Jan 28 2009
waste 1.was.9953 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire . It’s one of the biggest cleanup jobs the United States has ever undertaken, and it’s a long way from being done. Near the Columbia River in Hanford, Washington, contractors are decontaminating a nuclear fuel processing site that has 177 underground tanks holding 53 million gallons of nuclear waste, some of which has already leaked into the soil and groundwater. And the cleanup crew has learned that the known hazards are just the beginning. [S]loppy work by the contractors running the site saw all kinds of chemical and radioactive waste indiscriminately buried in pits underground over the 40 years Hanford was operational, earning it the accolade of the dirtiest place on Earth. In 2004, clean-up work uncovered a battered, rusted, and broken old safe containing a glass jug inside which was 400 millilitres of plutonium [New Scientist].http://41002louis0j0sheehan0esquire.wordpress.com
In a new study published in Analytical Chemistry [subscription required], researchers announced that the plutonium inside that jug had quite an impressive and terrible pedigree. Analyzing the sample’s isotopes and studying the historical records revealed that it was processed into plutonium-239 in December of 1944, as part of the first batch of weapons-grade plutonium ever made. Just eight months later, Hanford plutonium was used in the nuclear bomb that fell on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.
The overall cleanup of the Hanford site is expected to cost about $50 billion, and the remediation effort currently gets about $2 billion per year from the Department of Energy. But that money hasn’t been enough to keep the project on track; managers have announced that they will miss 23 deadlines this year due to lack of funds. That’s one reason senators whose districts include Department of Energy sites such as Hanford are pushing for stimulus money to rejuvenate local economies with cleanup work and, they hope, provide freshly scrubbed land for industrial development. “This is exactly the kind of thing a stimulus package should be composed of,” said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho [AP].
The newly appointed Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, pledged during his confirmation hearings last week to expedite the cleanup effort at Hanford and other nuclear waste sites. “Cleanup of these materials is a complicated, expensive long-term project, but I pledge to you to do my best to accelerate these efforts in order to protect human health and the environment, and to return contaminated lands to beneficial use,” Chu said…. Under questioning from Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Chu said there should be a “significant” amount of additional cleanup money in a stimulus bill Congress is expected to consider in the coming weeks [Tri-City Herald].
Related Content:
80beats: Should Yucca Mountain Hold More Than 77,000 Tons of Nuclear Waste, or None?
80beats: EPA Sets Radiation Limit for Nevadans Living 1 Million Years From Now
DISCOVER: End of the Plutonium Age dives into the enduring mysteries of plutonium
DISCOVER: Bombs Away explains how to dismantle a nuclear warhead
Image: Department of Energy, showing the safe and the plutonium-filled bottle found at the Hanford site http://41002louis0j0sheehan0esquire.wordpress.com
January 21st, 2009 Tags: nuclear energy, nuclear waste, plutonium, pollution, weapons & security
by Eliza Strickland in Environment, Technology | 8 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >
8 Responses to “The “Dirtiest Place on Earth” Still Has a Lot of Nuke Waste to Clean Up”
1. Bystander Says:
January 21st, 2009 at 10:19 pm
/facepalm
2. Bill Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:32 am
You know, you’d think something like this would only occur in a developing nation or other “Third World” country. But no, it’s the good old USA!!!
3. Danorock Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
This is the kind of thing that happens everywhere, except that most developing nations don’t have enough of a nuclear energy program/weapons-grade plutonium to have this much waste! Nuclear waste is one of those things that we have been “sweeping under the carpet” as if by putting our heads in the sand, it will disappear. Surprise! Nuclear waste doesn’t go away when you bury it.
4. Tommy Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I can tell you without a doubt that Hanford is not the dirtiest place on earth; that statement is just a journalistic spin of nonsense. How about all the former U.S.S.R. sites we have cleaned up….yes us the good old USA. How about China and India….I am so sick of the liberal journalistic spin to always show that the USA always does things in an endeavor as a negative and then they blow it way out of proportion and spin it as if it is only the USA with these kinds of problems to deal with….has everyone forgotten Chernobyl….or was that just and inconvenient truth. PLEASE PLEASE CAN WE GET JOURNALISM WITHOUT THE NONSENSE OF CONTEXTUALIZED FACTS.
5. geeta Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Yes, I know. But this must have been one of those wastes that could not be shipped over to a ‘developing’ or ‘third world’ country.
6. Malwae Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I have to agree with Tommy - I think there is a bias of documentation here. Hanford is in a place where journalists aren’t mangled in horrific prisons for describing something that’s less than positive about their country, so we know all about it. I lived in Nukus for 2 1/2 years (that’s where the Aral Sea used to be). Un-f****ing believable - but Uzbek journalists who write about stuff other than how awesome their president is tend not to be heard from again.
(Think chemical and biological weapons factories that were just up and abandoned in 1991 - no controlled shutdown, no containment, nothing. The local population has some crazy health issues as a result).
7. Kent Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
This was the location where the largest nuclear arsenal in the world was produced. There is little chance that Uzbekistan could possibly have produced something of this magnitude. Russia, maybe - but not confirmed. So I think this is actually an accurate statement.
Also, research the Hanford downwinders if you want to see some crazy health issues.
8. Tommy Says:http://41002louis0j0sheehan0esquire.wordpress.com
January 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
The former U.S.S.R. at one time had a nuclear arsenal approx. one and half times more in numbers of missiles and subs than the USA, so once again this statement of Hanford as the “dirtiest place on earth” is total nonsense and no the USA and Russia have never shipped waste to developing or third world countries; if you are referring to the nuclear byproducts shipped to be used in the manufacturing of smoke detectors and X-ray machines then yes we have shipped byproducts not waste…and yet another fact taken out of context or twisted to validate someones belief or political leaning and agenda…and as far as Uzbekistan goes it was at one time under the iron curtain and most definitely has former U.S.S.R sites of research and development of nuclear and chemical weapons and production in general within its boarders. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
