Trump plans to reclassify nuclear waste - Make America Glow Again

[Hank77]

Am I to assume you could not respond? Did you find a problem with my post, I mean a sigh is a pretty broad statement and it's tough to nail down just what your getting at, or is it you can't refute what I said? What?

Kenny, if what I said doesn't make sense to you then there is no reason to keep conversing, is there?

 

[Halbhh]

This thread got me to look up "radioactive waste". Yikes!

"Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radionuclides remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia."

You'd think it's not worth producing it in the first place. Yet, they are going full steam ahead on reopening the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. I'm sure many other places too.

That made me go looking to learn more. It's another, better plant, elsewhere, that will be restarted (all plants had been shut down, including undamaged ones):
Fukushima operator can restart nuclear reactors at world's biggest plant

 

[AllButNone]

The op's article starts out:

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — The Trump administration wants to reclassify some radioactive waste left from the production of nuclear weapons to lower its threat level and make disposal cheaper and easier.

So the question would be, does some of the waste actually warrant a lower threat level?

And I do realize looking at the proposal sensibly/discussing the possibilities, takes all the fun out of the thread, but it would seem at least one person here would have tried that already. And surely you all know DT didn't come up with this on his own and that it was likely suggested by the people in the know? You know, the same way they might recommend it to any president. and just like any other president might, they/he put it out here to see what people think.

OK, back to the unfounded general flow of one of a hundred hate Donald threads where DT is going to mindlessly throw nuclear waste around to where it ought not be.

There are different parts to the reclassification plan, so I'll only discuss the most controversial part.

At the Hanford site in particular, there are tanks that hold radioactive waste. These tanks are emptied, waste is processed, and then the tanks are closed off. At least in principle. In order to close off a tank, ~99% of the waste needs to be removed. Unfortunately despite best efforts, with current technology this goal isn't achievable. However, about 15 or 17 (can't remember) of the 177 tanks at Hanford are about 96% empty. The proposal to reclassify the waste would let these tanks be closed off at their current levels.

This particular aspect of the reclassification proposal is not dependent on how radioactive the waste is, it's purely for the purpose of closing off tanks.

This is controversial for a few reason. The first is that there's a concern that this would set a precedent for all tanks at Hanford. Instead of attempting to empty additional tanks to 99%, the DOE would instead just lazily apply this standard to all tanks as they reach a certain level of emptiness. (and it does seem to have the freedom to do this)

The second issue is that the Hanford site is itself sensitive. The Columbia River passes nearby and the area is (among other things) in an earthquake zone, so that there's a concern that over the long term this could become an issue. Closing the tanks off at 96% was not a part of the plan for the site.

The third issue is that there's still hope for a technological solution in the future. Although current efforts haven't been able to further empty the tanks, once they're closed off, no further attempts can be made. The high level waste becomes a permanent fixture of the area.

Other parts of the reclassification proposal also have some problems, though there are also parts that seek to reclassify waste that is below the thresholds for low-level waste (as you'd suggested). However, that's outside of the above issue.

The concern that Trump would pursue a cost-saving measure without considering the consequences seems well founded, given some of his past actions. At the moment, I believe the Oregon government and a number of nuclear watchdogs are opposing this change.

*edit, this is well outside of my own field, so take it all with a grain of salt
*double edit, looked it up, 177 tanks

 

[cow451]

"Most things"? And your comment most likely means nothing because this is very likely not one of those things.

Why are some of you even responding to me, you aren't saying anything at all.

Reflecting your argument accordingly. Anyone that has followed Trump knows he does only that which is in his self interest regardless of the impact on anyone else. His base supporters are indifferent to science so his gut tells him to put people in charge who are antagonistic to it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

*edit, this is well outside of my own field, so take it all with a grain of salt

At least you have something seemingly credible to offer, and I would, as I always have, agree this is an important issue, I just think this is more about a Trump bash than it is anything else. That's played out here time and time again, and so much so for the silliest of things, it's hard to take any of what they say seriously.

We can say that no past presidents *and* those they works with in making such decisions would even consider such a thing, but that's something we just don't know, meaning there just isn't anything here to complain about, not yet, and it's not as if presidents haven't made decisions in the past that someone didn't like....so goes life.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Reflecting your argument accordingly. Anyone that has followed Trump knows he does only that which is in his self interest regardless of the impact on anyone else.

Only? You've gone so overboard with exaggeration there, your post is not even worth replying to except to say, surely you know better. Just because you'd like to think something is a fact, doesn't make it that.

 

[Radagast]

At the Hanford site in particular, there are tanks that hold radioactive waste.

Every past administration has dropped the ball on this. The classification of "high level waste" was originally meant to indicate which waste got trucked to the "high level waste storage facility," which was supposed to have been built when I was a child. It didn't get built.

And I'm not sure that letting the Hanford tanks just sit as they are is really a great plan. The current proposal, flawed as it might be, at least includes mechanisms to reduce leakage rates, by filling the tanks with cement.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Every past administration has dropped the ball on this.

Perhaps, but none of them until now have tried to redefine the ball to be a marble.

 

[Radagast]

Perhaps, but none of them until now have tried to redefine the ball to be a marble.

So you don't think the tanks should be filled with concrete. Fair enough. What do you think should be done instead? Just leave them as is?

 

[AllButNone]

Every past administration has dropped the ball on this.

I don't disagree, Trump did nothing to create this problem. I am sure there is plenty of room for criticism of past presidents.

And I'm not sure that letting the Hanford tanks just sit as they are is really a great plan.

I don't think anybody is arguing that the tanks should sit indefinitely. Alternative solutions involve things like relying on leak barriers for a decade or so, until technology has a chance to catch up to the needs of the site.

 

[Radagast]

Alternative solutions involve things like relying on leak barriers for a decade or so, until technology has a chance to catch up to the needs of the site.

I guess it's possible that, if you wait long enough, some kind of magical cleanup technology will appear.

Just seems unlikely, unless you're referring to robots of some kind (and if the area is "hot" enough to need robots, the people nearby are already toast).

 

[AllButNone]

Just seems unlikely, unless you're referring to robots of some kind (and if the area is "hot" enough to need robots, the people nearby are already toast).

You definitely can't send people into the tanks to clean them!

Robotics is one of the types of technological advancement I'm talking about and has already been used. Here's an article on the tanks and why emptying them further is problematic. It doesn't go much into solutions. The emphasis is on robotics, though there are other avenues to explore. (creation/disposal of chemicals that can liquefy the solid and semi-solid wastes for example)

It may still be that in ten years or twenty years, technology still isn't up to the task. Which means 10 and 20 years of expense and research for nothing. But at the same time, there are long term risks and problems with grouting.

*edit, just to add. Grouting will still be an option in 20 years, but the extra time will also allow it to be better understood as a solution

 

[cow451]

Only? You've gone so overboard with exaggeration there, your post is not even worth replying to except to say, surely you know better. Just because you'd like to think something is a fact, doesn't make it that.

Only. I’ve followed him for 30+ years and have seen nothing but “only”.

 

[Belk]

The op's article starts out:

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — The Trump administration wants to reclassify some radioactive waste left from the production of nuclear weapons to lower its threat level and make disposal cheaper and easier.

So the question would be, does some of the waste actually warrant a lower threat level?

And I do realize looking at the proposal sensibly/discussing the possibilities, takes all the fun out of the thread, but it would seem at least one person here would have tried that already. And surely you all know DT didn't come up with this on his own and that it was likely suggested by the people in the know? You know, the same way they might recommend it to any president. and just like any other president might, they/he put it out here to see what people think.

OK, back to the unfounded general flow of one of a hundred hate Donald threads where DT is going to mindlessly throw nuclear waste around to where it ought not be.

I look forward to your substantive post detailing how the waste in question has been incorrectly classified for a long time and that the consensus of experts opinion is it is justified to lower it to a new level.

 

[Radagast]

It may still be that in ten years or twenty years, technology still isn't up to the task. Which means 10 and 20 years of expense and research for nothing. But at the same time, there are long term risks and problems with grouting.

*edit, just to add. Grouting will still be an option in 20 years, but the extra time will also allow it to be better understood as a solution

Yeah, but won't stuff leak during those 10 to 20 years?

 

[AllButNone]

Yeah, but won't stuff leak during those 10 to 20 years?

I can't give a full and proper response to that. I don't have access to a full assessment.

The tanks themselves have mostly been emptied of waste, which significantly reduces leakage and also potentially gives direct access to repair any leaks that remain problematic (if there are any at the moment, I'm uncertain). Large amounts of materials have already leaked from these tanks and other tanks, which needs to be addressed, and I can't imagine any smaller leaks from these mostly empty tanks will do much to affect that in the short term.

Given the opposition to the proposal from state government and environmental groups, which would have a better understanding of the risk, I can't help but think the leak risk is minimal and can be mitigated sufficiently for the time being.

I want to add, I made an error in my initial post. The goal isn't to reduce waste to ~99% to close the tanks, the desired goal is to bring it that low so the tanks can be removed and the soil below cleaned. The grout solution makes cleaning the soil effectively impossible.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I look forward to your substantive post detailing how the waste in question has been incorrectly classified for a long time and that the consensus of experts opinion is it is justified to lower it to a new level.

And I look forward to your confession your imagination got a way with you somewhere along the line.

And here I was thinking the fun was over on this thread.

 

[Radagast]

I can't give a full and proper response to that. I don't have access to a full assessment.

The tanks themselves have mostly been emptied of waste, which significantly reduces leakage and also potentially gives direct access to repair any leaks that remain problematic (if there are any at the moment, I'm uncertain). Large amounts of materials have already leaked from these tanks and other tanks, which needs to be addressed, and I can't imagine any smaller leaks from these mostly empty tanks will do much to affect that in the short term.

Given the opposition to the proposal from state government and environmental groups, which would have a better understanding of the risk, I can't help but think the leak risk is minimal and can be mitigated sufficiently for the time being.

I want to add, I made an error in my initial post. The goal isn't to reduce waste to ~99% to close the tanks, the desired goal is to bring it that low so the tanks can be removed and the soil below cleaned. The grout solution makes cleaning the soil effectively impossible.

I think you misunderstand the situation.

 

[AllButNone]

I think you misunderstand the situation.

Care to explain then?

*Edit, it does seem like I'm getting the 99% number incorrect as it relates to alternate plans, especially tank removal.

 

[Belk]

And I look forward to your confession your imagination got a way with you somewhere along the line.

And here I was thinking the fun was over on this thread.

Ah, So you have nothing to back up your belief this is a reasonable change?