![[homepage]](file:///C|/dwhome/homepage/WORKING/back.gif){kind=small}
As the last week of the 1997 Utah State Legislature got underway, yet another ploy surfaced in the debate over establishing a high-level spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Utah. Since late December three proposals have surfaced to site such facilities in Utah. (For more information on these proposals please see a major report released by Testing News On-Line, February 24, 1997, Titled, UTAH COULD BECOME HIGH-LEVEL DUMP SITE) The three proposals are; an agreement signed December 26, 1996 between the Skull Valley Goshute Band and a consortium of 11 nuclear power utilities to establish an MRS-type facility on tribal land; a proposal for a Salt Lake City engineering firm to build a similar facility in western Box Elder County, and a potential plan by Utah businessman and lobbyist Doug Foxley for a facility in Tooele County.
The Goshute facility would be built if Utah state government was unable to over ride the Goshute's claim of sovereign nation status, and thus exemption from Utah law. The other two proposals would require the current law to be changed. Current Utah law requires the approval of both the state legislature and the governor. There had been several efforts underway, especially on the part of Doug Foxley, and to a lesser extent those pushing the Box Elder County proposal to find a way to change, or establish a procedure for getting around the current legal road blocks. These efforts had centered on the 1997 Legislature. By February 24, it appeared these efforts, and all bills concerning changes to the current Utah laws governing rad-waste disposal and facilities were dead for this session.
But as the week ended, and the final weekend of the session began, it appeared a new and major effort was underway to at least gain some measure of support out of the Legislature supporting only the Foxley proposal. Sponsored by democrat Steve Barth, House Joint Resolution 23 "Resolution on Placement of High Level Nuclear Waste in Utah" would forbid the placement of any such facility outside of the existing Tooele County Hazardous Industries Zone, where similar type industries now exist. Interestingly enough, such a move if approved, and if fully supported and enforced successfully by the State of Utah would allow only the proposal now being raise by Doug Foxley's interests!
The resolution is both of interest and amusing. Of interest for what it could provide the opening for, and amusing in the matter in which it attempts to go about it. The resolution starts out huffing and puffing about how the State doesn't want any high-level waste, that it is really dangerous, and so on.
"16 WHEREAS the State of Utah has not sought, and does not seek storage of high level
17 nuclear waste within the state;
18 WHEREAS any exposure to high level nuclear waste poses extreme hazards to health and
19 the environment;
20 WHEREAS locating any high level nuclear waste in this state would pose a risk of
21 exposure for the people and the environment of the state;
22 WHEREAS the half-life of high level nuclear waste is such that it remains a serious health
23 and environmental hazard into the unforeseeable future;
24 WHEREAS current state statutes require that no high level nuclear waste may be stored
25 in the State of Utah without the approval of both the Governor and the Legislature;"
After repeatedly listing out all the negatives, and the current "opposition" of the Governor and the Legislature, the resolution quickly changes its spots and begins to show its true color and purpose,
"6 WHEREAS, the Legislature believes that it is in the best interests of the state that if any
7 high level nuclear waste is stored or placed in this state, that terms of the agreement should require
8 that the high level nuclear waste be stored within the State of Utah only for a clearly stated and
9 predetermined temporary period of time:
10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature strongly urges any parties
11 considering placement of high level nuclear waste in Utah to recognize the stated preference of the
12 Legislature that any storage or placement of high level nuclear waste within the state be placed
13 within the Tooele County Hazardous Industries Zone as it is currently configured, which is an area
14 currently dedicated to the safe management of waste that poses a hazard to the public."
The resolution then requires that an official copy of it to be sent to Utah's Governor, Utah's Congressional Delegation, the NRC and the Commissioners of Tooele County.
Neither the Goshute or the Box Elder County proposals fall within the Tooele County Hazardous Industries Zone, but the land suspected for use under Foxley's proposal does. It was also learned more about where that land may be too. It now appears it is land located approximately 1 mile west and four miles north of the existing Envirocare facility -- well within the Zone.
HJR023 thus appears to be a carefully designed ploy to seek some measure of official approval for a high-level storage facility in Utah. It will be interesting to observe how the resolution fares in the final days of the current legislative session. So far little if any opposition has been raised to it. There have been rumors from some high ranking state government officials that Utah's Governor may have struck a deal not to oppose it, but as of March 1, equally credible sources have said the Governor's position in absolute opposition to any MRS-type facility remains steadfast and firm. In view of his past sentiments it is unlikely his position will change.
Downwinders' vice-president Monte Bright stated that Downwinders is firmly and totally opposed to any high level nuclear waste facility being built in Utah, and for that matter any new rad-waste facilities on of any kind, low-level or otherwise. He referred to the bill as a joke, in that it purported to oppose a high-level dump on one hand, yet solidly open the door for one with the other hand, "This bill comes across as being just a little bit pregnant, and on down the road Utah residents could be in for a big surprise."
Testing News On-Line will continue to monitor and report on the fate of this move during the upcoming week as the 1997 Utah Legislature finishes it session.
One of the side issues raised repeatedly since the onset of the Utah Radiation Control-Envirocare Scandal broke in December has been the issue of tipping fees paid by Envirocare to the state of Utah. Presently the fees are $2.50 a ton and are used to finance trust funds maintained by the state for long-term monitoring and any possible costs involved with closure of the site. The key issue raised regarding the fees are the difference between what is paid to the state of South Carolina by the Barnwell disposal site and the state of Washington by the Richland site, versus what is paid Utah by Envirocare. The fee at Barnwell is $280 a ton, that in Washington state around $100.
South Carolina uses much of its fees for general support of various state projects such as its education system. In the wake of the Utah scandal many began to see Envirocare as a potential "cash cow" for projects ranging from the current massive overhaul of Utah's freeway system to state education needs. In the disposal industry competitors of Envirocare have long charged that it is the low fees charged by Utah that have allowed Envirocare to win many of its contracts and has prevented them from competing fairly. Given that climate and sentiments it looked as if the Utah Legislature would address the fee issue in its 1997 General Session.
Shortly after the 1997 Utah Legislature got under way in January State Sen. Howard Nielson R-Provo introduced a bill to raise Envirocare's fees from the current $2.50 a ton to $50 a ton, effective June 30. His reasons were to use the funds for general budget needs of the state, thus turning Envirocare into a "cash cow". Under the fee outlined in the Nielson bill Envirocare's business would have been drastically effected, both in obtaining new contracts and endangering existing ones. A major lobbying war began over the proposed fee hike.
First the Nielson bill was amended to raise the fees only $.75 to $3.25 a ton, a figure Envirocare's spokesman said they could live with. But the lobbying and public-relations battle continued until the entire plan to raise the fees was defeated by the full Utah Senate on a vote of 17-10. This came as a surprise to many issue watches who felt this was the year when Envirocare's fees would be raised and at least examined by the state. It was not to be, the scandal notwithstanding. In fact it turned out to be a good year in Utah for waste disposal facilities in general with the Legislature cutting certain fees for toxic waste disposal in half from $28 a ton to $14 a ton so the Utah disposal industry "could better compete nationally."
In an article published in the Sacramento Bee on Feb. 13, 1997, reporter Edie Lau, stated that work had begun on dismantling of the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant, and that there was a very good chance much of the low-level clean up wastes would be sent to the Envirocare facility for disposal. While the report pointed out that an off site disposal facility had not yet been chosen, it concluded that Envirocare would likely be the site chosen. The reason, cost savings.
The Rancho Seco has been one of the nation's most troubled nuclear power generating plants. Located 25 miles southeast of Sacramento, the plant first went on line in 1974. Over the next 15 years it suffered a series of breakdowns and ended up only operating 40% of the time. Correcting the many problems responsible for the numerous breakdowns proved very expensive and drove up electricity rates. Fed up with escalating rates and a power plant that seemed to seldom operate at all, voters in Sacramento county voted to close the plant for good in 1989. Rancho Seco thus became the first and only nuclear power plant shut down by popular vote. Decommissioning and clean up operations have been underway since.
Though it was not originally planned to begin removing low-level wastes and building remains from the site for several years, the process is likely to get underway much sooner as a means of saving the rate payers considerable money. The Bee reported that utility had learned last year of the availability of Envirocare for off site disposal. It also learned that fees charged by Envirocare would save the utility tens of millions over its projected costs. Envirocare's fees are $20 to $70 per cubic foot compared to the $405 per cubic foot the utility had projected to pay for disposal of the wastes in 2008.
With an estimated 270,000 cubic feet of low-level waste present at Rancho Seco the savings to the utility could exceed $100 million by sending the waste now to Envirocare. Steve Redeker, Rancho Seco plant manager told the Bee that, "Every cubic foot we can get out now is a savings."
While no final deal has been cut between Rancho Seco's ownership and Envirocare, and while the company plans to solicit proposals to other waste facilities, it is unlikely anyone can beat Envirocare's lower fees. As a result it is likely Utah will see the Rancho Seco wastes disposed of at Envirocare, adding to the growing list of power plant related wastes being taken at the disposal site.
It was learned in late February that the criminal investigation into the secret business relationship between former Utah radiation regulator Larry Anderson and Khosrow Semnani, the owner of Envirocare, had been turned over to the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office. The investigation had been launched in December when news first surfaced that Semnani had made secret payments totalling over $600,000 to Anderson during the time he was chief radiation officer for the state. Anderson had filed suit against Semnani asking for more money. Semnani had stopped payments after Anderson was no longer state regulator. Anderson said it was a legitimate business relationship, Semnani claimed Anderson had extorted the money from him.
Utah officials said they were turning the investigation over to federal authorities for three reasons; 1) Larry Anderson was now living in Mesquite, Nevada and Utah had limited powers outside of the state and had been unable to get Anderson to agree to questioning; 2) The U.S. Attorney's office has far easier access to a grand jury to assist in the investigation; and 3) Federal statutes and penalties are much more severe than under Utah law.
It is also felt that this move will speed up the ongoing investigation and bring resolution to the scandal sooner. It is not known when any possible federal charges may be filed.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has announced it will hold a public meeting Thursday January 30, 1997, to discuss a routine inspection of the Envirocare of Utah disposal site. The NRC's inspection took place in November and is unrelated to recent news reports of alleged payments between Envirocare's owner and the former Utah state regulator.
The inspection related only to Envirocare's disposal of wastes from uranium-mill tailings sites, commonly known as "11e(2) byproduct material". This type of material makes up 30% of Envirocare's disposal business. The NRC inspection did not relate to Enviorcare's other disposal activities, nor its disposal cells for low-level radioactive or mixed wastes. As part of the inspection additional NRC inspectors will spend four days at the site beginning Monday January 27.
The NRC's inspection in November, the additional four days of inspection this week, and the public meeting on Thursday are all part of the normal inspection process maintained by the NRC. The public meeting on Thursday will be the final step in the inspection process and will discuss the findings of the inspection.
The public session will be at 4 p.m. at the Envirocare landfill at Clive, Utah. The landfill is located about 65 miles west of Salt Lake City in Tooele County on Interstate 80. From I-80 take Exit 56 and follow the signs to the landfill several miles south of the freeway.
Another public meeting coming soon that will deal with various aspects of the Envirocare and other critical Utah radiation issues will be the February 7, 1997 meeting of the Utah Radiation Control Board. The Radiation Control Board is the citizens oversight board for the Utah Division of Radiation Control and is the final administrative decision making body for radiation related matters in Utah.
On the agenda for its February 7 meeting are several items of interest to those following the Envirocare story. Under Item V of the tentative agenda, Radioactive Waste Disposal the Board will receive a report from the staff concerning a review of all Envirocare licensing since its establishment in 1988. This review was under taken in response to the recent scandal involving alleged payments from Envirocare's owner to the then chief state regulator. The purpose of the review was to determine if aspects of the scandal had resulted in any problems, or regulatory weaknesses in any of the licenses granted Envirocare during the time the alleged payments were being made. The staff report to the Board should provide some interesting insight into this area of concern and should help to provide answers to any lingering questions, or to any problems uncovered during the course of the review.
Following the staff report the Board will discuss another matter relating to Envirocare. It will discuss the recent American College of Nuclear Physicians - California Chapter - Petition for Rulemaking- that was filed with the Utah Radiation Control Board and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality on January 21, 1997. In their petition they were "seeking reasonable and prudent protection from what we are concerned may be significant deficiencies in the state's regulation of the Envirocare disposal facility."
The petition alleges that the State of Utah has failed to insist on "implementation of financial assurance requirements" from Envirocare relating to the eventual closure of the facility, and that such action could leave its members open to lawsuits seeking payment of monies toward any excess closure costs not covered by existing Utah requirements. In addition the petition raised several points of concern regarding Utah's approval of Envirocare's request to begin disposal of certain ion exchange resins.
It is anticipated that the Utah Division of Radiation Control will provide its answer to the petition at the February 7 meeting and that there will be a discussion of the points raised in the petition.
One additional item of considerable importance regarding radioactive waste disposal will also be discussed at the meeting. That is the recent proposal by the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe to host a spent fuel interim storage facility, or MRS on their tribal reservation southwest of Salt Lake City. The Goshutes have recently signed a lease agreement with a group of 11 utility companies to build a temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel rods. The State of Utah is on record opposing such a facility and the Radiation Control Board will discuss a draft resolution concerning the Skull Valley Goshutes proposal .
The February 7 meeting will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Department of Environmental Quality, (Bldg #2) 168 North 1950 West ,Conference Room 101, Salt Lake City, Utah. For additional information interested parties should contact the Utah Division of Radiation Control. Click here for a link to their internet site.