While media and public attention has been focused the last six weeks on the Envirocare-Utah Radiation Control scandal, another major nuclear issue has been building all most unnoticed. During that time there have been two specific proposals made to establish an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in Utah. Such facilities have been proposed and endorsed by the federal government for the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power reactors. Potentially this could come not only from power generating reactors, but from research and naval propulsion reactors as well. Spent reactor fuel is by far one of the most highly radioactive and dangerous of all nuclear waste.
Under the government's concept a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility would only be used to store the spent fuel until a permanent high-level repository has been completed and is in operation. At that time all materials stored at the MRS would be removed and transported to the permanent repository. This temporary storage, if it stays only temporary, could last as long as 40 years. The main draw back to the MRS concept remains the fact that a permanent high-level repository, currently proposed for Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada, has not only yet to be built, but is only at the exploration and testing stage and is facing mounting opposition from Nevada and surrounding states. There is considerable doubt if it will ever receive final approval and be actually built. Because of this there is the possibility that an MRS/ISFSI could end up for all practical purposes a permanent disposal site.
The federal government's over all policy favoring the establishment of an MRS/ISFSI facility has been determined and guided much the same way its policies governing the disposal of low-level wastes have been -- sheer need-- need resulting from governmental procrastination in not developing and implementing a clear national policy on how to dispose of the wastes.
Nuclear reactors have been operating and generating high-level spent fuel since the dawn of the Atomic age in the early 1940s. Yet over 50 years later the government is still debating how and where they are going to be permanently disposed of. The high level of radioactivity present in the spent-fuel will require it to be removed and isolated from the environment for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. Yet in spite of this and in spite of the fact no final decision has been made in 50 years, the government has not only allowed, but has actively encouraged practices that have allowed, these wastes to accumulate and increase in volume each year.
The problem of what to do with spent reactor fuel is now reaching a crisis stage and has forced the government to both push forward with the establishment of a permanent disposal site, and to find temporary storage facilities to store wastes in the meantime. The crisis is being faced most directly by the nuclear power industry.
In the production of electricity using nuclear fission the plants use ceramic-like pellets of enriched uranium. These pellets are just larger than a standard pencil eraser. These are stacked one on top of the other into long metal tubes. These tubes are know as fuel rods and are 12-15 feet long. The fuel rods are bundled together in groups of 200 to make what is known as nuclear fuel assembles. These are placed in the reactor and when a critical mass is in place under go fission where atoms of a uranium isotope U-235 split apart releasing energy, which in the form of heat boils water producing steam to drive the generators that produce electricity.
After a few years inside a nuclear reactor much of the fissionable fuel has been consumed in nuclear reactions and the fuel is no longer efficient in producing the heat needed. Such fuel is called "spent". It is removed from the reactor and stored in cooling ponds awaiting permanent disposal at a yet to be built high-level repository. When spent fuel is removed from the reactor it is highly radioactive, many thousands of times more so than when in was placed into the reactor and it will remain so for thousands of years. About every 18 months a third of the fuel in a power plant reactor is changed and replaced with fresh fuel, and every time this is done there must be some place to safely store it.
Nuclear power plants have facilities to temporarily store spent fuel. Most fuel is placed in large pools of water contained in steel-lined concrete basins. The water helps keep the spent fuel cool and provides protection from the radioactivity. Other methods involving dry storage are also used. The problem is that the capacity of the power plants to store such waste is limited and most have many years worth of spent fuel setting in storage. Their storage capabilities are running out and there is no place to put it. In addition, their existing facilities were never designed to store spent fuel over longer and longer periods of time.
It is in the area
of storage
and disposal of spent fuel that the problem has become acute. Utility
companies are having to use various approaches to solve this problem on
the short term level while each passing year adds more spent-fuel and less
and less places to store it. There are a number of ways in which the utilities
are trying to cope with this situation. They are trying to stack the spent-fuel
assemblies closer together in the cooling ponds to provide more storage
room in existing pools This is a somewhat risky affair, since the closer
together the assemblies are stacked the harder it is to cool them. Most
dangerous of all is the threat that the assemblies may become close enough
together that a nuclear reaction starts up again, as it does inside the
reactor. This could produce a surge of heat and cause a steam explosion,
releasing massive quantities of radioactivity. Extensive safety procedures
are taken to prevent such a situation.
Another approach has been to place the spent fuel assembles in dry casks once they have cooled somewhat, and store them somewhere on the power plant property. The problem here has been to find a place to put them and to have something set up to put them in.
Because of this other utilities have tried to get permission to construct facilities off-site of their power plants to store spent fuel in dry casks. This has been greeted with governmental support and massive public and environmental opposition. The opposition has repeatedly delayed and in most cases finally killed such proposals. A good case study of this is the proposed Prairie Island dry cask storage at the Prairie Island Nuclear Reactor in Minnesota. The facility was met with strong opposition, most strongly from the Native American community.
The strong, vocal, and effective opposition mounted against the proposed temporary spent-fuel storage facility at Prairie Island has been found almost everywhere such sites have been proposed. It has caused the respective state governments to hold numerous public hearings, triggered as many lawsuits, and placed additional expenses on both the government and the utilities. Not being prepared to deal with the problem of spent fuel storage and disposal has been a costly and time consuming mistake. The report at this link prepared by state regulators concerning the Prairie Island facility provides detailed insight into the complexity of developing a temporary storage facility for spent fuel and the extent of public involvement and opposition.
To date only a handful
of nuclear power plant utilities have been able to develop limited off-site
storage for spent fuel.. They are:Virginia Power, Surry Station,
the first private site to get licensed in June of 1986., Carolina Power
and Light, H.B. Robinson-2; Duke Power, Oconee , South Carolina, Public
Service Co. of Colorado, Fort St. Vrain, and Baltimore Gas and Electric,
Calvert Cliffs. For more specific information on these facilities please
see the following.
With the difficulties and failures encountered in trying to site temporary spent fuel storage facilities, the federal government switched to a new tactic in 1990. They Established the office of National Nuclear Waste Negotiator, whose job it was to basically offer anyone willing to accept an ISFSI a lot of money. The main target of this was locations in rural areas, primarily in the west. The favored target was Native American Tribes. Over 20 tribes applied and two, one in New Mexico and one in Utah put up serious campaigns to win an ISFSI. In 1993 Congress cut the funds for the program and once again switched tactics.
In 1995 and 1996 the government proposed and supported in Congress the plan to establish an interim spent fuel storage site at the Nevada Test Site next to the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. The bill passed the Senate but did not come up for a final vote in the House. While the failures mounted the utilities operating the nation's power plants had to look to solutions of their own. They began exploring the possibility of developing the ISFSI on their own, and out of their own pocket.
The situation changed dramatically in late December and January when in the middle of the media frenzy over the Envirocare scandal first one, and then three specific proposals to build an ISFSI were made in Utah. Lost in the confusion of the scandal little attention has yet been paid to these. Yet the fate of these three proposals may well transcend any new efforts to win Congressional and Presidential support for the proposed temporary storage site at the Nevada Test Site. One proposal involves an agreement signed between 11 nuclear power utilities and the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe in north central Utah, one of the two tribes who fought hard to win the ISFSI when the government was actively trying to buy someone's support for one. And the others also located in northwestern Utah are non-Native American, purely commercial interest proposals.
In the following sections of this report these proposals will be examined
in detail. The vocal public opposition to the ISFSI concept and
to the specific Utah proposals by the Envirocare ownership, and
the overall implications both to Utah and to the nation will also be addressed.
The first proposal for an ISFSI facility in Utah, and probably the most serious contender, was made by the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe in late December, 1996. On December 27, 1996 a consortium of 11 nuclear utilities signed a lease with the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes for a portion of their reservation land on which the consortium would construct a facility for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. The consortium, Minneapolis based Private Fuel Storage, led by Northern States Power (NSP) obtained a lease for 40 acres of tribal land.
The lease is for 25 years, with an option to extend for an additional 25 years. The proposed facility would be for "temporary" storage of the consortium members' spent nuclear fuel. Once the Yucca Mountain Repository is completed all spent fuel stored at the site would be removed and sent to the Nevada repository. The leased site would be used to store up to 2,000 canisters of spent fuel.
The Skull Valley Band has only 121 members. There are only 9 families that live on the 17,700 acre reservation located 70 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The remainder of the tribe lives off reservation in Utah and surrounding states.
The Skull Valley Reservation sets on the southern border of what is known as the Tooele County Hazardous Industries Zone. Situated on a corridor of I-80, the zone is already the home to; Envirocare, the nation's main low-level nuclear waste dump; two toxic waste incinerators and disposal facilities, APTIS and USPCI; Dugway Proving Ground, and the Tooele Army Depot where 46% of U.S. chemical weapons are stockpiled awaiting incineration; and several smaller concerns.
According to Danny Quintanna, attorney for the Skull Valley Goshutes, the temporary spent fuel storage facility would work like this. The spent fuel would be sealed in heavy steel tubes at the consortium's power plants. Once sealed the steel tubes would be placed in shipping casks and loaded on a train and transported to a siding near Rowley Junction. The Skull Valley Road meets I-80 at this location. Here the shipping casks would be taken off the rail cars and loaded onto trucks and driven south to the storage facility.
At the storage site the steel tubes would be removed from the shipping casks and placed into a storage container built on a concrete pad. The waste would stay in that form during its stay at the facility. There would be no repackaging done in Utah. When the spent fuel was removed for disposal at Yucca Mountain, it would be placed back into a shipping cask and hauled back to the railroad, or sent by truck to the repository location in Southern Nevada.
The Private Fuel Storage consortium that signed the lease with the Goshutes is made up of 11 nuclear power utilities from around the country. They are; Indiana-Michigan Power Co., Boston Edison, Consolidated Edison of New York, Dairyland Power Cooperative, GPU Nuclear Corp., Illinois Power, Northern States Power, Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., and Wisconsin Electric Power.
The Skull Valley Goshute's attempts to obtain a deal establishing a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel on tribal lands is not new. They have been actively pursuing such a facility for most of this decade. The recently announced lease and proposal between the Goshutes and the 11 member consortium of nuclear power utilities is in fact little more than the survivor of a long process to find someone who, for enough money, would agree to store the nation's deadliest and most dangerous garbage.
After all private industry efforts to build a temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel had failed, and the government's own plans for opening a permanent repository had been delayed time and time again, the federal government decided to try and simply let money do its talking. In 1990 the government established the office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator, or NWN. The Nuclear Waste Negotiator was charged with finding a state, local government, or Indian Tribe to volunteer to have a spent fuel storage facility built on its lands. On October 8, 1991 the NWN sent out requests for proposals to all 50 states, eight territories and protectorates, and 535 leaders of federally recognized Indian Tribes. The NWN had until January 1, 1993 to determine if the voluntary process of finding a site for an ISFSI would be successful.
In response to the NWN's requests for proposals some 20 were accepted for Phase I study. Of these 4 were from local government units and 16 were from various Indian Tribes. One of the first tribes to apply was the Skull Valley Goshutes. All those accepted for Phase I study received $100,000. The Goshutes spent their money on a six week national tour of U.S. nuclear power and waste storage sites, studying America's reliance on nuclear power, nuclear power waste storage needs, and visiting the sites of nuclear contamination the government was working to clean up. They also prepared a short report on their activities.
By the time it came around for the next step in the process, Phase II, there were only two main players left trying to win the rights to build an ISFSI, the Skull Valley Goshutes and the Mescalaro Apaches in New Mexico. Opposition from surrounding areas combined with statewide concerns, and rejection of their state governors had ended the participation of the four non-Indian local government concerns. Similar opposition from within the respective tribes and an almost unanimous and vocal opposition from the Native American Community nationwide, had one by one knocked out the other 14 Indian tribes. Both the Goshutes and the Mescalaros received an additional $200,000 for Phase II studies. Both tribes' leadership actively supported and sought a deal for an ISFSI.
The Nuclear Waste Negotiator was called a failure by Congress and was not refunded in 1994. With its demise went the federal government's attempts to find a "volunteer site" for temporarily storing spent fuel. Instead it switched its tactic to proposing a temporary storage facility be built on the Nevada Test Site next door to the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. This it proposed to build whether the state of Nevada and its residents wanted it, or not! Congress is still battling over this proposal and will face a yes or no vote and possible Presidential veto this year.
The closure of the NWN program didn't stop either the nuclear power interests or the two supportive tribes from going forward with new "privately funded" proposals. A group of 35 nuclear power utilities formed a consortium and proposed a deal to establish a private spent fuel storage facility with the Mescalaro Apaches. After two heated and emotional tribal referendums that virtually tore the Mescalaro Tribe apart, the proposal was finally halted in late 1994.
After the defeat of the New Mexico proposal some of the members of the nuclear utilities involved decided to continue to try and establish a facility. They linked up with the still willing Goshute leadership and started quietly talking a deal. The December 27, 1996 lease signing was the outcome of those talks.
As has been the case with every proposal for establishing a temporary spent fuel storage facility on tribal lands, the Goshute tribe is split over the issue. It has been the internal divisions within the various Native American communities involved in the siting process that has both served to involve the tribes in the first place, and in the end to defeat the proposals. Most tribes, especially those with limited members such as the Skull Valley Goshute Band, are comprised of many clans made up of extended families who are rivals for control of tribal governments.
In the case of the Skull Valley Goshutes this situation is pronounced on issues far and beyond the issue of storage of spent nuclear fuel. It doubtlessly will be a pivotal factor in the final approval or rejection of the recently announced plans to build a temporary storage facility. Already it is apparent not all tribal members support the proposal.
The Skull Valley Goshute Band is composed primarily of two clans, the Bears and the Washes. The Bears currently hold tribal leadership positions and are the prime supporters of the nuclear waste storage proposal. The Washes oppose the proposal. Margene Bullcreek, a member of the Wash extended family has long been an outspoken critic of the tribe's plan to establish a nuclear waste storage facility. She told the Salt Lake City based Deseret News her feelings toward the idea;
"This is the only reservation, the only land we have, and this is the only thing the government left us after taking most of our country. Instead of abusing it, we ought to protect it. We're dealing with something that could destroy the people around us."
Margene and others cite the sorry record of other recent business dealings by the tribal leadership as examples of why they fear the prospects of the leadership becoming involved in the nuclear waste proposal. The current leadership invested between $800,000 and $1,000,000 of the tribes limited funds into a recycling operations based nearby. The L.E. and B Company never did become fully operational before it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in 1994. The tribe is still fighting in court to try and get its money back. Similar fingers are pointed at the tribe's convenience store known more for its empty shelves than for vigorous business. Many in the tribe, Margene included, fear the tribe itself is bankrupt and broke, and fear the promises of big bucks from the nuclear waste storage proposal will lead only to more economic ruin for the tribe, and possibly forever lay waste their desolate reservation lands.
The Goshute proposal has even less support off the reservation. Utah Governor Michael Leavitt has promised to do whatever it takes to stop the proposal. Both major Utah newspapers have editorialized against the concept and public opinion statewide runs strongly against it as well. Should the concept proceed forward it is likely to result in a major public outcry of opposition.
One of the first forums where the public sentiments regarding the proposed spent fuel storage facility will be on April 4 when the Utah Radiation Control Board will hold a public hearing on a resolution opposing the Goshutes planned facility. In view of the other recent proposals for private facilities in other parts of Utah this issue will no doubt escalate over the months ahead.
In up coming issues of Testing News On Line there will be several reports relating to this story and on the history of efforts to saddle Native Americans with the garbage of the nuclear age.
The ink was
hardly dry on the Goshute's agreement with the nuclear power utilities
to build a temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, when two
proposals for similar facilities in northern Utah were made. The first
of the proposals was an attempt to breath new life into an idea that had
been raised earlier in 1996 and then shot down. It was put forth in the
open with no attempt at concealment from either the public, or the media.
The second proposal was a much different story. It was cloacked in intrigue
and was put together in secret away from the public eye. While the first
proposal was the result of long term planning and development by Box
Elder County interests and a Salt Lake City engineering company, many
felt the second was little more than an attempt to cash in on the current
volatile situation in Utah following the wake of the Envirocare
scandal and the Goshute lease announcement.
On January 26, 1997, almost a month to the day of the Goshute's December lease announcement, KTVX Channel 4 in Salt Lake City broke the news of another high-level nuke dump proposal. News 4 reported that this proposal called for building a temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in a remote area of western Box Elder County, 40 miles west of the Great Salt Lake and 40 miles north of the Bonneville Salt Flats. Located near the town of Lucin, this facility would be totally privately owned and not associated with Goshute, or other Native American interests.
The proposal is the brain child of Bill Peterson, an engineer with the Salt Lake City firm of P A Engineers. Peterson had first proposed the idea to Box Elder County officials in the summer of 1996. Peterson's plan called for taking advantage of the existing railroad access and remoteness of the area. The Southern Pacific Railroad line runs through western Box Elder County and there is a spur line off the main tracks known as the Pigeon Spur. The spent fuel would be sent to Utah from current storage sites around the country by rail, sent onto the Pigeon Spur, and from there to the storage facility. Inside the storage facility the spent fuel would be stored in casks behind earthen berms. Peterson's facility would be fully computerized and would require no on-site personnel to be regularly present.
Peterson launched his campaign to win support for the spent-fuel storage facility in the summer of 1996, billing it as an economic gold mine for the economically depressed region of the county. He claimed that building a storage facility in the county would earn the state $50 million a year for up to 40 years. He said $10 million would go to the county and $40 million to the state each year. On June 17, 1996 preparing to go before the Box Elder County Commission to try and enlist their support, Peterson told the Associated Press that, "There's big money to be made here. We've seen the decline of our defense industries here in Utah. This could give us a strong replacement."
The Box Elder County Commission informed Peterson that while they were interested in the $10 million per year he said the facility would raise for the county -- $2 million more than the county's annual budget -- without the support of county residents and Utah's governor the proposal wouldn't have a chance. Commission Chairman Lee Allen told Peterson to, "Go to the governor. Find out how he feels about this thing."
Utah Governor Mike Leavitt has long expressed total opposition to any high-level nuclear waste storage, or disposal sites being built in Utah, and had been instrumental in obtaining a law that required the support of the legislature and the governor before any new waste facilities, of any kind, could be built in the state. His press secretary, Vicky Varela, was quick to make the governor's position known on the Box Elder County proposal, "The governor's taken a strong position that he doesn't want Utah to be a place where nuclear waste is stored. We don't have any information at this point that would change the governor's position." Absent any change in the governor's position, or interest in changing Utah law requiring legislative and the governor's approval of such projects, Peterson's proposal appeared dead in June, 1996.
Following the outbreak of the Envirocare scandal and the Goshute's December announcement, Peterson and Utah Representative, Ray Short (R) Salt Lake, made an effort to revive the previous year's proposal. Rep. Short was quick to inform the media that the proposal was a gold mine for the state. It was a way to find the money for major road improvements currently planned, "I say, hey, completely safe, why not cash in and save the taxpayers some money." Peterson joined in telling News 4, "It's safer by far than a power plant or some other manufacturing plant. It's safer. It's a gold mine that's sitting dormant. I don't look at it as a waste site. I think of it as an opportunity."
While Rep. Short tried to stir up support among the Utah Legislature to change Utah law to allow the facility, Peterson worked hard to win the support of Box Elder County residents and officials. Peterson circulated a petition among residents of western Box Elder County, lobbied the County officials, and held town meetings in communities close to the proposed site. He also circulated a flyer among members of the Utah Legislature, a copy of the front page of it being reproduced at the top of this section of the article.
It looked like this time the proposal might have some life to it and might become a matter of debate before the Utah Legislature. What wasn't expected was the quick and vocal response to the proposal that greeted readers of Utah's two major daily newspapers, the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News on January 30. In their efforts to sing the praises of the proposal to the news media, Rep. Short had made a slight mistake. He had, in the course of discussing the safety of the proposed facility, made the claim that it would be far safer than the Envirocare low-level waste disposal site. Envirocare officials were quick to respond, taking out full-page advertisements in both Utah newspapers. Carrying an explanation of the differences between the low-level site and a proposed ISFSI type facility, the Envirocare ad also carried a public letter responding to Rep. Short and his remarks to the media.
While the Enivrocare ad did not directly take a position favoring, or opposing an ISFSI-type facility, it did clearly point out some of the negative side. The ad stated that;
"In the spent nuclear fuel the utility consortium would send to Utah for storage would be billions of times more radioactive than the wastes Envirocare handles. Through the end of 1996 Envirocare had disposed of about 400 Curies ...By comparison, there are about 26.8 billion Curies of spent nuclear fuel in storage in the United States. This is the type of waste proposed for the Goshute storage facility."
"It is important to understand the differences between types of radioactive waste. If a Curie were a sheet of paper, the stack of paper representing Envirocare's currently disposed of waste would be a couple of inches thick. In comparison, a single drum of class C low-level waste could create a stack that would be as tall as the new American Stores Building. And the spent nuclear fuel that would come to Utah for storage? At 28.6 billion Curies, that would be a stack of paper that would reach from here to the moon twice."
The ad also blasted the media for spending too much time with biased reports on the on going Envirocare scandal and not directing its attention instead to what Envirocare felt was a much more important issue-- talk about high-level nuclear waste storage facilities;
"Because of skewed media reporting about Envirocare and other developments related to radioactive waste in Utah, Envirocare is reluctantly taking this advertisement to insure that our side of the story will be told. We do not think Envirocare should be used as a red herring to divert attention away from the important issues relating to whether Utah should be a host for a high level radioactive waste storage facility.
"On December 27, 1996 a consortium of 11 utility companies with combined assets approaching $100 billion dollars signed a contract with the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indian Tribe to establish a high-level radioactive waste spent-nuclear fuel storage facility on the tribe's reservation about 70 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. This development has been virtually ignored by the local media."
There was an even more interesting, and in many ways more revealing side to the full page ad too. Both in the open letter to Rep. Short, printed along side, and in the ad itself there was an element of intrigue that was to lead the media and issue watchers to uncover the second proposal for a new nuke dump in Utah. In the letter to Rep. Short dated January 28, 1997, Envirocare Vice-President Charles A. Judd took aim at the accuracy of information Rep. Short had used to base his statements to the media to the effect that an MRS would be safer than Envirocare. The letter implied that the information had come from "unsubstantiated attacks" by competitors;
"Dear Representative Short;
"I understand that you have been quoted in the media as saying the monitored retrievable storage (MRS) high-level nuclear waste storage facility will be safer than Enviorcare's facility. While I am sure your statements are based on information you have been furnished, let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Recently, some sources have given inaccurate information about Envirocare's operation, particularly in regard to the type of waste we handle. Regrettably, Envirocare has been subjected to unsubstantiated attacks by competitors who have submitted erroneous information to Utah State Legislators in the past."
The on going corporate warfare currently so much a part of the nuke waste disposal industry and issue, is involved heavily in various aspects of the Envirocare-Utah Rad Scandal. It doubtlessly played a key role in decisions to make such a strong public response as the full page ad. In light of that, it was interesting to note, and was seen as a red flag leading to another story altogether, when the ad took a targeted poke, by name, at Utah Businessman and Lobbyist Doug Foxley;
"The same utility consortium has previously been working with the Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico to establish a similar facility but that effort failed. The consortium reportedly plans to submit an application for its Utah facility to the nuclear Regulatory Commission in June, 1997, and hopes to get final approval in 2000 and to begin operations in 2002....This utility consortium has reportedly hired local representation, including Doug Foxley and others."
It didn't take long following the ad for members of the media and issue watchers to pick up strange rumors and goings on centered in the direction of Doug Foxley. Why the interest? Foxley is one of the top Utah lobbyists. He is the former chairman of the Utah Board of Regents that oversees Utah institutions of higher learning, and was a former deputy Secretary of State during the administration of Utah's previous governor Norman Bangerter.
Foxley also has made a considerable fortune buying and selling Utah waste dumps. If anyone could cut through the present obstacles and establish a new nuclear waste disposal facility, Doug Foxley would have the best chance. According to the Deseret News, Foxley was the former owner of the USPCI incinerator in Tooele County and the East Carbon Development Corporation (ECDC) hazardous-waste dump in Carbon County.
Rumors started flying and the press started digging deeper. It was learned Foxley had purchased land within the Tooele County Hazardous-industries Zone. It was rumored the site would be utilized by Foxley for a new nuclear waste disposal facility he would shortly propose. Some said an MRS-type facility, others maintained it would be a facility to compete with Envirocare's lucrative business in low-level waste disposal. Other rumors circulated that Foxley was also scouting land in western Box Elder County. Foxley wasn't talking.
Additional interest quickly focused on a series of bills introduced into the just convened Utah Legislature. There were strange things about the bills that smacked of something going on, or at least that they set the stage for playing something major on the rad-waste issue, should someone desire to do so, during the 45 day session. There were over ten of them, and many of them had been filed at the request of none other than Doug Foxley. The other thing that was most interesting about them was that they said nothing at all! They were "boxcar bills" -- bills filed to meet the deadline to introduce legislation into the current session. They carried a sponsor, a title, and a number, but nothing else. They carried no text!
Best looked at as legislative sleepers, the boxcar bills can be left empty of text and meaning until such time as its sponsors decides the time is right and support has been raised to "load up the boxcar" and try and ram it through the legislature during the last hectic days. The titles helped to highlight the interest being focused on them. They ranged from changing the make up and procedures of the Utah Radiation Control Board, to a resolution approving the development of new facilities, streamlining the approval process for new disposal sites, fees, licenses, and a strange one to short step the current approval process for an injection well in rural north-east Utah. In addition there was one bill that did have text. Sponsored by Sen. Howard Nielson (R) Provo, it would have raised Envirocare's fees to the state from the current $2.50 a ton to over $50 per ton, drastically affecting Envirocare's current disposal pricing.
Three of the boxcar bills were of special interest. Two bills appeared to have been introduced to allow for changing current Utah law to make it easier to establish new disposal facilities. They also were also closely tied to Foxley. One introduced by Sen. Mike Dmitrich (D)-Price had been requested by Foxley. The other introduced by Rep. Eli H. Anderson (D)-Tremonton under the title "House Concurrent Resolution 8, "Resolution Approving Development of Waste Disposal Facilities." It was interesting since Anderson's district contains both the site for the proposed Box Elder County MRS and contains the portion of Tooele County where Foxley's land which was being rumored for a new nuclear waste facility. Neither Dmitrich, or Anderson were at all talkative about their bills.
The other boxcar bill concerning an injection well for non-hazardous wastes proposed in Duchesne County seemed to go hand in hand with the other two in attempting to change, or circumvent Utah law as it now stands with regards to any new waste facilities. Currently Utah law requires that all new commercial waste facilities must receive approval from both the Legislature and the governor. This provision makes it highly unlikely any new facility dealing with nuclear waste could ever be approved without a major change in sentiments from both parties. The law is also made even stronger, and more difficult to get around, because it states that legislative and gubernatorial approval must take place only after the project has already been approved by state and federal regulatory agencies.
This makes it necessary for anyone proposing such a facility to spend the time -- sometimes years -- and money to get a project through the regulatory agencies, even to win approval from such agencies, and then have to fight the battle for approval by both the Legislature and governor. Since the last three Utah governors have steadfastly opposed any high-level rad-waste facilities in the state, and with the current governor opposed to any new facilities, low-level as well, current law clearly puts a dead end to any new proposals. Of all Utah business and political operatives only Doug Foxley would stand a chance at trying to beat current law and establish a new facility.
The proposed bill concerning the Duchesne County injection well would make it possible to side step Utah law by obtaining approval for the facility from the Legislature before it receives all the necessary state permits. It would set a precedent for any project being considered by Foxley or others. It was strongly opposed in an editorial in the February 24, 1997 Salt Lake Tribune, and of all the measures is under the most attack.
With the evidence mounting, and the issue heating up on Utah's Capital Hill, it didn't take long for the truth to emerge. On Wednesday February 12 Salt Lake Tribune reporter Jim Woolf broke the story that Doug Foxley was indeed working behind the scenes to try and establish a second nuclear waste disposal site in Tooele County. Woolf reported that the facility Foxley was considering would be another low-level disposal site to compete with Envirocare.
In his article he quoted an angry State Senator George Mantes, D-Tooele, "He (Foxley) is putting together a group of investors with the intention of opening a radioactive waste facility in Tooele County. He asked for my support and I said 'no way.' Tooele County has paid its dues and is not in need of another facility of this type right now. As far as I'm concerned, it stinks."
The cat was out of the bag. Utah faced the possibility of a major fight to get around current state law to establish more nuclear waste sites. In addition, rumors still lingered that a low-level disposal site was not all that was being pushed for Tooele County. Claims were raised that an MRS-type facility was either also being considered, or was the real prize being sought. It was felt that if the state could not get around the sovereign nation status of the Goshute Tribe, it should consider establishing an MRS-type facility off Indian land in Tooele County "to prevent the Goshutes from getting all the money." One thing was clear though, there was indeed a major push being made to establish another nuke dump of some sort in Tooele County and a real battle might be brewing.
As the 1997 general session of the Utah Legislature entered its last ten days it remains unclear what will happen regarding this issue. Extensive lobbying on the part of Envirocare, and opposition from other interests appear to have so far kept the boxcar bills empty, and the injection well ploy appears to be in deep trouble. It will not only be interesting to see which side's lobbying forces prevail, but to see if Utah's master lobbyist Doug Foxley will win or loose. The future of Utah's rad-waste issue may hang in the balance, awaiting the outcome of that contest. Another interesting factor has been the lack of public, or organizational involvement in the debate as yet. To date only Utah's Downwinders organization has came out in opposition to the establishment of an MRS-type facility in Utah and the expansion of Utah's rad-waste industry. It will be interesting to see now the truth is out that Utah faces two, and possibly three proposals for MRS-type waste facilities, and there is serious talk of establishing a new low-level facility, how long it will take for public sentiment long known to be opposed to any high-level facility to make itself known.
In a follow up to this report Testing News On-Line will soon be issuing an additional report on the issue of high-level nuclear spent-fuel storage proposals for Utah. The report will address the implications such a facility will have for Utah, its residents, and its image as a national waste dump. Issues relating to the transportation of waste to such a facility and the proposals for establishing a national temporary spent fuel storage facility at the Nevada Test Site will also be explored. Before the April 4 public hearing before the Utah Radiation Control Board on opposing the Goshute MRS proposal, Testing News will also be releasing a report on the history of nuclear power utilities attempts to dump their nuclear garbage on Native American communities and sacred lands across the country, and the tragic effects this has had on internal tribal politics and values. Please watch for this special report, "SON OF THE MORNING NUCLEAR POWER, Inc. -- Solving our disposal problem where George left off."
![[homepage]](back.gif){kind=small}