Demolish Nuclear Facilities and Support Facilities, Rem

Presolicitation: Demolish Nuclear Facilities and Support Facilities, Remediate Waste Sites, Remediate Contaminated Groundwater

$1,635,000,000


Project Type:	Presolicitation
Project Owner:	US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office
Location:	Washington, United States, Benton (WA), Richland (WA), Hanford Works (WA), 99352
Estimated Value:	$1,635,000,000
Estimated Jobs:	N/A - Congressional Budget Office As compared with 17822 - White House Council of Economic Advisors
Category:	Hazardous Substance Removal and Disposal, Demolition, Salvage, and Excavation
Market Sector:	Federal
Publication Date:	04/02/2009
Description:	FEDERAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY SPENDING. Richland Operations Office ($1.635 billion) - Demolish nuclear facilities and support facilities, remediate waste sites, remediate contaminated groundwater, and retrieve solid waste from burial grounds. Accelerate cleanup of facilities, waste sites, and groundwater along the Columbia River to support shrinking the active area of cleanup at the 586-square-mile Hanford Site to 75 square miles or less by 2015.

Vote on this Project

Here is what 975 people think:

64.2% - Worthwhile (626 Votes)

72 - Energy Efficiency
258 - Environmental
202 - Long-Term Value
94 - Short-Term Value

35.8% - Unnecessary (349 Votes)

116 - Fraud/Abuse
77 - Not Competitive
156 - Too Costly

Comments (120)

Add New Comment

Veerendra Lingam

Jan-08-2010 08:22:56 AM

The amount of money we are going to spend to reduce/contain the environmental damage done by Nuclear Reactor and its waste is money better spent on fostering and pushing solar, wind and water energy, which might be expensive in R&D and initial setup but will have lowest total cost of ownership over next 100 years in terms of actual cost and damage to the land. This money needs to be spent as we have created the problem and it must be fixed... but for the future please don't.

Keep it Real

Dec-29-2009 10:57:32 AM

Not perfect, but better than the traitors that just left.

jimboatlarge

Nov-26-2009 06:03:55 AM

Oh, by the way, how can you call this an administration? More like a denofthieves.

jimboatlarge

Nov-26-2009 05:55:19 AM

I beg your pardon, steve, this administration is as transparent as it's fearful leader----you can see right through it.

jimboatlarge

Nov-26-2009 05:50:41 AM

YOU want to SPREAD THE WEALTH? Give this little tidbit to YOUR poor. Then buy your brother a new shack and let him spread the hazardous material on his acreage.

ROBERT CANNATA

Nov-19-2009 11:29:05 AM

HAVING WORKED IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AT HANFORD, AND OTHER FACILITIES, AS EARLY AS 1966 I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS THE ORIGINAL MONEY PIT!! WE STARTED WORK ON THE WASTE PROBLEM AFTER THE NEWS MEDIA EXPOSED THEIR COVER-UP ON THE LEAKING TANKS IN 1973- WE FOUND LEAKS IN 1966. TYPICAL OF THE INDUSTRY, IT HAS SPENT 40 YEARS JUST WASTING OUR MONEY RATHER THAN FIXING THE PROBLEM. GRANTED THEY DON'T GET THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST SINCE THE WORK IS SUCH A BOONDONGLE ! I HAD TO LEAVE....

curiousk

Nov-19-2009 10:44:18 AM

Our leaders who make decisions for us should be reading our comments! They would know exactly how to vote for what we do and don't want. I'm loving this website. It gives me ideas. Wouldn't it be great if WE THE PEOPLE could decide where the money goes by reading the project proposals first then voting, let's say, on a website like this? We have the technological means for the people to make decisions for ourselves again, why not let us?

Steve

Nov-19-2009 10:10:36 AM

Love it or hate it. The Obama Administration is as open and as transparent as any Admin in history. USN CPO(active) served in 1st Gulf war under George H.W., Bosnia under Clinton, Afghanistan under George W. & Obama.

Bruce

Nov-19-2009 11:09:31 AM

Reply to Steve : He is transparent on what he wants you to know! Keep drinking the Kool-Aid!

thePrince

Nov-25-2009 08:26:30 PM

Reply to Bruce : Replt to Bruce...please start thinking outside the TEACUP. Atleast drink Green Tea

MVP

Nov-19-2009 08:57:31 AM

It is a very good project no doubt about it. However, were are all these hazarous materials are going to be dump?

Nov-19-2009 08:36:42 AM

hmm, Tri-cities, google map the site once, it's massive. Lets not forget about the base in Hermiston, OR incinerating the contents of the bunkers, or so called incineration. Boardman bombing range just south of both sites. People draw a triangle and clean it all up, it's a ticking time bomb. The water, soils and the farming, the wine you drink, wheat, potatoes and onions are right there!!!

Gramma V

Nov-15-2009 11:52:25 AM

It is a time to finish what should have been done years ago. There has always been disagreement about the danger to people and animal life in that area. Like I heard a worker from that area some time ago. "So what if the rattlesnakes now glow in the dark, the politicians aren't out here at night anyway."

LeifIV

Nov-13-2009 01:43:37 PM

I have to agree that this is one of the few projects listed on recovery.org, that I agree with. Any location that has contamination due to a pre-existing nuclear facility should be remediated with federal dollars...I mean just the health hazard involved could be tremedous--not to mention the environmental impact. It is ashame that we can't build certain facilities without foreseeing future impacts...thus, avoiding spending a tremendous amount of money years down the road.

Elektrikle Enjinear

Nov-12-2009 01:06:50 PM

So nuclear energy saved how much in electrical costs over coal and other sources? ... And now we are going to pay for the clean up! We should have spent that kind of money earlier on solar and wind power ... then we might be farther ahead now!

Another enjinear

Nov-12-2009 08:12:03 PM

Reply to Elektrikle Enjinear : Mr.Electrile, Please look in the title of the project. Is about uranium enrichment facility. This was used to produce material for the bombs. Blame it on the cold war "heroes"! We got enough uranium for energy. What we don't have is a good administration to finally use the Nevada disposal, so we can build some more nuclear plants, for the oil independence and CO2 emissions decrease. Besides, this would employ thousand of Americans in good jobs, instead of buying solar equipment in Foreignesia.

ROBERT CANNATA

Nov-19-2009 11:31:59 AM

Reply to Elektrikle Enjinear : WE NEED NEVER MADE IT PAST THE MODEL A, TOO USE AN ANALOGY, TO THE ADVANCED BREEDER BECAUSE OF THE CORRUPTION AND INCOMPETENCE IN THE INDUSTRY AND THE GOVERNMENT!!

James

Nov-11-2009 08:42:06 PM

Please tell me how the site is going to be "cleaned up", when the waste will still be there; it can't be moved off site. Yah, yah, I know that the Columbia River Basin will be safer. NV took big $$$ for Yucca Mt., now Harry doesn't want to take delivery of the goods he contracted for. Well over $1.5b for half a fix sounds like good money after bad to me, just down the big ol' black rat hole again. Give me nuclear with its problems, solar and wind aren't anywhere near viable yet.

PETC

Nov-11-2009 11:14:07 AM

I find it hilarious that Nuclear Energy is (while not a PERFECT option) one of the best options to decrease our dependency on fossil fuels as MUCH more energy per gram can be extracted from a piece of uranium than a piece of coal, yet we are dismantling nuclear plants instead of building more of them. Once again ignorance triumphs over common sense.

Greg Sherman

Nov-11-2009 11:23:02 AM

Reply to PETC : First of all, the reactor is a research reactor, not a commercial power plant reactor. it hasn't been used in over 10 years. It costs us taxpayers as much as 40 million a year to keep it in "standby mode". The Bush administration concluded the DOE "had no use for the research reactor". The Clinton administration came to the same conclusion.

Duane Weisenhaus

Nov-11-2009 01:56:11 PM

Reply to PETC : reply to PETC: First of all you are clueless as to what this project is about. This is the demolition and cleanup of the aging plutonium procession facility used to build the US nuclear arsenal. It has nothing to do with nuclear power. Secondly, commercially produced nuclear power, after being in existence for over 50 years, still does not have a long-term protocol to handle the highly radioactive waste. Wind and Solar are the future with global conversion feasible by 2050.

Nov-11-2009 02:35:40 PM

Reply to Greg Sherman : Assuming the 40 mil per year is actually spend to keep it up, the cost we are enduring is at least 40 years worth of production.. That is taking away jobs for 40 years.. yeah, makes sense..

Bryan S

Nov-11-2009 06:56:31 PM

Reply to PETC : This reactor site has been underfunded for decades. As others have said, this is not a power site. Containers in the ground have been leaking radioactive sludge towards the Columbia River for years. This area is nothing but a giant Superfund site now.

Former TriCitian

Nov-15-2009 12:23:36 PM

Reply to Bryan S : Nothing about Hanford has ever been underfunded. The funds have been wasted and misused to create thousands of unnecessary jobs so that people can sit on their arses or better yet, run sideline businesses on the side while "on the job" at Hanford! They hire a crew to do some contstruction only to realize that they accidently built near the habitat of some puny, unheard of animal or plant that might be endangered in 500 yrs. $2.5 mil wasted.

dr. bob beverly

Nov-11-2009 06:27:28 AM

Pj your right you do need people that can think, I guess that leave you out as well. it seems you can only talk, and talking would not get the job done.

PJ Thornton

Nov-11-2009 08:11:58 AM

Reply to dr. bob beverly : O.K., I get it, *I'M* the idiot, despite all evidence here to the contrary. Natch. Got it. Thanks so much for your insightful analysis. Now you can feel free to go botch a surgery or prescribe the wrong medication.

Smarter than a doctor

Nov-11-2009 08:39:36 AM

Reply to dr. bob beverly : Dr. Bob, I had to post to correct your grammar since you are telling people they are an idiot. You should have said you're instead of your, probably slept through English classes huh? What kind of doctor are you anyway?

dr. bob beverly

Nov-11-2009 06:27:07 AM

Pj your right you do need people that can think, I guess that leave you out as well. it seems you can only talk, and talking would not get the job done.

PJ Thornton

Nov-11-2009 08:05:29 AM

Reply to dr. bob beverly : Could you repeat that please?

PJ Thornton

Nov-11-2009 08:06:10 AM

Reply to dr. bob beverly : Thank you.

dr. bob beverly

Nov-11-2009 06:27:04 AM

Pj your right you do need people that can think, I guess that leave you out as well. it seems you can only talk, and talking would not get the job done.

dr bob beverly

Nov-11-2009 06:26:33 AM

Pj your right you do need people that can think, I guess that leave you out as well. it seems you can only talk, and talking would not get the job done.

dr bob beverly

Nov-11-2009 06:25:45 AM

Pj your right you do need people that can think, I guess that leave you out as well. it seems you can only talk, and talking would not get the job done.

dr bob

Nov-11-2009 06:25:35 AM

Pj your right you do need people that can think, I guess that leave you out as well. it seems you can only talk, and talking would not get the job done.

dr, bob

Nov-11-2009 06:25:10 AM

Pj your right you do need people that can think, I guess that leave you out as well. it seems you can only talk, and talking would not get the job done.

dr. bob beverly

Nov-11-2009 06:17:31 AM

I will take the job, I can use an extra 1.635 billion. Hell i will hire ilegal's to clean up the mess which is highly toxic, maybe some will become radio active and glow, so when they return to what ever country they came from and try and sneak back in we will be able to spot them from their glow. the problem is I probably can't quailify for the job, I'm to old 61, over qualified, though I need the job., but sure could use some of that stimulas money right now. God Bless all

PJ Thornton

Nov-11-2009 06:21:15 AM

Reply to dr. bob beverly : I wouldn't hire a person such as you, period. I need people who can THINK.

dr. bob beverly

Nov-11-2009 06:41:33 AM

Reply to PJ Thornton : Of course you would not hire a person like me, I'm to far advanced in your thinking ability, thats the problem with people like you, you sit aroud and just think, and then talk about what it is you were thinking about. thinking and talking will not get the job done, try WORK the only thing that will get any jod done. You might consider a little less thinking and talking.

tom

Nov-11-2009 06:13:31 AM

They should be building a new nuclear facility there

PJ Thornton

Nov-11-2009 06:17:44 AM

Reply to tom : I agree, but that doesn't mean the mess from the old one can be left as is.

Kenneth King

Sep-04-2009 01:31:47 AM

Whiners. Whiners.Whiners. Squealing bunch of mambi pambi whiners. That's right. To anyone that says it costs to much. That's the same argument that kept these messes from being taken care of in the first place. Guess what. The price won't ever go down. It's a pleasant change to see someone with the balls to do what needs to be done. Whiners, get off the computer do something constructive!

clint

Nov-11-2009 08:17:10 AM

Reply to Kenneth King : this clean-up was already paid for 10 years ago u r being charged twice for the sama clean-up

Jim Jares

Aug-27-2009 09:04:27 AM

I agree water & ground clean up is necessary. My question is what nuclear facilities are they going to destroy? Isn't nuclear power supposed to be clean energy?

PJ Thornton

Nov-11-2009 06:14:07 AM

Reply to Jim Jares : You've never heard of Hanford? You better read up on your history, pardner.

Mr Boondogle

Aug-01-2009 03:32:31 PM

Can I put this waste in your backyard ???? Better yet let's shoot it into outer space for this price!!

downwithwashington

Sep-24-2009 10:50:57 AM

Reply to Mr Boondogle : Mr. Boondogle, For 1.6 billion you can put this waste in my back yard. One million $ max for a big lead box covered in concrete. Project done! 1.599 billion for me!!

Carlos

Jul-31-2009 03:56:01 PM

I sincerely hope some of the stimulus money goes somewhere besides the nuke spill cleanup industry.

Interested Dave

Jul-30-2009 08:31:46 AM

Ok, and once again I just have to point out that this project is not about some ill-conceived boondoggle project that will only benefit a governer's personal contractor friends and maybe a heavily donating union or something like that- THIS project is about cleaning up radioactive waste and cleaning up contaminated water. Regardless of your politics, this simply has to be done. Or when your kid is born with a flipper and three eyes do I say "I told you so"?

Seabee Tim

Jul-31-2009 06:15:04 AM

Reply to Interested Dave : OK, I agree, water should be clean and free of radioactive contamination. $1.635 billion??? If it was my money I'm betting I could get it done cheaper--oh, wait, it is my money...huh..

Richard

Aug-02-2009 09:09:19 PM

Reply to Interested Dave : Don't worry Dave if any kids are born with a flipper or two that will be handled under the next boondoggle "Universal Health Care"

Interested Dave

Aug-03-2009 08:44:31 AM

Reply to Richard : If you're lucky. If I said we needed 2 billion dollars for a missle wold yo be so reluctant? I doubt it. We need a serious recalibration of our fiscal perspective in this country don't get me wrong. It jsut seems strange how violently opposed to cleaning up radioactive waste people seem to be just because some guy on the radio told them to hate the president...what happened to this country?

Former TriCitian

Nov-11-2009 08:03:59 PM

Reply to Interested Dave : The problem is that all of the money is going to go to waste paying bloated salaries to project managers who sit and do nothing all day except hire more idiots to do nothing. The money that is flushed down the toilet daily at a place with no source of income, is one of the biggest scams ever. The whole project relies on the fact that they'll never clean up the mess. If they did, Richland would become a ghost town.

Former TriCitian

Nov-11-2009 08:08:29 PM

Reply to Seabee Tim : The job should be turned over to a privately owned company that gets paid only when the job is done on time and on budget. Letting the government attempt to do the work is not the most financially or timely efficient way to do anything! Our tax dollars have been wasted there since the 1950s and will continue to be wasted for years to come because that's how our government rolls.

Realist

Jul-25-2009 10:09:03 AM

Unfortunately it does not matter what the people think, because the government is going to do what it wants regardless of the comments posted on this website or on any website. We vote and hope for the best. While it is important to discuss these issues in the marketplace of ideas, there is still only so much influence we can have over government activities such as this stimulus. All we can really do is wait until we can look in retrospect, where some people willbe able to say, "I told you so."

Engineer

Jul-20-2009 09:01:21 PM

It is an expensive project with ambitious goals. But there are many scientists/engineers ready to go to work, they just needed some additional funding. There is a lot of good information out there about the cleanup at Hanford. The Department of Energy is making a great effort to inform the public and clean up their mess. Check out www.hanford.gov

Interested Dave

Jul-21-2009 10:27:50 AM

Reply to Engineer : Thanks for the level-headed and informative response.

Interested Dave

Jul-15-2009 01:05:25 PM

And again I think it's worth mentioning that we're talking about cleaning up nuclear waste. This project has to happen.

MIKE

Jul-16-2009 09:26:59 PM

Reply to Interested Dave : Reply to all concerned. We are talking about cleaning up liquid Nuclear Waste from leaking tanks. That have been leaking for years into the Columbia River. This is not Nuclear Power plant waste, it is from WW2 weapons. Why not spend some of the money that the state waste on Professional Sports in Seatle on cleaning up the other side of the same state. On the other hand the weapons that were built here are why you all are free and can comment on this website. Pick your battles smartly.

Interested Dave

Jul-20-2009 12:52:37 PM

Reply to MIKE : Hi Mike. Good points. I'm not sure if it is 100% WW2 weapons cleanup, but either way the bottom line is that this just HAS to get done. Aside from jobs and a boost to the local economy...

SC Civil Engineer

Jul-21-2009 09:41:15 AM

Reply to Interested Dave : Why was it not important enough to get done and paid for before the stimulus money was available? 1.6 billion sure is a lot of federal tax dollars for this project and I wonder how much of that money will be wasted by the government...

Former TriCitian

Nov-11-2009 08:22:22 PM

Reply to Interested Dave : Yes, it needs to happen, but it does not need to cost as much as it already has and will continue to cost. The amount of wasted tax dollars could have bought and paid for the clean up several times over and turned it into a river so clean you could drink from it! Just because a project is necessary and worthwhile does not mean that we need to allocate basically unlimited funds to do it. And, $5 says that they'll spend it all and still not get it right. That's job security!

robertd

Jul-12-2009 05:54:11 PM

Ok Think about this... If I give you a million dollars and you give me a million dollars, is this country any better off? It is only from selling accross boarders that a country can become better off. This whole recovery thing is a waste and useless. Unless we promote companies that bring money into the US to pay these bills, its just camoflage...

Kevin

Jul-13-2009 11:29:02 AM

Reply to robertd : According to Adam Smith if I pay somebody to do what they are good at and some one pays me to do what I am good at then we are all better off. If getting money in from overseas by trade was so great then the Japanese would live like Kings and we in the US would be in the outhouse. As for the project I will miss the warm glow I detect from residents of Washington State when this is all cleaned up.

Rick

Jul-11-2009 04:55:18 AM

Pork Barrel rides the waves again. Let them clean up their own mess. Our country has enough major problems, other than foolishly spending money that dosent help the economy of all the people....Not just some of the people

Jul-18-2009 12:23:53 PM

Reply to Rick : Rick, This was not our mess, or even the state of Wa. mess. It is the mess left from the creation of plutonium by the federal gov. That plutonium was used to create the nuclear bombs used in world war 2 over Japan. Whether you agree with the use of the bombs or not, the mess was created by the federal gov. They left the mess and need to clean it up!

Albert

Jul-21-2009 10:14:06 AM

Reply to AJ : AJ, what was used on Japan was a hydrogen bomb, not nuclear. Basically, they were giant sticks of dynamite. If there is nuclear waste to be cleaned up, it did not come for WW2 era bombs.

Former TriCitian

Nov-11-2009 08:16:34 PM

Reply to Rick : So you're going to give Richland, WA sole credit for ending WWII? Cause that's what generated all the waste. Richland did not ask to be chosen. The government came in and stole the farms and homes of people living in White Bluffs so that they could build the bomb. These people were paid less than pennies on the dollars and forced from their homes. The Tri Cities did not ask for this mess.

Allen

Nov-11-2009 08:41:57 PM

Reply to Albert : Albert is a dunce. Check your history books numbskull. The whole Hanford area was a secret military base during WW II and they produced plutonium for years. The place is a mess with people downwind suffering from radiation exposure even now. It was radioactive iodine I believe. Unvoftunately they've already spent billions with nothing to show for it. The fraud and corruption at Handord is staggering. Ever hear of cost plus. It's a reward for doing nothing. If you work you get fired

Tri-Citian

Nov-15-2009 02:23:16 PM

Reply to Albert : Albert, the bombs that were used on Japan were, in fact, atomic bombs, not hydrogen bombs. Atomic bombs are composed of materials such as uranium and plutonium which were processed/produced at the Hanford site in the 40's, 50's and 60's. A process that resulted in much radioactive waste. There are many website dedicated to the history of the Hanford site and its contributions to this country's war efforts. Please feel free to read up on it.

Rick

Jul-11-2009 04:54:58 AM

Pete

Jul-10-2009 08:20:27 AM

For a $1.6 billion project it would seem reasonable to expect a better description of the project and why it is needed. My initial take was that it involved an electricity generating plant. It was only after reading the comments that I learned it is probably a nuclear weapons factory. I still don't really know. Also, I think the isssue raised in one of the comments about disposal of the contaminated materials is highly relevent.

Brian

Jul-11-2009 10:01:42 AM

Reply to Pete : The Handford site is where material for nuclear weapons was produced. Much of the waste that is left is in liquid form in tanks that are being used beyond their service life. The waste was a by product of separating the plutonium needed for the US nuclear arsenal. There are also some inactive reactors that are being closed/demolished, and one active power generation reactor. This cleanup work is very time and resource consuming because of all the safety and quality assurance requirements.

JustAGuess

Jul-08-2009 08:19:05 PM

My guess would be that these are not power plants, but facilities used to create nuclear weapons from the 50s and 60s.

Andrew

Jul-09-2009 12:52:26 PM

Reply to JustAGuess : that's correct, plutonium production reactors. They have all been cocooned are are more or less considered safeish at this point, cleanup and waste disposal operations started a long time ago and are continuing to this day. this would be additional funding for an in-progress program.

Interested Dave

Jun-30-2009 04:22:14 PM

So let me get this straight. You guys are against cleaning up nuclear waste? Just checking. Lots of jobs too, but the waste part seems like a pretty good idea to me. The jobs are just a bonus.

Over It

Jun-30-2009 06:14:01 AM

Crazy waste of money, this is "make work" to pretend they create work for thousands. What happens when the jobs are over - that 21,000 will be on the job market along with thousands of others from other make work projects causing a huge bubble all over again. Nearly 2 billion for this, give me a break! Government needs to stimulate small business to create jobs for life instead of making war on producers of jobs it should reward them

Sigurd

Jul-10-2009 06:49:18 AM

Reply to Over It : The idea is that when this work is over, the job market will have had some time to recover, and that some of those 21,000 who are back on the market will be able to find something to do. Of course, that remains to be seen, but it's the idea anyway.

Rick

Jul-11-2009 04:59:35 AM

Reply to Over It : Amen to your comment...You hit the nail on the head. Wish I would have said it. Thanks, "Over It""

Kevin

Jul-13-2009 07:20:33 AM

Reply to Over It : I'm sure the small businessess in and around the area are salivating right now in anticipation of this project. Did the men and women that found work during the Great Depression expect permanent employment from the projects that were created... I doubt it, but I'm sure they were permanently grateful.

fedup

Jun-25-2009 09:57:34 AM

Love the "estimated jobs" it creates - unfortunately they are not all "new" jobs for those out of work - the number includes those already employed in this field. Would like to see the real number of NEW employment opportunities.

Patrick

Jul-06-2009 02:45:12 AM

Reply to fedup : > the number includes those already employed in the field. If they will be employed directly by this project, they should count, whether or not they are already working.

Marshall Bronson

Jun-10-2009 08:29:43 AM

This project is years late in progress and hase incurred huge cost overruns, it also already employes sufficent workers. This is not an area to use stimulus funds.

William Wagley

Jun-10-2009 05:22:20 PM

Reply to Marshall Bronson : Ok so let me get this right. Mr. B. Hussein Obama our President says its ok for Iran and South Korea to have Nuclear stuff if its cool for power. But while here in the United States its bad and we are to have wind mills and solar panels to generate power because nuclear power is bad here. How stupid.

Terrance

Jul-22-2009 11:01:10 PM

Reply to William Wagley : Reply to W. Wagley : You make no valid point, and you clearly have no facts to support you. Clearly, the need to clean up 70 year old radioactive waste is lost on you with regard to the efficacy of nuclear power. We are rich with hydropower and other renewable sources. You mention Iran and South Korea - did you mean North Korea instead? At any rate - them using 'clean' nuclear power is certainly preferable to coal for power, or nuclear for weaponization. Try to educate yourself a bit more.

jms

Jun-04-2009 07:13:17 PM

Shouldnt we be building nuclear plants? When gas prices go back up this summer well be wishing we had.

Ian

Jun-08-2009 03:49:39 PM

Reply to jms : Thats not what this is. Thats nuclear energy. This is waste left over from WWII

Robin Berry

Jun-01-2009 12:54:18 PM

Since so much nuclear waste is now being shipped to China, who controls the pollutants drifting over US airspace from their unregulated sites?

Hank

May-29-2009 01:27:40 PM

If Yucca Mt was reopened to accept the radioactive waste then I would say that this makes sense. But if we are storing the waste at other temporary, vulnerable facilities as is the case with nuclear power plants rather then ship it to Yucca Mt because of an idiotic political fear to transport it (same containers that it was shipped in without any accidents), I am against it. This might be make work without permanent storage facilities.

Bob

Jun-09-2009 03:05:24 PM

Reply to Hank : Harry Reid has publicly stated that Yucca Mtn. will never open. And, the Obama Administration had included no money in the budget for Yucca Mtn. Billions of taxpayer $ to design and construct Yucca Mtn. have been wasted. No nuclear waste repository means no new nuclear energy plants - that simple.

nildesperandum

May-23-2009 05:04:33 PM

Over 21,000 jobs created in rural Eastern Washington sounds like stimulus to me. As for the claims that these jobs are "temporary," consider the marketability of an individual with waste removal, clean-up and remediation skills in a world full of toxicity. Not bad.

Nate

May-28-2009 09:33:52 PM

Reply to nildesperandum : 1.7 billion dollars for 700 jobs?? like Bob said 30 months is just a band aide not unlike giving Goverment Motors billions to cover payroll few a few more months then file bankruptcy. How is this infrastucture as well what benifit to the rest of us is moving this mess from one place to another.

Brandolon

May-29-2009 09:13:14 AM

Reply to Nate : 30 months will likely enable these workers to ride out the worst of the recession. Theyll be completely a task that needs to be completed and getting money to spend in their local economies in the process. Two things you and others are completely and ignorantly ignoring. 1st this not only creates jobs for the people doing the work directly but also at the companies that supply the materials. Second, with material costs ever increasing this project will ONLY be more expensive the longer we wait.

Shermann

Jun-09-2009 09:58:29 AM

Reply to Brandolon : Brandolon, it sounds like you have a great amount of faith this economy will get back on track with in the next 5 years. For our sake I hope thats right, but from where I stand whats comming is the largest bankruptcy in history and it wont be a company.

Eddie

Jun-10-2009 03:18:46 PM

Reply to Brandolon : 30 months from now, the govt jobs and any other construction contracts that commercial builders are currently building out will no doubt be completed. Commercial builders are not acquiring NEW contracts as of now. When the current projects are completed, employees will be getting laid off again, and the first to go will be the least experienced, ie. the people picking up jobs from govt work. Thats why this is a temporary fix, a band aid for a bigger problem.

Bob

May-23-2009 04:43:12 AM

They are going to use the money to make a few people a lot of money, and a lot of people a little money, and then after 30 months make a lot more people un-employed who might have had a job for ten more years, without the ARRA.

Tom

May-24-2009 07:04:53 AM

Reply to Bob : The DOE reports that the funds will employee 400 new employees and retain 300 current employees. The nature of construction is to complete the job, some thing these workers understand. Accerlerating the clean up will also sacve money due to less operation and maintenance costs. This is a good use of the funds.

SteveR

May-22-2009 02:28:20 AM

Id like to know more of the details. All of this waste has to go somewhere and have some form of disposition. What is the waste? Is it further processed or simply domped somewhere else. Etc.

JanCIAbaby

May-22-2009 10:33:21 PM

Reply to SteveR : They are going to use the nuclear waste to make a weapon or poison our own country and cause chaos. Then pass more socialist agenda. That is the real goal.

Tricity resident

May-29-2009 07:28:57 AM

Reply to JanCIAbaby : You dont know what youre talking about. Nuclear waste cannot be made into weapons grade plutonium. And cleaning up the cold war (waste) has nothing to do with socialism. Grow up!

Tricity resident

May-29-2009 07:29:15 AM

Debbie A

Jun-19-2009 10:55:23 AM

Reply to Tricity resident : Tricity resident: JanCIAbaby was jesting in her comment. Too bad you couldn't read that.

Roger

May-21-2009 09:52:00 AM

For years, there has been the "Super Fund" that was implemented to clean up sites related to nuclear energy. All the sites were then prioritized and, lo and behold, there was never enough $$ to cover the efforts. That pushed the list into the future... What is the rationale to now use TARP related funds to do what is the funded? responsibility of a government agency?

Garrett Fitzgerald

May-21-2009 10:03:14 AM

Reply to Roger : The same rationale as any of the recovery spending: put people back to work, and give them money to spend to help other people.

Las Vegas Patriot

May-21-2009 12:57:27 PM

Reply to Garrett Fitzgerald : Oh yeah...use tax payers dollars to pay someone to work just to take taxes out of their check to pay for someone else. And remember this is only a temproary job...what a "recovery."

Richard

May-28-2009 08:52:13 PM

Reply to Roger : Roger: This cleanup is for World War II ( and subsequent) Nuclear Bomb work that is long overdue to be completed. It is not related to Nuclear Energy.

Joe

Jun-17-2009 04:21:32 PM

Reply to Richard : Is this work already underway under contract with Bechtel? I guess the stimulus $ will accelerate the work, but 21K+ new jobs seems optimistic.

Debbie A

Jun-19-2009 11:00:11 AM

Reply to Roger : Roger : Agree 100%. I can not believe there will be 21,000 jobs. No Way!!!! Agree this is only temporary. I would like to know why I, who lives in another State is REQUIRED to pay for this???????? Any additional people hired for this job will for the most part be people who are qualified. No sceretarial job here ladies.

BernieM

Jul-12-2009 10:06:39 PM

Reply to Debbie A : So what if 21,000 jobs are not created. This is a project to clean up the environment which has been problem for quite some time. Saying why should I have to pay is narrow minded and self-centered. The clean up of the environment in every state is every American's responsibility.

Paul

May-21-2009 08:13:51 AM

How will this stimulate the local economy, and how many jobs are attached to the work?

Erin

May-29-2009 09:22:35 AM

Reply to Paul : Estimated Jobs: 21255

Bruster

Jul-20-2009 06:05:19 PM

Reply to Erin : ?? it says estimated jobs 17740 above. Plus - doesn't anyone here have a calculator? 1.6 billion for that many jobs is only 92k per person. So if this is for 30 months, they each get about 36k per year. And this leaves ZERO for equipment, materials, or anything else. Hmm....sounds like someone is really bad at math. And you wonder why govt wastes so much money.

Interested Dave

May-20-2009 11:20:24 AM

I hope that is enough money. Sounds like a mess. I doubt Ill be bidding on that. How does the twitter thing work? I dont get it. Cool features otherwise.

BernieM

May-20-2009 10:57:42 AM

Long over due, but see how successful it is though.

B C

May-20-2009 10:52:31 AM

About time.

frieda Berryhill

Jul-11-2009 04:16:19 PM

Reply to B C : They HAVE to clean it up, the stuff is leaking into the Comumbia River pretty soon..This is left over from the weapons progam. Just wait until all the nuke plant waste has to finally be cleaned and then tell me that nuclear power is CHEAP

Nancy Willing

Jul-11-2009 04:42:06 PM

Reply to frieda Berryhill : Frieda is correct. The costs of not cleaning it are disasterously high. The costs of nuke power include the waste and dealing with dead plants. You just can't leave nuclear contaminants in the environment.

Chris

Jul-13-2009 09:50:13 AM

Reply to Nancy Willing : Are we really arguing about whether or not cleaning up Nuclear Waste is a good and or needed thing? Isn't it time we as American's start to stand for what is right? When do I as a young American man get to see my brother's and sister's stand up for what is good for America's future? For to long I've watched American's do only what helps them, NOW. We need to start making decision's for the betterment of all of our future's, not just our own.

Chris

Jul-13-2009 10:07:38 AM

Reply to Nancy Willing : I don't care what State the clean up is in, it effects us all. To think it doesn't effect you every day, shows the ignorance and selfishness that has gotten the country to its current state. For example a national energy grid. We wouldn't need something like this if all 50 States shared in the burden of lowering our energy demand. But when you still have 45 States building to 1993 IES code(60% higher wattage per Sq Ft, than current code) what other choice do we have.

Chris

Jul-13-2009 10:14:28 AM

Reply to Chris : The only reason the States have not complied to a more recent IES standard, is because it is more costly to build and they don't pay as high a rate for their energy. However, their failure to comply has and will cost us all. Had they jumped on board 15 years ago, we may not be in the energy crunch we are in, needing all of these new energy plants and a national grid. Shouldn't we all share in the burden of providing our citizens with the bare essentials? Food, Water, Energy, Housing?

Chris

Jul-13-2009 10:21:46 AM

Reply to Chris : I'm sure some of you are thinking, NO. Why do I want to help California, New York, and Illinois with their power needs? Think of the ways these States help you? Remember that nearly 60% of all of the Federal Taxes are collected from 7 States. None of these people in these States get to chose where their tax dollars are spent. And yes they are redistributed to all 50 States, so their dollars go to help build your roads and infrastructure. Like or not we are all connected and effected.

Non-Recovery Funded Projects in Benton County

Village Park Water System and Street Improvements
Location:	Prosser, Washington
Industry:	A/E - Clean Water/Wastewater, A/E - Surveying and Mapping, A/E - Transportation

Second Generation Mobile Radiation Detection and Identification System (MRDIS)
Location:	Richland, Washington
Industry:	Safety and Fire Protection Equipment, Homeland Security

NRDA Injury Assessment Plan Phase II
Location:	Washington, Washington
Industry:	Not available

Automate an Enterprise Services Catalog
Location:	Richland, Washington
Industry:	IT - Information Systems Consulting

Design/furnish Hvac Units and Rooftop Air Handling Units
Location:	Kennewick, Washington
Industry:	A/E - Mechanical / Electrical

Mailing Service
Location:	Kennewick, Washington
Industry:	Printing and Mailing

UNMANNED SURFACE (MARINE) VEHICLE
Location:	Sequim, Washington
Industry:	Not available

Recent Recovery News

Tuesday, 09 Feb 2010 07:47:30 PST

Penn. seeks 5 pct-plus tax on shale gas output - Reuters

Tuesday, 09 Feb 2010 07:47:30 PST

Pa. Gov proposes gas-drilling tax in FY11 budget - Reuters

Tuesday, 09 Feb 2010 07:46:49 PST

Rendell's $29 billion budget lifts 74 sales tax exemptions - Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Tuesday, 09 Feb 2010 07:46:07 PST

Stimulus funds expected to prevent layoffs at Northwest College - Powell Tribune

Tuesday, 09 Feb 2010 07:40:35 PST

Riding The Rocky Recovery - Forbes

Recovery.org on Twitter

follow me on Twitter

Onvia.com | Contact Us | Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy. | Economic Recovery Glossary