Waste_Inbox

In an episode of "The Simpsons," nuclear power plant owner Montgomery Burns and his lackey assistant Smithers debate about where to put the latest batch of nuclear waste. After dismissing the playground, they go to the park and stuff a single barrel into a hollowed-out tree. Burns complains that the last tree, now glowing green, held nine drums.

OK, that makes the real life dilemma in the United States of settling on a waste plan look slightly better -- but only slightly.

As we detail in a series of stories in this issue, the situation is pretty much a toxic mess right now. The Obama administration wants to abandon the Yucca Mountain site, which has been the proposed repository for nuclear waste since 2002. Critics say by law he can't do that. A blue ribbon commission has been established to come up with an alternative, but a solution seems far away right now.

Currently the waste is kept at active nuclear reactors and decommissioned facilities. Storage at the inactive facilities cause some experts particular concern about those inactive plants, for security and economic reasons.

Reprocessing of nuclear waste would seem to have multiple environmental and economic benefits. But one official points out that currently reprocessing makes very little economic sense; it's just too costly.

Meanwhile, dangerous waste keeps piling up.

The opposition to Yucca Mountain essentially comes down to the "not in my backyard" syndrome. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm thinking no one's going to be thrilled to live next to the nation's nuclear waste dump.

Finland and Sweden have had some success with nuclear waste sites. Not surprisingly, surrounding communities were given ample economic incentives and environmental assurances.

The solution is probably going to cost a ton of money. Unfortunately, a ton of money already has been spent on Yucca Mountain. If a ton of money needs to be spent anyway, then the reprocessing alternative, attractive environmentally, should be given serious consideration.

Or find a site where the surrounding communities can be made as happy as possible. It won't be easy, but the government needs to learn from the enormous waste of time and money that's been invested so far.

Allan Gerlat is editor of Waste & Recycling News. Past installments of this column are collected in the Inbox archive.

w w w . w a s t e r e c y c l i n g n e w s . c o m