June 5, 2019 WASHINGTON D.C.: The Department of Energy issued new rules giving itself the authority to abandon storage tanks with more than 100 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste at sites in South Carolina, Idaho and the state of Washington. Under the law, this most toxic waste must be disposed of in deep, geologic formations so it won’t endanger public health; the Trump administration is trying to avoid that important requirement. The new rules allow DOE to walk away from long-lived high-level nuclear waste at the Hanford nuclear site, which contains two-thirds of the nation’s inventory of such waste. Under the new rules, DOE is not required to remove or treat the waste if it so chooses. The rule paves the way for DOE to abandon untreated high-level waste in over 170 underground nuclear waste tanks, as it plans to do when it issued a proposal in 2018 to abandon 70,000 gallons of waste from the C Farms at Hanford. https://www.hanfordchallenge.org/pr...pHQdwC5DEqFEfx-IhI4fAPgzBdGL-G42wqqbpkGZUmb6U
New nuclear waste plan for Hanford is ‘reckless and dangerous,’ says state RICHLAND, WA The Department of Energy is changing the way it classifies radioactive waste at Hanford and two other cleanup sites, which could change the standards for treating and disposing of some Hanford waste. DOE announced Wednesday the change in how it will be interpreting the legal definition of high level radioactive waste at Hanford and at its sites in Savannah River, S.C., and Idaho. Each has high level waste stored in underground tanks. All options will be considered to stop “this reckless and dangerous action,” said Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson in a joint statement Wednesday. https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article231188898.html
Interesting. I see much hand waving and apparent objections to what is being done. I don't see a clear explanation of what the objectors want them to do with the stuff. Where are you going to take it? Who is going to do the work?
I believe they would want to take it to Yucca Mountain. Which is only 100 miles from Vegas. No thanks. Imagine all that stuff in Yucca Mountain and then we have a massive Earthquake. NO THANKS
The plan included a plan for an earthquake in that region. It also took into account the entire civilization collapsing and someone in the future accidentally digging it up. An awful lot of disastrous scenarios were accounted for.
Yeah. It must be 25 years now that this was the plan. The only plan. I guess it has been stymied. So I don't know what anyone can bitch about now. Put up plan or what you got is what you get.
1. The Science Daily is not a true news source. They practice churnalism (look it up). Churnalism - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/churnalism 2. If I remember correctly, there are no active volcanoes in the region; 3. Any volcanic flow would bury the canisters which would contain a borosilicate compound made from silica, boric oxate and the radioactive material. Very stable but still hot, much like radioactive material still in the ground. Did you know that before man made civilization there was a radioactive pile that went critical in the past in Africa? Yeah, the material is also hazardous in it's natural state.
I can't think of many things worse than when people speak of stuff like this as settled. Any volcanic flow would do what now? The actual geologists that are and have been studying this don't agree with each other. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/...danger-of-yucca-mountains-volcanic-neighbors/
The question is not whether Yucca is completely safe, but rather whether it is more safe than the current location. At least, that's the question when you take the NIMBY-ism out of the picture. barfo
We're 100 miles away from it and 4 hours away from LA. You know, CA which has the 5th largest economy in the world. Yeah, lets put all of it here and hope nothing happens.
