So the problem with OPs argument according to you is that (a) the liquid waste is compacted/dehydrated before storage(?) (so the volume comparison does not hold

So the problem with OPs argument according to you is that (a) the liquid waste is compacted/dehydrated before storage(?) (so the volume comparison does not hold), and (b) is less hazardous (spent fuel is harder to store) and (c) the handling of the waste is likely to result in some leaks. Or is (a) that the extra volume required to safely store spent fuel is larger than for this liquid waste? If it's true that the liquid waste need to be processed before storage, it seems to me to increase the risk of leaks during handling compared to spent fuel which is already concentrated(?)? IIRC spent fuel is already stored as very robust concrete slabs at the power stations. Nitpick: > The cost of the 2014 accident was expected to exceed $2 billion and disrupted other programs in various nuclear-industry sites.[44] On January 9, 2017, the plant was formally reopened after three years of cleanup costing $500 million, which is significantly less than forecasted Interesting: > The source of contamination was later found to be a barrel that exploded on February 14 because contractors at Los Alamos National Laboratory packed it with organic cat litter instead of clay cat litter.