"Just a Pinch"

Crossposted from UNBOSSED

The head of Utah-based EnergySolutions ripped open a tiny salt packet and poured it into a 2-foot-tall vase half filled with red sand.
   The salt, CEO Steve Creamer said, symbolizes the amount of Italian radioactive waste the company wants to store in Utah, and the leftover foot of space represents the amount of storage space remaining.
   "Just a pinch," Creamer said Tuesday of the salt.

One-thousand, six-hundred tons is a bit more than "a pinch".

Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rep. Ed Withfield, R-Ky are working on a bill to block the importation of foreign radioactive waste to be stored in the USA...because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) wont. The legislation was heard two days ago before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

Utah Governor Huntsman has announced his opposition to the importation of the waste:

Italian waste will not be coming to Utah", says Bill Sinclair, Utah's representative on to a multi-state group on radioactive waste disposal

(The plan is part of a larger venture to import upwards of 20,000 tons of Italian waste to the USA for processing.)

Interestingly, the issue of importing foreign waste to be stored in the USA did not really break the surface.  The issue that concerned members most was that of space:

"Importing foreign waste reduces finite capacity," Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., argued. And "Congress needs to act to stop it."

104 American nuclear power plants deposit their waste at the Clive, Utah storage facility.  Most members were concerned that the Italian waste would eat up space for future American waste...and of course, Bush Administration officials tried to mislead the committee members:

Matheson pointed out, the investigator extrapolated from one of the lower disposal years, and that he made no allowance for what may happen if any of the 33 applications for new nuclear power plants get approved.
   "You didn't predict growth from those new plants?" Matheson asked.
   "That's correct," replied Gene Aloise, the director of the GAO's Natural Resources and Environment section in the Denver Field Office.

Shouldnt there be a disucussion on the merits and responsibilities of nation's to dispose of thier own waste?

The committee has yet to vote on the legislation.

•  Just a pinch...

  ...if you please.

  by environmentalist on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:49:15 PM PDT

  •  thanks for this diary

    I'll be watching to see how Representatives Gordon, Matheson, and Withfield progress with their important legislation.

    I hope that you'll continue to write about this.
    
    
    ````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:18:50 AM PDT

•  Ugh. Disgusting. How could anyone possibly

  think it's a good idea to dump tons of radioactive waste on our soil? Although, if they'd agree to dump it in KKKarl's house, I might almost be okay with it. Almost.

  by sricki on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM PDT

•  Don't know how to feel about this.

  On the one hand, I certainly don't want our soil polluted with nuclear waste. On the other, isn't the environmental health of our planet a global concern? After all, that's we're telling Brazil (in re the rain forest). And if it is, then those most able to absorb the waste from other countries should do so. Like it or not, nuclear energy is here to stay and something must be done with the waste.

  by Indexer on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:28:01 PM PDT

  •  I think you pose one of THE questions

    And I dont have an answer for you.  I personally do not support nuclear power.  I think it is expensive, dangerous and un-needed.  I am not convinced that it is here to stay.  That said, the waste that is already produced IS here to stay.  

    I still dont think we should be absorbing the waste that another nation chooses to produce just like I dont approve of other countries taking our waste.  We make it, we should have to deal with it. Being able to ship it off to another country doesnt push us towards a zero waste scenario in any way.

    by environmentalist on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM PDT

    •  The trend these days

      is that the best way to deal with radioactive waste is to store it on site, an area that is already contaminated. If you look around, you should find a number of scientific and policy papers that propose this as the best solution.

      by shirah on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:45:00 PM PDT

      •  I agree.

        Just the potential problems with transporting the stuff should be enought to scare the hell out of anyone!

        by environmentalist on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM PDT

•  Italians should keep their own waste -

  donchathink?

  by moose67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:07:46 PM PDT

•  Come on. Get a Life!

  When you really put this into perspective, say, within the volume of the entire universe, why, it's barely a nano-mole.

  Definitely of no concern.

  by shirah on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:43:11 PM PDT

  •  Then you wont mind

    keeping a bit of it in your basement, say....

    by environmentalist on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:53:41 PM PDT

•  NRC accepting public comments on this proposal

  Note, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is accepting public comments on EnergySolutions' proposal through June 10, 2008. Written comments can be submitted to  [e-mail] and should reference License Applications Nos. IW023 and XW013 (Federal Register Volume 73, Number 28, 2/11/08).

  For more background on the issue, see fact sheet at: http://www.nirs.org/...
  and/or contact Diane D'Arrigo at [e-mail]

  by nirsnet on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:19 AM PDT

  •  Just to be clear

    (since you don't have a hope of getting clarity from NIRS), unless your comments  to the NRC can demonstrate where EnergySolution's license application is defective and fails to meet a regulatory requirement (good luck with that given the State of Utah can't find anything), your comment will be duly noted, collated,  filed, and forgotten. If the NRC did anything else and denied the license based on "averse pubic opinion", EnergySolutions would file suit and win. If all you are going to do is vent your spleen, direct it at your congressional delegation instead.

    Jim Matheson and Bart Gordon can point fingers at the NRC all they want. That is how they avoid taking responsibility in the beltway. Congress defines the boundaries around which the various regulatory bodies operate, including the NRC. If Congress wants to redraw those boundaries based on the viseral reaction of the masses, fine.

    by Blubba on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:20:07 PM PDT

•  Atoms for Peace provided reactors worldwide

  In the 1950s the US fostered peaceful uses of nuclear energy (reactors to make medical isotopes, etc.) and helped countries with research and reactor fuel.  The US promised to take back the spent fuel.  Then we stopped doing that.

  Now, for security reasons, it looks like taking the civilian nuclear waste of other countries and putting it in deep geologic disposal or recycling it is a good idea.  The volume of Italian waste is extremely small. I would rather have it isolated and shielded in the US than carelessly guarded abroad.

  People who oppose nuclear power also tend to oppose solutions to storing nuclear waste.  So that presents a paradox.  It suggests that people want nuclear waste to remain in the biosphere where it is less secure.  Now, why would an environmentalist want to take that risk?

  Just for the record, the biggest avoider of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the world is nuclear power.

  by Plan9 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:22:14 AM PDT

  •  But

    People who oppose nuclear power also tend to oppose solutions to storing nuclear waste.  So that presents a paradox.

    To us, yes, but if your goal is to obstruct nuclear power at any cost, including compromising safety and environmental concerns, then it makes perfect sense.

    by bryfry on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:36:22 AM PDT