By Meagan Villaneda
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, defends his position on nuclear waste saying press officials have misrepresented his position on bringing nuclear waste to Utah”s western desert.
A Salt Lake Tribune article dated Oct. 12 said Bishop is in favor of bringing “hotter” nuclear waste to Utah and then storing it at Envirocare, a nuclear waste storage company based in Tooele. However, Bishop said the waste coming to Utah is no hotter than the waste already contained at the Envirocare facility.
“We are not talking about bringing in ”hotter” waste,” said Scott Parker, Bishop”s chief of staff “It is no more radioactive than what already is handled in the state.”
The waste comes from Fernald, a former uranium processing facility in Ohio. Because the facility is under threat of closure from the Department of Energy, Fernald wants to transport the nuclear waste to Utah.
The waste was created before 1978, and under current regulations, it can”t be transported by rail, stored or handled commercially. Bishop said transporting the waste by train would be safer, and transportation and storage would probably be cheaper for taxpayers.
However, many Utahns, including Gov. Mike Leavitt, oppose Bishop”s attempts to bring the waste to Utah.
“I am not prepared to support the importation of waste that is any hotter than what we are currently talking,” Leavitt said in a news conference.
Leavitt added he opposes Bishop”s attempts at bringing “hotter” waste to Utah and will not support Bishop”s argument on the issue.
But Envirocare said the waste heading for Utah is classified as “natural waste,” which is less harmful than the man-made waste currently stored at Envirocare, said Betty Arial, spokesperson for Envirocare.
“It is basically the dirt and sand that”s left over after the uranium has been removed from the uranium ore,” Arial said.
She added Envirocare stores “hotter” man-made waste than that brought to Utah from Ohio”s Fernald Uranium processing facility.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an agency regulating civilian use of nuclear materials. The Commission does not have a classification for waste byproducts created prior to 1978.
Because the agency does not regulate the Fernald waste, it prohibits the waste shipment by rail and safe storage. The NRC is the only federal agency that can regulate “commercial” materials in disposal facilities such as Envirocare.
Bishop recently asked for a change in the energy bill that would create safer transportation of the waste and would save taxpayers money.
The Department of Energy has asked Congress to redefine the Fernald mill tailings as commercial so that commercial facilities such as Envirocare can bid on the disposal contract.
“Envirocare did not originate this change,” Arial said. “The change is necessary because of technical distinctions in federal law based on the age of low-level radioactive materials.”
Bishop said under the requested language change of the energy bill, the waste could be shipped by rail and stored safely at licensed facilities. This will represent cost-savings to U.S. taxpayers of several million dollars.
“If Envirocare is selected, the solidified tailings could be shipped by rail,” Arial said. “Instead of 3,800 truckloads, the material could be moved in about 27 trainloads, enhancing safety and saving U.S. taxpayers $30 million in transportation costs.”
