Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Mexico Nuclear Accident Ranks Among the Costliest In US History (latimes.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the rising-costs dept.

mdsolar quotes a report from Los Angeles Times: When a drum containing radioactive waste blew up in an underground nuclear dump in New Mexico two years ago, the Energy Department rushed to quell concerns in the Carlsbad desert community and quickly reported progress on resuming operations. The early federal statements gave no hint that the blast had caused massive long-term damage to the dump, a facility crucial to the nuclear weapons cleanup program that spans the nation, or that it would jeopardize the Energy Department's credibility in dealing with the tricky problem of radioactive waste. But the explosion ranks among the costliest nuclear accidents in U.S. history, according to a Times analysis. The long-term cost of the mishap could top $2 billion, an amount roughly in the range of the cleanup after the 1979 partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. The Feb. 14, 2014, accident is also complicating cleanup programs at about a dozen current and former nuclear weapons sites across the U.S. Thousands of tons of radioactive waste that were headed for the dump are backed up in Idaho, Washington, New Mexico and elsewhere, state officials said in interviews. "The direct cost of the cleanup is now $640 million, based on a contract modification made last month with Nuclear Waste Partnership that increased the cost from $1.3 billion to nearly $2 billion," reports Los Angeles Times. "The cost-plus contract leaves open the possibility of even higher costs as repairs continue. And it does not include the complete replacement of the contaminated ventilation system or any future costs of operating the mine longer than originally planned."

9 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. In need of a solution by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe they should just let these go to town on the cleanup?
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140909093659.htm

  2. What Envirmental Wacko caused it? by TimSSG · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the link "The problem was traced to material — actual kitty litter — used to blot up liquids in sealed drums. Lab officials had decided to substitute an organic material for a mineral one." Tim S.

    1. Re:What Envirmental Wacko caused it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speaking as an engineer, the number of headaches caused by people tasked with implementation making "equivalent" substitutions are outrageous. Some bean counter second guesses a line item somewhere, the inventory isn't on-hand to fulfill a customer need so the people who suffer negative consequences if the job isn't out the door decide to improvise.

      Maybe the purchasing agent couldn't buy the specified cat litter because it was back-ordered. It doesn't really matter. When you have unqualified individuals making deviations from the prescribed procedure: that is a management failure.

    2. Re:What Envirmental Wacko caused it? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's nested fail safes. The drum was never supposed to blow. But we knew that and if "never supposed to" meant "never" then you could just stack the drums on the surface. The point of digging it into a salt mine was that if the drum did happen to blow, it would be contained. It did and it was.

      It's like the difference between TMI and Chernobyl. TMI was built with nested failsafes. In fact the design assumed that the core would melt down and was designed to dilute the core to noncriticality, then spread out the molten stuff to cool it so it would not break out of the containment. That happened and that's why there was almost no external contamination.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. Reminds me of a crazy, hot girlfriend by millertym · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nuclear energy is the crazy hot girlfriend of energy. She may be nice, kind, and wonderful for days, months, or years - maybe decades. But someday, somehow, she's going to go berserk on you. 100% chance. And cleaning up the mess at that point will leave you with a very long term scar.

    1. Re:Reminds me of a crazy, hot girlfriend by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You get an economic benefit from mistreating and neglecting her. If she freaks out, you don't have to pay for the outcome, the federals do. Just look at japan, where tepco now got money from the government to clean up the fukushima mess. And in this case, the feds have to pay as well.

      So if there is no consequence to fear, why shouldn't you mistreat and neglect her?

  4. Apples to Oranges by atomicalgebra · · Score: 5, Informative

    It should be noted that the waste was from nuclear weapons production not nuclear power. It is disingenuous to compare them because they are not the same.

  5. Re:Need to compare on an energy generated basis by kelv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say the true decommissioning costs of these nuclear plants are built into the prices today? I don't think anyone can. We have properly decommissioned and cleaned up so few nuclear plants that all of the cost estimates I see have a massive risk of cost overruns associated with them. The unfortunate feature of such a long-lived asset and then waste stream is that it's very hard to price in the true cost and the community end up wearing the risk if these are miscalculated. I don't claim malice or conspiracy, just that pricing long term costs is really, really hard.

  6. Re:No, that can't be right by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not from nuclear energy. This waste is from our nuclear weapons program, so bill it against the DOD.