South Carolina Depleted Uranium Shipments Set For Dec.

By BROCK VERGAKIS , 10.06.09

SALT LAKE CITY -- An official with a U.S. Department of Energy site in South Carolina says shipments of nearly 15,000 drums of depleted uranium slated for disposal in Utah are set to start in December - two months later than originally estimated.

The department estimated this summer that the low-level radioactive waste should start to move this month.

The delay may give Energy Secretary Steven Chu more time to consider a request from a Utah congressman to halt the shipments.

Savannah River Site spokesman Jim Giusti said Tuesday the DOE site is preparing to pack and load the roughly 10,000 metric tons of waste. The material will be shipped to EnergySolutions' disposal facility 70 miles west of Salt Lake City via rail car.

Giusti says the shipments will likely be completed by July.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/10/06/general-us-depleted-uranium_6972038.html

Decision tabled on uranium disposal [Utah]

By Amy Joi O'Donoghue

Deseret News

Published: Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Members of the state's Radiation Control Board have tabled for now any decision to impose a moratorium on the storage of depleted uranium at EnergySolutions' Clive facility.

The 6-4 decision to further delay giving a definitive answer on the issue came after more than three hours of presentations on the ability — or inability — to safely dispose of the Class A radioactive material at the Tooele County site.

Instead, the majority of board members want to wait until a Sept. 22 meeting with representatives from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who will be in town that week for two days of public hearings.

Those hearings are designed to solicit input on, among other things, what type of site-specific restrictions could be incorporated into a new rule governing the storage of massive quantities of depleted uranium.

Such storage has largely been a non-issue over the years because no facilities have been engaged in the uranium-enrichment process for decades.

With the country's attention turned toward nuclear power as alternative to reliance on fossil fuels, two applications for large-scale facilities are pending before the commission.

That kick-started an investigation into what possible disposal restrictions could be put in place because depleted uranium has evolving properties that make it "hotter" over time.

EnergySolutions has its eye on a possible contract to dispose of depleted uranium from South Carolina's Savannah River nuclear processing center.

Now defunct, the reactors were built during the 1950s to refine materials for use in nuclear weapons.

Such a possibility galvanized the environmental watchdog group HEAL Utah to request the moratorium and kicked into motion the fact-finding mission embraced by the board the past couple of months.

Under review is if the board has the authority to enact such a moratorium, if such a move is premature given the commission's own review of the issue or if enough urgency exists to propel action now.

It was clear from both sides — among the disagreeing board members and presenters — that the issue is far from being resolved and that September's meeting with commission representatives doesn't necessarily guarantee a solution.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705316910,00.html

Nuclear power isn't clean or cheap

BY NIELS S. NOKKENTVED - Idaho Statesman

Published: 07/14/09

An Eagle-based company wants to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Elmore County.

The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that proposes the nation build 100 new nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years.

Idaho Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson has embraced nuclear power, and like others, promotes it as cheap and clean. They argue also that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases. But it is unclear which part of the nuclear energy cycle they're referring to. Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean.

The two main reasons no new power plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s are the high cost of construction and the uncertainty of the regulatory approval process. Only federal subsidies make nuclear power "cheap."

The nuclear fuel cycle starts with mining, which relies on trains, trucks and heavy equipment that run on diesel fuel. Refining the ore and turning it into nuclear fuel creates large amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings and waste. Uranium, for example, gives off radioactive radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in this country.

And operating a nuclear power plant requires an outside source of electric power. Reactors emit small amounts of radiation and heat in the form of steam or hot water, and they produce waste for which we have no disposal solution.

Uranium mining and milling have a sordid history in the West. In the Southwest, Navajo homes once were built of radioactive mine tailings, and their land is riddled with more than 1,000 abandoned mines. Mining companies hired local residents to work at low wages without telling them of the health risks. When the ore played out, some companies simply walked away.

In one example, Uranium Reduction Co. began processing ore from the Moab area's rich uranium ore deposits in the 1950s. In 1962, the company sold the mill to Atlas Minerals Corp., which ran it until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The federal government took over the site in 2001.

Today a 94-foot tall pile of radioactive and toxic mill tailings covers 130 acres and holds 12 million tons of radioactive waste - about 750 feet from the third largest river in the West, three miles from Moab, less than a mile from Arches National Park and across the mouth of Moab Wash.

The unlined pile leaks an average of 57,000 gallons per day into the Colorado River upstream of Lake Mead, which supplies drinking and irrigation water to southern California, Las Vegas and parts of Arizona. Similar piles at 38 mill sites in the West - 22 of them abandoned - hold 140 million tons of radioactive tailings.

The story doesn't end with refining the ore. Producing reactor fuel involves a process that concentrates one form, or isotope, of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. The leftovers, known as "depleted uranium," remain radioactive. About 750,000 tons of depleted uranium already awaits disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued warnings about disposing of large amounts of this material as "low level" waste - the current proposed practice.

Most industry supporters - who claim nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases - want to ship spent fuel from power plants, mainly in the eastern part of the country, by diesel-powered trains to a proposed waste disposal facility in Jackass Flats, Nev. - a site known as Yucca Mountain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Niels S. Nokkentved has degrees in journalism and environmental studies and has worked as natural resource reporter for 20 years, including more than 12 years of covering nuclear waste issues at the Idaho National Laboratory.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/832976.html

Moratorium sought in Utah on depleted uranium

Associated Press, 07.13.09

SALT LAKE CITY -- An environmental group will make its case Tuesday for a moratorium on the disposal of depleted uranium in Utah.

The radioactive waste watchdog group Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah will tell the state's radiation control board that no more depleted uranium should come into the state until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission finishes studying whether its current rules are adequate.

Meanwhile, EnergySolutions Inc. will tell the board why it believes it can safely dispose of the material at its facility about 70 miles west of Salt Lake City.

Depleted uranium is unique from other low-level radioactive waste because it becomes more radioactive over time. The NRC has said developing new rules for disposing the material could take years.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/07/13/ap6648147.html

Rethinking Nuclear Power

ABC Unleashed has recently featured an article by environmentalist Geoffrey Russell; Rethinking Nuclear Power.

It’s worth reading.

I like the idea of closing down uranium mines, and using existing stocks of mined uranium efficiently.

Uranium mining is far less environmentally intensive than mining coal, of course, but it’s basically inevitable that all mining is fairly environmentally intensive, and it’s always an appealing prospect if we can mine less material (whilst still maintaining our energy supplies and our standards of living, of course.)

I have to admit, when I first saw Geoff’s claim that we could completely eliminate uranium mining, I was skeptical. So I took a more detailed look.

A nuclear reactor which is efficiently consuming uranium-238 and driving a relatively high efficiency engine (typically, a Brayton-cycle gas turbine) will require approximately one tonne of uranium input for one gigawatt-year of energy output. This high efficiency use of U-238 could be best realized something like an IFR or a liquid-chloride-salt reactor (the latter is essentially the fast-neutron uranium fueled variant of a LFTR). This figure of one tonne of input fertile fuel per gigawatt-year is also comparable for the efficient use of thorium in a LFTR.

There are about one million tonnes of already mined, refined uranium in the world, just sitting around waiting to be put to use, which is termed so-called “depleted uranium”.

According to one source, the exact worldwide inventory of depleted uranium is 1,188,273 tonnes [1].
The total electricity production across the world today is about 19.02 trillion kWh [2].

Therefore, total worldwide stocks of depleted uranium, used efficiently in fast reactors, could provide every bit of worldwide electricity production for about 550 years.

That’s not forever, but it’s a surprisingly long time. And that’s just “depleted uranium” stocks; not including the stocks of HEU and plutonium from the arsenals of the Cold War, and not including the large stockpile of uranium and plutonium that exists in the form of “used” LWR fuel.

I know some thorium proponents aren’t going to like this; but there’s a strong case to be made here that uranium-238 based nuclear energy has a clear advantage over thorium, simply became of these huge stockpiles of already-mined uranium, for which there exists no comparable thorium resource already mined. The 3,200 tonnes of thorium nitrate at NTS is tiny compared to the uranium “waste” stockpile, but they’re both really useful energy resources which can replace the need for more mining.

Any type of breeder or burner reactor utilising ²³⁸U, or ²³²Th, as fuel requires an initial charge of fissile material to “kindle” it; however this requirement for fissile material is quite small; and personally, I think the inventories of HEU and weapons-grade plutonium recovered from the gradual dismantlement of the arsenals of the Cold War are perfectly suited to this purpose - destroying those weapons materials, whilst putting them to a valuable use.

Then again, with the means to completely replace the use of coal and fossil fuels in a way that requires very little or no uranium mining, I really hope the rest of the world keeps buying that iron and copper and bauxite. Alternatively, we’re going to have to start developing a more technologically based economy in this country to make up the reduction in exports of these commodities - perhaps developing and selling reactor technology?

Developing uranium enrichment technology, such as SILEX, is of limited usefulness because the relatively inefficient thermal-neutron fission of ²³⁵U, and hence the need for enrichment, will not supply any large portion of world energy demand in a sustainable fashion over the long term. The small amount of ²³⁵U in nature is of limited significance, over the long term.

Alternatively, perhaps a shake up of agriculture, using extensive desalination to supply fresh water requirements, might be used to replace Australia’s income from coal and uranium. I’m not sure.

Tip ‘o the hat to Barry at Brave New Climate for pointing out this article.

[1]: http://www.wise-uranium.org/eddat.html
[2]: From the World Factbook, 2008 ed. (jokes about the integrity of CIA’s intelligence aside…)

http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/rethinking-nuclear-power/

---

Does Domestic Uranium Mining Have a Future?

April 22nd, 2009

Continuing our look at the supply markets for metals used in alternative forms of energy, we turn to a father and son team who happen to sit on billions of dollars worth of uranium underneath their rural Piedmont VA farm and neighboring lands.

Today, the US imports most of its uranium from countries such as Russia and Kazakhstan, according to this Economist article. The question the article raises – will Virginia allow uranium mining – opens an enormous Pandora’s box in terms of the growth of the nuclear power industry in the US market.

The current Virginia law prohibits uranium mining anywhere in the state. Ironically, according to the Economist article, if Virginia lifts its ban, it will, along with proposed oil and gas wells, become a net exporter of energy. In addition, the DOE will announce $18.5b in loan guarantees for two to three nuclear reactors at the behest of the White House. However, nuclear remains a hot potato.

At issue – NIMBY (not in my backyard) politics – both in terms of uranium mining and disposal of nuclear fuel rods. On the mining side, plenty of opposition exists both in Virginia and elsewhere (Hydro Resources Inc just lost a federal appeal to mine on Navajo Nation lands) and I have been told by industry experts the opposition to waste disposal is led by the powerful Senator Harry Reid of Nevada (over the Yucca Mountain site). Obama, who needed Nevada from an election standpoint said, “I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site at the reactors where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term solution that is based on sound science,” according to this article.

Read more here: http://agmetalminer.com/2009/04/22/does-domestic-uranium-mining-have-a-future/

Radioactive Review: Depleted Uranium Will Be Studied

Tribune Editorial

Updated: 04/17/2009 05:03:26 PM MDT

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as part of a "long-term" comprehensive study of its radioactive waste classification system, will consider reclassifying depleted uranium as high-level waste. Meanwhile, it will develop site-specific disposal criteria to help determine which landfills can safely accept large quantities of the radioactive material -- 11 tons or more.

File that under better late than never, because EnergySolutions has already accepted 49 tons of depleted uranium at its low-level nuclear waste disposal facility at Clive in Tooele County, including more than 5,000 55-gallon drums since last October.

But a lot more depleted uranium could be on the way, as new uranium enrichment facilities ramp up to fuel a nuclear energy renaissance, and the federal Department of Energy prepares to transfer approximately 700,000 tons of the material from temporary storage sites to permanent disposal facilities. And the depleted uranium, the refuse from the process in which natural uranium is enriched to create fuel for nuclear power plants, poses unique disposal challenges.

Regular Class A, low-level waste comes and goes -- after 100 years it has decayed to the point where it is no longer considered a hazard. But depleted uranium, while relatively benign at first, keeps getting hotter and hotter for a million years as it breaks down into more radioactive and easily-dispersed elements.

For decades, depleted uranium disposal wasn't an issue because there wasn't a lot of depleted uranium to dispose of. The material was never specifically categorized when NRC classification guidelines were developed in the 1980s, and depleted uranium was treated as Class A waste by default.

But as government stockpiles grew and applications for new uranium enrichment facilities were received and the need for disposal of large amounts of depleted uranium became apparent, the NRC formally classified the material as low-level waste this year after a cursory review.

The decision stunned Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, members of the House Energy and Environment subcommittee, which oversees the NRC. The congressmen termed the ruling "an arbitrary and capricious mischaracterization" of depleted uranium, and demanded answers. The NRC responded by announcing it would study the issue, but it has yet to set a timetable for its review, and the depleted uranium keeps pouring into Utah.

The NRC needs to stop this madness. Federal regulators need to establish a moratorium on the disposal of depleted uranium until the study is complete.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12166956

Utah - Tooele Landfill Already Accepting Depleted Uranium

By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune
04/14/2009

Significant quantities of depleted uranium are already buried in Utah, well in advance of new federal regulations aimed at determining how much of the unusual metal can be disposed of safely in one place.

The Utah Radiation Control Board heard Tuesday that 49 tons of "DU," as it's often called, has been taken to EnergySolutions Inc.'s specialized landfill in Tooele County since the site opened in 1988.

Radiation Control Division Director Dane Finerfrock told board members about the DU volumes as part of his report on recent decisions by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Federal regulators reaffirmed their decision last month to keep DU's hazard rating as "Class A," the category used for the least-dangerous low-level radioactive waste and considered suitable for "small volumes" of DU, about 1 to 11 tons. The NRC also said it would begin to craft regulations for "large volumes" of DU that need disposal in a couple of years, as new uranium enrichment plants come online.

EnergySolutions' Utah site and one in Texas are the only disposal facilities in line for an estimated 1 million tons of depleted uranium, Finerfrock told the board. Although the company has studied the technicalities of depleted uranium as part of its state license, another review will be required by the state if EnergySolutions asks to take large quantities, he added.

"All of this is in the formative stage," Finerfrock said, "and we'll have to see where it goes."

Board members discussed one reason regulating depleted uranium is so tough: Its radioactive decay products actually become more hazardous over time, peaking after 1 million years, according to the NRC. In effect, regulators are faced with determining a safe exposure far into the future.

James O'Neal, a Provo resident, encouraged the board to remain active in the NRC's future decisions on depleted uranium.

"As far as the default location for this stuff," he said, "it's right here."

The environmental group, the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, also has asked to make a presentation about depleted uranium at the panel's May 12 meeting.

EnergySolutions spokeswoman Jill Sigal said this week that the company has been accepting depleted uranium safely for years and complies with regulations.

Meanwhile, the company has accepted 5,408, 55-gallon drums of depleted uranium oxide since last October, according to a cleanup consortium called Savannah River Nuclear Solutions. The company also has taken depleted uranium cleanup waste from a Massachusetts factory that made uranium-tipped bullets for the Army for nearly 30 years.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12142968

NRC Balks at Calling Depleted Uranium Higher-Risk

By Brock Vergakis
04/13/2009

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says classifying large amounts of depleted uranium as a hotter type of low-level radioactive waste without further study would not provide additional protections to public health, safety or the environment.

The NRC's comments come in an April 9 letter to Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Edward Markey, D-Mass. The congressmen have questioned the NRC's March decision to regulate large quantities of depleted uranium as the least hazardous kind of low-level radioactive waste, known as Class A waste.

Depleted uranium is different from other waste because it becomes more radioactive over time.

The NRC decision could result in more than 1 million tons of depleted uranium being disposed of in Clive, Utah and Andrews County, Texas. Matheson and Markey have called the ruling an "arbitrary and capricious mischaracterization" of the waste.

The two sit on the subcommittee that oversees the NRC and asked the commission to explain its decision.

"In summary, the commission believes that, in the absence of comprehensive technical and legal analyses, changing the waste classification of [depleted uranium] would be premature, could have significant and unforeseeable consequences, and would not provide for more protection of public health and safety and the environment," NRC chairman Dale Klein wrote in response to the congressmen.

By default, depleted uranium has long been considered Class A waste by the NRC and small amounts of it have been accepted in Utah. The NRC never specifically categorized depleted uranium when it developed its guidelines in the early 1980s because so little of it needed to be disposed of at the time.

The debate over how to best classify large volumes of depleted uranium arose in 2005 when a consortium of primarily European companies that own Louisiana Energy Services applied for a license to open a uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, New Mexico.

NRC staff proposed, and commissioners approved 3-1 last month, continuing to classify depleted uranium as Class A waste. But they also required additional safeguards for its disposal in an acknowledgment that it is different from other Class A waste.

The NRC said it consulted with state regulators in South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington on how they view depleted uranium to reach its decision.

"In general, state regulators agreed with the need to handle large quantities of (depleted uranium) as a unique waste stream, regardless of its current waste classification, and agreed that additional analysis should be conducted prior to its disposal," commission staff wrote.

Klein's letter said it is "highly unlikely" any disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium will occur before 2011, which gives staff time to hold public workshops and develop technical rules for how the waste should be disposed of.

Matheson and Markey have also told the NRC to turn over all e-mails, phone call logs, meeting notes, memoranda and analyses related to the depleted uranium decision.

Matheson's spokeswoman, Alyson Heyrend, said Matheson had not seen the NRC's letter yet and that he's still waiting for the NRC to turn over the documents he's requested.

The NRC has until April 20 to comply with the document request.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12132714

Editorial: Three Mile Island - - Nuclear Challenges

Readers of this blog know the serious issues France's nuclear power industry has presented (and continues to present). We also know of the massive extent of Babcock & Wilcox's continued presence in the nuclear industry in this country and that one of their their huge nuclear facilities is in Lynchburg. We're acutely aware that watch-dog agencies are far more 'dog' than 'watch' and that quite often, their 'watching' is just that...passive observation, not pro-active vision or timely intervention to protect those they are charged with protecting.

We need to remember Three Mile Island and be aware that something similar, or worse, could easily happen here again...we could have our own Chernobyl. It is indeed time for a "brighter idea"...and that idea is alternative, renewable energy. Now. ...SB

Posted on Sun, Mar. 29, 2009

Three Mile Island. The China Syndrome. Thirty years later, it's still hard for some people to separate the reality of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history from a fictional depiction of an eerily similar event in a popular movie.

In a way, the movie made the after-effects of Three Mile Island worse.

The China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, and Jack Lemmon, warned what could happen if the core of a power-plant nuclear reactor overheated and melted clear through the earth to Asia. Twelve days after its release, the film almost proved prescient.

On March 28, 1979, Unit 2 at the Three Mile Island plant near Middletown, Pa., overheated. The core began to melt. Toxic gases escaped into the air before the situation was controlled. More than 200,000 nearby residents were evacuated. There were no injuries. No loss of life.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said two million people were likely exposed to low levels of radiation, but that the effects on them and the environment were negligible.

The same could not be said for the nuclear power industry in America. It was crippled by Three Mile Island, which became the rallying cry for activists who had long pointed out the danger in using radioactive material to generate electricity.

But the industry didn't die. In fact, although Unit 2 has remained out of service, Unit 1 at Three Mile Island provides power to Pennsylvania homes and businesses to this day.

The expansion of nuclear power, however, has been stalled nationally, largely on the basis of the justified fear spawned by Three Mile Island and linking it to the possibility of a real "China Syndrome" occurring. Subsequent lesser incidents at other plants have perpetuated that fear.

The utilities that operate nuclear power plants have greatly improved safety procedures since Three Mile Island. Nine months after that event, they banded together to form the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations to share best practices.

But troubling incidents continue to occur; like the security guards caught sleeping at Peach Bottom, or the sabotage discovered at Turkey Point in Florida. These events don't exactly boost confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the industry's watchdog.

Then there's the overarching concern of the public, that in the 30 years since Three Mile Island, this nation has yet to develop a viable alternative to storing nuclear waste on-site at the power plants.

The Obama administration has indicated that it doesn't support locating a national repository at Yucca Flats, Nevada. But with nuclear energy being touted as a better option to our expensive foreign-oil habit, the waste question must be answered.

Utilities have submitted applications to the NRC to build up to 26 new nuclear reactors, including one at the Bell Bend plant in Luzerne County.

Worldwide, more than 400 reactors are being planned, as other nations also attempt to become less oil-dependent. Even Sweden, which banned any new nuclear power plants after Three Mile Island, has new plants on the drawing board.

Thirty years ago, the rest of the world might have looked to this country at this point. General Electric, Westinghouse, and Babcock & Wilcox were the leaders in building nuclear reactors. But today, it's Electricite de France. Indeed, 75 percent of France's electricity is derived from nuclear power compared with 20 percent in the United States.

France handles its nuclear waste by reprocessing most of it to be used again. That has been resisted here, because it requires separating uranium from plutonium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons.

But if reprocessing isn't the answer, and Yucca Flats is out of the question, so should be new nuclear plants - until someone has a brighter idea.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20090329_Editorial__Three_Mile_Island.html

NRC Racing to Answer Questions on Depleted Uranium

By BROCK VERGAKIS Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press

March 25, 2009, 11:12AM

SALT LAKE CITY — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is rushing to meet an April 2 deadline to turn over stacks of internal documents that could shed light on why it recently decided to classify large quantities of depleted uranium as the least hazardous type of low-level radioactive waste.

The NRC's decision, which still must undergo a rule-making process that could take up to two years, would open the door for federal facilities and companies around the country to dispose of more than 1 million tons of depleted uranium in Utah and Texas.

Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who is chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the NRC, have demanded the documents because they believe the agency's March 18 decision disregards the risk depleted uranium poses to public health and safety.

They called the NRC's decision an "arbitrary and capricious mischaracterization" of the waste.

NRC spokesman David McIntyre said it's possible the guidelines could still change.

"It's not a closed door at all. This is the direction that the commission told the staff to take, and part of that is to develop this guidance and to hold a public workshop promptly to get public input," he said. "The commission itself will be looking at this at least twice more."

Depleted uranium is unique in that unlike other waste, it becomes more radioactive over time, leading to criticism from environmental groups that the NRC is downplaying the long-term risks of radiological exposure.

"It's kind of like saying someone isn't a drunk driver because he passed a breathalyzer test before he started drinking," said Christopher Thomas, public policy director for the nuclear waste watchdog group Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah.

Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions Inc. operates the only low-level radioactive waste dump available to 36 states. It's only authorized to take Class A waste, traditionally considered the least hazardous.

Waste Control Specialists LLC also wants to dispose of low-level radioactive waste in Andrews County, Texas, a few miles from the southeastern New Mexico border.

Both companies have expressed interest in disposing of depleted uranium, which is a uranium enrichment byproduct. About 740,000 tons of depleted uranium is currently being stockpiled at Department of Energy sites at Paducah, Ky.; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Licenses for enrichment plants are also being sought in Piketon, Ohio; Areva, Idaho; and Wilmington, N.C.

By default, depleted uranium has long been considered Class A waste by the NRC and small amounts of it have been accepted in Utah. That's because the NRC never specifically categorized depleted uranium when it developed its guidelines in the early 1980s — a result that so little needed to be disposed of at the time.

The issue of whether large volumes of depleted uranium should still be classified as Class A waste arose when a consortium of primarily European companies that own Louisiana Energy Services applied for a license in 2005 to open a uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, New Mexico, in the southeastern part of the state.

NRC staff proposed, and commissioners approved last week, continuing to classify depleted uranium as Class A waste, but they also required additional safeguards for its disposal in an acknowledgment that it is different from other Class A waste.

Environmental groups contend the 3-1 ruling by the NRC's Republican-controlled commission is an attempt to appease corporate interests searching for the least expensive option possible to dispose of the waste.

"The reason for all these shenanigans, in my opinion, is they've already granted a license saying you can dispose of depleted uranium in shallow landfill areas," Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Md., said of the New Mexico site.

Among the documents Matheson and Markey are requesting are all e-mails, phone call logs, meeting notes, memoranda and analyses related to the depleted uranium decision, including any records related to EnergySolutions.

"We're trying to find out the basis for this decision. It seems to be an odd course to take," Matheson said in a telephone interview from Washington.

McIntyre said NRC staff are working tirelessly to track down all of the information requested.

"We want to accommodate their request to the fullest extent," he said.

Matheson and Markey's letter questioned how the NRC could make the ruling when in the 1980s it was considering higher classification.

"The depleted uranium waste stream which will flow from commercial uranium enrichment facilities is expected to be ... ten times greater than what the commission believed was safe," the letter says.

What effect turning over the documents will have is unclear. It is possible, although unlikely, that the NRC could reverse course on its decision if Matheson and Markey continue to pressure them.

The congressmen could also ask President Barack Obama to appoint new commissioners to the NRC to give it a Democratic majority. One seat on the five member commission is already vacantand a Republican member's term is set to expire July 1. One Democrat already sits on the NRC.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6340665.html

Ruling clears way for EnergySolutions to Store Depleted Uranium in Utah

NRC » Anti-nuclear groups say waste doesn't belong here; EnergySolutions applauds panel's decision

By Judy Fahys

The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 03/19/2009 08:32:52 AM MDT

Depleted uranium is not your ordinary radioactive waste.

Most hot waste gets less hazardous over time, like most of the stuff buried at EnergySolutions Inc.'s disposal site in Tooele County.

But not DU, as it's called. The uranium enrichment by-product becomes more hazardous as it decays. And that's the reason the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's latest decision on depleted uranium is causing such a controversy.

On Wednesday, the commission voted 3-to-1 to regulate DU as Class A low-level waste. And, in doing so, it made up to 1.4 million tons of DU potentially eligible to go to EnergySolutions' Utah site.

While the Salt Lake City nuclear company is applauding the decision, critics say the NRC has put industry's interests before people. And the commissioner who cast the "no" vote said DU is "a unique challenge" that deserves its own category.

Instead, the NRC ruling directs staff to suggest any extra precautions -- like a heavier radon barrier or deeper burial -- needed before DU gets buried at any disposal site.

"I'm hopeful in the end that we will come up with what a safe disposal methodology for this material would be," said Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko, who's been pushing NRC to be clearer and more open about radioactive waste.

For EnergySolutions, the ruling clears the way for lots more of a waste stream it's already been taking on a much smaller scale. It also solves a problem for the blossoming uranium enrichment industry, which would have had no disposal options if NRC had labeled DU differently, because hotter waste is not permitted in Utah.

Said company spokesman Mark Walker: "We appreciate the NRC's ruling which is based on sound science that depleted uranium is Class A waste."

But Christopher Thomas, policy director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah said DU is a radioactive threat that grows for hundreds and thousands of years.

"Ultimately, it'd be too hot for Utah to handle," he said. "The NRC is tearing a hole in the waste classification system that is supposed to protect us. Their decision puts the interests of EnergySolutions and the nuclear industry ahead of the health and safety of Utah."

Anti-nuclear groups have said DU is 40 times more radioactive than typical Class A waste and is four times more hazardous than some types of plutonium. They said it needs to be secure for thousands of years -- far longer than the 100-year hazard limit for Class A waste.

Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, praised Jaczko and attacked the scientific integrity of NRC's ruling.

"The NRC seems eager to please the burgeoning uranium enrichment industry," said Makhijani, "but it has compromised sound science and public health protection of future generations."

Dane Finerfrock, director of Utah's Division of Radiation Control, noted one key factor for the state will be how long the NRC's hazard limits will apply. For instance, a certain concentration of DU might not be dangerous in 100 years or 1,000 years but might be far more hazardous in 10,000 years from now.

Whatever NRC decides, safety standards will have to be met, he said. "We'll do exactly what the rule requires us to do."

fahys@sltrib.com

{Depleted uranium (DU) is a uranium enrichment by-product. Unlike most hot waste, DU becomes more hazardous as it decays.Anti-nuclear groups have said DU is 40 times more radioactive than typical Class A waste and is four times more hazardous than some types of plutonium.}

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11945578