- A coalition of 88 environmental groups opposes the EnergySolutions proposal to import Canadian radioactive waste for disposal in Utah.
- The proposal calls for bringing in up to 1.31 million cubic yards of low-level radioactive waste to a Tooele County facility.
- The coalition urges a thorough review of the plans, to be considered at a meeting on Friday.
SALT LAKE CITY — Two days ahead a meeting focused on a proposal to dispose of Canadian radioactive waste at a Tooele County facility, a coalition of 88 environmental groups has come out against the plans.
"This would be the very first time that licensed-radioactive waste or radioactive hazardous waste from other countries would be permanently disposed in the United States. It could open the floodgates for more from Canada and all over the world," reads a statement issued Wednesday by the coalition.
The public statement, addressed to the commissioners on the Northwest Interstate Compact for Low-Level Nuclear Waste Management, says the 88 U.S. and Canadian organizations "stand firmly opposed" to the EnergySolutions proposal. The Salt Lake-based firm has crafted a proposal to import 1.31 million cubic yards of low-level radioactive waste from Ontario, Canada, and dispose of it at its Clive facility in Tooele County, about 80 miles west of the Utah capital.
Among the 88 signatories to the statement are leaders from the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, the Sierra Club of Utah and Moab-based Uranium Watch. Other signatories include other environmental and watchdog groups around the United States and Canada.
The EnergySolutions proposal is to be discussed Friday by the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management with possible action by the group. The compact represents eight Western states, including Utah, and helps manage disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Friday's gathering is to be held at Washington State Department of Health offices in Tumwater, Washington.
The EnergySolutions proposal, which publicly emerged last September, faces scrutiny from a number of groups. Aside from Northwest Interstate Compact support, the plans would require a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to bring in foreign radioactive waste and a permit from Canada, according to the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah.
Meantime, the groups lined up against the proposal have a long list of questions about it and called on the commissioners of the Northwest Interstate Compact to "fully review and understand" the varied aspects of the proposal.
"Since the commission agenda indicates that you are considering approving this request, please assure yourselves and the public that you are clear on all aspects and implications of such approval, and hold off on voting until you are," reads Wednesday's statement. According to the groups opposing the proposal, the waste would come to Utah over a 10-year period.
An EnergySolutions rep didn't immediately respond to a query Wednesday seeking comment, but the proposal comes amid a push by many Utah leaders, including Gov. Spencer Cox, to encourage addition of more nuclear power to the state's energy portfolio. According to a presentation on the plans prepared by EnergySolutions, Utah leaders support the proposal.
As part of their statement, the coalition opposed to the EnergySolutions proposal provided a list of numerous questions to address about it.
"First, what is the radioactive content of the waste?" reads the statement. Low-level waste, the statement went on, "is not low risk, and much of it is not low-dose. Every amount of radioactivity can cause health damage."
The groups also wonder whether the proposal, if approved, would pave the way for radioactive waste from other countries, what Canadian facilities the waste would come from, how much EnergySolutions stands to earn and who would be liable in the event of contamination. They wonder what route the waste would follow from Canada to Utah, whether funds would be set aside to cover the costs of any accidents and more.
"Before Utah is asked to become a dumping ground for foreign radioactive waste, the public deserves clear answers. We still don't know what's in this waste, who made it, how much long-lived radioactivity it contains, who is liable if something goes wrong or which communities will be put at risk along transport routes," Lexi Tuddenham, the executive director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, said in a statement.
"Decisions of this magnitude should not be rushed or made behind closed doors."
