More

Nuclear Waste Storage Remains Risky, Continues To Vex Government

Nuclear Waste

First Posted: 05/13/11 01:33 PM ET Updated: 07/13/11 06:12 AM ET

Welcome to "The Watchdog," which will keep a close eye on regulatory agencies and how their actions impact the lives of everyday Americans. Though the rules and regulations they write -- from determining how much arsenic is allowable in your drinking water to whether your favorite TV show can drop the F-bomb in primetime -- affect all of us, their deliberations and the way that lobbyists influence their decisions receive very little coverage. To make sense of these debates, follow the implementation of health care and financial reform and decipher the minutia of the Federal Register, "The Watchdog" is on the case. If you have any tips, send them to marcus@huffingtonpost.com.

live blog

Oldest Newest

The controversy over President Obama's decision to pull the plug on the decades-long, multi-billion-dollar Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project keeps brewing.

The latest Government Accountability Office report, "Commercial Nuclear Waste:

Effects of a Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Program," should only fuel the fire. Though terminating the program has some benefits, the report finds it will cost the government billions and perhaps 20 years to restart the whole process of finding a safe place to store such waste. Located deep underground, the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada was intended for permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel from power plants and high-level radioactive waste from Pentagon facilities, and attracted intense opposition from some environmentalists and safety watchdogs.

The administration's move frees up the Energy Department to explore more-popular alternatives to radioactive waste management. But since an affordable and effective option doesn't yet exist, the prognosis is grim. The decision will also prolong the need for interim storage of spent fuel on-site at nuclear plants -- a practice which helped intensify the recent nuclear crisis in Japan. By failing to take custody of the waste by 1998, as required by law, such on-site storage has cost the government more than $15.4 billion.

Currently, about 65,000 metric tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel are stored at 75 sites in 33 states, and the amount is increasing by about 2,000 metric tons a year, GAO said. Here is the Nuclear Energy Institute's map of nuclear waste storage sites in 2009.

Meanwhile, Rep. Darryl Issa (R-Calif.), frustrated with the lack of response to his request for documents about the project, is threatening the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with a subpoena.

In the May 6 letter, Issa calls the delay "unacceptable." The agency has refused to make public whether it will allow the Energy Department to withdraw its license application for the repository, reports the Bureau of National Affairs.

Share this:

• At least 219 former Securities and Exchange Commission officials have left since 2006 to help clients lobby the agency or represent clients targeted in SEC probes, according to a comprehensive new report by the Project on Government Oversight.

• Speaking of POGO, check out this great video that details the group's 30-year history of exposing corruption.

• Could the fate of financial reform be at stake due to uncertain leadership? "The Obama administration has not announced nominees for several positions that Congress created last summer, nor has it nominated new heads for three agencies," reports The New York Times.

• A BBC investigation looks at how countries (and oil companies) are racing to "carve up" Arctic resources -- oil, gas and even rubies -- as the ice retreats.

• If you're not sure what fracking is but you're concerned about the environment and you're a fan of synth-driven low-tech rhythms, watch this music video -- "My Water's On Fire" -- from the folks at ProPublica and NYU's Studio 20.

Share this:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Welcome to "The Watchdog," which will keep a close eye on regulatory agencies and how their actions impact the lives of everyday Americans. Though the rules and regulations they write -- from determin...
Welcome to "The Watchdog," which will keep a close eye on regulatory agencies and how their actions impact the lives of everyday Americans. Though the rules and regulations they write -- from determin...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 176
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
rdk70816
Yellowhammer
12:54 PM on 05/17/2011
The decision to close down the Yucca Mountain Repository is as wrong as shutting down Gitmo. The Obama Administration has a very hard time making correct decisions.
03:48 PM on 05/17/2011
so...just thinking...like...how many trucks would it take to haul
all those spent fuel rods to yucca mountain...just thinking of
those trucks driving down the interstates and parking at
those truckstops while those drivers sit there chugging coffee
hoping to stay awake...and not roll over their rigs...with
purple and green stuff dripping on the road from those rusty
leaking 55 gallon drum....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RahSolar
Clean, Renewable energy. One roof at a time.
09:45 PM on 05/17/2011
The only wrong decision I see here is the decision YOU made to post such a ridiculous statement. How bout we put it in YOUR yard.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:22 PM on 05/17/2011
The United States was well on its way to handling the nuclear waste issue on technical grounds. There have been developments in fast reactor technology, which I have been proud to have worked on in the past.

In 1994, President Clinton, under the advisement of some short-sided physicists, decided to cancel the Integral Fast Reactor. The IFR concept was tested on the EBR-II reactor on the Argonne West Laboratory at the now Idaho National Lab, It used a technology called "pyroprocessing" which electrochemically separated out uranium, plutonium, and all the minor actinides insitu at an adjacent Fuel Cycle Facility.

The reasons Clinton gave for cancelling the project were political, and that his advisors thought this would be a "proliferant" technology.

It didnt stop the South Koreans from developing pyroprocessing

The answers to the nuclear waste problem are there - technically.

The problems have always been political and social.

As an engineer, I am deeply sadened that the politicians and public can not come to grips with nuclear waste. The sooner we get accept that we have to do something with the waste, and not just bury it in the ground, the sooner the "It will be around forever" argument can go away

Plus we can burn all the Cold War weapons material in an IFR. Imagine that.
03:28 PM on 05/17/2011
you missed a part....COST...nobody wants to pay for it!!! sure you can
clean up the mess..but who do you send the bill to...not me...nuclear
power CAN be made safe, if only taking shortcuts wasn't so common..
YES..build Diablo canyon...but on a fault line..really??? that was the
only place to put it???...just thinking...
12:28 PM on 05/18/2011
You obviously don't understand the financing: The estimated cost of ~90 Billion is for the 300-year life of the facility operations!!! ($300 Million a year). The Nuclear Waste Fund brings in about $750 Million per year. There is already ~24 Billion in the NWF; even after spending around $10 B on YMP. It will all be covered by the 1/10th of a cent per kilowatt-hour surcharge on the nuclear electricity usage... So, what's the cost issue????
03:51 PM on 05/17/2011
and another thing...I happen to be short sided...no wait...
I'm just short...never mind...
12:15 PM on 05/17/2011
Nuclear Energy is too costly and too dangerous. Fukishima and CHernobyl have poisoned the air, land, water and food in the surrounding area. The cost for Chernobyl continues 25 years after the disaster with the government raising a billion dollars to build a new containment structure. The cost for Fukishima will go on FOREVER. That is really expensive energy.

It is time to transition to safe, clean, alternative energy. Wind, solar, wave energy. geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.
03:36 PM on 05/17/2011
Coal fired power plants have done more dammage than nuclear..the
catch is if it goes bad...it goes really bad...how many people have
died in coal mines and from coal dust??? I don't see you crying
about coal fired power plants...
03:55 PM on 05/17/2011
P.S...nuclear energy is actually really cheap!!! It only becomes
expensive if something goes wrong....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RahSolar
Clean, Renewable energy. One roof at a time.
09:57 PM on 05/17/2011
There is nothing cheap about nuclear energy. It costs billions of dollars and takes decades to build.
Needs billions in subsidies from the Gvt. for construction, has NO type of insurance and expects the American taxpayer to foot the superfund bill for cleanup and decommissioning which takes another 2 decades.
Your math model is wrong. As is your statement.
Man is arrogant for trying to harness a technology it can BARELY control.
If there weren't so many industry lobbyists in DC buying off everyone they can, plant construction would have stopped after TMI.
12:49 PM on 05/16/2011
Recycling used nuclear fuel is a solid approach for reducing the amount of waste that must be disposed in a repository. Recycling is a proven, solution that conserves natural resources, simplifies waste management and is cost competitive. By recycling the used fuel, you also make nuclear energy more sustainable. Technical solutions for managing nuclear waste already exist.
10:41 AM on 05/17/2011
not quite...wishfull thinking...
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html
The objective of transumutation is to change (long-lived) actinides into fission products and long-lived fission products into significantly shorter-lived nuclides. The goal is to have wastes which become radiologically innocuous in only a few hundred years. The need for a waste repository is certainly not eliminated, but it can be smaller and simpler and the hazard posed by the disposed waste materials is greatly reduced.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
proudtohaveserved
10:09 AM on 05/16/2011
HOW ABOUT BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?
10:59 PM on 05/15/2011
ohhh please...did you all sleep threw science class....there is totally safe, fast, easy
way to deal with all that waste...as a professor of partical reality at ACME university
we solved this problem years ago....get rid of all the nuclear regulatory agencys and
with no one left to test...no more radiation...don't believe me??? check with a repb
cause they want to get rid of EPA and all those other "job killing" agencys and boards
cause what you don't know cann't kill you....clearly regulation just gets in the way of
big business that provids undertakers all that extra work....
photo
Deep Thinking Man
Always Remember, A Wet Bird Never Flies At Night !
08:53 PM on 05/15/2011
(sarcasm) we can always store it where we always have...in 55 gallon drums in the ocean !!!!

Tabaskokat,
love your train of thought...fanned !!!!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
TabaskoKat
confrontational iconoclast
07:01 PM on 05/15/2011
Though the rules and regulations they write -- from determining how much arsenic is allowable in your drinking water .........

Im sorry I stopped reading here because I cant wrap my head around the fact that someone thinks there should be an allowable amount of arsenic should be in my drinking water. Im thinking anything beyond natural/normal (if that is possible) should be the only allowable amount. the rest if from corp americaa pissing in my drinking water.


so from the title I assume the rest of the article talks about where to store radioactive waste? Well, since its not very unstable, or dangerous (according to industry) then we should store it at the homes of investors and owner/operators of the nuclear power plants until we figure out a better place for it. If its essentially safe enough to transport thru my community( and we have no nuclear power sources) than it should be safe in a barrel in thier back yard where thier kids play
11:16 PM on 05/15/2011
the waste is not really the problem.....it's the building and the dirt ...like maybe
1/4 sq mile that will be "hot" ...but only for about 100,000 years...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
TabaskoKat
confrontational iconoclast
11:27 PM on 05/15/2011
thats it?? man, thats only like hmmmm 20,000 generations of man kind......
03:10 PM on 05/16/2011
The reason that a certain level of arsenic is allowable in your drinking water is because at those levels, it cannot harm you, and it would be prohibitively expensive to bring levels down to zero for no practical benefit. These values are extremely conservative, meaning in reality, you would still be perfectly safe drinking water with much higher levels. As far as "natural/normal" levels of anything in my drinking water goes, I'm perfectly happy with public utilities putting "unnatural" chlorine in my drinking water to get rid of all those nasty little pathogens "naturally" present in it.

As for the waste, most people who work in the nuclear industry live close to where they work, so, essentially, it is already in their backyards. They know the status and safety of the plant better than any politician or protestor, and most are highly trained operators, laborers, and engineers with many other options open to them, yet they chose to remain. This is why I've never understood that argument.

Why on earth would a workforce of intelligent, knowledgeable people choose to put themselves and their families in harm's way? Because they actually know what goes on behind the fence, care about what they do, and care about the environment. I'll bet you can guess where I go to work everyday!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RahSolar
Clean, Renewable energy. One roof at a time.
10:10 PM on 05/17/2011
Are you for real?
06:19 PM on 05/15/2011
YUCCA MOUNTAIN!!!
Harry Reid is a dunce.
11:21 PM on 05/15/2011
yucca mountain or any other site won't work cause the waste is not a problem...
the problem is the site...the buildings...the dirt...the whole place...in case you
think there is a fix....the whole site is "hot" for 100,000 years...makes the
spent fuel rods nothing...when you think of the bigger problem...
03:48 PM on 05/15/2011
There's a lot of "we can't possibly do this!" on this thread, but Fukushima has shown that continuing to store this indefinitely above ground at reactor sites is too risky. This is a case in which the perfect is the enemy of the good -- we need to simply put this stuff deep underground in a stable, impervious rock formation. Remember, even if we never generate another kwH from nuclear, we are STUCK with a sizable inventory of this stuff.

I sometimes worry that if we suddenly discovered a magic bullet that solved the waste issue, a portion of the anti-nuclear community would be secretly disappointed, since "what are we going to do with the waste?" has always been an argument of last resort. I hope we can just get over all the NIMBYism and get this done. This stuff is clearly dangerous above ground, and much less so below ground.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
TabaskoKat
confrontational iconoclast
07:04 PM on 05/15/2011
how about a commercial enteprise that "blasts" this stuff off into space, maybe at the sun. and if it works we can start to send all of our trash. i mean, it is unbelievably hot isnt it? wont the material just "burn up" and even if it doesnt isnt the sun a giant nuclear reactor?

..only sort of sarcastic
08:42 PM on 05/15/2011
Launching stuff into space is (a) energetically very expensive and (b) risky, at the 1 in 100 level or worse. So for nuclear waste -- of which there's a pretty big tonnage -- it's out of the question.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RahSolar
Clean, Renewable energy. One roof at a time.
10:11 PM on 05/17/2011
Remember the Challenger?
photo
Deep Thinking Man
Always Remember, A Wet Bird Never Flies At Night !
09:02 PM on 05/15/2011
palindrom,
we could go with Natural energy and be completely rid of nuclear reactors and waste...huh ????
09:52 PM on 05/15/2011
With an enormous effort, we might be able to combine green energy production with conservation and somehow provide for the 7 billion people on earth. There would be other environmental damage -- large swatches of land given to solar panels, windmills everywhere knocking down birds, runs on rare-earth elements for high-tech electronics, and so on.

But even if we could do this, we would still have the nuclear waste that has already been generated. We would have to deal with this even if we were to shut down every nuclear plant this evening.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:21 AM on 05/15/2011
There is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste and that is a fact.
So, what else can they do but keep the plants open so there are people there to monitor them?
They can phase them out, starting now, and start doing some real research into breaking down the waste. I believe if you can create it, you can destroy it. We need intensive research into how you can scientifically break down the waste. Now there's something worth paying for.
03:50 PM on 05/15/2011
"There is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste and that is a fact."

No, it's a judgement -- it may be a defensible judgment, but it's still a judgement. Nothing is ever perfectly safe, so when you make such a statement, you're really saying "no safe-enough way."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:20 PM on 05/16/2011
Then name one way to dispose of nuclear waste safely.
12:06 AM on 05/16/2011
So, what else can they do but keep the plants open so there are people there
to monitor them?...picture this...the whole site...reactor...buildings...dirt..every
thing...will be radioactive...for 100,000 years...the building...reactor...everything
has to hold itself together for 100,000 years...the whole place is gonna crumble..and
all of it is still radioactive...even after the hole place turns to dust...the dust itself
will remain radioactive...see the problem...
09:36 AM on 05/17/2011
What are they so busy doing over in Hanford then if it's impossible to decontaminate? Guess they're just throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars (ok, I don't really know the number, but close enough!) for no good reason. Silly government. Silly superfund sites.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Max Shelby
Purveyor of tar and feathers
12:21 PM on 05/14/2011
Watchdog, have a look into how much nuclear waste from other countries is coming into the US for disposal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Rowe
"What Me worry"?
01:26 PM on 05/15/2011
That is the only way the would by into this crap.If We take their waste they will use it.Where is the waste with solar?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
TabaskoKat
confrontational iconoclast
07:08 PM on 05/15/2011
the waste is investing in it. Where I live in oregon we are about to close our wind farms because there is now too much electric supply for our grid. so instead of shutting down coal fired plants we are going to shut down the wind farms. not only is it stupid!! but we (as a state) send a message to everyone that investing here is a really bad idea because if we have to choose, we will choose deep pocketed polluting industries from any real competition that is a much better deal for everyone as there is no waste. (end of sarcasim)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Actionmac
Mind your wants, because the GOP wants your mind
11:55 AM on 05/14/2011
"Nuclear Waste Storage Remains Risky" WTF, risky? the shlt is lethal. This is why we are so far behind in getting a real energy plan, we are still trying to make nuclear energy out to be something manageable. We can't even dispose of the waste product with out making the area uninhabitable for centuries.

We know this is not the answer can we move forward with more renewable tech, green energy as in will not make me and my grate, great grandchildren glow green.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
TabaskoKat
confrontational iconoclast
07:10 PM on 05/15/2011
..thats good stuff. me and my wife cant stop laughing..my stomach hurts
11:39 AM on 05/14/2011
Why Not ship it in unmarked containers to North Korea??? Ooops forgot about the two light water nuclear reactors that Clinton gave them in 1996........never mind!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
TabaskoKat
confrontational iconoclast
07:18 PM on 05/15/2011
clinton gave to them? man...just when i think you guys have run out of material you rehash clinton. you had me at first
11:36 AM on 05/14/2011
Weren't we putting it all in that Lock Box burried in Al Gore's backyard?