Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth News

Six of Hanford's Nuclear Waste Tanks Leaking Badly 221

Posted by Soulskill
from the superhero-breeding-facility dept.
SchrodingerZ writes "A recent review of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state (where the bulk of Cold War nuclear material was created) has found that six of its underground storage tanks are leaking badly. Estimations say each tank is leaking 'anywhere from a few gallons to a few hundred gallons of radioactive material a year.' Washington's governor, Jay Inslee, said in a statement on Friday, 'Energy officials recently figured out they had been inaccurately measuring the 56 million gallons of waste in Hanford's tanks.' The Hanford cleanup project has been one of the most expensive American projects for nuclear cleanup. Plans are in place to create a treatment plant to turn the hazardous material into less hazardous glass (proposed to cost $13.4 billion), but for now officials are trying just to stop the leaking from the corroded tanks. Today the leaks do not have an immediate threat on the environment, but 'there is [only] 150 to 200 feet of dry soil between the tanks and the groundwater,' and they are just five miles from the Colombia River."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Six of Hanford's Nuclear Waste Tanks Leaking Badly

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @10:28AM (#42995079)

    These radioactive leaks are nothing to worry about. All it takes for Congress to actually do something about proper funding, regulations & oversight is a major disaster. How many people have been killed so far? None? Um, well, gee, I guess we'll have to wait until a lot of people die, or a politician or celebrity gets sick.

    • by MightyYar (622222) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @10:47AM (#42995181)

      Regulations? This was a government-run site!

      As to funding, they are actively cleaning up the site.

      Oversight is another mystery - the cleanup is being done by a collaboration between the Department of Energy, the EPA, and Washington State. You have 3 distinct agencies from both state and federal governments "overseeing" the project.

    • by TheCarp (96830) <[ten.tenaprac] [ta] [cjs]> on Sunday February 24, 2013 @10:54AM (#42995219) Homepage

      SImple.... all we need is to get some congressional aid to slip language into a bill (since they don't read them anyway) requiring congressmen to do a walking tour of each nuclear site at least every 5 years. Garaunteed everything is squeeqy clean and no longer hot in 4 years.

      That or there would be an emergency session of congress to remove the requirement for national security reasons.

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      ...but for now officials are trying just to stop the leaking from the corroded tanks.

      I'll stop worrying when the officials will literally try themselves to stop the leaking (and, of course... video clip or it didn't happen)

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:38AM (#42995383)

      Pretty much. I live there. Don't work there but have lots of friends who do. The leak has been known for a while and this story is just finally starting to reach critical mass (ha!) now that we have a new governor that takes it more seriously. The immediate solution is for them to stop cutting funding -- we have 2/3rds of all the high level waste spills here and we get 1/3rd of the cleanup money. It goes back and forth we red tape and lawsuits with the contractors not meeting goals because they don't have funding, so the govt tries to penalize, they try to sue back due to lack of funding... nothing gets done.

      A *real* solution here involves our politicians getting off their asses and coming up with a permanent storage solution, which will never happen. Nobody wants that in their back yard. The vitrification plant? I have a friend who's a lead engineer out there and they're making it up/solving problems AS THEY GO. They're not even sure if it's going to work yet! There's no detailed plan, although to be fair that's how the Manhattan project ran in the first place.

      Also, Hanford was much more than refining the plutonium for the Fat Man bomb. In fact that reactor is clean, they give tours now (I've been inside it). They invented the process and refined the majority of the stuff for everything in our nuclear arsenal now, and it had several experimental reactors out there to test breeder reactors, fast flux reactors, making medial isotopes, etc. A few of which were never even finished.

      • by NReitzel (77941) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @02:59PM (#42996437) Homepage

        We shouldn't take Hanford as a prototypical example of "The Nuclear Industry."

        Remember, the people who planned, funded, and ran Hanford were in the process of building devices -designed- to kill people by the millions, and designed to be used in circumstances when people, by the millions, were dying here in the USA. Perhaps we should not forgive them, but we should understand their attitude that poisoning a few workers or a few thousand fish was just not on their radar. This was, in their understanding, war.

        What Hanford was, and is, is a very brutal view of the simple fact that in war, lots of people are hurt, maimed, killed, poisoned, burned, and other forms of mayhem committed upon them.

        Now, we as a nation and as a world, have the responsibility and opportunity to clean up our own mess, a mess that was caused by people who sincerely believed that a philosophical point and an economic model was worth murdering countless people. If nothing else, we need to learn from these experiences. We need to not forget that matters of ideology and economic theory do not count as much as living, suffering humans.

        • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

          They were not that fatalistic, and in fact designed the containment tank properly. What they didn't count on is massive cuts to funding and inadequate inspection/maintenance. They probably expected someone to come along and do something about the waste well before now, emptying the tanks.

          As human beings we seem to be incapable of dealing with problems this long term effectively. No matter how good out intentions the next time the economy tanks or someone needs to dole out a tax cut to get into office it all

        • by lennier (44736)

          We shouldn't take Hanford as a prototypical example of "The Nuclear Industry."

          Um, actually, since Hanford was literally a nuclear prototyping facility, I'd say it's about as prototypical an example as you can get...

    • by znanue (2782675) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:58PM (#42995787)

      You're cynical about congress. But, people really don't vote for these issues in any kind of numbers. Not when there are much more important single wedge issues to get irate about. Also, people don't want to be informed about this until it starts retarding babies or dramatically increasing cancer rates. And then, they seem to only think it happens to them when it happens to them.

      I much more blame the electorate than congress for this lack of attention. If we took a million people to the capital building, or wrote a million letters, or even wrote a million emails, we might get some attention paid to this issue.

      Z

      • by Solandri (704621) on Monday February 25, 2013 @07:02AM (#43001431)

        You're cynical about congress. But, people really don't vote for these issues in any kind of numbers. Not when there are much more important single wedge issues to get irate about. Also, people don't want to be informed about this until it starts retarding babies or dramatically increasing cancer rates. And then, they seem to only think it happens to them when it happens to them.

        I much more blame the electorate than congress for this lack of attention.

        I, the voter, have a full-time job and don't have the time to learn about all these issues in detail. The whole point of electing representatives is that it becomes their job. They can devote the time that I cannot, to learn about these issue in detail so they can make an informed decision on it. Whether it be a vote on a bill, or even just deciding what's important and what's not.

        If I were well-informed enough to vote on this type of issue, we wouldn't need to elect representatives. We could just hold a direct electronic democratic vote by the entire electorate on each individual issue.

        So it's either a failure by our representatives, or a failure of our system of government. It is not a failure of the electorate.

    • by Luckyo (1726890) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @01:40PM (#42995983)

      Reality is, it's likely that it's not the radioactivity that's most dangerous. The real issue is heavy metals and those things generally containing entire heavy end of periodic table. Stuff that is REALLY toxic.

      Radioactivity from a little leak into a huge river is nonexistent in terms of danger. Toxic heavy metals on the other hands can poison a river even with fairly small presence.

    • Not sure why this is regarded as "leakinng badly" though...

      Six tanks leaking at rates of a few to a few hundred gallons PER YEAR doesn't seem like a serious leak.

      The problem should definitely be dealt with, but we're talking replacing only six tanks (each holding "tens of thousands of gallons" (not "millions") of radioactive wastes), pumping the old tanks' contents into the new tanks, then disposing of the old tanks and cleaning up under them to the extent that's practical.

      In other words, TFS blows the

  • Yucca Mountain (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lazuli42 (219080) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @10:33AM (#42995103) Homepage Journal

    How much of this could have been avoided if Harry Reid and President Obama had not derailed the Yucca Mountain project? And if groups like Greenpeace weren't so effective in opposing solutions to nuclear waste storage? They cheered the end of the Yucca Mountain project and called its supporters morons. Where are we now?

    • Re:Yucca Mountain (Score:5, Informative)

      by Waffle Iron (339739) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:30PM (#42995625)

      Yucca Mountain was designed to store wastes AFTER they had been immobilized and put in long-term storage casks.

      The problem here is that they haven't even started that first step. This is still millions of gallons of raw liquid waste, in a state that is totally unsuitable for interstate transport and burial. If Yucca Mountain were up and running today, it wouldn't help this problem one bit.

      If they actually took the initiative to solidify this waste now and put it in casks, they could safely store it on site for decades or centuries, just like they're currently doing with commercial reactor waste. They don't need something like Yucca Mountain to address the current risks.

      • It is easier to solidify it after the short lived and intense radionuclides have decayed in a decade or two and the waste cools down. In the meantime storage of the rods in ponds provides a cheaper way of cooling the rods. If it was vitrified hot it would probably crack the container. If we could actually separate the short lived radionuclides from the long lived radionuclides and burn them in a reactor of course none of this longwinded crap would be necessary. However all R&D work on it has been stoppe

    • It's not clear that, even without the executive branch's decision, continuing with Yucca Mountain was going to be easy. For the first time in pretty much a generation, in 2012 the SCOTUS ruled that there are things that the federal government can't force individual states to accommodate. The court might decide that taking even the perceived risks associated with transporting and storing large volumes of high-level nuclear waste is one of those things. The 1987 statutory change that said only Yucca Mounta
    • by gweihir (88907)

      How much of this could have been avoided if Harry Reid and President Obama had not derailed the Yucca Mountain project? And if groups like Greenpeace weren't so effective in opposing solutions to nuclear waste storage? They cheered the end of the Yucca Mountain project and called its supporters morons. Where are we now?

      Nothing at all. The problem is that you cannot remove these materials from the tanks easily. The encasing in glass would have been just as necessary for Yucca Mountain storage as it is for some different shorter term storage. For some of these tanks it is not even known what is in them, there is a harder-than-concrete crust on top, and explosion at any time (chemical, not nuclear) is a real possibility. The whole facility is one gigantic mess, and Obama has zero responsibility for that.

  • by Rambo Tribble (1273454) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @10:40AM (#42995131)
    ... for the next 240,000 years, regardless.
  • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @10:43AM (#42995143) Homepage Journal

    "Clean, safe and .too cheap to meter!"

    Is there any reason why we shouldn't reduce our current nuclear arsenal to something less than 1000 warheads, instead of replacing them with new ones? Can anyone think of a plausible situation where we would need 1000 nuclear warheads?

    • by peragrin (659227)

      when the evil space aliens come we need more than just 1000 nukes to blow up their giant space ships

      Seriously though Yucca mountian was a new design facility for long term storage, not the temporary storage that currently exists

      • by c0lo (1497653)

        when the evil space aliens come we need more than just 1000 nukes to blow up their giant space ships

        Seriously though... (grin)... for evil aliens, we know Slim Whitman is enough (unless RIAA sends a C&D/DMCA take down letter). The only use for them would be to hit asteroids, with no space shuttles and Bruce Willis close to the retirement, they are useless.

    • by MightyYar (622222)

      I'd say you need to do both. Reduce the number, but also keep updating the tech for the remainder that you do keep around.

      Interestingly, the Obama administration seems to be seeking a non-treaty path with Russia to warhead reduction. They seem to be doing this because of all the trouble they had getting the last START treaty through congress.

      • by hedwards (940851)

        Yeah, the GOP pretty much left him hanging. START was a good idea, but the concerns being voiced were absolutely ludicrous.

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          The GOP screwed him, but that is to be expected. What I think he did not expect was the heads of the Energy Department labs pushing against him. In the end, he had to concede to modernization - which I don't think he wanted but it kept the labs open longer. I hate government waste, but I have to admit that it probably makes sense to employ the nuclear weapons experts.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        I'd say you need to do both. Reduce the number, but also keep updating the tech for the remainder that you do keep around.

        Of course that's what we should do.

        We could easily cut the number of nukes we have in half, and if we kept them updated we wouldn't sacrifice one bit of national defense.

        For the life of me, I can't understand how we rationalized having this big a nuclear arsenal. I guess it was just a numbers game, where if we had 1000, and the Russians had 1001, we just had to have 1002 or we just were

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          The rationale was that you had to have enough surviving warheads to counterattack. So, if the Soviets managed to knock out every bomber and every missile silo in a massive nuclear attack, at least enough of our missile subs should have survived to wipe out the Soviet Union. If an initial attack had a fighting chance of getting rid of most of your opponent's missiles, then MAD goes out the window. It used to be measured in tens of thousands, so we've actually made a lot of progress.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      They were built on the assumption thar a lot of them might be destroyed or otherwise fail due to missile defence systems etc. The is massive overprovisioning for things like submarines that carry enough to take out a country on their own.

      No country really needs that many any more.

    • You need enough that you won't need to use them. The world is fairly peaceful right now - the old threat of Russia dimmed, China seems intent on ecodenomic success rather than military conquest for their future, and any other nuclear power the US is on generally good terms with. But you can't be sure that'll stay forever. What'll happen if, in ten years, a Russian president comes to power on an anti-west platform, calling for a return to the glory days? Or if North Korea gets nuclear weapons? If that happe

      • by sjames (1099)

        Actually, due to ouir improved technology fro delivering the nukes in teh event of war, we have more than we will ever need now. Once you convert the enemy to a field of glass, more nukes don't matter.

    • by Grayhand (2610049)

      "Clean, safe and .too cheap to meter!"

      Is there any reason why we shouldn't reduce our current nuclear arsenal to something less than 1000 warheads, instead of replacing them with new ones? Can anyone think of a plausible situation where we would need 1000 nuclear warheads?

      They actually are cannibalizing old ones to maintain the stockpile because we no longer have facilities to create new weapons and parts of the bombs degrade. It's one of the reasons both the US and Russia have been for reductions. I think the number of weapons is a third of what it was at the height of the Cold War.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You do realize that quote was in reference to a fusion project, not fission. I know Harry Shearer doesn't, I'd hope you take the time to learn a little something.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter [wikipedia.org]

      Oh, and electricity production does not necessarily lead to nuclear warheads.

      • You do realize that quote was in reference to a fusion project, not fission. I know Harry Shearer doesn't, I'd hope you take the time to learn a little something.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter [wikipedia.org]

        Oh, and electricity production does not necessarily lead to nuclear warheads.

        And that phrase was used by proponents of nuclear (fission) power for years until they actually built out commercial scale plants and decided they'd needed to get the billions of dollars from somewhere.

        • by nojayuk (567177)

          The "too cheap to meter" phrase was used by opponents of nuclear power, not proponents -- after all it didn't apply to fission power plants.

          Nuclear power is very cost-competitive with the cheapest coal-fired power stations but they need a big wadge of cash up front to build them. Over the expected 60-year lifespan of modern GenIII designs at 90% operational availability the electricity they generate will cost about 4 to 5 cents/kWh including reactor construction, fuel production, fuel waste handling, oper

    • by onyxruby (118189)

      Because the period of MAD was the most peaceful period in human history. Look at the body count websites before and after the cold war and you can see the chilling effect MAD had on war and genocide.

      Local wars were local and not world wide in scale. Nuclear weapons are terrible, conventional arms have them outclassed in every real world measure like body counts though.

    • by gweihir (88907)

      I can: When this is really covert gift/bribe money for industry and the military.

  • by Mad_Rain (674268) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @10:47AM (#42995183) Journal

    The Hanford cleanup project has been one of the most expensive American projects for nuclear cleanup. Plans are in place to create a treatment plant to turn the hazardous material into less hazardous glass (proposed to cost $13.4 billion), but for now officials are trying just to stop the leaking from the corroded tanks.

    Don't think of it as a nuclear waste clean-up project, environmental fiasco, or other government boondoggle. Consider it a gift of a $13.4 billion dollar jobs program. ;-) (one with reeeeeally high stakes if it's screwed up).

  • STOP LEAK

    OK, maybe that is two words, but it works in my car radiator. I would imagine Bardahl would donate a few thousand gallons just for the publicity.

    • by Sulphur (1548251)

      STOP LEAK

      OK, maybe that is two words, but it works in my car radiator. I would imagine Bardahl would donate a few thousand gallons just for the publicity.

      Relax this car 'aint goin' noplace. Blackie Carbon

    • by kermidge (2221646)

      A bit of history on Bar's Leaks - http://www.barsproducts.com/company/history [barsproducts.com]

      I remember reading in the book (forgot title; I think it was before "Nautilus Ninety North" though) there'd been a leak in a secondary steam condensing loop of the reactor in Nautilus (SSN-571) while she was in transit from the Canal to Hawaii and on to Greenland by way of the North Pole.
      The Navy and Westinghouse had had teams of engineers aboard trying to isolate and stop the leak, none

  • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:40AM (#42995389)

    There is no relationship (other than historical) between the manufacturing processes and waste at Hanford, and modern nuclear power plants .

    Indeed the problems in Japan would certainly be almost impossible with current designs.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:35PM (#42995655)

      Indeed the problems in Japan would certainly be almost impossible with current designs.

      We should really deal with the problems at hand rather than espouse the virtues of things that do not yet exist. In fact, a non-negligible percentage of currently operating nuke plants in the US absolutely could suffer a catastrophic disaster like Fukushima –not from tsunami, but from earthquake or perhaps terrorism, and in a similar fashion (if the plant loses power and it isn't restored before the batteries die, they'll experience the same form of meltdown).

      Please come up with a safe solution for current problems, and cease the handwaving dismissal of these problems because more modern on the drawing board designs won't have the same flaws. Building a plant that can't melt down like Fukishima does NOTHING to fix the damage done by Fukushima or the very real possibility of a Fukushima-scale accident occurring at currently operating plants.

  • How about this, we clean up the mess we already have before we go making new messes? Make it true of all industries from coal to nuclear as well as oil. The problem is the industries always manage to move on and leave us stuck with the bill. Hanford was mostly used for weapons production but I believe they also produced some of the first reactor fuel. Make the military take the money from their budget for the clean up before they are allowed to buy any new toys. It's like making a kid clean up his room befo
  • My understanding (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Scarred Intellect (1648867) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:32PM (#42995637) Homepage Journal

    Talking with the guys that do this at a job fair.

    First, what could take so freaking long to clean stuff up? "Stuff you don't understand." Right, bureaucracy, nothing else.

    Anyway, the waste from Hanford was stored in Single-Shelled Tanks (SSTs), until they later started storing it in Double-Shelled Tanks (DST's). The SST's are leaking, we know this, so this is not news. What's currently being done is pumping the waste from the leaking SST's into the DST's and cleaning the SST's. They do this because the vitrification plant is not built yet.

    They're out of DST's. So now they have to decide whether to build more DST's or expedite the vit plant. Basically a few million dollars now, a few billion dollars now, or a few million dollars now AND a few billion dollars later.

    I got to school at the WSU campus nearby, and this is all I've been able to get someone to tell me. Correct me if I'm wrong. I probably am.

    Oh. Right. Safety. This stuff's NASTY. That's been holding it up for over 20 years.

  • Nothing to worry about, then. Now if it were the Columbia River, I would be a little nervous...
  • Unsolvable problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lars -1 (308687) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:52PM (#42995741)

    The nuclear waste problem was the biggest driver for germany's nuclear exit decision, for 30 years this was discussed and determined to be basically unsolvable. (The incident in japan led to a re-think of the exit-of-the-exit decision, but the doubts about waste handling had been there at all times).

    To me, this is nuclear's biggest threat, and whenever I see discussions on slashdot this does not really seem to be an issue to US citizens at all. Why is this the case? Are these problems properly addressed in school and media? In germany, we have constantly very critical journalism regarding nuclear waste disposal, as we also have a site where waste is leaking and this proves to be a huge and expensive problem. Generally, storing waste for 10.000 years in a safe manner is not considered to be possible. (And think about the costs which occur in those timelines).

    When reading slashdot, I always get the impression that people still think nuclear has a future, and that we simply have not got the right technology in place yet. To me, nuclear has been a dead end for years, and its only a matter of time that everyone needs to switch to renewables (which would happen in 20 years max). Is nuclear really considered as a real option by the general US population? Are the implications properly educated? Total costs of waste disposal and storage and the risks which remain?

    Regards,
    Lars

    • I imagine the main reason for the US liking nuclear power more is that the US is much larger than Germany. We have lots of very open spaces to store material. The Yucca Mountain project was an unfortunate failure (nearly from the start), but in America we have the area to put bad material in the middle of nowhere. To me at least it seems that will only be necessary for a few decades until we get new plants that can run on old waste. As long as the waste is dangerous it still has energy we can use. I am
    • by emt377 (610337)

      whenever I see discussions on slashdot this does not really seem to be an issue to US citizens at all. Why is this the case? Are these problems properly addressed in school and media?

      The mess at Hanford is the result of experimentation in all kinds of processing, reactor construction, and handling. It's the byproduct of learning how to do this safely and what works and what doesn't. When the worst waste was produced mainly in the 40s and 50s, there was no practical knowledge or experience with any of this. As usual, we bore the brunt of the cost and effort of figuring all the basics out, while everybody else shows up after the heavy lifting is done.

    • by sjames (1099) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @03:01PM (#42996445) Homepage

      It's not at all unsolvable. The waste we're talking about here is not nuclear power leftovers and is not the result of modern methods.

      All of this is leftovers from weapons manufacturing. It is the problem it is because at the time, getting the weapons made at any cost was the priority. Nobody at the time cared how much waste it produced or in what form.

      A responsible power program will take the 'spent' fuel and reprocess it into new fuel rods (95% of the material) and a highly radioactive waste in solid form (the other 5%) that will decay in 200-500 years. At that point, it will be less radioactive than the uranium ore that was dug out of the environment in the first place.

      We could build several modern reactors and power them on nothing but the existing stockpile of not really spent fuel we have sitting in dry storage. The result would be a net reduction of the amount of nuclear waste in the world.

    • by Weezul (52464)

      Americans believe whatever they're told to believe because there is no "validation" process for good ideas that interacts with either the real world or the intelligentsia. In essence, America's two party political systems means that industry groups can prevent important positions from gaining any traction.

      In Germany, the proportional system means that small parties can form around important ideas and elect at least a few people. These seats represent lost jobs for major political parties, who then must co

  • I remember reading about this problem in a Scientific American article, it was around 10-15 years ago.
  • This might be a good time to reread the pro-nuke propaganda put out by the government in the '60s and '70s. This kind of thing would never happen . . ..

    Think about that propaganda in the current-day context of global warming and pollution propaganda.

  • by anorlunda (311253) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @03:20PM (#42996547) Homepage

    I read once that 98% of America's high level nuclear waste comes from military programs.

    Why is it then that 98% of the hot air voiced is about civilian uses?

    • by dbIII (701233)
      The really high level stuff that's no longer suitable for weapons may be able to be reused as fuel without much work. The civilian stuff is another story and can only be reused in newer generations of reactors or reprocessed by methods that are difficult, expensive and generate large amounts of low level waste. Producing new fuel from ore is currently far cheaper and easier so reprocessing is only really done as an R&D exercise (to improve it to the point where it's useful, eg. the new facility at Han
  • by ankhank (756164) * on Sunday February 24, 2013 @03:47PM (#42996733) Journal

    http://www.pcffa.org/fn-sep02.htm [pcffa.org]
    2002: Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations

  • It's just that we don't like the results much.

  • That stands for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Welcome to New Jersey, Washington state. Good luck cleaning it up.

  • Geez people, yadda yadda yadda. Hanford's been around for decades, all the babble has been repeated countless times. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent there already, so ...

    What we need to know is: how far downstream from the Hanford site is the first river radiation monitor? Where are the records for that monitor stored? Where is the website for that monitor's current status? In the event that it begins to monitor increases (particularly significant ones), who is going to respond, what is thei

  • Glass wasn't good enough in the 1970s which is why work started on synroc.
  • Just imagine how a project like this will be impacted with the start of Sequestration...everything gets cut, across the board. You think loss to the Military Budget will be hard to swallow, what about the budgets that clean these messes up, or prevent these messes in the first place, with inspections and so forth?

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen

Working...