Trump plans to reclassify nuclear waste - Make America Glow Again

[Kenny'sID]

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

I have no idea what your taking about. I checked for a clue in your last post to me, but nothing. Are you sure you directed that towards the correct poster?

 

[High Fidelity]

Trump selling out the American people once again.

Can't wait to see him in handcuffs. I think it'll become a national holiday around the world that we no longer have to put up with his astonishing idiocy.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Trump selling out the American people once again.

Can't wait to see him in handcuffs. I think it'll become a national holiday around the world that we no longer have to put up with his astonishing idiocy.

What exactly has he sold out too?

Speaking of astonishing idiocy, why are you claiming this is a done deal when it clearly is not. lol

But that's the same jump the gun attitude that fuel some of these threads...I mean who really cares about reality here?

 

[Radagast]

Care to explain then?

The Hanford tanks, especially the old ones, are leaking. Over sixty tanks have been confirmed to leak in the past, including one of the newer double-walled tanks that workers have been transferring liquid into. Since leaks are due to corrosion, leakage problems will only get worse. All the tanks are well beyond their original design life.

There are, AFAIK, no plans to remove the old tanks. For one thing, they are huge (typically 80 ft diameter / 50 ft high), and would probably break apart even if they could be dug out of the ground. For another, there is nowhere else to put them.

The original plan was to vitrify the waste and store it in a facility that does not yet exist, and that process is already several decades behind schedule.

I'm not sure if filling the almost-empty tanks with "grout" actually is the best answer, but it seems to me that DOE staff really are trying to find the best feasible solution. I can see a strong argument for doing something now (although I would have some concerns that the grouting might not adequately prevent future leaks: see here). I'm certain that just waiting is a bad answer.

I'm also unclear what this long-running saga has to do with Trump. The current plans are several years old. Emotional reactions to Trump only interfere with a proper evaluation of the plans.

 

[Radagast]

I look forward to your substantive post detailing how the waste in question has been incorrectly classified for a long time

This is not actually the claim. The claim, as I understand it, relates to the appropriate classification of the tanks after grouting.

 

[AllButNone]

The Hanford tanks, especially the old ones, are leaking. Over sixty tanks have been confirmed to leak in the past, including one of the newer double-walled tanks that workers have been transferring liquid into. Since leaks are due to corrosion, leakage problems will only get worse. All the tanks are well beyond their original design life.

Yes, and? The tanks we're discussing specifically right now are the c farm tanks. To address leaking, these tanks were the ones emptied into the double shell tanks. Put it this way, a part of the reason why leaking is no longer such an issue at c-farm is for the same reason the remaining waste is so difficult to get out.

I'm not sure what your particular objection here is by raising the leak issue on tanks that we're not discussing.

The original plan was to vitrify the waste and store it in a facility that does not yet exist, and that process is already several decades behind schedule.

Again different issue, not under discussion.

There are, AFAIK, no plans to remove the old tanks. For one thing, they are huge (typically 80 ft diameter / 50 ft high), and would probably break apart even if they could be dug out of the ground. For another, there is nowhere else to put them.

Not "probably". Getting them out of the ground would require they be broken apart deliberately.

However, yes, there are no specific plans to remove the tanks at the moment. The part that was unclear to me was whether emptying waste further would allow the tanks to be safely dismantled with present technology, or whether it was purely about tank closure. The distinction is moot however, because we're already (apparently) at the limit of waste retrieval with current available methods.

I'm not sure if filling the almost-empty tanks with "grout" actually is the best answer

I'm glad you now accept that there are problems with the solution that's been presented. Knowing this, perhaps you'll have a little more tolerance for the criticism the Trump admin is receiving.

, but it seems to me that DOE staff really are trying to find the best feasible solution.

The plan that's presented is likely the best plan to deal with the situation if the situation must be dealt with at the moment. The DOE staff are professional civil servants, scientists, and engineers after all.

What the current plan is being weighed against is that developing future solutions is expensive, and time consuming, with uncertain payoffs, though potentially much better (long-term) for the region.

The Trump administration appears to be choosing cost. This may not be an incorrect choice, and I haven't tried to state otherwise. I don't have the expertise needed to properly evaluate the risks against alternatives, but I have to give some deference to Washington State's Department of Ecology (state oversight) which is critical of the plan, and I also have to keep in mind the Trump administration has already tried to cut cleanup funding significantly.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, and? The tanks we're discussing specifically right now are the c farm tanks.

No, we've been discussing all the tanks (nothing in the DOE proposal that I have seen is specific to C-farm, although there is an unrelated reference to C-class waste).

But the C farm tanks still have leakage problems, especially tanks C-101 and C-105. Specifically, if rainwater gets in, it can potentially leach radioactive material out. Likewise, sludge-removal approaches that involve injecting liquid into the tank also risk leakage.

To address leaking, these tanks were the ones emptied into the double shell tanks.

Not just those. They've been working on emptying all the single-walled tanks.

However, yes, there are no specific plans to remove the tanks at the moment.

No plans at all, afaik.

The part that was unclear to me was whether emptying waste further would allow the tanks to be safely dismantled with present technology

I can't see how you could possibly dismantle the tanks. They're each the size of a large building, they're made of concrete and steel, and they have radioactive sludge in the bottom. Any attempt to dismantle them would create a radiation plume. And if you could dismantle them, what would you do with the pieces?

Grouting seems to be the only feasible solution on the table, and, quite frankly, I'd like to see one tank grouted ASAP, followed by an evaluation period to see if it actually works as hoped.

The Trump administration appears to be choosing cost.

Actually, the Trump administration had suggested a 13% funding cut to Hanford in the budget, but the Senate reversed this.

 

[AllButNone]

No, we've been discussing all the tanks (nothing in the DOE proposal that I have seen is specific to C-farm, although there is an unrelated reference to C-class waste).

You misunderstand. I mean we, or at least I have only been discussing the proposal as it relates to the present plan for tank closures at Hanford. I made that abundantly in my first post in this thread. The present plan for tank closures is only for C-farm. Good grief.

I can't respond to the rest. Just like you're conflating the above in the discussion (which is the core of what I've been trying to discuss), pretty much everything I write is getting conflated with something else or the point is being missed. This is silly.

 

[Radagast]

You misunderstand. I mean we, or at least I have only been discussing the proposal as it relates to the present plan for tank closures at Hanford. I made that abundantly in my first post in this thread. The present plan for tank closures is only for C-farm.

They may be planning to close and grout C-farm first, but they are certainly intending to close and grout all the tanks. The proposed waste reclassification is intended to facilitate that, by applying to all the tanks.

And I said "I can't see how you could possibly dismantle the tanks. They're each the size of a large building, they're made of concrete and steel, and they have radioactive sludge in the bottom. Any attempt to dismantle them would create a radiation plume. And if you could dismantle them, what would you do with the pieces?"

That comment applied to all the tanks, including C-farm. Most of the C-farm tanks are large 530,000 gallon units.

This is silly.

That much we agree on.

 

[AllButNone]

They may be planning to close and group C-farm first, but they are certainly intending to close and grout all the tanks. The proposed waste reclassification is intended to facilitate that, by applying to all the tanks.

And I said "I can't see how you could possibly dismantle the tanks. They're each the size of a large building, they're made of concrete and steel, and they have radioactive sludge in the bottom. Any attempt to dismantle them would create a radiation plume. And if you could dismantle them, what would you do with the pieces?" That applies to all the tanks, including C-farm.

In writing this, you've completely misunderstood everything I've already written.

 

[Goonie]

Clearly the obvious solution is reclassify it as Presidential toothpaste.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Heck no!!!! dont do that. The first volcanic cloud you get will be a radioactive one.

It can't be all the bad. It might reduce the population . And cause other nightmare stuff.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I'm sure people knew things like this may happen when they voted for a businessman.

Yes make the rich people richer. Before we all get poisoned.

 

[Andrew77]

The proposal by the U.S. Department of Energy would lower the status of some high-level radioactive waste in several places around the nation, including the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state — the most contaminated nuclear site in the country.

Reclassifying the material to low-level could save the agency billions of dollars and decades of work by essentially leaving the material in the ground, critics say.

In the ’70s, fears of weapons proliferation led Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter to declare the end of reprocessing technologies for the U.S.’s commercial nuclear sector.

But times are changing, and the BRC is once again considering reprocessing as an option. Countries like France and Russia currently reprocess nuclear fuel and the French company AREVA has operated a recycling complex for more than 40 years. Executive Alan Hanson shared the company’s experience with the BRC. “In terms of mass, 96 percent of the content of used fuel is reusable,” Hanson said. And with only four percent of the used fuel left to dispose of, reprocessing “reduces the burden on the geologic repository.” Hanson asserted that reprocessing can be done safely and securely, while contributing to energy security.

As he sees it, the U.S.’s attempt to set an example for the rest of the world to avoid weapons proliferation hasn’t worked. “That policy did not prevent Britain, France, Japan or Russia from domestic recycling,” Hanson said, “and I’m here to tell you it will not stop China and India, who are moving ahead aggressively to do commercial recycling.”
​

How do you solve a problem like nuclear waste? | Need to Know | PBS

Buried on page 5.

So you can complain about Trump, and perhaps I would even agree with that to some extent.

But the problem is, the left-wing Democrats in the 1970s banned reprocessing of fuel.

So while other countries have been completely re-using their high level radioactive fuel rods, reducing the waste by nearly 96%, we have not.

While they have perfected and improved their waste management programs, we have not.

This shouldn't even be a problem. Simply put, if we had encouraged growth and advancement in our nuclear power sector, most of these problems would be minor, or even eliminated. Instead, we're dealing with massive cleanups, that never should have existed.

By the way, if this deal in Washington is such a big thing, why didn't Obama fix it in 2009? We have $10 Trillion more in debt because of him, and he couldn't clean up a nuclear waste site?

Why is it the Democrats keep kicking the can down the road, instead of fixing the problem, and then complain how other people deal with it, when they don't?

 

[essentialsaltes]

By the way, if this deal in Washington is such a big thing, why didn't Obama fix it in 2009? We have $10 Trillion more in debt because of him, and he couldn't clean up a nuclear waste site?

Why is it the Democrats keep kicking the can down the road, instead of fixing the problem, and then complain how other people deal with it, when they don't?

There's a difference between kicking a radioactive can down the road, and redefining the radioactive can so you can pretend it's not radioactive and just leaving it in the road.

 

[Andrew77]

There's a difference between kicking a radioactive can down the road, and redefining the radioactive can so you can pretend it's not radioactive and just leaving it in the road.

Really? Tell me how that is different in a real world practical sense.

So, in the 1990s, Bill Clinton did nothing about it, when he supposedly had a balanced budget. The high-level radioactive fuel rods were in the ground.
2000s, Bush ignored it. The high-level radioactive fuel rods were in the ground.
2010s, Obama spent trillions, and ignored it. The high-level radioactive fuel rods were in the ground.
Now we have Trump. At the end of his term.... where will the high-level radioactive fuel rods be, that is different then how they were left from the prior administrations?

My guess.....The high-level radioactive fuel rods will be in the ground.

So nothing has changed. Not one thing. It's not like the state of Washington is just going to forget they are there. It isn't like the activist groups are going to ignore it.

So it isn't like anything is going to change at all.

Again... I think this is a dumb idea, because the proper solution is to deregulate the nuclear industry, and allow for reprocessing of spent fuel rods, which will reduce the waste high level radioactive waste across the country, by 96%.

It was regulations that caused this entire mess to begin with. All the other non-stupid countries have been reprocessing waste for decades.

It was left-wing Democrats that instituted these ridiculously terrible regulations to put us in this horrible situation, to begin with.

So I agree with you, this isn't the best move. But your solution has resulted in where we are. Endless kicking the can down the road, because no one knows what to do with the stuff, because the left-wing banned the ideal solution.

In fact, there are other solutions than that even. There are numerous reactor designs that produces ZERO high level radioactive waste. But we can't use any of them, because the left-wing banned all that as well. Regulations screw up everything. We should be leading the world in safe nuclear power, not bickering over the Yucca Mountains.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Really? Tell me how that is different in a real world practical sense.

For one thing, when the vit plant finally gets running in a few years, this reclassification will redirect radioactive cans into the ground, rather than to the hardier solution that has been designed for them.

 

[Andrew77]

For one thing, when the vit plant finally gets running in a few years, this reclassification will redirect radioactive cans into the ground, rather than to the hardier solution that has been designed for them.

I thought putting them in the ground was the solution. Wasn't Yucca basically storing them in the ground? What was the 'hardier' solution that will not be used?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I thought putting them in the ground was the solution. Wasn't Yucca basically storing them in the ground? What was the 'hardier' solution that will not be used?

Vitrification.

High level waste (including HLW that comes from reprocessing) is generally fixed into glass, which traps it more effectively from leaching into the environment than just sticking it in cans.

Hanford has been building a vitrification plant to handle HLW in this way.

 

[Andrew77]

Vitrification.

High level waste (including HLW that comes from reprocessing) is generally fixed into glass, which traps it more effectively from leaching into the environment than just sticking it in cans.

Hanford has been building a vitrification plant to handle HLW in this way.

I not aware that the non-solid radioactive material was part of the plan.

As far as I am aware, that stuff is getting removed and sent for vitrification regardless of this change. This change was only for specific solid waste that met a specific criteria.

That's what I've read so far. The liquid radioactive material will be dealt with regardless.

Where did it say the material in question, was the contaminated liquids? I did not see that in the article posted. Maybe you have a better source?