Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor... Your Nuclear Waste
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 03. 1.08
Image courtesy of Akuppa via flickr
The potential approval of a company's request to import up to 20,000 tons of low-level nuclear waste from Italy has raised concerns among a slew of environmentalists and regulators that the United States could eventually become the world's "nuclear garbage dump," the Christian Science Monitor's Mark Clayton reports. The proposal, currently being weighed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has stirred opposition from groups such as Friends of the Earth and powerful congressmen such as Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Image courtesy of Rich Clabaugh/DOE
EnergySolutions, the Utah-based company that has made the request, would first ship the 20,000 tons of radioactive waste - the country's largest such import - to Tennessee to be processed, after which it would be sent to Utah for disposal. Critics are worried that the NRC's approval would open the floodgates for similar requests, leading to other countries around the world queuing up to dump their waste in the U.S.; they argue that the NRC's primary obligation is dealing with the waste generated in and accumulated by domestic firms.
Predictably, EnergySolutions spokespeople have disputed the size of the dump, stressing that most of it would be recycled or incinerated in Tennessee; only 8% of the original volume would find its way to Utah. In the past, the U.S. has allowed the importation of small quantities of low-level radioactive waste - EnergySolutions' request is 25 times larger than the previous largest import.
Regulators such as Rep. Gordon argue that the government simply isn't ready to allow the importation of such large volumes, having failed to foresee the country's role as a "welcome repository of foreign-generated radioactive waste," he wrote in a letter to NRC's chairman. There are 3 nuclear facilities that currently accept the least radioactive "Class A" waste; at present, two have all but stopped accepting waste from other states, leaving Clive, Utah as the only site. It accepted more than 99% of the country's "Class A" waste in 2006, but, in a recent report by the GAO, was flagged as having "uncertain future access" for other waste categories.
Despite Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s implicit approval of the deal, there is growing unease among the state's regulators about the possible future influx of large amounts of nuclear waste. How this all ends remains to be seen; while Utah's Radiation Control Board is expected to release a statement opposing the deal, the NRC, under the current administration, is more likely than not to give the nod to EnergySolutions. We already generate more waste in this country in a few days' time than we know what do with; the last thing we need is radioactive waste from other countries.
Via ::Christian Science Monitor: Will U.S. become world's nuclear-waste dump? (newspaper)
See also: ::Nuclear Energy - Screwing US Taxpayers Behind The Scenes, ::Two Dem Front Runners Oppose Nuclear Waste Dump Site
"could eventually become the world's "nuclear garbage dump,"
Sorry, we already **are** the worlds dump. It can only get worse - many are calling for more nuke plants across the US for "clean" power.
BTW, the 'clean' parts can remain lethally radioactive for about 100 human generations. No thanks.
Given our place in the world with nuclear power, I think the United States is the perfect country to take the lead on dealing with nuclear waste. As long as we have the technology to safely store this stuff, it is completely acceptable for the world to send their nuclear waste to us. Of course, we need to get paid handsomely for the honor.
What are the alternatives? It is instinctual to get NIMBY, but the 20k tons needs to go somewhere. Perhaps EnergySolutions is the best candidate for responsibly processing this material.
The growing problem of nuclear waste removal only emphasizes the crucial importance of the new energy debate in the U.S.Congress. It must create a new energy policy based on renewable energy, eliminating tax breaks to the oil industries, incentives to promote conservation, and eliminating U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
The sad fact is that, even if renewable energy provides substantial amounts of baseload power in the future (which it should) we will still need a way to support the renewable plants with backup power and replace coal at the same time, which will undoubtley be done with nuclear power, especially in wealthy countries. (poorer countries will probably use sugarcane and switchgrass ethanol.)
Also, the process of burning coal affects the entire planet in a negative, irreversible way, while if a nuke reactor exploded, which is a highly unlikely occurence, it will only affect a small area of the world that can be cleaned up.
If none of this turns out to be true, there is still somethig out there called human nature that will most likely choose nuke power as the last second resort to save civilization instead of actually solving the climate crisis intelligently.
The point? Nukes will be in our future, whether we like it or not. And all that waste has to go somewhere.
"BTW, the 'clean' parts can remain lethally radioactive for about 100 human generations. No thanks."
We're talking about LLW here, not HLW or spent fuel.
testing...
testing...
As weird as this sounds, there's a method to the madness. EnergySolutions is one of the companies that's "hyping" nuclear reprocessing. Maybe they anticipate a demand in building more nuke plants and they just attempting to prepare their nuke dumps to use that waste.
@ Gerald Shields
Nuclear reprocessing would not affect any of the quantities of LLW produced. Spent fuel and LLW are entirely different, largely unrelated, products.
The waste from Italy is low level: probably tools, equipment and clothing used in reactors or processing facilities. The bulk of the material has no radioactivity, but has been used in an environment where it could be exposed. What material is radioactive will only be mildly so (thus the low level designation) and will need to be landfilled for a few decades at most.
I can understand the need of Italy to turn somewhere for assistance with high level radioactive waste. There are very few long term repositories and only one functioning permanent one that I'm aware of. But low level waste? They really need to deal with this stuff on there own. But then Italy seems to have a huge issue dealing with normal waste.
In regards to reprocessing, it will reduce the amount of high level waste that exists, but it will increase the amount of low level waste due to the need for handling material. If we move to reprocessing, which I think we must, we will need more capacity for low level waste disposal. EnergySolutions will probably be a big player in that market, so it makes perfect sense that they're trying to prime the pump with Italy's waste. I'd prefer we kept that capacity for our own needs, though.