate that nuclear is the only energy source to responsibly manage its waste, and that it is only possible because nuclear produces such a trivial amount of waste to start with. None of the resource-intensive "renewable" branded sources have even been asked to do so.
Many advanced reactors can recycle that "w
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, those potential reactors to burn the "spent fuel" (which isn't all decaying that rapidly, though of course the most radioactive parts are) don't exist. They are designs, which might or might not work, which might or might not be cost effective, and which might or might not eventually be built.
Until they exist, spent fuel is radioactive waste. And there's nothing "false" about that, or about worrying about that. Until that problem (and a few administrative issues) are dealt with, I really
Re: (Score:1)
Only for nuclear would people consider a concentrated energy resource to be "waste", and strain to justify application of that label.
The fact remains that nuclear power makes the least demand on natural resources including land, and produces the least waste of any energy source, by far. Those pursuing the shutdown of nuclear, and hindering commercialization of improved and demonstrated technologies, demonstrate extreme hypocrisy by claiming to be environmentalists. You are either complicit or unwitting tool
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it *is* a concentrated energy source, and it's being handled as waste. Because it's a concentrated energy source it's dangerous. Because it's being handled as waste, it's not being cared for properly. This is a very bad combination.
Nuclear reprocessing can be used to cut down certain radionuclides, and when done (not usually) it reduced the problem. But a fast breeder, or a couple of other designs, are suppose to burn all the radioactive isotopes. And they haven't been built and ar
Re: (Score:2)
Leslie Dewan and Transatomic has had to walk back their claims after being challenged quite publicly by competing nuclear engineers. It became quite obvious when challenged by people that know what they are talking about that the math doesn't add up. This forced Transatomic to become nothing more than another variation on the molten salt reactor (MSR) theme. In direct competition are MSR variants like LFTR, MCFR, MSW, TMSR-LF, and DMSR/IMSR. There are also solid fuel competitors like PHWR, TMSR-SF, MSCR
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:3)
You look absolutely radiant today
Re: (Score:2)
You look absolutely radiant today
Thanks for the glowing complement.. But I'm a bit blue today..
Did any of the workers get superpowers? (Score:2)
That's how it works, right?
radioactive monitors? (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be "radioactivity monitors"?
Re: (Score:3)
So, what kind of contamination? (Score:3)
Alpha emitters (like Plutonium) are generally a non-issue for practical purposes. You might get cancer 30 years from now if the stuff is in your lungs. Or not. But no acute effects.
Betas are worse, but I can't think of anything that should be emitting betas in a nuclear facility.
Now gammas are, relatively speaking, killers. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any gamma-emitters associated with nuclear power, but we're not really talking nuclear power here, we're talking nuclear weapon production. Which takes a special kind of reactor, with its own, special, problems....
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, alphas pretty bad if they get inside you. Alphas are stopped by skin inside the body, but once they get incorporated into bone or bone marrow, the alpha particles get to interact directly with cancer-prone cells. Bad news.
So eating or breathing in alpha emitters is still not recommended.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually plutonium is not only radioactive but highly toxic.
The 50 : 50 lethal dose is in the milli gram range ... and it does not take 30 years to die from it. Plutonium is wandering into the bone marrow ... leukemia etc. will happen quite quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the lethal dose of plutonium? I went to look it up. About 22 milligrams.
http://www.newworldencyclopedi... [newworldencyclopedia.org]
The toxicity of plutonium is in dispute; nuclear industry advocates point to the low chemical toxicity of plutonium and ability of a worker to hold a kilogram brick of the material without protection; if inhaled or digested, however, plutonium's effects due to radioactivity overwhelm the effects of plutonium's chemical interactions with the body, and the LD50 dose for intravenous injection in an adult human weighing 70 kilograms is calculated to be approximately 22 milligrams (based on extrapolation from tests on dogs).
What substance is also lethal at that dose? Tylenol.
http://www.newworldencyclopedi... [newworldencyclopedia.org]
The toxic dose of acetaminophen is highly variable. In adults, single doses above 10 grams or 140 mg/kg have a reasonable likelihood of causing toxicity. In adults, single doses of more than 25 grams have a high risk of lethality.
For plutonium to be lethal someone would have to have 22 milligrams of plutonium injected into their bloodstream. Eating an equivalent dose of Tylenol would be just as lethal.
Plutonium should be handled with care but let's be honest about just how lethal it might be.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we need an edit button on Slashdot, because I'm an idiot for mixing my units. Instead of Tylenol compare the toxicity of plutonium with that of iron, nicotine, or lead.
People are unlikely to eat pure iron but it's in every multivitamin, and people will cook with steel pots and pans. We are surrounded by iron substances, and yet people don't throw fits over it's toxicity. Don't eat it and if you are handling in a way that it might produce small particles then wear a mask.
Same with lead, it's in
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that the 22 milligram lethal dose for plutonium is for direct injection into the bloodstream, not how much is eaten.
Wow - you just lie with impunity - there was no direct injection into the bloodstream. In the citation for the source of the very article you cite the information comes from a well known accident at Los Alamos [tripod.com] and refers to external exposure, not to internal exposure.
You're a liar blindseer.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a liar blindseer.
No, you can't read.
The direct injection I mentioned was that of experiments performed on dogs, not the accident at Los Alamos.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr Kaos is just a fear-monger troll when it comes to nuclear.
It's not my fault you are ignorant.
He calls everyone a liar, its easier than presenting facts of his own.
This is the first time I've felt the need.
Next will come a long list of scary sounding stuff, with actual risk information missing of course.
Thanks for coming atomicalgebra.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a liar blindseer.
No, you can't read.
Or the article you linked to refers to it as cite-note 13 instead of 14. It doesn't change that you're lying to twist the truth to suit your political agenda.
The direct injection I mentioned was that of experiments performed on dogs, not the accident at Los Alamos.
Every other line in your post [slashdot.org] refers to 'people' or 'healthy workers' but the one line referring to pu injection was about injection into dogs, not injecting into humans. I suggest you were attempting to mislead people into believing that 22milligrams of pu was injected into humans.
What citation 14 says is For example, the LD 50 (30) for dogs af
Re: (Score:2)
Plutonium should be handled with care but let's be honest about just how lethal it might be.
As a heavy metal is it about 4 times as dangerous as mercury.
As a nuclear/radioactive material it is the deadliest on the planet. Hm ... not sure about Polonium ... we could again make a google / link war :D
No idea why you pick the stupid links instead of the interesting one.
So: stay stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
As a heavy metal is it about 4 times as dangerous as mercury.
Then don't eat it. Airborne particle detectors not picking up the plutonium that isn't airborne is not a "failure" in the detectors. Getting upset about that is nonsensical.
not sure about Polonium
Then look it up. Polonium-210 has a half life of less than 140 days, and this waste processing site was created for the disposal of World War II and Cold War era nuclear waste. The polonium is all gone by now.
http://www.newworldencyclopedi... [newworldencyclopedia.org]
we could again make a google / link war
To do that you'd have to actually link to something.
Re: (Score:2)
Polonium could very well be generated as a decay product of something heavier, as opposed to just starting out as one of the original ingredients of the waste. In fact, if you read the link, it's currently generated now from the decay (beta) of Bi-210.
Bi-210 has a half life of 5 days, there's none of that left to decay either. If you look at the four main decay chains polonium appears on them but only in isotopes that last for fractions of a second or perhaps days. It's all gone by now.
The isotope that people are all concerned about, polonium-210, has a half life of 138 days. That's about 3 half lives per year, meaning about 1/8 of it remains from the year before. After 30 years that's 80 half lives. It's all gone by now.
There is no polonium on thi
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that inhaling Plutonium gets it into your body just like eating it.
No idea why you think it is a difference.
We can talk again in 10 years ... depending on how much the workers inhaled most of them will be dead by then.
Perhaps there is a special treatment and they could "wash it out", no idea about that and to lazy to google.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the lethal dose of plutonium? I went to look it up. About 22 milligrams. http://www.newworldencyclopedi... [newworldencyclopedia.org]
This is just plain false.
Here is a citation from The Human Plutonium Injection Experiments [lanl.gov]:
In July 1945, Wright Langham insisted that the 5-microgram standard be reduced by a factor of 5 on the basis of animal experiments that showed that plutonium was distributed in the bone differently, and more dangerously, than radium. Thus, the maximum permissible body burden for plutonium was set at 1 microgram.
That's because they began to understand that assessing the lethal dose of plutonium is far more compl
Re: (Score:2)
What you won't do is present one plausible scenario where a person internally takes on an unsafe amount of plutonium.
What SANE person would do that willingly.
What you won't do is understand bio-accumulation.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, systematic Plutonium is a lot worse than you are indicating. And tends to lodge in the bone marrow, leading to leukemia. And my guess is that "30 years" is an estimate which is assuming a minimal exposure. At one point, IIRC, what they recommended was "if that gets in an open wound, go for immediate high amputation". That was probably a bit extreme, and I don't know what it was based on, but it makes your "No problem" evaluation seem extremely dubious.
Re: (Score:2)
And tends to lodge in the bone marrow, leading to leukemia. And my guess is that "30 years" is an estimate which is assuming a minimal exposure. At one point, IIRC, what they recommended was "if that gets in an open wound, go for immediate high amputation".
No, amputation as treatment of exposure was never the protocol.
https://warisboring.com/the-sc... [warisboring.com]
They'd fish out the particles big enough to see and could recover without doing permanent damage to tissue. If it was too small to see then it was not considered a health hazard. The long term effects on health are difficult to measure given that the few people that have died since their exposure were heavy smokers (lung cancer did them in) and victims of motor vehicle accidents (can't blame that on the plutoni
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can't remember where I read the thing I was originally paraphrasing, and your link is rather explicit. (I'd recommend anyone interested in this to check it out. https://warisboring.com/the-sc... [warisboring.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest the thing you are missing is these studies all refer to purified plutonium. They don't cover the oxide or chloride of Plutonium which can be organically bound *inside* the body.
You don't expect the body to digest pure iron, it's ingested as an oxide, the same is true for plutonium. You can't ignore important details as if they don't exist. That just implies you have a political agenda.
The important thing to remember about isotope decay is it is the inverse of Euler's constant [wikipedia.org] when it is unbou
It was homer's job to keep that working but he (Score:2)
It was homer's job to keep that working but he did not get it down as they did not hire an assistant
How is this possible? (Score:3)
How can you decontaminate a nuclear waste site, and not have functioning radiation detection?
Wouldn't you think there would have to be 100 different monitors around the area between workers, and equipment, the existing facility monitors, and safety systems for the area?
Re: How is this possible? (Score:1)
Because Hanford is cheap on important shit and management is idiots. It also does not help that all the DOE folks are sitting in town doing fuck all.
I have asked repeatedly why there is no breathing air piped at PFP and around the tank farms. (Not a 10-15 minute air tank, a dedicated piped system of breathing air that you plug into. More common in really hot plants or places dealing with sulfur.)
Anyway, Hanford sucks but it is otherwise 2-3 billion a year into the local economy.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you decontaminate a nuclear waste site, and not have functioning radiation detection?
Because Hanford is a military site, it's exempt from the stringent monitoring required for commercial facilities.
FTFY (Score:2)
Phew! (Score:3)
For a moment I thought the headline read “Report Says Radioactive Monsters Failed at Nuclear Plant”.
Airborne particle detectors did not fail (Score:3)
But the monitors did not detect airborne contamination in December, possibly because some of the particles that spread were too heavy to stay aloft.
They are calling it a "failure" of the airborne particle detectors to detect particles that were not in the air. If the particles are not in the air then people aren't going to breathe them in. It might collect on the soles of their boots but if they are licking the soles of their boots then they need to be checked for mental issues first, then radiation contamination second.
It sounds like there were failures in managing the spread of radioactive material but this mention of a "failure" of airborne particle detectors is not one of them.
Radiation is everywhere and if we are going to regulate its spread then we need to have sane regulations. If Grand Central Station were a nuclear power plant then it would be shutdown for exceeding the annual acceptable dose of radiation for employees.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/grand-... [gizmodo.com]
We need to take another look at our regulation of radioactive material. If it is as dangerous as the law says it is then we need to close off Grand Central Station and declare it a superfund site. If Grand Central Station is in fact safe to inhabit then so should any other place with an equivalent level of radioactivity.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's dust particles, some of it will get into the air. If it's dust on people's feet, then they're going to be shaking off fragments into the air with every step.
That said, I'll agree that something that heavy wouldn't float around in the air for long. But small particles, even of very heavy metals, are light, and will spread attached to larger particles of lighter stuff which are dust. With every step people raise small (or sometimes not so small) clouds of dust from the stuff they step on.
OTOH, perh