# Emergency declared at Hanford nuclear site



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

*Thousands of Hanford workers take cover after cave-in of tunnel with radioactive wAsta.*

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ecause-of-problems-with-contaminated-tunnels/


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

It's kinda scary how much of that waste is stashed around the country.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Yeah, that's a wake up call alright!!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

They say Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in America. 
My kid is downwind of it. For another week and a half.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> They say Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in America.
> My kid is downwind of it. For another week and a half.


Hopefully if there is a leak they will move them. Not gonna be good for Mom's peace of mind.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

We're from the government. You can trust us. Want to take a guess whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversees federal sites?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I worked near there in the 70s the outrage in lax procedures there then led to it's closing in the 8Os


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

I've been wondering for years why this known nightmare of a site located within a seismic area has not been dealt with.
Apparently vibrations from roadwork caused this. Really???
Hey America clean up your crap, this will also poison Canada.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I'd rather see coal plants lining the countryside than a nuclear plant...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> I've been wondering for years why this known nightmare of a site located within a seismic area has not been dealt with.


They've been "dealing with it" for 20 years.
They expect to be "dealing with it" for another 30.


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

I was reading one of my usual News Sites and there was a discussion on Hanford there as well... One of the responder's suggested googling "Hanford Babies", so I did.... HOLY CRAP ! So this is LOVE CANAL but with Nuclear Waste ! Geez, I gotta say, I am HAPPY AS HELL about being a couple of thousand Kilometers from that !

https://www.google.ca/search?q=hanford+babies&ie=&oe=#q=hanford+babies&tbs=li:1&spf=1494504732567

Seriously, build nuke bombs and store the waste, build nuke reactors & run them for decades, storing the waste... No Permanent 50,000+ Year Storage Vaults - no ... too expensive, so wait (like it will get cheaper over time ? DUH) and now broken containment, leaking waste seeping into god knows what... not just move but clean up too and store THAT as well as the original waste... 

This is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of not considering the Consequences and just forging ahead, passing the problem forward to the next generations - our kids, grand kids & beyond.... Never mind the spent fuel rods sitting in holding tanks next to Reactor Complexes (how close is the nearest Nuke Complex to your place ?). How many say that the Nuke Power & it's Waste poses no threat or risk to the people - are they the Politico's (and nuclear groupies) preventing the construction of proper, long term Nuke Waste Disposal & Management facilities, that will only cost more & more as time goes on.... pay a billion today or two billion in 5 years... what happens when there is no money left for such ? Just let it sit there till ???????


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Does everyone know that Hanford isn't a nuclear power plant?


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

I'm aware, but what does that have to do with anything??? It's a frigging nightmare with people on both sides of border that could be affected and you're playing semantics. Classic!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> Does everyone know that Hanford isn't a nuclear power plant?


Yes, I'm aware but there is a nuclear power plant (Columbia generating station) on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. 
It's a bit disconcerting since it is in an earthquake prone zone. If Cascadia hits.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> I'm aware, but what does that have to do with anything??? It's a frigging nightmare with people on both sides of border that could be affected and you're playing semantics. Classic!


Semantics is better than melodrama.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Perhaps melodrama from your safe space, E NC


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

Well, many people are not even aware of what is quite literally in their back yard or under their front yard, fortunately there is some tracking & info available... You may want to check the link below and see what is in your neighbourhood...

*Do You Live Near Toxic Waste? See 1,317 of the Most Polluted Spots in the U.S.*
David Johnson
Updated: Mar 22, 2017 3:33 PM ET
http://time.com/4695109/superfund-sites-toxic-waste-locations/


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Yes, I'm aware but there is a nuclear power plant (Columbia generating station) on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
> It's a bit disconcerting since it is in an earthquake prone zone. If Cascadia hits.....


I wasn't aware that a commercial power plant was located at any federal reservation. Thanks for the info. It looks like it's about 200 miles from the ocean. The inland location it from a Tsunami. Is there evidence that the Richland area was affected by Cascadia earthquakes in the past?

I can't determine that it's collocated with Hanford.

https://www.energy-northwest.com/ourenergyprojects/Columbia/Pages/default.aspx


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lots of very polluted sites still left. 
I live near a former superfund site we were told that that it had exhausted the available funding but wasn't cleaned up yet. 
It's not on the map.


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Lots of very polluted sites still left.
> I live near a former superfund site we were told that that it had exhausted the available funding but wasn't cleaned up yet.
> It's not on the map.


The MAP is scary but it's what's missing from the map, that is even scarier... Want to be even more shocked, would take a bit of effort but overlap Seismically active regions with that map, and then overlay flooding maps as well... Granted that say 50+ yrs ago the awareness of seismic areas was much less than today, as well as flood potentials (in extremes). Given that we now have 100 year storms every few years, big droughts followed by big floods more frequently than ever before... Earthquakes & volcanic activity steadily increasing in frequency & severity... Land Buyer's need more tools & access to such maps to determine the best places to hang ones hat for the long term.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

That might be a sticky for the real estate forum. We see the same questions continuously. Adding the maps with natural hazards and flood plain info would make a great resource.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> I wasn't aware that a commercial power plant was located at any federal reservation. Thanks for the info. It looks like it's about 200 miles from the ocean. The inland location it from a Tsunami. Is there evidence that the Richland area was affected by Cascadia earthquakes in the past?
> 
> I can't determine that it's collocated with Hanford.
> 
> https://www.energy-northwest.com/ourenergyprojects/Columbia/Pages/default.aspx


There is concern that the South Whidbey Island fault extends east into Hanford and that it can be triggered by Cascadia. There was a damaging quake back in the 30's in Walla Walla just south of Hanford. There is no concern about tsunami.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> There is concern that the South Whitney Island fault extends east into Hanford and that it can be triggered by Cascadia. There was a damaging quake back in the 30's in Walla Walla just south of Hanford. There is no concern about tsunami.


No tsunami equals no concern. Fukushima was well along to a safe shutdown until the tsunami took out the fuel supply to the emergency generator.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> No tsunami equals no concern. Fukushima was well along to a safe shutdown until the tsunami took out the fuel supply to the emergency generator.


Lol...as you said, Hanford is not itself a nuclear power plant and if storage tunnels for dangerously radioactive materials are collapsing spontaneously now, you don't think it can be compromised by a big shake?


http://www.seattlemag.com/article/lessons-japan-hanford-ready-withstand-big-earthquake


----------



## Koda (Jun 10, 2014)

I had actually been reading about the state of Washington for a while now. Surprisingly, it wasn't until very recently that I even stumbled upon information about Hanford. We had done some cross country road trips to look at some different areas of the US. We really liked the area around Spokane, we also spent time in the Okanagan quite near the Canadian border. We liked that area as well. But I read things about the Hanford site effecting things like the Columbian River... I was wondering how much of an effect there would be near the Spokane area because of it? Or is it something that could take a long time... as in effect future generations? I understand people around the site have already been experiencing problems but I haven't really heard anything about its impact on the more northeastern parts of the state. I would love to know more about this especially since we are still figuring out where we would like to buy property in the upcoming years.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Lol...as you said, Hanford is not itself a nuclear power plant and if storage tunnels for dangerously radioactive materials are collapsing spontaneously now, you don't think it can be compromised by a big shake?
> 
> 
> http://www.seattlemag.com/article/lessons-japan-hanford-ready-withstand-big-earthquake


I'm not sure what the tunnels are for. In power plants they may be used as a pipe chase to move radioactive material to storage tanks. Or there's a short one between the fuel storage pool and the well around the upper reactor that's flooded during refueling operations.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> I'm not sure what the tunnels are for. In power plants they may be used as a pipe chase to move radioactive material to storage tanks. Or there's a short one between the fuel storage pool and the well around the upper reactor that's flooded during refueling operations.


Well, if you've read The news accounts the tunnels are for storing radioactive material including contaminated rail cars.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Koda said:


> I had actually been reading about the state of Washington for a while now. Surprisingly, it wasn't until very recently that I even stumbled upon information about Hanford. We had done some cross country road trips to look at some different areas of the US. We really liked the area around Spokane, we also spent time in the Okanagan quite near the Canadian border. We liked that area as well. But I read things about the Hanford site effecting things like the Columbian River... I was wondering how much of an effect there would be near the Spokane area because of it? Or is it something that could take a long time... as in effect future generations? I understand people around the site have already been experiencing problems but I haven't really heard anything about its impact on the more northeastern parts of the state. I would love to know more about this especially since we are still figuring out where we would like to buy property in the upcoming years.



I live in Spokane now and have been in the region for the past 15 years. It's really a wonderful area to live in in or to farm or "homestead". They don't seem terribly worried about this area because it's not considered to be "downwind" of Hanford. My daughter is finishing her U dergrad degree in Walla Walla and she is downwind of Hanford.

ETA: the Columbia river doesn't flow thru or really even near Spokane but it also glows south so if it did, we wouldn't be downstream. Portland, on the other hand...


----------



## Koda (Jun 10, 2014)

I'm glad to hear from a resident that enjoys the area! During our trips we paid attention to everything we could think of... even how we were treated at gas stations and basic places like Walmart or local eating establishments. Without even stopping to think about it, the friendliest people we experienced were in NE Washington. Even at the local Walmart, a manager went out of his way just to show me where the toothbrushes and sun screen were. I insisted he didn't need to stop his current work of stocking just to show me but he just insisted right back that it was his pleasure. I would say that every place we went, we experienced kindness. Can't say the same for most of the rest of our travels hahaha

But yes, I do know that the Columbia River does not flow through Spokane. It comes from Canada and comes along down Washington and then travels on out West. I just wondered due to my lack of knowledge of Hanford, how much of a potential impact radius there was. Including for future generations. But it sounds like it's mainly a worry for the surrounding area as well as potentially those downriver along the Columbian.

I would love to chat with people in or just near the Spokane or NE Washington area. I do not want to derail this thread so please let me know if it is okay to directly message you!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Koda said:


> I'm glad to hear from a resident that enjoys the area! During our trips we paid attention to everything we could think of... even how we were treated at gas stations and basic places like Walmart or local eating establishments. Without even stopping to think about it, the friendliest people we experienced were in NE Washington. Even at the local Walmart, a manager went out of his way just to show me where the toothbrushes and sun screen were. I insisted he didn't need to stop his current work of stocking just to show me but he just insisted right back that it was his pleasure. I would say that every place we went, we experienced kindness. Can't say the same for most of the rest of our travels hahaha
> 
> But yes, I do know that the Columbia River does not flow through Spokane. It comes from Canada and comes along down Washington and then travels on out West. I just wondered due to my lack of knowledge of Hanford, how much of a potential impact radius there was. Including for future generations. But it sounds like it's mainly a worry for the surrounding area as well as potentially those downriver along the Columbian.
> 
> I would love to chat with people in or just near the Spokane or NE Washington area. I do not want to derail this thread so please let me know if it is okay to directly message you!


Of course. I've lived in many big cities(though Spokane qualifies as mid-sized) including right in downtown Boston and we could live anywhere we want at this point but we love Spokane. It's a hometown kind of city. In all of our years in northern Idaho (our cabin is an hour from here) I've run into very few jerks in the region. It's just an unpretentious, pleasant city that has every thing necessary, is very affordable and is so accessible to all of the beauty of the northwest. And has four distinct seasons.


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

Well not to bring a post back from the dead BUT, sure enough something happened and people have to know... Just makes one shake their head and wonder what in the heck.... {fill in the blank, colourfully}

MAY-24-2017
*"SPOKANE, Wash. — President Donald Trump's proposed budget includes a cut of about $120 million for the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, despite two recent incidents that raised concern about worker safety at the former nuclear weapons production site."*

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/polit...te-despite-trouble/ar-BBBtwdV?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

If it's like most Govt projects, it's not hard to find that much *wasted* money to cut from the budget. Keep in mind the site is about half the size of the state of Rhode Island.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Could you point some out to us or are you throwing unsupported insults at America ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Darren said:


> No tsunami equals no concern. Fukushima was well along to a safe shutdown until the tsunami took out the fuel supply to the emergency generator.


Lol And there couldn't be any other unforeseen problems ?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Once the cooling systems stopped, the Japanese had to use alternative means of supplying water to the spent fuel pool. That meant directly pumping water into pool which overflowed and spread radioactivity though out the plant and into the environment. That plant will never operate again. Same with TMI. Although at TMi there was no issue with the spent fuel pool, the radioactive water sequestered in the containment seeped into the concrete and created a situation that could never be cleaned up enough to allow workers to preform maintenance in the future within NRC limits.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Could you point some out to us or are you throwing unsupported insults at America ?


http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/50-examples-government-waste


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)




----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

That doesn't look good, to many compromised barrels.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/50-examples-government-waste


 None of those seem to apply to the topic site. 
Worse of the 50 on that site none that I followed the links to were substantiated.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol And there couldn't be any other unforeseen problems ?





Darren said:


> Once the cooling systems stopped, the Japanese had to use alternative means of supplying water to the spent fuel pool. That meant directly pumping water into pool which overflowed and spread radioactivity though out the plant and into the environment. That plant will never operate again. Same with TMI. Although at TMi there was no issue with the spent fuel pool, the radioactive water sequestered in the containment seeped into the concrete and created a situation that could never be cleaned up enough to allow workers to preform maintenance in the future within NRC limits.


My point may not have been clear. There were unplanned for issues at both of the site you mentioned. Planning for those issues still will not resolve the problem of unforeseen problems. 
The nature of unforeseen problems is that we cannot foresee them or plan for them. 
But since there is a track record of unforeseen issues we can expect them.


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

Geez Ed/La, that's a tad scary... Certainly does not evoke a Warm & Fuzzy "good feeling" does it...

I know I kicked this back to life with that post regarding the cuts but it seems to have wandered off topic a bit.

The bottom line is that Nuclear experimentation, bomb building, reactor building & running and all things that generate Nuclear Waste have been going on since the 1940's on an ever increasing scale. This is not a unique problem with one Nation either - all Nations with Nuclear Power, Weapons etc suffer the same problem and only a few have actually properly addressed or started to the entire issue of Nuclear Waste Disposal & Long Term Management. This stuff stays nasty for thousands of years and has to be dealt with, with the real respect it deserves, YET it continues to hold position as an After Thought ! putting everyone at risk, not just those at live in the vicinity of Nuclear Waste Storage sites. BTW We are one of the Generations that INHERITED THIS FROM GENERATIONS BEFORE US and THIS generation is passing forward to future generations (our kids, grand kids & beyond) regardless of social status.

*US nuclear regulators greatly underestimate potential for nuclear disaster*
*Nuclear spent fuel fire could force millions of people to relocate *Date: May 25, 2017

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170525141544.htm


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> My point may not have been clear. There were on planned for issues at both of the site you mentioned. Planning for those issues still will not resolve the problem of unforeseen problems.
> The nature of unforeseen problems is that we cannot foresee them or plan for them.
> But since there is a track record of unforeseen issues we can expect them.


That's true. What are the chances of an asteroid striking a nuclear power plant? That's an unplanned scenario. Anything outside of the human experience could be considered unplanned. It comes down to cost. What would it take to armor a facility against all hazards real and imagined? Human life is now more valuable than in the not too distant past except in certain situations which I'll exclude.

Hanford is an example of federal mismanagement. A "civilian" project involved a facility near Pittsburgh that manufactured nuclear fuel. The current and previous owner elected to decontaminate the no longer operational facility due to the expectation that costs would be much greater in the future. One of projects was the removal and disposal of a contaminated truck that had been buried at a different location. That parcel was subsequently sold and the next owner erected a building over the the area where the truck was buried. 

The federal agencies involved in nuclear weapons research and production aren't subject to the same constraints public entities are. Managers at Hanford got rid of waste by placing it in a tunnel subject to long term deterioration. I'm absolutely sure numerous other situations exist of improper disposal of such waste by federal agencies. They don't have a balance sheet to explain to investors. 

To paraphrase Lily Tomlin, "We're the federal government. We're not subject to local, state or federal regulation."


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Interesting article.

Published by researchers from Princeton University and the Union of Concerned Scientists, the article argues that NRC inaction leaves the public at high risk from fires in spent-nuclear-fuel cooling pools at reactor sites. The pools — water-filled basins that store and cool used radioactive fuel rods — are so densely packed with nuclear waste that a fire could release enough radioactive material to contaminate an area twice the size of New Jersey. On average, radioactivity from such an accident could force approximately 8 million people to relocate and result in $2 trillion in damages.

These catastrophic consequences, which could be triggered by a large earthquake or a terrorist attack, could be largely avoided by regulatory measures that the NRC refuses to implement. Using a biased regulatory analysis, the agency excluded the possibility of an act of terrorism as well as the potential for damage from a fire beyond 50 miles of a plant. Failing to account for these and other factors led the NRC to significantly underestimate the destruction such a disaster could cause.

http://www.ucsusa.org/press/2017/us...imate-potential-nuclear-disaster#.WSkwYxPyvYM


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

The NRC is not there to protect the public from the nuclear industry. NRC protects the nuclear industry from the public. They are not on our side.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

no really said:


> Interesting article.
> 
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/press/2017/us...imate-potential-nuclear-disaster#.WSkwYxPyvYM


As usual the devil's in the details ... or not. Fukushima was a first generation design which included basically a pole building albeit with structural steel instead of wood columns and beams over the spent fuel pool. Later designs used heavily reinforced concrete not just for the floors at and below the spent fuel pool but also above the floor. Unlike Fukushima, the building over those spent fuel pools would not blow apart from a hydrogen explosion. AFAIK only one such design facility exists like Fukushima in this country. It will be decommissioned in a few years.

The onsite facility (dry cask) separate from the power block for storage of spent fuel is only used for fuel rods that have decayed to a lower level of activity. Those are designed to store fuel without active support systems.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

ed/La said:


> The NRC is not there to protect the public from the nuclear industry. NRC protects the nuclear industry from the public. They are not on our side.


Based on my experience with the changes REQUIRED by the NRC from the TMI experience and other minor stuff, the utilities spent billions. The simulators were one requirement. Each plant has a simulator that is an exact duplicate of the control room for training and testing operators. Those didn't exist pre-TMI. Another was an NRC approved five year plan that detailed all maintenance and modifications to force utilities to adhere to a standard. That included every valve in the plant and the other equipment. The outage schedules detailed the disassembly, checking, assembly and testing of those valves. Those are only two examples. There are many, many more.

If you were required to maintain the engine in your car like the valves in a nuclear power plant you would periodically remove it, disassemble it completely, check every part for compliance to specs, check for deterioration of any kind, replace the out of spec parts with new, reassemble the engine, and then test it for performance.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

Old article http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/GE-reactors-Japan-UnitedStates/2011/03/14/id/389407/ 
The Mark I has design problems, the NIRS has said.

"Some modifications have been made to U.S. Mark I reactors since 1986, although the fundamental design deficiencies remain," the NIRS said.

The following 23 U.S. plants have GE boiling-water reactors (GE models 2, 3 or 4) with the same Mark I containment design used at Fukushima, according to the NRC online database:

Browns Ferry 1, Athens, Ala., operating license since 1973, reactor type GE 4

Browns Ferry 2, Athens, Ala., 1974, GE 4

Browns Ferry 3, Athens, Ala., 1976, GE 4

Brunswick 1, Southport, N.C, 1976, GE 4.

Brunswick 2, Southport, N.C., 1974, GE 4.

Cooper, Brownville, Neb., 1974, GE 4.

Dresden 2, Morris, Ill., 1970, GE 3.

Dresden 3, Morris, Ill., 1971, GE 3.

Duane Arnold, Palo, Iowa, 1974, GE 4.

Fermi 2, Monroe, Mich., 1985, GE 4.

FitzPatrick, Scriba, N.Y., 1974, GE 4.

Hatch 1, Baxley, Ga., 1974, GE 4.

Hatch 2, Baxley,Ga., 1978, GE 4.

Hope Creek, Hancock's Bridge, N.J. 1986, GE 4.

Monticello, Monticello, Minn., 1970, GE 3.

Nine Mile Point 1, Scriba, N.Y., 1969, GE 2.

Oyster Creek, Forked River, N.J., 1969, GE 2.

Peach Bottom 2, Delta, Pa., 1973, GE 4.

Peach Bottom 3, Delta, Pa., 1974, GE 4.

Pilgrim, Plymouth, Mass., 1972, GE 3.

Quad Cities 1, Cordova, Ill., 1972, GE 3.

Quad Cities 2, Moline, Ill., 1972, GE 3.

Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vt., 1972, GE


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

This is a photo of Oyster Creek.










The square structure faced with sheet metal is the _secondary_ containment. The primary containment is below the secondary containment. You can see the horizontal demarcation which is where the concrete tops out and the sheet metal starts.

You may have to expand the cross section shown below. It's Fukushima which is the same as Oyster Creek. The square to the left of the containment is the spent fuel pool. Without the secondary containment it's exposed to the atmosphere. As long as there's a sheet metal secondary containment at a BWR nuclear power plant, the spent fuel pool would be exposed to the atmosphere if the secondary containment is damaged. If instead the photo shows a rounded structure (concrete) or a square structure constructed of concrete, there is no possibility of a Fukushima type radiation release.










Some BWR plants never had secondary containment. The spent fuel pool was housed in a concrete building. Knowing the Mark number doesn't necessarily indicate the susceptibility to a Fukushima type release.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)




----------



## Farmerjack41 (Jun 6, 2017)

Have lived on three different sides of Sanford, since 1964. Have never lived more than 50 miles from it. Spent 34 of those years in law enforcement, many times patrolling the state highway than is on the west side of the area. Never was too concerned for many years, till they had main contractors that knew nothing about the job. There are and always have been many great workers out there, but they can only do what the contractor says, up to a point. The government needs to put more effort into the clean up, and quit wasting money on projects that do not work.


----------



## Farmerjack41 (Jun 6, 2017)

Make that HANFORD,not Sanford.


----------

