Radioactive waste might move by way of portBy Tony Bartelme (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Italy would send 20,000 tons of radioactive waste through the ports of Charleston and New Orleans beginning next spring for burial in a dump in Utah under a proposal by EnergySolutions, the company that runs a radioactive waste landfill in Barnwell County. Some in Congress are questioning the plan, saying it's the first time a company has sought approval to import such a large amount of radioactive waste. EnergySolutions counters that other companies have imported radioactive materials before, and that the company can do it safely. According to applications to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EnergySolutions would ship up to 20,000 tons of radioactive waste from ports in Italy to Charleston and New Orleans. From there, the waste would be barged, trucked or put on rail cars and sent to a processing facility in Tennessee. After processing "for stabilization," the waste would be shipped to EnergySolutions' low-level radioactive waste landfill in Clive, Utah. In its application, EnergySolutions estimates that the imports would begin arriving in the spring of 2008 and involve about 200,000 cubic feet of material a year for at least five years. "That's a lot of waste," said Arjun Makhijani, executive director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nuclear watchdog group. He said 200,000 cubic feet is equivalent to 27,500 55-gallon drums. "I think this is a very big deal and deserves closer scrutiny. As far as I know, it's unprecedented for such a large amount to come to this country for disposal." In a letter Monday to the NRC, two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Ed Whitfield, R-Kentucky, noted that EnergySolutions didn't say in its application exactly where the radioactive waste will come from other than "reactors, fuel cycle facilities, research facilities, and material licenses or facilities equivalent to U.S. Superfund sites." Some of this waste arriving in Charleston and New Orleans could exceed federal radiation limits, requiring EnergySolutions to ship it back to Italy, Barton and Whitfield wrote, adding that the plan raises questions about the entire process of importing and exporting radioactive wastes. "Does the NRC allow radioactive waste to embark from a foreign country bound for the United States without a clear understanding of its exact type and composition?" the lawmakers asked in their letter. David McIntyre, a public affairs specialist with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the agency had yet to respond to the letter. He said the agency has received applications from companies wanting to import radioactive waste before, though he wasn't sure of the number and what volumes were involved. He said the agency will begin taking public comments on the EnergySolutions application soon, and that the permit process generally takes six months. In a statement, EnergySolutions said Tuesday that it's a world leader in the safe handling and disposal of radioactive materials, and that many companies import waste through U.S. ports. They cited licenses granted to companies that import uranium cylinders from England and radioactive items from France and the Czech Republic. The company's statement said the Italian waste represents 2 percent of what's being sent to two landfills. But the proposal comes at a time of dwindling disposal options in the United States. Starting next summer, the Barnwell landfill, one of three in the nation that accept low-level radioactive waste, will accept material from only three states: South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. "Given what happened to Barnwell, I'm not so sure the (NRC) is going to open the doors to low-level waste from overseas," said Mitch Singer, media relations manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an organization that represents the nuclear industry. If EnergySolutions gets its license, it's unclear where the materials would be unloaded in Charleston. The State Ports Authority's docks are off limits. "We don't handle any radioactive materials," said Byron Miller, the ports authority's public relations director. Shipments of that nature likely would be shipped through federal facilities, such as the Naval Weapons Station, or private terminals, Miller said. Staff writer Peter Hull contributed to this report. Reach Tony Bartelme at 937-5554 or tbartelme@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
|
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 14 comment(s)
|
Posted by Hey_U_Guys on November 21, 2007 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is absolutely crazy. Who thinks this is a good idea??? Besides Italy...
Posted by RTC on November 21, 2007 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The State Ports Authority's docks are off limits. "We don't handle any radioactive materials," said Byron Miller, the ports authority's public relations director. Shipments of that nature likely would be shipped through federal facilities, such as the Naval Weapons Station, or private terminals, Miller said.
Read the article!
They don't handle that type of cargo.
Posted by MHA on November 21, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The waste needs to be monitored before it hits our ports, but as long as it's low level radioactive waste, I think it's a good idea and a chance for some outstanding revenue for the ports.
Moving sealed containers full of low level radioactive waste is certainly safer than refueling nuclear reactors on ships and submarines and the old shipyard did that for decades without a single incident. Low level radioactive waste can easily be controlled, contained and shipped.
People freak out when they hear "radioactive waste". I worked in the nuclear industry for 20 years in direct contact with waste and water from nuclear power plants. I received MUCH less exposure in the twenty years that I do from one year of smoking my cigarettes.
We do need to ensure that everything is packaged properly and monitored properly BEFORE it hits our waters though.
Posted by MHA on November 21, 2007 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In order for the impact to be horrendous, you'd have to be dealing with highly radioactive waste. It would be almost impossible to create a truly hazardous situation using low level radioactive waste even if you intended to do so. It can be used to scare people, but it would be very difficult to actually cause harm. And again, we moved highly radioactive waste by rail cars for decades when the old shipyard was open. No incidents, no public concern and BIG money for the local community. I'm NOT advocating that we get in the business of moving high level waste, just stating that, if the low level waste is monitored before entering our waters, I don't think this is a bad deal.
Posted by ImplantedYankee on November 21, 2007 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless of the nature of the waste, I'd much rather see it buried in Utah than in the hands of a terrorist trying to make a dirty bomb.
Posted by MHA on November 21, 2007 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with that statement ImplantedYankee. Prior to 9/11, Italy didn't have the strongest anti-terrorist stance. They may be doing better now, but I still think its safer having the waste under our control.
Besides, I've been through Utah several times... a nuclear waste dump would be an improvement :)
J/K...
Posted by mytwocents_com on November 21, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Early. Call me uneducated because I have no idea about radioactive waste conversion into terrorist weaponry. It doesnt seem to logically make sense, so if someone is in the know please share how you make a bomb out of that stuff. Anyway, this sounds horrible and I think we have enough of our own waste. I dont think this is the type of import we need in a globalizing marketplace.
Posted by MHA on November 21, 2007 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The "Dirty Bomb" concept is to take bits and pieces of low level radioactive waste and package it around a regular bomb (of any type). When the regular bomb blows up, it would spread the low level radioactive waste over the debris field.
In reality, the fact that low level radioactive waste would be spread would be a minimal concern. The health risks would be VERY small. Terrorist rely on the scare factor though. Most of the public doesn't understand that low level radioactive waste is a very small health risk, so they would freak out. Of course, the media would play up the incident in order to increase sales and viewership.
To give you a comparison, one measurement of radiation exposure is millirem (mRem). In 20 years of working in nuclear power, the majority of my exposure was from low level waste and it totaled about 1200 mRem. Only one year of smoking cigarettes exposes you to roughly 5000 mRem and the cigarette smoke radiation is of a MUCH more damaging type in most cases. You also get radiation from bananas, cement, granite, lava rock, the air (radon gases)and of course the sun and X-rays.
Posted by devster on November 21, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh no! I have a banana on my desk. I better eat it.
Posted by mac0cm4 on November 21, 2007 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think we generate enough of our own nuclear waste, I don't understand why we're importing someone else's. It should be the responsibility for the originator to handle their own waste and not pass it along to someone else. If you cannot handle the waste then don't generate it.
Early - the public would likely never be told the times, dates, and locations of such shipments since that would compromise the safety and security of the shipment. The stuff that is already transported on the local roadways (I hope everyone is not so naive to think this sort of cargo doesn't already get shipped through the area) often has a checkpoint system that they have to call in at predetermined times. The checkpoints are classified/sensitive information and are not disclosed. Also they are generally escorted either by local law enforcement or by a hired security firm.
JohnQ - the article said it would be buried in Utah, not in SC. So your opinion about SC beind the dumping ground is not accurate.
Posted by misfit on November 21, 2007 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I support nuclear power, but let the profits go to the people who bear the costs:
If this material comes through the weapons station, how will this benefit the local economy? Will Goose Creek police have to provide security or escorts or road closings? If so, will Goose Creek be compensated? Will the residents be assuming risk? If so, will the residents be compensted? Will the Navy be compensated for any involvement?
My tax dollars pay for the infrastructure, and the police and the sailors, and any civil service personnel involved.
Seems to me, EnergySolutions uses public resources to make a buck. I am guessing this is very lucrative, but I am not sure the local economy benefits. I don't think EnergySolutions is based here. Do they even have an office here? Seems like the megabucks made off this deal will all go somewhere besides here.
I am below the knowledge barrier, (I have little money and no connections), so someone could certainly prove me wrong.
Posted by CHRISJIII on November 21, 2007 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let Italy bury its own waste in Italy!!!!!
Posted by MHA on November 21, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your questions are all valid misfit. I don't know those answers either. I doubt residents will be assuming any risks though.
Posted by PlutoBoy on November 22, 2007 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One positive thing about this proposal is that it starkly reveals that after all these years that the nuclear industry does not know how to deal with its own waste, always preferring to ship it long distances for dumping on others. Along these sames lines, watch for pressure in the state house for the Barnwell dump to reopen and for national plans by DOE to open a new dump for highly radioactive "low-level" waste (greater-than-class-C waste) at the Savannah River Site and or plans to bring spent commercial fuel for reprocessing (plutonium removal) at SRS or the old Barnwell reprocessing site (part of DOE's GNEP proposal). Draft EISs will soon be out on these latter two ideas. All of these loony programs will face rough sledding as South Carolinians are tired of being the dumping ground for the US. Enough is enough.