Talk:Hanford Site

Suggestions for the next featured article review

Missed the featured article review last January, but here are some thoughts on how the article could be strengthened:

• There is no detailed map of the Hanford site. The current map shows areas, but provides limited correlation between areas and facilities.
• The article mentions that "Hanford engineers produced many significant technological advances," but does not cite many, and the ones it cites are puzzling. That section of the article goes on to mention "ammonia-based refrigeration systems" which already existed prior to the war as well as use of Teflon as a gasket material, and use of closed-circuit television for operation (Teflon and closed-circuit television were not invented at Hanford, although they were applied there). No mention is made of inventions actually innovated at Hanford like:

• the pulsed column, without which the aqueous-based reprocessing (i.e., PUREX flowsheet reprocessing) was extremely difficult.
• the reactor containment building - first used at the Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor (PRTR) at Hanford and effective in containing an accidental release, articles from this experience informed later NRC standards. Such a containment was reconfirmed at Three Mile Island to be effective in protecting the public and is common to all modern reactor designs.

• A fair amount of effort went into describing the reactor technology. No significant mention is made of the batch reprocessing technologies which were developed in the B, U & T plants, in the REDOX facility, or in the PUREX plant (notably the first such in the world to use the PUREX flowsheet).
• The reader was informed that "...many of the early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate." No discussion provides insights into the fact that these were new technologies created under wartime conditions with no existing safety or environmental standards. No mention is made of the influence that the experience and data from Hanford had on developing such standards.
• Much is made of the early reactors - no doubt in part due to the fine work by the B Reactor Museum Association. There are passing mentions of later production reactors - there were significant differences in function and technology which are worthy of more detailed mention. One test reactor, FFTF, gets passing mention, while another, PRTR, received no mention whatsoever.
• No mention is made of the plutonium finishing plant and its major cold war era role in preparing weapons material.
• No mention is made of the fuel fabrication facilities.

Someday when you have an urge to update this, these are topics which might warrant consideration. Skål -Williamborg (Bill) 04:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Gallons to Liters (or why don't we all just go metric)

At one point in the article it is mentioned:

" Cooling water was pumped through the aluminium tubes around the uranium slugs at the rate of 30,000 US gallons per minute (130 L/s) "

I assume the quantity in parentheses refers to Liters per second; if so, this is incorrect. 30,000 US gallons per minute is about ~2,000 liters per second. Does anyone know whether this is a mistake in converting from gallons to liters, or the other way around? What's the correct figure? (The reference is a book.) Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.24.248 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree the conversion is wrong. 30,000 US gallons (113,560 L) divided by 60 seconds per minute gets you to 2000 liters per second. I'll make the change (for reasons that follow).

Historical numbers sometimes make for problems when converted by nontechnical types.

Odds are extremely good (99+%) that the GPM flow rate is correct - prior to 1950 the English system was the only system of units used at Hanford - heck, even to this day engineering at the Hanford site, nominally required to be done in metric since it is government funded, is performed in English units with metric conversions in parentheses. And if that seems strange to you, you might recall that although the United States was a founding member of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in 1875, the metric system is governmentally declared the "preferred" (but only voluntary) system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce. There are no places in the U.S. where the metric system is absolutely required by law.

You ask, "why don't we all just go metric?" Most folks don't like to change until it is mandatory. We're not all engineers and don't realize the substantial advantages of doing most scientific calculations in metric. The U.S. has been willing to pay the penalty to using English units to this day - I bought both gallons of gas and pounds of vegetables just hours ago. Until recently, the U.S. has been immune to economic pressure to change, and the U.S. hasn't changed - probably won't until the bottom line becomes clear.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed with reference that it was 30,000 GPM. Since B was a single pass reactor, this means they pumped 30,000 GPM out of the river, treated it, pushed it through the reactor, and discharged it back to the river continuously except for refueling shutdowns. That's about 50 km³/year of water through one of those reactors. Skål -Williamborg (Bill) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"rolls of quarters"

Geography --> Plutonium production --> para 1, sent 5: "Two hundred short tons (180 t) of uranium slugs the size of rolls of quarters...".

I do not know how many countries use quarters or a slang equivalent. I do not know how many countries' roll of quarters will match the length of a US roll of quarters. I am not even sure the US roll of quarters is what is being referenced in this article; US quarters make sense since it is an article about the US, but that is completely OR.

I do know inches and centimeters can easily be converted into any other length system. Exactly what is the length of a roll of quarters from the country that is (non-)cited? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a "roll of quarters" is not a standard measure and should be explained or replaced. A commercial business here that sells containers for rolls of U.S. coins gives the dimensions of a roll of U.S. quarters as 1 inch by 2 7/8 inches. Since this source is a dot-com, it might not be considered reliable per WP:RS, but personal research suggests to me that these dimensions are correct. Maybe someone else knows of an RS for these dimensions. Would it make sense to insert the dimensions (with metric equivalents) into the text in parentheses after "slugs the size of a roll of quarters" with a ref to the dot-com (or a better source if one can be found)? The sentence, slightly modified and wikilinked might read, "Two hundred short tons (180 t) of uranium slugs the size of rolls of U.S. coins called "quarters"—(about 1 inch (2.5 cm) by 2.9 inches (7.4 cm)—... ". Or is this too clumsy? Finetooth (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the conversion from rolls to inches and centimeters and sourced it to a commercial firm that lists the dimensions. This is a bit awkward but perhaps solves the opaqueness problem. Feel free to modify if you see a better way. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A roll is typically 40 quarters, as far as I know. What about changing the wording to "US quarter-dollar coins"? --76.115.67.114 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Probable unit conversion or data error

"By 1957, the eight plutonium production reactors at Hanford dumped a daily average of 50,000 curies (1,900 TBq) of radioactive material into the Columbia.[43]"

This sentence is prima facie implausible, as 50,000Ci/day would release a Chernobyl-scale amount roughly every five years, and would have put the entire discharge of the Columbia River several thousand times over the EPA's current 15pCi/L limit for alpha emitters. Someone screwed up their units, and unless someone has a better source than [43] this should go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.89.180 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You might be right, but it's generally better to discuss first before removing significant information or a source from a featured article. I have no expertise in radiation, but the source you removed here is not the only source that supports the claim. Here it is in On the home front: the Cold War legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site by Michele Stenehjem Gerber. Here an editorial in The New York Times refers to Hanford as a "creeping Chernobyl". A report, "A Short History of Hanford Waste Generation, Storage, and Release" generated for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) says in a subsection entitled "Radionuclide Releases into the Columbia River" here says, "An estimated 110 million curies of radiation were released to the Columbia River from 1944 to 1971 during the operation of Hanford’s first eight reactors (Heeb and Bates 1994)". Given this number, is it not possible that the peak amount during this stretch did in fact reach 50,000 curies a day? Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Plutonium Recycle Research Reactor

The dome on the PRTR was removed Saturday, January 15th, 2011. Anyone have a good picture they can share? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.20.3.152 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo of high school

In the article's section headed "Site selection" are two photographs of a high-school building. The first, which shows the building in ordinary condition, is captioned "Hanford High School, shown before residents were displaced by the creation of the Hanford Site." The second, in which the building is a burned-out hulk, is captioned "Hanford High after abandonment."

The latter caption is unfair. The building appears to have suffered vandalism, not mere abandonment.

Maybe someone who knows the structure's history can modify the caption, to indicate when the burning of the building took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.30.154 (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the former school was used for _target practice, according to the U.S. government [1], which would explain its current condition. I looked and could not find a way to construe the caption as "unfair" though it might be a bit misleading, which I don't think was intentional. See also Hanford, Washington, which mentions the use of the building by SWAT teams. Valfontis (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Hanford site tank interior.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hanford site tank interior.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Article renaming?

What about renaming the article to "Hanford Nuclear Site"? "Hanford Site" is fairly vauge. I mean, I know what it is because I grew up in Oregon, but a lot of people wouldn't know. It would get more relevant search engine hits, too. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Its name is "Hanford Site" as documented in reliable sources, so that's what Wikipedia calls it; the Manhattan Project administration and AEC weren't terribly interested in descriptive names. A redirect page called "Hanford Nuclear Site" would accomplish your goal, though. Acroterion (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Washington Governor Comment on Leak Discovered at the Hanford Site Misleading

The end of the environmental concerns quotes Washington's governor as saying the leak discovered poses no immediate threat, but the quote is taken out of a complete sentence and out of context, implying the threat is minimal.

The actual segment of the Governor's statement as cited by CNN reads: "This is an extremely toxic substance, and we have to have a zero-tolerance policy for leaks of radioactive material into the ground and potentially groundwater of the state of Washington," Gov. Jay Inslee said.

He stressed that the leak poses no immediate public heath risk but said that fact should not be an excuse for complacence.

"At the same time that I am making clear that this is a long-term, very significant concern of the state of Washington; it is not a short-term concern," he said. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/15/us/washington-tank-leak/index.html 76.0.12.98 (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

infobox

would anyone object to using the superfund infobox? Template:Infobox superfund if no objections, i will drop in after a pause. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)