Keep nuclear waste on the surface, or buried underground? Hard choice?

It appears to be difficult for the Senate, where Republican South Carolina senator Lindsay Graham is proposing amending the law to allow the Energy Department to store radioactive waste in underground tanks rather than removing it from the area or initial radioactive activity to a secure storage facility:

Whoever wrote the provision, all sides agree it would have profound effects on future cleanup at the Energy Department's highly contaminated weapons plants. An aide to Graham said his measure would accelerate cleanup by removing ambiguity about which waste needs to be removed. The Energy Department has argued that it should be allowed to leave some residual waste in the tanks because the cost of removing it would far outweigh the benefits. Cement would be added to the sludge to stabilize it and prevent it from leeching into water tables. At Hanford, that could leave more than 35 million gallons of highly radioactive sludge and salt cake in the ground.
The Hanford nuclear weapons complex is among the most contaminated places on Earth, with large amounts of radioactive, chemical and mixed waste that were by-products of 50 years of nuclear weapons production. Cleanup costs are estimated at more than $50 billion.

What I question is the financial argument, though I disagree with holding waste on the surface also. Nuclear power was meant to be clean and cheap, whilst bombs were never going to pollute the atmosphere because they'd be a deterrent more than anything. Now, the only people nuclear is going to be a deterrent to is those wishing to visit former natural beauty spots, now transformed into waste dumps and sludge containers, not terrorists or cold war governments. You start out down the nuclear road and you have to accept that later on, there will be consequences, so deal with them and do it safely!

link - The Seattle PI