[NukeNet] Will U.S. become world's nuclear-waste dump?

[Karen Orr]

from the February 28, 2008 edition - 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0228/p03s03-uspo.html


  Will U.S. become world's nuclear-waste dump?


    Critics say a plan to import up to 20,000 tons of low-level waste
    from Italy, the biggest import ever, could lead to even larger flows.

By Mark Clayton 
<http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CDE1F2EBA0C3ECE1F9F4EFEE&url=/2008/0228/p03s03-uspo.html> 
| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

The federal government is weighing a Utah company's request to import 
large amounts of low-level radioactive waste from Italy - a step critics 
say could lead the United States to become a nuclear garbage dump for 
the world.

If approved, the company would ship up to 20,000 tons of metal piping, 
sludge, wood, contaminated clothing, and other mildly radioactive 
material from Italian nuclear-power plants to Tennessee, process most of 
it, then dispose of the remainder in Utah. It would be by far America's 
largest import of nuclear waste.

The proposal, which entered a 30-day public-comment period on Feb. 11, 
is gathering opposition from environmentalists, regulators, and 
congressmen. It would not only pave the way for more such imports, 
critics say, but also give nations less incentive to take care of their 
own nuclear waste.

"If this massive quantity from Italy is accepted, it just blows the 
doors wide open for nuclear waste to come in from all over the world," 
says Tom Clements, Southeast nuclear campaign coordinator for Friends of 
the Earth, an environmental group in Washington. "The NRC [Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission] has an obligation to deal with the waste 
generated in this country first and not accept foreign waste that fills 
up existing sites."

Critics misrepresent how much material would be ultimately disposed of 
in Utah, counter officials of EnergySolutions, the Salt Lake City 
company proposing to import the Italian waste. Most material would be 
recycled or incinerated in Tennessee. Just 8 percent of the original 
volume would travel to Utah, the company wrote in a letter to the NRC.

"EnergySolutions does not believe the United States should be 
responsible for the world's nuclear waste," company spokesman Mark 
Walker writes in response to e-mailed questions from a reporter. But as 
reliance on nuclear power grows worldwide, "the US is in a leadership 
role to provide technical solutions."

Whether such imports will become a regular practice remains a question. 
The company "has no plans" to open its Utah disposal site "to wholesale 
disposal for the world's nuclear waste," Mr. Walker writes. But in a 
recent prospectus, the company envisions "specialized decommissioning 
and disposal services" for Europe and the United Kingdom.

Only 10 of 18 nations surveyed by the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) last year have disposal options for low-level nuclear waste and 
none has options for all classes of such waste.

Critics say import regulations are weak because Congress never foresaw 
that the US would import large volumes of radioactive waste. "There is 
no indication in [legislative action or NRC regulatory action] that 
there was any intention that the United States would ever become a 
welcome repository of foreign-generated radioactive waste," Rep. Bart 
Gordon (D) of Tennessee, chairman of the House Committee on Science and 
Technology wrote earlier this month in a letter to Dale Klein, NRC 
chairman.

While the US has long permitted low-level radioactive waste imports, 
most have been small compared with the EnergySolutions request. Of 24 
such waste-import license applications over the years, NRC records show 
13 granted, according to an analysis by the House committee. The 
EnergySolutions plan is 25 times bigger than the largest import from 
outside North America, that analysis shows.

EnergySolutions says its plan is not out of line with past licenses. The 
company cites a 2006 license to import 6,000 tons of waste from Canada - 
about one-third the size of its Italy request.

Yet the Italy proposal would be "the first attempt by a US waste 
processing company to import large amounts of [low-level radioactive 
waste] as part of an agreement to decommission foreign nuclear 
reactors," Representative Gordon writes. If granted, "many other such 
license applications will follow" rather than forcing nations to deal 
with their own waste.

That could be a problem, since the space available in US low-level waste 
sites would fill up in the long run if the US nuclear industry expands, 
as many expect.

"The uncertainties surrounding disposal costs and availability and other 
limitations in [low-level radioactive waste] management are taking on 
even greater significance as the United States embarks on developing new 
nuclear power plants, which would eventually create even more" low-level 
waste, the GAO reported last year.

At present, the US has 104 commercial nuclear power plants each 
generating on average about 12,000 cubic feet of low-level nuclear waste 
- about 15 million cubic feet annually, the GAO says. The US has three 
facilities that accept the least-toxic "Class A" radioactive waste.

But the site in Barnwell, S.C., is nearly full and in June will be 
closed to waste from all but three states. The site in Richland, Wash., 
is accepting only limited amounts. That leaves EnergySolutions' site at 
Clive, Utah, which took more than 99 percent of the nation's low-level 
waste in 2006. There appears to be "sufficient disposal capacity" for 
"Class A" waste, but "uncertain future access" for other categories, the 
GAO says.

Walker says the EnergySolutions facility has "at least 20 years of 
capacity" and that the Italian material represents less than 1 percent 
of the annual average amount disposed at the site.

While the NRC keeps an eye on disposal site capacity, Chairman Klein in 
a letter last month noted that the NRC's environmental and public-health 
review of the application to import Italian waste "is limited to 
ensuring that the import and transportation of the waste to the disposal 
facility is conducted safely" and that other regulatory limits for the 
facility "will not be exceeded."

Even so, the NRC has sought details about material to be imported and 
assurances that it will meet US standards for low-level waste disposal. 
EnergySolutions, in a December letter, revealed to NRC that three of the 
eight Italy sites from which it expects to get material "may be 
comparable" to US Superfund sites, akin to sites identified by the US 
Environmental Protection Agency as among America's most toxic waste sites.

In the end, though, it is largely up to states to decide whether such 
shipments make sense for them, the NRC spokesman says.

"Is there a place willing and able to accept the material - that's where 
we consult the states in question, Tennessee and Utah," says NRC 
spokesman David McIntyre. "If the states say 'no,' we wouldn't let it in."

So far, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has not put a halt to the 
EnergySolutions plan. Yet concern seems to be growing in Utah, including 
the state's three-man Radiation Control Board, whose members are 
appointed by the governor. At its December meeting, two members 
expressed unhappiness with the Italian waste import plan. A statement by 
the board reflecting opposition to it is expected, some observers say, 
although it is unclear what effect that might have.

Activists are also ramping up calls for public opposition.

"We see this as the camel's nose under the tent," says Vanessa Pierce, 
executive director of Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, a coalition 
of environmental groups. "If we establish a precedent for importing very 
large quantities of foreign nuclear waste, we're going to make the US 
and Utah the dumping ground for the rest of the world."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and 
related links <http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0228/p03s03-uspo.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20080229/7112128a/attachment.html