Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

ENVIRONMENT * There is no "safe" amount of radiation. Each new exposure can lead to the risk of cancer and harm the body's immune system. Radiation also can lead to spontaneous abortion, mental retardation, heart disease and leukemia. * Increased reliance on nuclear power plants threatens the water supply. Reactors must be near large bodies of water to create steam to power their turbines and cool fuel rods. Water at higher temperatures may be returned to streams, causing thermal pollution and stressing fish and other aquatic life. * If droughts become more common in the Southeast, nuclear plants will compete for water with other important uses. COST * Building a nuclear reactor is expensive, costing up to $6 billion. By comparison, the state budget totals $7 billion a year. * There are no guarantees. The regulatory process required to get a license to build and operate a nuclear plant is lengthy and expensive, and can end in rejection. * Because the risks are so high, power companies must pay more in interest on loans needed to build the plants. To cover that cost, consumers will see their power bills increase as the plants are being built. In a sense, consumers assume the risk. SAFETY * Regardless of new designs, safety procedures and rigorous staff training, there always is the risk of a catastrophic accident. * Opponents cite a 1982 congressional report that estimated a meltdown of one Duke Energy reactor could injure 88,000 people and cost more than $100 billion in 1980 dollars. Today, those figures would be higher because of the area's booming population and inflation. SECURITY * Nuclear plants could be a prime target for terrorists. An attack could injure thousands near a plant. * Technology used to run the plants could be stolen and used to make nuclear weapons. DISPOSAL * Scientists agree the best option is to bury "spent" nuclear fuel deep inside a mountain. But opposition to using tunnels in Nevada's Yucc

There are only seven Web sites that more people use than Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that lets anyone edit most of its articles. None of the sites that are more popular than Wikipedia have as their main purpose producing information about the world. The top sites, Google and Yahoo, mainly function as links to other sites. Facebook and Myspace, which people use to keep in touch with their friends, are third and fifth most popular, respectively. The other sites that are more visited than Wikipedia are YouTube (a kind of online TV), eBay (a virtual flea market), and Microsoft's version of Google.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual compilation of the agency's recent rulemaking activities. It contains a summary and the status for each ongoing rulemaking and petition for rulemaking received by the agency. Organization of the Agenda The agenda consists of two sections that have been updated through December 31, 2008. Section I, "Rules," includes: (A) rules on which final action has been taken since June 30, 2008, the closing date of the last NRC Regulatory Agenda; (B) rules published previously as proposed rules on which the Commission has not taken final action; (C) rules published as advance notices of proposed rulemaking for which neither a proposed nor final rule has been issued; and (D) unpublished rules on which the NRC expects to take action. Section II, "Petitions for Rulemaking," includes: (A) final actions on petitions for rulemaking since June 30, 2008; and (B) petitions pending staff review. In Section I of the agenda, the rules are aligned numerically with the parts of Title 10, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Title 10). If more than one rule appears under the same part, the rules are arranged within that part by date of most recent publication. If a rule amends multiple parts, the rule is listed under the lowest numbered affected part. In Section II of the agenda, the petitions are aligned numerically with the parts of Title 10 and are identified with a petition for rulemaking (PRM) number. If more than one petition appears under the same CFR part, the petitions are arranged by PRM numbers in consecutive order within that part of Title 10.

"Two recent nuclear leaks expose the danger of overhyping a technology that is still not ready for prime time. There has been a recent bout of positive press for the hurting nuclear energy industry, with props given by the likes of Barack Obama and Bill Gates, causing some to call it a nuclear "comeback." And while I agree with both our president and our most famous billionaire that nuclear will at some point it the future be a big part of the solution, a spate of recent events has drawn attention to the fact that though it helps on the carbon front, nuclear power is still very dangerous business. Last year the Chalk River power plant in Ottowa sprung two leaks, spewing 7,000 liters of radioactive water per day into the Ottowa River and this month a similar mysterious leak at the Yankee Vermont plant is resulting in dangerous tritium contamination of the nearby Connecticut River. A full 25 percent of the 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S. have leaked tritium, a known carcinogen. Yes, these are old plants but they call attention to the fact when nuclear goes wrong it can go very wrong. Though there are some newer, safer next-generation nuclear technologies available, they are prohibitively expensive to bring online and still require highly radioactive fuel stocks. There are many exciting developments in nuclear R & D (see my visit to LANL) which make use of downgraded nuclear fuels, but they are in the early stages of development, and that means we're not likely to see them popping up in the landscape anytime in the near future. * Nuclear, Strike 1: TOXIC WASTE * Nuclear, Strike 2: EXCESSIVE COST * Nuclear, Strike 3: WATER DEMAND * The 6 myths of nuclear energy exposed"

"People often go to the doctor thinking in their minds that they are a picture of health, and boom, it happens. However, there are times when a doctor hits a person with those dreaded words that something is "not just right" with our bodies. Hearing bad news about our health is never welcomed, especially when it involves the "C" word, cancer. There are numerous factors that can cause cancer. A large portion of these are environmental. Because of that, organizations such as the South Carolina Cancer Registry Office and the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) research and trying to uncover cancer clusters. A cancer cluster is a location or period of time where in a greater-than-expected number of cancer cases occur. According to the DHEC, in order for a true cancer cluster to exist, the number of cancers occurring must be significantly more than would be expected by chance. The report also states that additionally, a cancer cluster would more likely involve more rare types of cancer rather than more common types, such as lung, breast, prostate, or colon. A cancer cluster would usually occur with excess in one specific type of cancer rather than in several different types of cancer. Along with statistical testing, there are several other criteria that determine whether a true cancer cluster exists. "

Chronology of events surrounding crippled Fukushima nuclear plant A school building, which was submerged as a result of a tsunami on March 11, stands in an area of Yamamoto, Miyagi Prefecture. (Mainichi) TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The following is a chronology of events regarding the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in Fukushima Prefecture, triggered by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that struck northeastern and eastern Japan. March 11 -- Magnitude 9.0 earthquake forces power plant's Nos. 1-3 reactors to suspend operations automatically (Nos. 4-6 reactors were shut down, undergoing regular checks). Prime Minister Kan declares nuclear emergency, directing local residents in 3-kilometer radius of plant to evacuate. March 12 -- Kan inspects stricken plant. Radioactive steam is vented from No. 1 reactor's containment vessel. Hydrogen explosion rips No. 1 reactor building. Government expands evacuation zone to 20 km radius of plant. March 14 -- Hydrogen explosion rocks No. 3 reactor building. No. 2 reactor's fuel rods are exposed as water recedes inside reactor vessel. March 15 -- Kan scolds Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) officials at company head office. Explosion is heard near suppression chamber of No. 2 reactor's containment vessel. Explosion is also heard at No. 4 reactor. Government directs residents in 20-30-km ring of plant to stay indoors. A tsunami crests the embankment of the Heikawa River in Miyako, Iwate Prefecture, before sweeping into the city on March 11. (Mainichi) March 16 -- Damage is feared to have been done to No. 3 reactor's containment vessel, forcing workers to retreat. March 17 -- Ground Self-Defense Force helicopters drop water on No. 3 reactor building. Fire engines spray water from ground. March 18 -- Nuclear safety agency gives crisis involving Nos. 1-3 reactors preliminary value of Level 5 on nuclear accident scale of 7. March 19 -- Tokyo firefighters spray water at No. 3 reactor. Government announces detecti

The Tennessee Valley Authority continues its way on a troubling path of the unknown with nuclear power plants. Given all the potential ramifications of flaws at any nuclear power facility, the public has good reason to question the path taken by TVA. Among the most recent concerns about TVA operations are questions about the design for potential new nuclear reactors at the Bellefonte nuclear power site near Huntsville, Ala. TVA is seeking a license to build a plant based on a new design, the AP-1000 Westinghouse, but environmental groups say while the licensing process goes forward changes are being made to the design. Advertisement TVA insists the changes in the design are only peripheral to the basic plan. Design changes include changes to the pressurizer; changes in the seismic analysis involving rock and soil conditions; changes in instruments and a redesign of fuel racks. Advocates of the licensing process say the design changes at issue are only the kinds of items that can be carried easily on a parallel track with the application process. The basic design is said to be a simpler version of a nuclear reactor. The design is significant because if and when it is approved for Bellefonte, it streamlines the process for other plant sites that might want to build on a Bellefonte model.

Let's get serious about the risks of nuclear power. Utahns are quite familiar with the problems of nuclear waste. But now we are confronted with a proposal to build a nuclear power plant in our state. Not so fast. A Government Accountability Office report this month found that after three decades, nuclear power plants have yet to comply with fire-safety rules. Fires at nuclear power plants are potentially disastrous. This lax regulation is frightening.

There are two million high-level radioactive fuel bundles sitting at temporary storage sites in Canada, as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization wrestles with the mandate of finding a community to host a central storage facility for the waste for perhaps tens of thousands of years. More than 120,000 high-level radioactive fuel bundles are stored at the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant in New Brunswick. (Canadian Press)More than 120,000 high-level radioactive fuel bundles are stored at the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant in New Brunswick. (Canadian Press) Throw in the fact that the cost of storing this nuclear waste could be up to $24 billion - a figure that will likely rise - and environmental groups are dead set against a central facility, and it shapes up to be a challenge of colossal proportions. The process of finding a site to bury the high-level spent fuel has dragged on for decades as reactors keep churning out more spent bundles.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Tuesday U.S. plans for a missile defense system were the main obstacle to reaching a new deal on reducing Cold War arsenals of nuclear weapons. World | Russia The two largest nuclear powers say they are close to agreeing on a successor to the 1991 Strategic arms Reduction Treaty (STarT I), although U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have yet to clinch a deal. Asked by a reporter what the biggest problem was in the talks, Putin said: "What is the problem? The problem is that our American partners are building an anti-missile shield and we are not building one."

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Tuesday U.S. plans for a missile defense system were the main obstacle to reaching a new deal on reducing Cold War arsenals of nuclear weapons. World | Russia The two largest nuclear powers say they are close to agreeing on a successor to the 1991 Strategic arms Reduction Treaty (STarT I), although U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have yet to clinch a deal. Asked by a reporter what the biggest problem was in the talks, Putin said: "What is the problem? The problem is that our American partners are building an anti-missile shield and we are not building one."

It's not too early to think about what needs to be done in 2010 NewYearResolutiuon1 Claims that one will turn over a new leaf in January, via new year's resolutions, often get a bum rap. For example, will you go to the gym and lose all extra pounds gained during the holiday season? Usually, the rap is deserved because our good intentions fade by the time the Superbowl game hits the TV. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. As someone who spends a fair amount of time thinking about the future of the nuclear energy industry in the U.S., I've organized my thoughts to describe what I think are four key priorities, or new year's resolutions, for 2010. In short, these are my proposals for new year's resolutions for the U.S. nuclear industry. Critics of the nuclear industry are focused on fault lines

It's not too early to think about what needs to be done in 2010 NewYearResolutiuon1 Claims that one will turn over a new leaf in January, via new year's resolutions, often get a bum rap. For example, will you go to the gym and lose all extra pounds gained during the holiday season? Usually, the rap is deserved because our good intentions fade by the time the Superbowl game hits the TV. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. As someone who spends a fair amount of time thinking about the future of the nuclear energy industry in the U.S., I've organized my thoughts to describe what I think are four key priorities, or new year's resolutions, for 2010. In short, these are my proposals for new year's resolutions for the U.S. nuclear industry. Critics of the nuclear industry are focused on fault lines

In late 2009 Indonesia revived a proposal to build a nuclear power facility on the seismically active Muria Peninsula of north central Java over sustained civil society opposition including the voice of moderate Islam. The following assessment by Richard Tanter, arabella Imhoff and David Von Hippel poses a range of issues about siting decisions in light of state-society relations and nuclear power feasibility. The issues are as relevant to mature democracies as to "emerging democracies," as Indonesia is now sometimes styled. Muria poses formidable challenges to Indonesian democracy while posing equally important questions about the nation's developmental trajectory. The siting of airports, dams, and nuclear power plants, are all examples of major siting decisions and contestations. As Daniel Aldrich observes in Site fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West (Cornell University Press, 2008), even within democracies, some targeted communities have low potential for resistance. More generally, he terms siting decisions targeting vulnerable social elements, as "public bads," as opposed to "public goods," the latter conferring public benefits. Rather than neutral technocratic grounds, he shows, official frequently single out localities with weak civil societies for controversial siting decisions. Moreover, coercive measures are frequently employed, as opposed to incentive packages such as those frequently cited in the NIMBY literature. Only intense societal resistance obliges the state to adopt soft solutions.

In late 2009 Indonesia revived a proposal to build a nuclear power facility on the seismically active Muria Peninsula of north central Java over sustained civil society opposition including the voice of moderate Islam. The following assessment by Richard Tanter, arabella Imhoff and David Von Hippel poses a range of issues about siting decisions in light of state-society relations and nuclear power feasibility. The issues are as relevant to mature democracies as to "emerging democracies," as Indonesia is now sometimes styled. Muria poses formidable challenges to Indonesian democracy while posing equally important questions about the nation's developmental trajectory. The siting of airports, dams, and nuclear power plants, are all examples of major siting decisions and contestations. As Daniel Aldrich observes in Site fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West (Cornell University Press, 2008), even within democracies, some targeted communities have low potential for resistance. More generally, he terms siting decisions targeting vulnerable social elements, as "public bads," as opposed to "public goods," the latter conferring public benefits. Rather than neutral technocratic grounds, he shows, official frequently single out localities with weak civil societies for controversial siting decisions. Moreover, coercive measures are frequently employed, as opposed to incentive packages such as those frequently cited in the NIMBY literature. Only intense societal resistance obliges the state to adopt soft solutions.

A former federal energy regulator, environmentalists and others asked Florida leaders today to delay their pursuit of nuclear power in light of lower electricity demand and the rising costs of building new reactors. A Southern Alliance for Clean Energy meeting on the issue comes days before the Public Service Commission will vote on whether FPL and Progress Energy can pass to customers the incremental planning costs of four new nuclear reactors that are estimated to cost up to $35 billion and are awaiting state and federal approvals. Utilities have pushed for expanding nuclear energy because once reactors are built, they provide a relatively cheap, long-term source of energy that doesn't release greenhouse gases and also saves customers money by protecting them from fluctuating fuel costs. Nuclear energy makes up a fifth of the power produced by FPL at a fraction of the cost of other power sources.

A former federal energy regulator, environmentalists and others asked Florida leaders today to delay their pursuit of nuclear power in light of lower electricity demand and the rising costs of building new reactors. A Southern Alliance for Clean Energy meeting on the issue comes days before the Public Service Commission will vote on whether FPL and Progress Energy can pass to customers the incremental planning costs of four new nuclear reactors that are estimated to cost up to $35 billion and are awaiting state and federal approvals. Utilities have pushed for expanding nuclear energy because once reactors are built, they provide a relatively cheap, long-term source of energy that doesn't release greenhouse gases and also saves customers money by protecting them from fluctuating fuel costs. Nuclear energy makes up a fifth of the power produced by FPL at a fraction of the cost of other power sources.

Reportlinker.com announces that a new market research report is available in its catalogue. Nuclear Energy Report, ed.2, 2009 http://www.reportlinker.com/p0109389/Nuclear-Energy-Report-ed2-2009.html Nuclear power is on an ascendant path, after years of stagnation. The environmental fight against fossil fuels is heating up. As informed people start to ask questions about what renewables will be able to achieve, nuclear power is re-entering the picture. The report looks at the global nuclear energy market, past, present and future. It also looks at the countries now considering Nuclear Power, including those considering it for the first time and several countries which are reinstating its use. This report provides country profiles of nuclear use and future plans, statistics of nuclear energy and power, the nuclear fuel cycle and supply, the safety and environmental issues and the history and economics.The nuclear power utilities and nuclear power manufacturing companies are as listed as are the international associations and organisations. The Nuclear Power Report provides a global overview and comprehensive data.

Reportlinker.com announces that a new market research report is available in its catalogue. Nuclear Energy Report, ed.2, 2009 http://www.reportlinker.com/p0109389/Nuclear-Energy-Report-ed2-2009.html Nuclear power is on an ascendant path, after years of stagnation. The environmental fight against fossil fuels is heating up. As informed people start to ask questions about what renewables will be able to achieve, nuclear power is re-entering the picture. The report looks at the global nuclear energy market, past, present and future. It also looks at the countries now considering Nuclear Power, including those considering it for the first time and several countries which are reinstating its use. This report provides country profiles of nuclear use and future plans, statistics of nuclear energy and power, the nuclear fuel cycle and supply, the safety and environmental issues and the history and economics.The nuclear power utilities and nuclear power manufacturing companies are as listed as are the international associations and organisations. The Nuclear Power Report provides a global overview and comprehensive data.

How Tax Codes Negatively Distort Our Energy Choices Tax codes are often written to support national goals, above and beyond mere revenue generation. This is often called "social engineering" although an engineer might not recognize it as such - By Joseph Somsel - The U.S. tax code is a marvelous and impressive intellectual structure. As an engineer I took a business class in taxation for corporations while getting my MBA. Engineering is the art of extracting utility from first principles of science and combining it with hard-won practical experience. I found, to my frustration, that taxation is not like that. Taxes are whatever Congress and the IRS say they are, logic or principle be damned. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." - Chief Justice John Marshall

How Tax Codes Negatively Distort Our Energy Choices Tax codes are often written to support national goals, above and beyond mere revenue generation. This is often called "social engineering" although an engineer might not recognize it as such - By Joseph Somsel - The U.S. tax code is a marvelous and impressive intellectual structure. As an engineer I took a business class in taxation for corporations while getting my MBA. Engineering is the art of extracting utility from first principles of science and combining it with hard-won practical experience. I found, to my frustration, that taxation is not like that. Taxes are whatever Congress and the IRS say they are, logic or principle be damned. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." - Chief Justice John Marshall

The Sept. 16 headline on Vermont Yankee is wrong. The correct version should be "Vermont Yankee Radiation Not OK." There are vast amounts of verifiable information that children are highly susceptible to radiation and the truth of this issue is that it is about health. Photos of Yankee's plant failures are scary and the thought of 20 years added on to this plant's existence is not good. Waste from nuclear power plants is dangerous. Where does it go? Vermont Yankee presents many dangers now and in the future and is a risk not worth taking. Renewable energy is possible and practical.

The Sept. 16 headline on Vermont Yankee is wrong. The correct version should be "Vermont Yankee Radiation Not OK." There are vast amounts of verifiable information that children are highly susceptible to radiation and the truth of this issue is that it is about health. Photos of Yankee's plant failures are scary and the thought of 20 years added on to this plant's existence is not good. Waste from nuclear power plants is dangerous. Where does it go? Vermont Yankee presents many dangers now and in the future and is a risk not worth taking. Renewable energy is possible and practical.

Not only does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) objection last week to major problems in the AP1000 reactor design call into serious question the future of over half of proposed new reactors in the United States (14 of 25), it also means that it would be "grossly imprudent" for the Department of Energy (DOE) to proceed with its plans for loan guarantees for new reactors that are not finalized and licensed. Four experts delivered that stern warning during a news conference today urging the DOE to halt controversial plans to issue nuclear loan guarantees "soon," according to Energy Secretary Chu. These guarantees are part of the DOE's Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program. Two of the four new nuclear projects that the DOE is reported to be considering for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are AP1000 designs proposed by the Southern Company at the Vogtle site in Georgia and the South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) V.C. Summer site.

Not only does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) objection last week to major problems in the AP1000 reactor design call into serious question the future of over half of proposed new reactors in the United States (14 of 25), it also means that it would be "grossly imprudent" for the Department of Energy (DOE) to proceed with its plans for loan guarantees for new reactors that are not finalized and licensed. Four experts delivered that stern warning during a news conference today urging the DOE to halt controversial plans to issue nuclear loan guarantees "soon," according to Energy Secretary Chu. These guarantees are part of the DOE's Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program. Two of the four new nuclear projects that the DOE is reported to be considering for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are AP1000 designs proposed by the Southern Company at the Vogtle site in Georgia and the South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) V.C. Summer site.

The UK nuclear safety regulator (HSE's ND), the French nuclear regulator (ASN), and the Finnish nuclear regulator (STUK) are currently working to assess the EPR Pressurised Water Reactor. In carrying out individual assessments, we have all raised issues regarding the EPR Control and Instrumentation (C&I) systems, which the proposed licensees and/or the manufacturer (arEVA) are in the process of addressing. Although the EPR design being developed for each country varies slightly, the issues we raised with the current C&I system are broadly similar, our aim being to collectively obtain the highest levels of safety from the EPR. The issue is primarily around ensuring the adequacy of the safety systems (those used to maintain control of the plant if it goes outside normal conditions), and their independence from the control systems (those used to operate the plant under normal conditions).

The UK nuclear safety regulator (HSE's ND), the French nuclear regulator (ASN), and the Finnish nuclear regulator (STUK) are currently working to assess the EPR Pressurised Water Reactor. In carrying out individual assessments, we have all raised issues regarding the EPR Control and Instrumentation (C&I) systems, which the proposed licensees and/or the manufacturer (arEVA) are in the process of addressing. Although the EPR design being developed for each country varies slightly, the issues we raised with the current C&I system are broadly similar, our aim being to collectively obtain the highest levels of safety from the EPR. The issue is primarily around ensuring the adequacy of the safety systems (those used to maintain control of the plant if it goes outside normal conditions), and their independence from the control systems (those used to operate the plant under normal conditions).

"Nuclear workers honored" (Oct. 31) was a nice article about a celebration of former nuclear plant workers who worked and sacrificed themselves to clean up the nuclear waste sites from the Mallinckrodt chemical plant in the St. Louis area. There are still nuclear waste sites today in St. Louis that are being cleaned up by the U.S. army Corps of Engineers. The sites are in the downtown St. Louis area, a north St. Louis County site and several St. Louis County sites. There is one nuclear waste landfill site that is not being cleaned up: The West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton. It is in the flood plain of the Missouri River and near the drinking water intake plants for St. Louis north of Interstate 70 and the city of St. Louis.

"Nuclear workers honored" (Oct. 31) was a nice article about a celebration of former nuclear plant workers who worked and sacrificed themselves to clean up the nuclear waste sites from the Mallinckrodt chemical plant in the St. Louis area. There are still nuclear waste sites today in St. Louis that are being cleaned up by the U.S. army Corps of Engineers. The sites are in the downtown St. Louis area, a north St. Louis County site and several St. Louis County sites. There is one nuclear waste landfill site that is not being cleaned up: The West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton. It is in the flood plain of the Missouri River and near the drinking water intake plants for St. Louis north of Interstate 70 and the city of St. Louis.

The nuclear industry could be on the verge of a major expansion just as the government cancels a plan to store the waste. Where's it going to go? BAY CITY, Texas (CNNMoney.com) -- At a Texas power plant, two men in head-to-toe yellow jumpsuits are perched above a pool filled with still, crystal-clear water -- and nearly 20 years worth of nuclear waste. The 40-feet deep pool, about the size of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, is the current home to thousands of uranium-filled fuel rods -- the radioactive byproducts of a nuclear reactor. The men are using a robotic arm to position the rods sitting at the bottom of the pool. Pools such as this one are a temporary solution to a very long term problem: the hotly contested debate over what to do with the country's nuclear waste.

The nuclear industry could be on the verge of a major expansion just as the government cancels a plan to store the waste. Where's it going to go? BAY CITY, Texas (CNNMoney.com) -- At a Texas power plant, two men in head-to-toe yellow jumpsuits are perched above a pool filled with still, crystal-clear water -- and nearly 20 years worth of nuclear waste. The 40-feet deep pool, about the size of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, is the current home to thousands of uranium-filled fuel rods -- the radioactive byproducts of a nuclear reactor. The men are using a robotic arm to position the rods sitting at the bottom of the pool. Pools such as this one are a temporary solution to a very long term problem: the hotly contested debate over what to do with the country's nuclear waste.