federal oversight of depleted uranium disposal is alarmingly lenient
Print Article: "Article Last Updated: 10/22/2005 02:49 AM
NRC reconsiders dangers of depleted uranium
The agency is told that the material is too dangerous for its classification
By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Is it safe to dispose of depleted uranium in places like Envirocare of Utah, where only low-level radioactive waste is allowed?
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's answer used to be an automatic "yes." But the federal agency this week appeared to stop taking it for granted that all depleted uranium deserves to be treated as Class A, the lowest category of low-level radioactive waste and the most hazardous type Envirocare is allowed to dispose of at its Tooele County landfill.
In a case involving a uranium enrichment plant proposed for New Mexico that has talked to Envirocare about taking its waste called depleted uranium, the federal panel opened the door Wednesday for two anti-nuclear groups to make the case that federal oversight of depleted uranium disposal is alarmingly lenient.
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Public Citizen say depleted uranium is 40 times more radioactive than typical Class A waste, four times more hazardous to people than certain types of plutonium and can only be disposed of safely deep underground. The groups say federal regulators should reject the notion that landfills like Envirocare are constructed well enough to secure the highly radioactive waste for thousands of years.
The case has long-term implications for Utah and Envirocare, which has accepted depleted uranium for more than a decade under its state license.
One of three U.S. disposal sites licensed for Class A waste, Envirocare has a good chance of landing the disposal contract for waste from the New Mexico plant, which is proposed by a U.S. and European consortium of nuclear companies called Louisiana Energy Services. The plant would generate 1 million 55-gallon drums of depleted uranium over 30 years.
The U.S. Energy Department also appears to favor Envirocare as the site for disposal of waste from three old enrichment plants (in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee) where depleted uranium has been piling up for decades.
Utah is affected because the state would have to reexamine its regulations. State regulations parallel the federal ones, and a change in how the federal government treats depleted uranium from enrichment plants might mean the state would not be able to allow any depleted uranium from enrichment plants.
Last winter, lawmakers banned waste hotter than Class A from coming into the state. Momentum grew for the ban after the U.S. Congress two years ago changed the labeling of highly contaminated radioactive waste to render it suitable for Envirocare, or one of two other commercial sites like it.
If the science has changed, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is rethinking its depleted uranium regulations, then they need to inform the state, said John Hultquist, who has oversight responsibility for Envirocare at the Utah Division of Radiation Control.
"Based on what we've done, that's how we interpret the rules, that it [depleted uranium] is Class A waste" and Envirocare can safely take it, he said.
Envirocare spokesman Mark Walker noted that the company had to perform an in-depth safety review during its licensing more than a decade ago.
"We had to demonstrate that we could contain it safely," he said.
The environmental groups adamantly disagree. They accuse the commission staff and Louisiana Energy Services of ignoring clear evidence that shows the dangers of the leftovers from uranium enrichment.
"The NRC staff is trying to pull a fast one on the public by saying, 'Don't worry, that's low-level Class A waste,' " said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear waste expert for the environmental groups. "Envirocare has been saying 'We're OK with this.' The [state] regulators are saying, 'We're OK with this,' "
High radioactivity is one sign of how dangerous depleted uranium is, says Makhijani. Class A waste generally allows each gram of waste to have 10 nanocuries of radioactivity, a standard measure of radiation concentration. But depleted uranium from enrichment plants generally has around 350 nanocuries per gram - 35 times more than typical Class A.
Another measure is dose consequences, or what it would mean if workers, intruders and nearby residents were exposed to the waste. Louisiana Energy Services and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff have based their dose estimates on calculations made by the U.S. Energy Department, which says that depleted uranium is well under the 25 millirem considered safe.
Makhijani says none of them has done the homework and the dose would be many times higher.
And he noted that depleted uranium gets even more radioactive over time, because the metals produced when it decays have a more destructive radioactive energy than uranium.
He applauded the commission's acknowledgement in its Wednesday ruling that, for "the uranium enrichment waste stream . . . no analysis was done."
Makhijani said his group alone has done the hazard-based analysis that is necessary to understand how bad the enrichment plant waste would be. He said Louisiana Energy Services should expect to spend at least $2.4 billion for deep burial, rather than a shallow landfill like Envirocare.
"It's a very good thing, what the NRC is doing, and they should be applauded for that," he said.
The commission did not return a call Friday seeking comment on the ruling.
Meanwhile, Louisiana Energy Services downplayed the hazard associated from the waste. Rod Kirch, the vice president of licensing, said the environmental groups have exaggerated the risks.
"This material is pretty benign," he said. "It has been handled for 50 years without trouble . . . it is Class A waste."
For Louisiana Energy Services the least expensive solution for the depleted uranium waste - at a cost of about $700 million - would be a proposed landfill just across the border from its Eunice, N.M., plant in Texas. But the state of Texas has yet to license that site.
Louisiana Energy Services abandoned plans to locate its plant in Louisiana after an outcry that it would put a too-heavy burden on the surrounding community, which has a large population of minorities.
A hearing is set for Monday in Washington, D.C., for the environmental groups, the company and the Louisiana Energy Services staff to make oral arguments on the environmental safety and the costs of the waste plan.
Envirocare opponents Jason Groenewold and Claire Geddes criticized a proposal, approved already by state regulators, to double the size of Envirocare's waste site - especially in light of the large quantity of LES's waste.
"The last thing Utah should do," they said, "is double the size of Envirocare's nuclear waste landfill when the nation is looking for a place to dump hundreds of thousands of tons of unwanted depleted uranium."
fahys@sltrib.com"
NRC reconsiders dangers of depleted uranium
The agency is told that the material is too dangerous for its classification
By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Is it safe to dispose of depleted uranium in places like Envirocare of Utah, where only low-level radioactive waste is allowed?
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's answer used to be an automatic "yes." But the federal agency this week appeared to stop taking it for granted that all depleted uranium deserves to be treated as Class A, the lowest category of low-level radioactive waste and the most hazardous type Envirocare is allowed to dispose of at its Tooele County landfill.
In a case involving a uranium enrichment plant proposed for New Mexico that has talked to Envirocare about taking its waste called depleted uranium, the federal panel opened the door Wednesday for two anti-nuclear groups to make the case that federal oversight of depleted uranium disposal is alarmingly lenient.
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Public Citizen say depleted uranium is 40 times more radioactive than typical Class A waste, four times more hazardous to people than certain types of plutonium and can only be disposed of safely deep underground. The groups say federal regulators should reject the notion that landfills like Envirocare are constructed well enough to secure the highly radioactive waste for thousands of years.
The case has long-term implications for Utah and Envirocare, which has accepted depleted uranium for more than a decade under its state license.
One of three U.S. disposal sites licensed for Class A waste, Envirocare has a good chance of landing the disposal contract for waste from the New Mexico plant, which is proposed by a U.S. and European consortium of nuclear companies called Louisiana Energy Services. The plant would generate 1 million 55-gallon drums of depleted uranium over 30 years.
The U.S. Energy Department also appears to favor Envirocare as the site for disposal of waste from three old enrichment plants (in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee) where depleted uranium has been piling up for decades.
Utah is affected because the state would have to reexamine its regulations. State regulations parallel the federal ones, and a change in how the federal government treats depleted uranium from enrichment plants might mean the state would not be able to allow any depleted uranium from enrichment plants.
Last winter, lawmakers banned waste hotter than Class A from coming into the state. Momentum grew for the ban after the U.S. Congress two years ago changed the labeling of highly contaminated radioactive waste to render it suitable for Envirocare, or one of two other commercial sites like it.
If the science has changed, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is rethinking its depleted uranium regulations, then they need to inform the state, said John Hultquist, who has oversight responsibility for Envirocare at the Utah Division of Radiation Control.
"Based on what we've done, that's how we interpret the rules, that it [depleted uranium] is Class A waste" and Envirocare can safely take it, he said.
Envirocare spokesman Mark Walker noted that the company had to perform an in-depth safety review during its licensing more than a decade ago.
"We had to demonstrate that we could contain it safely," he said.
The environmental groups adamantly disagree. They accuse the commission staff and Louisiana Energy Services of ignoring clear evidence that shows the dangers of the leftovers from uranium enrichment.
"The NRC staff is trying to pull a fast one on the public by saying, 'Don't worry, that's low-level Class A waste,' " said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear waste expert for the environmental groups. "Envirocare has been saying 'We're OK with this.' The [state] regulators are saying, 'We're OK with this,' "
High radioactivity is one sign of how dangerous depleted uranium is, says Makhijani. Class A waste generally allows each gram of waste to have 10 nanocuries of radioactivity, a standard measure of radiation concentration. But depleted uranium from enrichment plants generally has around 350 nanocuries per gram - 35 times more than typical Class A.
Another measure is dose consequences, or what it would mean if workers, intruders and nearby residents were exposed to the waste. Louisiana Energy Services and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff have based their dose estimates on calculations made by the U.S. Energy Department, which says that depleted uranium is well under the 25 millirem considered safe.
Makhijani says none of them has done the homework and the dose would be many times higher.
And he noted that depleted uranium gets even more radioactive over time, because the metals produced when it decays have a more destructive radioactive energy than uranium.
He applauded the commission's acknowledgement in its Wednesday ruling that, for "the uranium enrichment waste stream . . . no analysis was done."
Makhijani said his group alone has done the hazard-based analysis that is necessary to understand how bad the enrichment plant waste would be. He said Louisiana Energy Services should expect to spend at least $2.4 billion for deep burial, rather than a shallow landfill like Envirocare.
"It's a very good thing, what the NRC is doing, and they should be applauded for that," he said.
The commission did not return a call Friday seeking comment on the ruling.
Meanwhile, Louisiana Energy Services downplayed the hazard associated from the waste. Rod Kirch, the vice president of licensing, said the environmental groups have exaggerated the risks.
"This material is pretty benign," he said. "It has been handled for 50 years without trouble . . . it is Class A waste."
For Louisiana Energy Services the least expensive solution for the depleted uranium waste - at a cost of about $700 million - would be a proposed landfill just across the border from its Eunice, N.M., plant in Texas. But the state of Texas has yet to license that site.
Louisiana Energy Services abandoned plans to locate its plant in Louisiana after an outcry that it would put a too-heavy burden on the surrounding community, which has a large population of minorities.
A hearing is set for Monday in Washington, D.C., for the environmental groups, the company and the Louisiana Energy Services staff to make oral arguments on the environmental safety and the costs of the waste plan.
Envirocare opponents Jason Groenewold and Claire Geddes criticized a proposal, approved already by state regulators, to double the size of Envirocare's waste site - especially in light of the large quantity of LES's waste.
"The last thing Utah should do," they said, "is double the size of Envirocare's nuclear waste landfill when the nation is looking for a place to dump hundreds of thousands of tons of unwanted depleted uranium."
fahys@sltrib.com"
posted by Greta Jane at Monday, October 24, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home