Evan Bonar
Mrs. Olsen
English 110
April 29, 2009
Foreign Nuclear Waste Storage in Utah
Energy Solutions is looking for state backing in their quest to import foreign nuclear
waste from Italy. Their proposal would allow for “Class A” nuclear waste to be stored in
Northwestern Utah. Energy Solutions offers 1.5 billion dollars to the citizens of Utah in return
for their cooperation. To allow this foreign nuclear waste is against state laws and is a potential
bio-hazard that could evacuate the state of Utah for decades. Moreover, the thought of nuclear
waste storage also will tarnish Utah’s natural image which powers our tourism industry. To
import the nuclear waste is wrong because it is illegal, has a high potential risk, and harmful to
the image of Utah.
The case brought before the Nuclear Regulatory Committee concerns licenses that
Energy Solutions needs to import foreign nuclear waste (Energy Solutions). Energy Solutions
needs to receive a license from the NRC before they can import any foreign waste. The Nuclear
Regulatory Committee listened to the citizens of Utah for a two week period to help them decide
on whether to issue the licenses. The Nuclear Regulatory Committee reported that the response
from Utah citizens was a resounding “no” to letting the foreign waste into the state (Energy
Solutions). Utah legislators have expressed no legal objections with issuing the licenses, but
repeat the denial attitude of their districts.
Many Utah politicians fiercely oppose the proposal and will do everything within their
power to prevent the passing of the proposal. Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. states that he will veto
any legislation that allows the waste to enter Utah. Congressman Jim Matheson calls the
proposal “appalling” and co-sponsors a bill that would prevent any importation of foreign
nuclear waste into the United States (McKaffee, Nuclear Waste: Appealing or Appalling?).
Energy Solutions applies pressure to these politicians by running ads in the media offering the
Utah citizens half of the profits. In these economically down times the approximately 1.5 billion
dollars over the next ten (Energy Solutions) years sounds like a blessing. When in reality this is a
bribe to keep Utah from realizing the risk and corruption of allowing the waste into the state.
Energy Solutions bribe is different from most normal political contributions, because they went
public with their proposal. Energy Solutions is also not giving the money to the politician but to
state charities. Politicians will use this to their advantage by claiming that they brought in a large
amount of money to their district.
Utah attracts over 20.4 million tourists a year, who come to enjoy the outdoor sites Utah,
has to offer (Thomson). If we imported the nuclear waste from Italy, Utah will lose some of its
natural environmentally friendly image. Utah brings in over 7.2 billion dollars from tourism and
if some of the 20.4 million people stopped coming, the amount lost would add up to more that
the 1.5 billion brought in from Energy Solutions (Hancock).The appeal of Utah’s nature would
be diminished when tourist think of Utah as an international dumping ground.
The area that would hold the waste is not one of Utah’s breath taking spots, but still has
unique animals and a fragile ecosystem. The area would be disturbed by large amounts of
machinery that would move earth and bury the waste deep in the ground (Shumaway). The area
is sparsely populated but is visited by many migrating birds such as Bald Eagles and the Wilson's
Phalarope (Paul). The region around the Great Salt Lake, which includes the dumping site, is a
staging point for the largest population of Wilson’s phalarope which exceeds 500,000. The area
also supports upwards of 500 of the endangered Bald Eagle. The area supports between 2-5
million shore birds which already have a shrinking habitat and cannot afford to lose more to
development.
Energy Solutions admits that it is a possibility that the “Class A” nuclear waste could
leak into the surrounding environment (Energy Solutions). Even though this chance is very slim
it raises the question: Is the money worth the risk of having this waste in our state? If a leak
were to occur, over 30 miles around the site would have to be immediately evacuated
(Shumaway); this area includes downtown Salt Lake and West Salt Lake. If the leak is deemed
“serious”, over 70 miles around the site would have to be evacuated (Shumaway). This includes
most of the Greater Salt Lake regions and some of Nevada. This leak would ruin the state of
Utah and Salt Lake City would become an abandoned ghost town. The evacuation would not be
like another natural disaster where people can return when the event is over. Radiation can
linger in affected areas for up to 30 years (Spellman). The leak would also harm the left behind
wildlife who would be mutated or killed in the affected area and the water and soil would be
radiated for several decades making a return to the capitol of the state very unlikely.
The Utah legislators that support the proposal argue that the waste is the same whether it
comes from the United States or not (McKaffee, Nuclear Waste: Appealing or Appalling?).
Critics claim that the waste is the same but Utah will make more of a profit from the foreign
waste. The statement is true that the waste is the same but Utah and the United States did not
benefit from the radioactive waste. The United States did not get to use the power produced
from the plant. The power is used overseas and Utah is left to dispose of the waste for about
10% more profit (Energy Solutions) . The 1.5 billion over ten years would help Utah in the
short-term but the tarnished image would hurt Utah tourism for a lifetime. The Utah legislators
that support the proposal are not thinking about the nation as a whole. No other county has ever
accepted another countries nuclear waste (McKaffee). The United States power is already
declining; being the first to import nuclear waste would accelerate the deterioration which the
proponents of the legislation have no concern for if their districts can get a share of the money.
Bibliography
Energy Solutions. Energy Solutions. April 2008. 19 April 2009
.
Hancock, Laura. "Utah Office of Tourism." Utah Office of Tourism; Under Review (2009): 13-
15.
McKaffee, Kellen. "Nuclear Waste: Appealing or Appalling?" Nuclear Waste: Appealing or
Appalling? 29 February 2009: 3.
—. Utah Stories. 29 Februray 2009. 19 April 2009
.
Paul, Don. Utah Water Science Center. 29 March 2009. 21 April 2009
.
Shumaway, J. Matthew. "Place Making, Hazardous Waste, and the development of Tooele
county, UTAH." Tooele County Utah (2008): 13-14.
Speckman, Stephen. EnergySolutions sues to import Italy nuclear waste. Newspaper Article. Salt
Lake City : Desert News, 2009.
Spellman, Frank R. "Chemistry for nonchemists: principles and applications for enviornmental
practitioners." Spellman, Frank R. Chemistry for nonchemists: principles and applications for
enviornmental practitioners. Lanham: Government Institutes, 2006. 339.
Thomson, Reuters. 14 April 2009. 21 April 2009
.
Vedantam, Shankar. www.WashingtonPost.com. 25 september 2008. 26 March 2009
.