DOCSLIB.ORG

Hanford Cleanup: the First 25 Years

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hanford Cleanup: the First 25 Years HANFORD CLEANUP The First 25 Years September 2014 September 1014 Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years September 2014 Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years Written by: Ken Niles Oregon Department of Energy Most photos are courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy. Graphic design by CarterWorks, Ashland, OR This report was written and produced by the Oregon Department of Energy’s Nuclear Safety Division, with the support of U.S. Department of Energy Grant #DE-EM0001363. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Energy. Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion Street NE, Salem, OR 97301-3737 503-378-4040 • 800-221-8035 • http://oregon.gov/ENERGY/ Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years n February 1992, Westing- From the 10 Year Report, Ihouse Hanford President August 1999: Tom Anderson warned The original milestones in Hanford Site workers that the TPA were ambitious — mere cleanup was not too much so in many cases, enough to maintain con- and did not sufficiently tinued funding. “No way reflect the complexity and is the government going to challenges that exist at keep spending billions and Hanford. billions at Hanford over so The early years of many years just to clean Hanford cleanup were up some desert land. The marked by frustration, government doesn’t have false starts, a lack of en- a history of sticking with Construction of a burial ground in Hanford’s 200 West Area. thusiasm over the cleanup something that long.” mission, and environmental laws which required More than 20 years and about $40 billion later, extensive study and planning before cleanup could we’re fortunate that the government has stuck with occur. Much attention was occupied by concerns it that long. And in some ways — as absurd as it about tank safety issues and trying to understand may sound — that’s just the beginning. The U.S. the potential for a tank fire or explosion. Department of Energy (DOE), which owns and op- DOE and its prime contractor at the time, erates Hanford, predicts the cleanup to run through Westinghouse, had no shortage of “partners” will- the year 2060, with a remaining estimated cleanup ing to advise them on cleanup. Regulators, Congress, cost of $113.6 billion. other DOE programs, Native American tribes, the The 586 square mile Hanford Site in south- State of Oregon, activist groups, and many others, eastern Washington was home to the world’s first freely shared their oftentimes conflicting opinions plutonium production facilities. For more than about how DOE should proceed with cleanup. 40 years at Hanford, the federal government pro- After this very slow start, cleanup is now duced plutonium for America’s nuclear weapons well underway and there are many successes. program. The processes generated tremendous Unfortunately, much remains to be done. The amounts of radioactive and chemically hazardous biggest concern is that after ten years of cleanup, waste. Plutonium production ended at Hanford in we have seen little progress towards removing 1988. Since 1989, the focus has been on environ- Hanford’s most dangerous wastes from aging un- mental cleanup. derground storage tanks. More than 50 million Throughout the past 25 years, the Oregon gallons of high-level radioactive waste remain in Department of Energy has chronicled the Hanford these tanks, at least 67 of which have leaked. Now, cleanup. This is the fourth iteration of this doc- these tanks are ten years older. In the past two years ument. We looked back at the first 10 years of we’ve also seen confirmation that leaked tank waste Hanford cleanup; the first 15 years; and the first 20 has reached groundwater — showing that time isn’t years. Now, we’re at 25 years. on our side. By looking back at these previous reports, we During the past ten years we’ve seen a tremen- can see how the focus has changed as time has gone dous increase in the public’s interest, involvement by and the cleanup has progressed. Two constant and advocacy on behalf of Hanford. We’ve seen the themes, however, are the lack of progress with tank creation of the Hanford Advisory Board and con- waste treatment and concerns about funding. siderable progress in citizen involvement through Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years | Page i this forum and others. We’ve also seen, in the past After 15 years of cleanup, we have reached a piv- year or two, a divisiveness — primarily over future otal place in Hanford cleanup. Most of the immediate missions at Hanford — that threatens to tear apart risks have been successfully resolved. Now the focus this delicate and diverse coalition of interests. is squarely on the quality of the remaining cleanup. The Tri-Party Agreement repeatedly came under And there is considerable debate about that issue. attack and has so far survived the scrutiny of There are still plenty of long-term risks. Exten- Congressional leaders. The regulators have been sive groundwater contamination remains and huge willing to adjust the cleanup schedule as necessary. amounts of waste are still moving in Hanford’s Although the schedule in the TPA has been moved sub-surface to the groundwater, including high-lev- back by ten years to 2028, it’s clear that cleanup will el radioactive waste leaked from the tanks. Highly take far longer than that. radioactive materials remain in unlined burial We’ve seen four Secretaries of Energy, three Site grounds. And, until we can put those vitrification Managers (plus several interim or acting Managers) facilities to use, 53 million gallons of high-level and more five and 10 year cleanup plans than any- waste remains in 177 underground storage tanks. one can keep straight. The public’s insistence that cleanup continue The Hanford cleanup has involved and engaged has — without question — had a huge impact at many people, beginning with the thousands of Hanford. The successes at Hanford are a shared ac- Hanford workers, many of whom risked their health complishment by all who have worked to see cleanup and their lives while working in extremely hazard- move forward. But the job is far from over and your ous conditions. Hanford cleanup also involved those continued involvement is absolutely necessary. in the political, regulatory, and public policy arenas, who work — together usually — to try and ensure From the 20 Year Report, July 2009: Hanford is safely cleaned up. The cleanup is not nearly as far along as any of us expected or would like to have seen. The remaining From the 15 Year Report, October 2004: challenges will require significant funds, technical There is no question it has been an eventful five years ingenuity, and dogged determination to see the at Hanford. A range fire in July 2000 burned about cleanup through to completion. 45 per cent of the site — threatening many contam- This is not the full story of Hanford cleanup. inated facilities and burning over a few waste sites. But it is a big part of the story. This report was not Plans to privately finance the construction of facili- intended as ‘the Oregon view’ on the cleanup, and ties to immobilize some of Hanford’s most danger- we made no attempt to ‘spin’ this report so as to be ous wastes fell apart that same summer. To DOE’s overly critical or overly complimentary of the work credit, they were able to recover from that debacle, that has been done. We’ve attempted merely to pro- and construction of those facilities is now well un- vide information on what happened and when — derway using government financing. the good and the bad; the breakthroughs and the Significant progress was made in other key proj- breakdowns; and much in-between. ects — moving pumpable liquids from the single We believe the history of Hanford cleanup of- shell tanks to double shell tanks, moving spent nu- fers us lessons for the present and for the future and clear fuel to interim storage away from the Columbia is well worth documenting. We have already seen River, and stabilizing tons of plutonium. In addition, that assumptions made during the operating years we’ve seen the cocooning of several nuclear reactors, about the finality of waste disposal have in many the dismantling of plutonium-contaminated facilities, cases proven to be very wrong. Considerable effort and movement of huge amounts of contaminated has gone into digging up many old burial grounds soils away from the Columbia River shoreline. and disposal areas that were thought at the time to This progress occurred despite substantial con- be safe and permanent disposal places. We hope that flict. DOE and its regulators were often at odds. The decisions and actions that have been made during State of Oregon, the Yakama Nation, and several citi- these past 20 years are protective and durable. zen groups initiated or joined litigation against DOE. The biggest lesson may be one that has been Page ii | Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years Hanford Site Hanford Site W To Othello hite B l uf fs 100 H Wahluke Slope State Highway 24 Area 100 D & White DR Area Bluffs 100 N Townsite Area Vernita Bridge Columbia 100 KW River & KE 100 F To Vantage & Seattle Route 6 Areas Route 1 Area State Highway 243 Route 2 Vernita 100 B & C Areas Route 4N Route 6 Yakima Barricade Route 11 A State Highway 24 Meteorology Hanford Townsite To Yakima 200 Route 3 200 W Area E Area US Ecology ERDF Route 4 South Route 2 Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ringold Ecology State Highway 240 Wye Barricade Arid Lands Ecology Energy Northwest LIGO Site Route 4 South 400 Area Rattlesnake Mtn.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From the American Dream to … Bailout America: How the Government
    From the American dream to … bailout America: How the government loosened credit standards and led to the mortgage meltdown Compiled by Edward Pinto, American Enterprise Institute In the early 1990s, Fannie Mae‘s CEO Jim Johnson developed a plan to protect Fannie‘s lucrative charter privileges bestowed by Congress. Ply Congress with copious amounts of affordable housing and Fannie‘s privileges would be secure. It required ―transforming the housing finance system‖ by drastically loosening of loan underwriting standards. Fannie garnered support from community advocacy groups like ACORN and members of Congress. In 1995 President Clinton formalized Fannie‘s plan into the National Homeownership Strategy. President Clinton stated it ―will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent.‖ From 1992 onward, ―skin in the game‖ was progressively eliminated from housing finance. And it worked – Fannie‘s supporters in and outside Congress successfully protected Fannie‘s (and Freddie‘s) charter privileges against all comers – until the American Dream became Bailout America. TIMELINE Credit loosening Warning 1991 HUD Commission complains ―Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac‘s underwriting standards are oriented towards ‗plain vanilla‘ mortgage‖ [Read More] 1991 Lenders will respond to the most conservative standards unless [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are aggressive and convincing in their efforts to expand historically narrow underwriting [Read More] 1992 Countrywide and Fannie Mae join forces to originate ―flexibly underwritten loans‖ [Read More] 1992 Congress passes
    [Show full text]
  • Politics Core SPARTANS@I DERAT Wcnlom STATE UNIWSITT 2005
    Politics Core SPARTANS@I DERAT wcnlom STATE UNIWSITT 2005 1NC Shells Links, Continued Bush Good - Energy Bill 3-5 Guantanamo Bay Bush Bad - Energy Bill 6-7 Bush Good - Partisan Uniqueness Bush Good - Tom Delay Energy Bill Will Pass Bush Bad Will Pass 8 Bush Bad - Specter AT: MTBE Blocks 9 Bush Bad - A2: GOP Lx AT: Won't Pass - Court Battle 10 Other Links Energy Bill Won't Include ANWR 11 Korematsu - Bush Bad Energy Bill Won't Pass Oversight Board - Bush Bad Won't Pass 12 Oversight Board - Bush Good Won't Pass - No MTBE Compromise 13 Carnivore - Bush Bad Generic Links Extraordinary Rendition - Bush Bad Bush Good Workplace Drug Testing - Bush Good 2NC 14 Courts Links - Bush Good Generic Bush Good 2NC 15 Agency Links - General Ext. Partisanship 16 Internal Links A2: Public Popularity 17 Political Capital Bush Bad Political Capital KeyIFinite Ext: Concession 18 A2: Political Capital Public 2NC 19 WinnersILosers Specific Links Losers Lose PATRIOT Act Winners Win Bush Bad 1NC 20 A2: Winners Win Bush Bad - Bipart 2 1 GOP and Democrats Bush Bad - Dems 22 Moderate GOP Key A2: GOP Backlash 23 GOP Base Key Bush Good - Loss 24 GOP Unity Key Bush Good - General 2 5 Democrats Key Racial Profiling Concessions Bush Bad - 1NC 2 6 A2: Concessions Bad Bush Bad - 2NC 2 7 A2: Concessions Ext; Bush Bad - Win 28 Flip Flop Ext: Bush Bad - Dems 2 9 Flip Flops Kill Agenda Bush Good - 1 NC 30 A2: Flip Flops Bush Good - 2NC 3 1 Focus Immigration Focus Key Bush Good 1NC A2: Focus Bush good - Political Capital Popularity Bush Good - GOP Backlash Popularity Key Bush
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECTING the Disorder the CFR Is the Deep State Powerhouse Undoing and Remaking Our World
    DEEP STATE DIRECTING THE Disorder The CFR is the Deep State powerhouse undoing and remaking our world. 2 by William F. Jasper The nationalist vs. globalist conflict is not merely an he whole world has gone insane ideological struggle between shadowy, unidentifiable and the lunatics are in charge of T the asylum. At least it looks that forces; it is a struggle with organized globalists who have way to any rational person surveying the very real, identifiable, powerful organizations and networks escalating revolutions that have engulfed the planet in the year 2020. The revolu- operating incessantly to undermine and subvert our tions to which we refer are the COVID- constitutional Republic and our Christian-style civilization. 19 revolution and the Black Lives Matter revolution, which, combined, are wreak- ing unprecedented havoc and destruction — political, social, economic, moral, and spiritual — worldwide. As we will show, these two seemingly unrelated upheavals are very closely tied together, and are but the latest and most profound manifesta- tions of a global revolutionary transfor- mation that has been under way for many years. Both of these revolutions are being stoked and orchestrated by elitist forces that intend to unmake the United States of America and extinguish liberty as we know it everywhere. In his famous “Lectures on the French Revolution,” delivered at Cambridge University between 1895 and 1899, the distinguished British historian and states- man John Emerich Dalberg, more com- monly known as Lord Acton, noted: “The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult, but the design. Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Wahlen, R. K. History of 100-B Area
    WHC-EP-0273 History of 100-B Area R. K. Wahlen Date Published October 1989 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Management and Administration w Westinghouse P.O. Box 1970 0- Hanford mpany Richland, Washington &I352 Hanford Operations and Engineering Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACO6-87RLlOg30 WHC-EP-0273 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In August 1939, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt that informed him of the work that had been done by Enrico Fermi and L. Szilard on converting energy from the element uranium. He also informed President Roosevelt that there was strong evidence that the Germans were also working on this same development. This letter initiated a program by the United States to develop an atomic bomb. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the Department of Defense, was assigned the task. The program, which involved several locations in the United States, was given the code name, Manhattan Project. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (Du Pont) was contracted to build and operate the reactors and chemical separations plants for the production of plutonium. On December 14, 1942, officials of Du Pont met in Wilmington, Delaware, to develop a set of criteria for the selection of a site for the reactors and separations plants. The basic criteria specified four requirements: (1) a large supply of clean water, (2) a large supply of electricity, (3) a large area with low population density, and (4) an area that would cover at least 12 by 16 mi.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hanford Laboratories and the Growth of Environmental Research in the Pacific Northwest
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF D. Erik Ellis for the degree of Master of Science in History of Science, presented on December 17,2002. Title: The Hanford Laboratories and the Growth of Environmental Research in the Pacific Northwest. 1943 to 1965. Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: William G. Robbins The scientific endeavors that took place at Hanford Engineer Works, beginning in World War II and continuing thereafter, are often overlooked in the literature on the Manhattan Project, the Atomic Energy Commission, and in regional histories. To historians of science, Hanford is described as an industrial facility that illustrates the perceived differences between academic scientists on the one hand and industrial scientists and engineers on the other. To historians of the West such as Gerald Nash, Richard White, and Patricia Limerick, Hanford has functioned as an example of the West's transformation during in World War II, the role of science in this transformation, and the recurring impacts of industrialization on the western landscape. This thesis describes the establishment and gradual expansion of a multi-disciplinary research program at Hanford whose purpose was to assess and manage the biological and environmental effects of plutonium production. By drawing attention to biological research, an area in which Hanford scientists gained distinction by the mid 1950s, this study explains the relative obscurity of Hanford's scientific research in relation to the prominent, physics- dominated national laboratories of the Atomic Energy Commission. By the mid 1960s, with growing public concern over radiation exposure and changes in the government's funding patterns for science, Hanford's ecologically relevant research provided a recognizable and valuable identity for the newly independent, regionally-based research laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • China Update Quote of the Week
    Neal Martin ML Strategies, LLC [email protected] 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. David Leiter Washington, DC 20004 USA 202 296 3622 [email protected] 202 434 7400 fax www.mlstrategies.com JANUARY 29, 2013 CHINA UPDATE QUOTE OF THE WEEK “Our engagement with China today deals with a wide range of the most pressing challenges and the most exciting opportunities. And when we began looking at ways to make our exchanges with China more productive, we of course ramped up our diplomatic engagement. We took delegations of investors and entrepreneurs to China. We institutionalized the Strategic and Economic Dialogue. We are very clear that what we’ve tried to build, an architecture that will stand the test of time regardless of what is going on in either of our countries, has been an essential effort.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the January 24 launch of the 100,000 Strong Foundation U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS Confirmation Hearing for Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State On January 24, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a confirmation hearing for Senator John Kerry, the president’s nominee for Secretary of State. Numerous questions related to China were asked of Senator Kerry, dealing with the United States’ engagement with the Asia-Pacific region and the Trans Pacific Partnership, China’s relationship with Africa, global energy needs, and other issues. ML Strategies has a full summary of the hearing available upon request. State Department Launches 100,000 Strong Foundation On January 24, Secretary of State Clinton hosted an event celebrating the launch of the 100,000 Strong Foundation – an independent nongovernmental organization.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 STAFF REPORT U.S
    U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 STAFF REPORT U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 111TH CONGRESS COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM ORIGINALLY RELEASED JULY 1, 2009 * UPDATED MAY 12, 2010 INTRODUCTION The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created “affordable” but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the “affordable” housing market and acted to kill reforms. In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national homeownership rate. However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy. While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention. In recent months it has been impossible to watch a television news program without seeing a Member of Congress or an Administration official put forward a new recovery proposal or engage in the public flogging of a financial company official whose poor decisions, and perhaps greed, resulted in huge losses and great suffering.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Handbook 2020
    MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK 2020 Energy Northwest may revise or discontinue policies, procedures, or benefits described in this handbook, and/or institute new policies, procedures, or benefits. This handbook nor any other Energy Northwest policies, procedures, or practices (whether verbal or written) or the acceptance or continuance of employment are to be construed as a contract of employment, a promise of continued employment, or as creating an implied or contractual duty between an employee and Energy Northwest. All employment may be terminated "at will” by Energy Northwest or the employee for lawful reasons. Management Handbook 2020 Introduction Congratulations and welcome to Energy Northwest’s leadership team! You are part of a group of highly skilled professionals focused each day on the relentless pursuit of excellence through continuous improvement. This ensures we provide our public power members and regional ratepayers with safe, reliable, cost-effective, responsible power generation and energy solutions. I want to personally thank you for stepping up to the challenge of leadership on our management team. It’s a very important position to our agency, and to the people you lead. This handbook gives you the guidelines and resources to manage and direct your staff to help them accomplish individual and agency goals. It contains much of the information you will need to be successful in your leadership role here at Energy Northwest; it describes the many important programs, processes and resources available to you. The handbook also lists key expectations for supervisors and managers. I encourage you to use this handbook often as you get started in management, and keep it as a reference throughout your career with the agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment for the Energy Northwest WNP-1/4 Lease Renewal January 2017 I
    DOE/EA-2044 Assessment Energy Northwest WNP-1/4 Lease Renewal, Hanford Site, Washington January 2017 U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office Richland, WA 99352 Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited U.S. Department of Energy DOE/EA-2044 Terms Used in this Document Area of Potential Effect (APE) – the geographic area within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking. Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Standard activities, operating procedures, and practices that are used to prevent or reduce potential environmental impacts from project activities. Cultural Resources - A general term used to refer to a wide range of resources, including historic structures, archaeological sites, places of traditional, religious and cultural significance, sacred sites, Native American human remains, and associated objects that are entitled to special consideration under federal statute, regulations, and executive orders. Energy Northwest (EN) – the municipal corporation and joint operating agency that owns both the Industrial Development Complex (IDC) and the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) Federal Threatened or Endangered Species - Plant or animal species that are at risk of becoming endangered in the near future throughout all or a significant part of their range. Threatened or endangered status is formally designated by a listing process under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Industrial Development Complex (IDC) – the collective name applied to the area occupied by Washington Nuclear Projects Number 1 and Number 4 (WNP-1/4) that reflects the current industrial nature of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I
    Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I November 4 - 7, 2002 Richland, WA FINAL REPORT A Collaborative Workshop: United States Fish & Wildlife Service The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN) Hanford Reach National Monument 1 Planning Workshop I, November 2002 A contribution of the IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group in collaboration with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. CBSG. 2002. Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I. FINAL REPORT. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN. 2 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I, November 2002 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I November 4-7, 2002 Richland, WA TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. Executive Summary 1 A. Introduction and Workshop Process B. Draft Vision C. Draft Goals 2. Understanding the Past 11 A. Personal, Local and National Timelines B. Timeline Summary Reports 3. Focus on the Present 31 A. Prouds and Sorries 4. Exploring the Future 39 A. An Ideal Future for Hanford Reach National Monument B. Goals Appendix I: Plenary Notes 67 Appendix II: Participant Introduction questions 79 Appendix III: List of Participants 87 Appendix IV: Workshop Invitation and Invitation List 93 Appendix V: About CBSG 103 Hanford Reach National Monument 3 Planning Workshop I, November 2002 4 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I, November 2002 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I November 4-7, 2002 Richland, WA Section 1 Executive Summary Hanford Reach National Monument 5 Planning Workshop I, November 2002 6 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I, November 2002 Executive Summary A. Introduction and Workshop Process Introduction to Comprehensive Conservation Planning This workshop is the first of three designed to contribute to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) of Hanford Reach National Monument.
    [Show full text]
  • TVA's Bad Nuclear
    TVA’s Bad Nuclear Bet: Gambling BILLIONS on Bellefonte Reactors Prepared by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy August 2011 Executive Summary “The circumstances for Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 are unique; no other licensee has ever given up its construction permits, partially dismantled the plant and allowed the facility to degrade, then requested that the permits be reissued.” -Joseph F. Williams, NRC Senior Project Manager1 The history of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Bellefonte site in Jackson County, Alabama spans nearly 40 years. A total of four reactors have been proposed, and billions of dollars have been spent, but not a single kilowatt of electricity has ever been produced. After allowing the site to sit idle for more than 20 years and scrapping the facility for spare parts, TVA is now proposing to restart construction of the Bellefonte Unit 1 reactor, which may be one of the greatest gambles in the agency’s history. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy has serious concerns about TVA’s push to complete the mothballed, abandoned Bellefonte reactors. Bellefonte’s unique and complicated history is compounded by that fact that, in order to complete construction of the reactors, TVA faces unique and complicated problems—many worse than any other reactor project has previously faced. This report documents some of our concerns and makes it clear that finishing Bellefonte is not a gamble worth taking. Our concerns include Bellefonte's long, complicated history; multiple safety concerns that have not been addressed; the troubled history of the Babcock &Wilcox “Mark-C 205” design; the unnecessary and costly nature of Bellefonte; and additional obstacles.
    [Show full text]
  • Sí Hay Tecnología Para Tratar Basura
    Toma posesión Solicita Calderón Austria es a la gente: nuevo director SUPERADO de API Manzanillo DenuncIen A por Alemania DIARIO DE MANZANILLO delIncuenTes NACIONAL 10-A DEPORTES 1-C www.diariodecolima.com Colima, CoIima. Martes 17 de Junio de 2008 Año 55. No. 18,303 $5.00 RIESGO Las huellas de rodamiento de la avenida Ignacio Sandoval, en la zona norte de esta capital, representan un peligro para los automovilistas, pues el concreto tiene un marcado desnivel. A esto se agrega la mala iluminación, piedras sueltas y baches que existen en esta arteria vial. (Foto Horacio Medina) En México ¿A DÓNDE VA LA BASURA? Armería (El Campanario) Regularización aprobada Sí hay tecnología Villa de Álvarez Contempla clausura Cuauhtémoc (Cerro Colorado) para tratar basura Clausurado Semarnat: Ningún funcionario de Colima asistió a presentación de diver- Ixtlahuacán (San Gabriel) sos proyectos Regularizado Hugo RAMÍREZ PULIDO los diferentes proyectos de plan- para conocer el funcionamiento conviene”. tas de residuos sólidos, al cual no de una planta de tratamiento de Dijo que se tendrá que ser Manzanillo (Tapeixtles) El delegado de la Semarnat, Raúl asistió ningún funcionario estatal residuos sólidos. muy cuidadoso en ese aspecto, Arredondo Nava, afirmó que de Colima. Arredondo comentó que para ya que otras ciudades han tenido Realiza obras complementarias para tener mayores márgenes de México cuenta con la tecnología Tengo la información con ese tipo de plantas, Banobras ha malas experiencias al realizar eficiencia. necesaria aplicable a plantas de todas las propuestas, “hay ejem- ofrecido recursos a fondo perdi- estos procesos. tratamiento de residuos sólidos, plos de plantas que están funcio- do, “el proyecto lo paga la misma “En ocasiones los han dejado que se podría adaptar a las nece- nando, que podemos ver lo que institución cuando se solicita el con el producto sin procesar y han Minatitlán (Las Villas) sidades en la entidad.
    [Show full text]