More nuclear waste is on its way to San Juan County! And more is threatened---compliments of the waste dumps of New York and International Uranium Corporation. A classic government/corporate conglomeration. The situation is of even greater import than previously thought---the flood walls have broken.
Thousands of tons of radioactive waste, the dangerous residue from the construction of the first atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project, lies in the Tonawanda, New York dumpsites. This is the waste that was generated from the Hiroshima bomb which killed more than 200,000 people. The material is so hazardous that an environmental group (FACT) in New York had filed a federal lawsuit that raised questions about the clean-up project's safety.
The radioactive material, eventually is to be moved from a number of sites in New York. The initial ones are known as the Ashland 1 and Ashland 2 sites.
The uranium-bearing material in question, weighing about 25,000 dry tons, is located at the Ashland 2 site in the town of Tonawanda, New York. This was shipped first, much of it already having been delivered. In May 1998, the International Uranium Corporation requested an amendment to its existing NRC Source Material License, for approval for the acceptance of this Ashland 2 "alternate feed material" (i.e., mixed radioactive and chemical material other than natural uranium ore).
Envisioning millions of dollars in profit, International Uranium feverishly schemed to get this radioactive waste for storage and disposal at its White Mesa facility to the detriment of San Juan County.
The corporation is not without mystery. Its corporate structure is little known to us. When the company was asked at a recent Navajo Utah Commission meeting who ultimately owned the company and who its high ranking officers were, no answers were forthcoming.
In June 1998, the Army Corps of Engineers began a $38 million excavation and cleanup of the Ashland 2 material. The waste is placed in large containers and loaded onto flatbed railroad cars for the haul to Utah. The hazardous matter will then be hauled by truck from railroad sidings near Moab, Utah to the White Mesa mill. Some sixty truck loads of waste per week will pass through the towns of Moab, Monticello, and Blanding.
Much of the Ashland 2 material has already been stockpiled at the mill site. It will be processed alone or commingled with conventional uranium ores. But there are many questions to be investigated. The License Amendment had been quickly approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) without the necessary environmental review. There was a very short time, less than two months, between the time of the application and its approval.
The company had received approval from NRC to consider the radioactive waste as "ore" in order for the company to receive it. But only a small amount of uranium would be recovered and processed through its mill.
But here's the catch. The uranium mill was only designed to process and recover uranium from conventional-type ores. The acceptance and processing of these other alternate feed materials had not even been considered when studies were being conducted and plans made to build the processing plant.
This means that upon acceptance of the material, International Uranium, with NRC blessing and a cozy relationship, is performing "sham recycling" so it can store radioactive waste just as does northern Utah's Envirocare. The recoverable uranium content of the waste material can barely support the cost of recycling the waste as ore.
The primary goal then of International Uranium is to receive the disposal fee, millions of dollars worth, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which the corporation calls a "recycling fee." Some call it a corporate welfare grant. And others a bribe. The NRC approved the transaction, apparently politically motivated, in an unusually hurried order---even though in April 1998 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers directed this material to be excavated and shipped offsite for disposal at an "appropriately licensed" facility." The White Mesa mill has yet to be appropriately licensed.
So why did NRC decide to issue it? That is the question.
The NRC is mandated to approve license applications on the basis of a set of guidance instructions. This "guidance list" addresses ten items that must be evaluated before making a determination that such material can be disposed in a tailings impoundment. Among them are such issues as the radiological nature of the material, existing regulation of the material, the hazardous nature of the material, and a consideration of potential environmental impacts.
The NRC failed to fully follow these guidances in making this determination. It did not contact the State of Utah to determine if the state agreed to take title to the waste after closure. Not accomplished either was an evaluation of whether a waste "would be approved for disposal."
Dianne Nielson, the executive director of the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality, stated that a policy decision which shifts "reprocessing" to "waste disposal in disguise" will trigger several issues---including the need for a state sighting approval, a need for a license for waste disposal of these materials, the payment of appropriate waste disposal fees to the state, and the need for a state groundwater discharge permit." Pretty clear cut.
As the White Mesa mill has already been receiving alternate feed materials, legal or not, there is now increased interest by the nuclear industry across the nation to unload its dangerous stuff on facilities like White Mesa. Where will this ever stop? Is San Juan County now to be deluged with the nation's hazardous waste? Is it to become another Envirocare?
The revenue for accepting the waste for disposal or storage by the company has been estimated by some reviewers as upward to $1.00 per cubic foot of material. This equates to millions of dollars that go directly to International Uranium.
The company would be the winner, the county the loser. None of this revenue would go to the county even though it absorbs most of the costs of the impacts. And that radioactive stuff would sit there through the centuries, long after International Uranium ran away with its short-term gain.
Here it comes again! Now comes a new license amendment request from International Uranium with a new scheme. The company seeks the Ashland 1 material. Another windfall. But the public has geared up for this one, insisting that an environmental review be prepared. As no public comments on environmental matters were even asked for by the NRC before making its decision on the last license amendment, it is feared the agency might do the same on this one.
A new Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared, advocates say. There are so many new factors---environmentally, culturally, and economic---that have not been previously addressed.
Upon reading the initial EIS report, prepared years ago, I find it most revealing. The processing plant was to be built exclusively for the processing of uranium ores, not for storage purposes alone. Many environmental factors were not considered and important stakeholders were not involved.
There are many concerns and needs that must be considered.
Ground water is of instrumental importance. We need to know what chemicals and minerals are tested. Little or no modeling has been done to adequately demonstrate the protection of valuable groundwater.
The company has not obtained a Utah Groundwater Quality Permit. It refuses to obtain one. We need to know if leaks are possible and we need to know their possible long term impacts to downstream users at the communities of White Mesa and Bluff. This information should be open to the public. Similar operations, such as at Beatty, Nevada in 1994 and 1995, had leaked and this information had been concealed from the public. So let us be wary.
We need to know what leachate detection systems are in place, how often they are monitored, and a record of their results.
We need to know the effect on drinking water from pollution sources. The Ute people at White Mesa already need to carry water from Blanding for their own personal use. Testimony shows that the quality of their water is already bad.
And along with this, we need to know the hazards of blowing winds that carry chemically-coated sand and dust from the dump site to the communities of San Juan County.
We need to know just how often NRC and State regulators are to be on the site to inspect the facility. We need to know just how this compares to the oversight responsibilities placed on Envirocare by NRC and the State. Will the White Mesa mill be regulated as tightly as Envirocare?
We need to know just how much money is in the surety and what the closure costs will be, and what is included when closure actually takes place. What will be the effect when International Uranium decides to run and leave us with the mess?
We need to know the rationale in opening a nuclear waste dump in such a spectacular region of the nation. This canyon country, a very special place, qualifies as a World Heritage site based on its natural and cultural heritage. Many business firms, dependent upon the naturalness and beauty of the region and the tourist trade, would be adversely affected.
We need to recognize the Navajo and Ute concerns. These people have been left out of the process even though they have inhabited the region for many hundred of years. Even the initial EIS did not consider these people's cultural needs. The cultures and antiquities of the more recent historic period were also not considered. Obviously, their needs and rights have not been met. There has been no environmental justice for them at all.
We need to determine to what extent cultural and archeological resources are threatened. The area, the White Mesa Archeological District, contains many burial sites and other sacred sites. Additional survey work needs to be done, and the effect on archeological sites need to be determined. The limited studies already done are not complete enough.
Because of the sacredness of these lands to the Indians, this area must be responsibly protected. As some excavations took place during earlier development, these sites are of immediate concern. The Avikan site, nearby, is a very spiritual place to many.
Transportation of toxic and radiological material is of high concern. As the region is not immune to accidents, several questions must be answered. We need to ask whether state trucking regulations are adequate in reducing spills on Utah's highways.
We need to determine whether there is an overabundance of these shipments through Grand and San Juan Counties now. In years ahead, such shipments may need to be further restricted or regulated. Emergency closures of traffic flow may be necessary along our narrow highway system. Ice and snow may be vital factors in winter months. The increase of truck traffic, intermeshed with increasing tourist traffic, will be a major problem especially for Moab.
There also is a need to place special identifying marks on all vehicles carrying toxic and radiological material as safety is of paramount importance. It needs to be determined whether emergency crews are available and are prepared to handle such accidents. The need to protect water sources and drainages are evident.
There are solutions.
The NRC should now intensively review the issuance of this new license amendment request.
We need to step back now and look at the situation under a new light. We need a moratorium on any further waste acceptance.
We need to analyze the cumulative effect and amount of radiological material and hazardous ores that have been shipped to the site since 1996. As citizens we need, and have a right to know, just how much of this matter has been processed each year and how much of that came from alternate feed materials. We need to know the remaining chemical and mineral makeup of the tailings.
There needs to be intensive discussion and study among all interested citizens and stakeholders before further licensing actions. The NRC and the State must assure us that they we will be fully informed before it permits the acceptance of any further waste materials.
We and the State must also question NRC on the appropriateness of allowing a company to review and decide on its own whether it can properly receive such materials, like a fox guarding the hen house. The NRC and the state should be the agencies to decide the matter -not the mill owners.
And International Uranium should be prohibited from receiving any more waste material until the NRC has reviewed its own past decisions. If it is shown that proper procedure was not followed, then the material already received at White Mesa should immediately be shipped to another site - a site that is appropriately licensed.
And above all, a new EIS needs to be completed. It's a matter of citizen rights and environmental justice.