Talk:Hanford Site

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggestions for the next featured article review

message: 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)
thread_title:  Washington Governor Comment on Leak Discovered at the Hanford Site Misleading 

message: This article needs attention; the current lead seems to be more than twice as long as when it was originally promoted, calling into question whether it should remain featured in this state, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, recent scholarly sources need review for 1c, comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead too long 

message: Yes, it is.  More importantly, the article has not been maintained current.  As one example, the site is now on its fifth five-year review, but the article still contains text about cleanup cited to 2013 and 2014.  As there has been no response to the February post above, I am listing the article at WP:FARGIVEN, notice of Featured articles needing review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  12:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, recent scholarly sources need review for 1c, comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FARGIVEN 

message: I have clarified a point with regard to Thin Man.
The gun-type weapon would have worked (and still would) with a high enough grade of Plutonium, similar to the virtually pure Pu-239 that Glenn Seaborg had produced in February 1941 using a particle accelerator to produce a beam of deuterons. But that was not a practical way of producing enough Pu-239 for weapons, and the neutron-produced Plutonium that the Hanford reactors produced was contaminated with other isotopes of Plutonium. That's what made Thin Man impractical. Andrewa (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thin Man 

message: *I was curious and this seemed to be due to how they looked from the inside, narrow and tall like a Canyon
*May be worth elaborating on this in the article and/or writing it as i did in this comment's title
*https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/CanyonFacilities
--Eric Lotze (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Choice of Words for "Plutonium Processing Canyons" 

message: Current footnote #57 used to support fact of Reactor B being designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL), on August 19, 2008.  The link at the National Park Service is now dead, as are, I think, its whole series of one-page summaries on NHLs, gone in recent major changes at the NPS webpages system.
Here at the Wayback machine is a  a copy of what used to be at that link.
To document the date there is also a compendium of weekly NPS announcements for NRHP (and NHLs)National Register of Historic Places 2008 Weekly Lists which shows the date of NHL.
Usually for NHLs there is a NHL nomination document which justifies both the NHL designation and also National Register of Historic Places listing.  Note this was previously registered on the National Register (on April 3, 1992, which date can be verified too):
 With 
There is additional nomination of it for the NHL program, with PDF document available at NARA, 202 pages in total, which downloads slowly:
 PDF also includes diagrams, photos, clippings, and correspondence.
If only the date of listing, with no reasoning, is wanted, then either the "weekly listings" or the original link to summary (but updated with archived copy of the page) does that. 
But I think the National Historic Landmark Nomination: B Reactor should be referenced as it provides reasoning for NHL designation, and it does also document the date of NHL listing on its page 48:DESIGNATED A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK August 19, 2008
--Doncram (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Historic Landmark sourcing, NRHP docs 

message: The relationship between environmental disasters and Migration 197.239.5.218 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental disasters and migration 

message: I don't know if I'll have time to work on this, but the legal framework for disposal of waste is unclear. The article says the tri-party agreement provided the legal framework (and it does), but the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is also relevant. (Our article on that isn't very good!). And other laws. Legal classification of waste has been contentious and there's a lot of coverage about it. For example, the DOE announced plans to reclassify a lot of the waste as low-level waste to save money on cleanup.Larataguera (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal framework for waste disposal