Group items tagged

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on issues associated with blending of low-level radioactive waste and is planning public meetings to discuss blending in Rockville, Md. The issue of blending low-level radioactive waste has received increased attention from the nuclear industry since the 2008 closing of the Barnwell, S.C., low-level waste disposal site. This action left waste generators in 36 states with no disposal options for Class B and Class C wastes, the two classes of low-level waste with higher radioactivity. Blending in some cases can lower the classification of the wastes to the lower-radioactivity Class A, which has available disposal capacity, by reducing the concentration of radionuclides. Blending refers to mixing low-level wastes of different concentrations, primarily Class B or C with Class A. It does not involve mixing radioactive waste with non-radioactive waste, a practice known as "dilution." And it does not imply release of radioactive material to the general environment, either to municipal non-radioactive waste disposal sites or to consumer products. Blended wastes remain low-level waste and must be disposed in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on issues associated with blending of low-level radioactive waste and is planning public meetings to discuss blending in Rockville, Md. The issue of blending low-level radioactive waste has received increased attention from the nuclear industry since the 2008 closing of the Barnwell, S.C., low-level waste disposal site. This action left waste generators in 36 states with no disposal options for Class B and Class C wastes, the two classes of low-level waste with higher radioactivity. Blending in some cases can lower the classification of the wastes to the lower-radioactivity Class A, which has available disposal capacity, by reducing the concentration of radionuclides. Blending refers to mixing low-level wastes of different concentrations, primarily Class B or C with Class A. It does not involve mixing radioactive waste with non-radioactive waste, a practice known as "dilution." And it does not imply release of radioactive material to the general environment, either to municipal non-radioactive waste disposal sites or to consumer products. Blended wastes remain low-level waste and must be disposed in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.

EnergySolutions seems hell-bent to increase its revenue stream by diversifying the waste stream flowing to its low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Tooele County. Its efforts to serve as the depository for the nation's depleted uranium and the world's low-level radioactive waste are well-documented. And now, the for-profit firm is arguing in favor of "blending" trash , which would allow it to introduce even hotter trash to the Beehive State. Company officials made their case for blended waste before the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tuesday. The process, if approved, would allow hotter Class B and C low-level wastes to be mixed with Class A waste as long as the blended waste does not exceed the standards for Class A waste, the least radioactive of low-level wastes and the only type Utah law allows. It should come as no surprise that the nuclear industry would endorse such a practice. EnergySolutions is a private company looking to improve its bottom line. And the nuclear power industry is seeking a repository for its Class B and Class C waste, after a disposal site in South Carolina stopped accepting waste from 36 other states in 2008.

EnergySolutions seems hell-bent to increase its revenue stream by diversifying the waste stream flowing to its low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Tooele County. Its efforts to serve as the depository for the nation's depleted uranium and the world's low-level radioactive waste are well-documented. And now, the for-profit firm is arguing in favor of "blending" trash , which would allow it to introduce even hotter trash to the Beehive State. Company officials made their case for blended waste before the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tuesday. The process, if approved, would allow hotter Class B and C low-level wastes to be mixed with Class A waste as long as the blended waste does not exceed the standards for Class A waste, the least radioactive of low-level wastes and the only type Utah law allows. It should come as no surprise that the nuclear industry would endorse such a practice. EnergySolutions is a private company looking to improve its bottom line. And the nuclear power industry is seeking a repository for its Class B and Class C waste, after a disposal site in South Carolina stopped accepting waste from 36 other states in 2008.

Report: Energy Department on verge of abandoning nuke dump application We have cheered the Obama administration's decision to eventually shutter the ill-conceived Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project by starving it of federal funding. Nonetheless, our optimism has been tempered because the Energy Department still has a pending license application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a permanent dump for the nation's high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. What we eagerly await is the day when the Energy Department abandons the application so that the idea of forcing a potentially deadly nuke waste dump, on a state that does not want it, is buried for good.

Report: Energy Department on verge of abandoning nuke dump application We have cheered the Obama administration's decision to eventually shutter the ill-conceived Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project by starving it of federal funding. Nonetheless, our optimism has been tempered because the Energy Department still has a pending license application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a permanent dump for the nation's high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. What we eagerly await is the day when the Energy Department abandons the application so that the idea of forcing a potentially deadly nuke waste dump, on a state that does not want it, is buried for good.

Report: Energy Department on verge of abandoning nuke dump application We have cheered the Obama administration's decision to eventually shutter the ill-conceived Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project by starving it of federal funding. Nonetheless, our optimism has been tempered because the Energy Department still has a pending license application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a permanent dump for the nation's high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. What we eagerly await is the day when the Energy Department abandons the application so that the idea of forcing a potentially deadly nuke waste dump, on a state that does not want it, is buried for good.

The Department of Energy is adding another type of radioactive waste to those that won't be sent to Hanford until the vitrification plant is fully operational. Tuesday, DOE prepared a statement saying that even though its agreement with the states of Washington and Oregon did not cover greater-than-class-C low level radioactive waste, "this waste will not be imported to Hanford for the duration of the moratorium that defers the importation of waste to Hanford." Greater-than-class-C low, or GTCC, waste is more radioactive than the waste Hanford now is burying in its landfill for radioactive waste, the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. As part of a proposed settlement with the states over a lawsuit brought against DOE, DOE had agreed to recommend in a draft environmental study not to import certain kinds of waste to Hanford until the vit plant is operating to treat high level radioactive tank waste. That's expected to be about 2022. Federal law requires the environmental study before a final decision on the moratorium is made.

The Department of Energy is adding another type of radioactive waste to those that won't be sent to Hanford until the vitrification plant is fully operational. Tuesday, DOE prepared a statement saying that even though its agreement with the states of Washington and Oregon did not cover greater-than-class-C low level radioactive waste, "this waste will not be imported to Hanford for the duration of the moratorium that defers the importation of waste to Hanford." Greater-than-class-C low, or GTCC, waste is more radioactive than the waste Hanford now is burying in its landfill for radioactive waste, the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. As part of a proposed settlement with the states over a lawsuit brought against DOE, DOE had agreed to recommend in a draft environmental study not to import certain kinds of waste to Hanford until the vit plant is operating to treat high level radioactive tank waste. That's expected to be about 2022. Federal law requires the environmental study before a final decision on the moratorium is made.

EnergySolutions has a good thing going, a virtual monopoly on the disposal of Class A low-level radioactive waste in the United States. The company's waste disposal facility at Clive in Tooele County serves as the sole repository for low-level waste generated in 36 states. And that waste stream produces a steady stream of revenue. But, the publicly traded, profit-motivated nuclear waste disposal firm is not content. Like a Girl Scout troop with a truckload of cookies, EnergySolutions is knocking on doors in a bid for new business and higher earnings. It's determined to expand its territory, to go global, by importing radioactive waste. Over the years, the company has accepted trifling amounts of radioactive waste from our friends in Britain and Taiwan, Germany and France, Canada and Mexico, without attracting too much attention. But now, it's trying to pump up the volume and acquire a license to import 20,000 tons of low-level waste from Italy. Its international aspirations are evident. And, if the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets a precedent by issuing the license, nations will be lining up to sign contracts and avoid disposing of these dangerous materials in their own backyards.

EnergySolutions has a good thing going, a virtual monopoly on the disposal of Class A low-level radioactive waste in the United States. The company's waste disposal facility at Clive in Tooele County serves as the sole repository for low-level waste generated in 36 states. And that waste stream produces a steady stream of revenue. But, the publicly traded, profit-motivated nuclear waste disposal firm is not content. Like a Girl Scout troop with a truckload of cookies, EnergySolutions is knocking on doors in a bid for new business and higher earnings. It's determined to expand its territory, to go global, by importing radioactive waste. Over the years, the company has accepted trifling amounts of radioactive waste from our friends in Britain and Taiwan, Germany and France, Canada and Mexico, without attracting too much attention. But now, it's trying to pump up the volume and acquire a license to import 20,000 tons of low-level waste from Italy. Its international aspirations are evident. And, if the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets a precedent by issuing the license, nations will be lining up to sign contracts and avoid disposing of these dangerous materials in their own backyards.

U.S. Nuclear Waste Law and Policy: Fixing a Bankrupt System Source: New York University Law and Economics Working Papers The current U.S. system of nuclear waste law and policy is bankrupt. Twenty years after the designation by Congress of Yucca Mountain as the only potential site for a deep geologic repository to receive spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from reprocessing, the proposed Yucca repository remains mired in controversy and unremitting opposition by Nevada. There is no prospect for an alternative repository or for the development of a federal consolidated storage facility. The volume of these wastes already exceeds the current maximum storage capacity set by Congress for Yucca and continues to grow. This article first provides a brief overview of nuclear wastes and a summary history of federal nuclear waste law and policy to date. It then diagnoses the major failures in the current design and proposes a suite of new measures to launch a comprehensive new approach, including a reconsideration of the ethical principles underlying the drive for immediate waste burial; the creation of a high-level National Waste Management Commission; the creation of two new federal entities to manage nuclear wastes and to site waste storage facilities and repositories; the elimination of Environmental Protection Agency regulatory authority over these activities; the adoption of a thoroughgoing risk-based approach to waste regulation and management; and the adoption of new, more flexible and adaptable strategies for siting storage and disposal facilities. + Full Paper (PDF; 240 KB)

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a rule change that would allow hotter radioactive waste to be mixed with less hazardous waste so it could be disposed of in Utah. Utah is home to the only low-level radioactive waste facility available to 36 states. But it only disposes of Class A waste, considered the least hazardous. NRC regulators are proposing the blending of hotter Class B and C waste with Class A waste so that it can legally come to Utah. Much of the nation's class B and C waste has had no place to go in the past two years since a South Carolina facility was closed to all but three states. An NRC paper cites industry estimates that blended waste could slash the volume of orphaned Class B and Class C waste by two-thirds, from 12,000 cubic feet a year to about 4,000 cubic feet."

Cleaning up the environment often creates waste, which in turn must be carefully handled, treated and/or disposed to make sure it doesn't hurt the environment again on the back end. Make sense? Anyway, there are seven cleanup projects under way at the Y-12 National Security Complex that are funded by the Recovery Act, and it's estimated those projects will generate something approaching 3 million cubic feet of waste (of various categories). Here's where the waste will be sent for disposal: * 803,708 cubic feet to Y-12's sanitary landfill. This waste is likely to be uncontaminated demolition rubble and the like. * 1,775,029 cubic feet to the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility. This is the CERCLA landfill just down the road from Y-12, and it's set up to receive low-level and mixed low-level radioactive wastes from Oak Ridge cleanup projects. * 222,376 cubic feet to Nevada Test Site. No details here, but the waste typically sent to Nevada is the hotter low-level waste that doesn't meant the waste-acceptance criteria at the Oak Ridge landfill.

Given the high cost to empty and treat Hanford's radioactive tank wastes, the government should consider leaving more waste in the underground tanks, according to a new Government Accountability Office report. The report also challenges the Department of Energy to find ways to reduce costs for retrieval and final disposal of high-level radioactive wastes, saying they could be more costly than justified by the reduction in risk. The estimated price tag to empty Hanford's underground tanks of radioactive waste and treat it are rapidly escalating and could be from $86 billion to more than $100 billion -- rather than the $77 billion that DOE estimates, according to the report. The study was prepared at the request of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Cost escalation is the result of a range of issues, including the difficulties Hanford workers have had in emptying the leak-prone tanks of millions of gallons of waste, questions about how well vitrification plant technology will work and a decision not to send treated wastes to Yucca Mountain, Nev., for disposal, the report says.

Given the high cost to empty and treat Hanford's radioactive tank wastes, the government should consider leaving more waste in the underground tanks, according to a new Government Accountability Office report. The report also challenges the Department of Energy to find ways to reduce costs for retrieval and final disposal of high-level radioactive wastes, saying they could be more costly than justified by the reduction in risk. The estimated price tag to empty Hanford's underground tanks of radioactive waste and treat it are rapidly escalating and could be from $86 billion to more than $100 billion -- rather than the $77 billion that DOE estimates, according to the report. The study was prepared at the request of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Cost escalation is the result of a range of issues, including the difficulties Hanford workers have had in emptying the leak-prone tanks of millions of gallons of waste, questions about how well vitrification plant technology will work and a decision not to send treated wastes to Yucca Mountain, Nev., for disposal, the report says.

When Oregon and Washington's governors announced a settlement with the U.S. Department of Energy in August for cleanup of radioactive tank waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, they said it included a "moratorium" on shipping new radioactive waste to Hanford until a plant to treat the tank wastes was up and running. But in fact a big chunk of radioactive waste -- including contaminated metal from decommissioned U.S. nuclear plants -- isn't included in that proposed moratorium, Oregon officials confirmed Friday. Ken Niles, assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy, said Oregon continues to oppose importing the waste, formally known as "Greater than Class C" or GTCC waste.

When Oregon and Washington's governors announced a settlement with the U.S. Department of Energy in August for cleanup of radioactive tank waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, they said it included a "moratorium" on shipping new radioactive waste to Hanford until a plant to treat the tank wastes was up and running. But in fact a big chunk of radioactive waste -- including contaminated metal from decommissioned U.S. nuclear plants -- isn't included in that proposed moratorium, Oregon officials confirmed Friday. Ken Niles, assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy, said Oregon continues to oppose importing the waste, formally known as "Greater than Class C" or GTCC waste.

The hazardous waste industry, and nuclear waste in particular, have never been simple issues within Tooele County. While some along the Wasatch Front would like to see this genie put back into the bottle, most local residents have long realized our hazardous waste corridor is here to stay - requiring us to take a more pragmatic and nuanced view of the industry. Hazardous waste has created jobs for county residents. It has also contributed millions of dollars to county government coffers in the form of mitigation fees - funds that were used to construct Deseret Peak Complex. Although that contribution has declined drastically in recent years, it remains an important revenue source within county budgets.

The hazardous waste industry, and nuclear waste in particular, have never been simple issues within Tooele County. While some along the Wasatch Front would like to see this genie put back into the bottle, most local residents have long realized our hazardous waste corridor is here to stay - requiring us to take a more pragmatic and nuanced view of the industry. Hazardous waste has created jobs for county residents. It has also contributed millions of dollars to county government coffers in the form of mitigation fees - funds that were used to construct Deseret Peak Complex. Although that contribution has declined drastically in recent years, it remains an important revenue source within county budgets.

The hazardous waste industry, and nuclear waste in particular, have never been simple issues within Tooele County. While some along the Wasatch Front would like to see this genie put back into the bottle, most local residents have long realized our hazardous waste corridor is here to stay - requiring us to take a more pragmatic and nuanced view of the industry. Hazardous waste has created jobs for county residents. It has also contributed millions of dollars to county government coffers in the form of mitigation fees - funds that were used to construct Deseret Peak Complex. Although that contribution has declined drastically in recent years, it remains an important revenue source within county budgets.

Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.

Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.

Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.

The Savannah River Site (SRS) achieved a significant milestone Wednesday when the 1,000th shipment of transuranic (TRU) waste was made to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) located near Carlsbad, N.M. The shipment marks the eighth year of SRS shipping radioactive waste from South Carolina to New Mexico without incident. SRS made its first shipment of TRU waste to WIPP on May 8, 2001. SRS has safely shipped more than 28,200 55-gallon drums of TRU waste for disposal at the WIPP geologic repository since that time. "This is a significant accomplishment for the Savannah River Site and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, demonstrating the Department of Energy's commitment to cleaning up legacy waste sites and safely disposing of the waste inventories," said Jeff Allison, manager of DOE's Savannah River Operations office. "Every shipment is inspected by the South Carolina Department of Transportation and the Department of Health and Environmental Control to assure it's safe to go on the road before it's released. Both agencies have played important roles in maintaining the safety of shipments and supporting the Department of Energy in this accomplishment." Since the beginning of SRS operations in the early 1950s, more than 30,000 drums and 3,000 non-drum containers of TRU waste have accumulated on concrete pads, where they were covered over with soil, awaiting final disposition.

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will consider whether to allow for the first time nuclear waste processors to "blend" higher level radioactive waste with the lowest level radioactive waste at a hearing on June 17. Low-level radioactive waste is generated by universities, hospitals, and commercial nuclear power plants, and is classified as Class A, B. or C depending on the concentration of the waste's radioactivity (with Class A having the lowest concentration). The proposal before the Commission would allow Class A waste to be mixed with more radioactive Class B and C waste and still be classified as Class A. If the proposal goes through, "blending" would allow utilities, processors, and waste disposal sites to avoid existing environmental and safety requirements for how they dispose of the hotter waste."

When we talk of garbage not being disposed off well, we do not think about garbage other than the regular kitchen waste and plastic. One major type of waste that we hardly talk about is radioactive waste, produced at cancer hospitals. While our kitchen waste may not be so harmful, radioactive waste can be hazardous. On a casual inquiry, I found out that the cancer hospitals in Bengaluru were apparently disposing residual radioactive waste into the public sewerage and garbage. This sounds alarming, but this is what they are supposed when the radioactive material (used for treatment) is 'fully used'. On matters of radioactive waste disposal, cancer hospitals in India are governed by guidelines issued by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). According to radiotherapy physicists (doctors), once the radioactive material is fully used (or spent) and decayed, it does not remain harmful.

Taiwan has tried and failed to sell its nuclear waste to North Korea and China. Now, the government is seeking a burial place at home. The top choice is a poor aboriginal community. When it comes to nuclear waste, most people say, "not in my back yard." But most residents of Nantian village in southeastern Taiwan's Taitung County favor building a low-level nuclear waste dump five kilometers away. Taiwan has thousands of barrels of low-level waste - mostly contaminated clothing, boots and mops used by the workers at the island's three nuclear power plants. Engineers at Taipower, the electricity monopoly, say it will take about 100 years for the harmful radiation to decay.

Taiwan has tried and failed to sell its nuclear waste to North Korea and China. Now, the government is seeking a burial place at home. The top choice is a poor aboriginal community. When it comes to nuclear waste, most people say, "not in my back yard." But most residents of Nantian village in southeastern Taiwan's Taitung County favor building a low-level nuclear waste dump five kilometers away. Taiwan has thousands of barrels of low-level waste - mostly contaminated clothing, boots and mops used by the workers at the island's three nuclear power plants. Engineers at Taipower, the electricity monopoly, say it will take about 100 years for the harmful radiation to decay.

While the fate of America's Yucca Mountain appears to be sealed, Finnish company Posiva is moving forward with a cutting-edge nuclear waste storage facility that it claims will safely store radioactive waste in drums deep in the ground for 100,000 years. While challenges abound, a green light from the Finnish government expected by 2012 will make the site on Finland's Olkiluoto Island the first permanent nuclear waste repository in the world, opening the door for more to follow. The task is not a small one, however. First, Posiva carved nearly 16,500 feet of tunnels, collecting borehole samples along the way to ensure that the bedrock is solid and that water -- a nuclear waste repository's biggest enemy -- cannot get in. Then they had to figure out how to create the nearly 29-ton copper storage bins lined with iron and sealed with a weld so precise that it will hold through Finland's next ice age.

While the fate of America's Yucca Mountain appears to be sealed, Finnish company Posiva is moving forward with a cutting-edge nuclear waste storage facility that it claims will safely store radioactive waste in drums deep in the ground for 100,000 years. While challenges abound, a green light from the Finnish government expected by 2012 will make the site on Finland's Olkiluoto Island the first permanent nuclear waste repository in the world, opening the door for more to follow. The task is not a small one, however. First, Posiva carved nearly 16,500 feet of tunnels, collecting borehole samples along the way to ensure that the bedrock is solid and that water -- a nuclear waste repository's biggest enemy -- cannot get in. Then they had to figure out how to create the nearly 29-ton copper storage bins lined with iron and sealed with a weld so precise that it will hold through Finland's next ice age.

"Utah, say federal regulators, can help solve a big problem for the nuclear industry: the pileup of low-level radioactive waste at many of the nation's reactors. Much of the hottest low-level waste -- though far less radioactive than used fuel rods -- is stored at 90 power plants because nuclear companies have nowhere to dispose of it. So, staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed changing federal rules to make that waste permissible at the EnergySolutions Inc. disposal site in Utah through "blending." By allowing more hazardous "Class B and C waste" to be mixed with lower-hazard "Class A" waste, regulators would make the blend legal for disposal at EnergySolutions, the only commercial site open to low-level radioactive waste from 36 states. The blending proposal reflects a big shift in NRC policy, and it directly contradicts the public positions of Gov. Gary Herbert, the Utah Division of Radiation Control and the state's Radiation Control Board. The Utahns object to blending "when the intent is to alter the waste classification for the purposes of disposal site access." Five years ago, Utah banned "Class B and Class C" low-level radioactive waste. "

"With over 20% of United States power production being of a nuclear nature, and all of this nuclear production generating high-level nuclear waste, the US has already accumulated large quantities of volatile nuclear waste and will only have more in the future (Schneider, 2009). Currently, there are few options for dealing with nuclear waste. Although research and development of storage/remediation methods is ongoing, current waste that has accumulated is stored in sealed casks mostly on-site at the plants at which they are generated. This scattering of radioactive waste throughout the country at ground level is seen as a liability for natural disasters and terrorist actions. One proposed solution for the management of nuclear waste is through underground sequestration in a major Department of Energy run facility. This would collect all of the nation's accrued nuclear wastes in one safe location underground to allow the waste to decay over time in a controlled environment isolated from environmental factors that could undermine their containment."