Group items tagged

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on issues associated with blending of low-level radioactive waste and is planning public meetings to discuss blending in Rockville, Md. The issue of blending low-level radioactive waste has received increased attention from the nuclear industry since the 2008 closing of the Barnwell, S.C., low-level waste disposal site. This action left waste generators in 36 states with no disposal options for Class B and Class C wastes, the two classes of low-level waste with higher radioactivity. Blending in some cases can lower the classification of the wastes to the lower-radioactivity Class A, which has available disposal capacity, by reducing the concentration of radionuclides. Blending refers to mixing low-level wastes of different concentrations, primarily Class B or C with Class A. It does not involve mixing radioactive waste with non-radioactive waste, a practice known as "dilution." And it does not imply release of radioactive material to the general environment, either to municipal non-radioactive waste disposal sites or to consumer products. Blended wastes remain low-level waste and must be disposed in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on issues associated with blending of low-level radioactive waste and is planning public meetings to discuss blending in Rockville, Md. The issue of blending low-level radioactive waste has received increased attention from the nuclear industry since the 2008 closing of the Barnwell, S.C., low-level waste disposal site. This action left waste generators in 36 states with no disposal options for Class B and Class C wastes, the two classes of low-level waste with higher radioactivity. Blending in some cases can lower the classification of the wastes to the lower-radioactivity Class A, which has available disposal capacity, by reducing the concentration of radionuclides. Blending refers to mixing low-level wastes of different concentrations, primarily Class B or C with Class A. It does not involve mixing radioactive waste with non-radioactive waste, a practice known as "dilution." And it does not imply release of radioactive material to the general environment, either to municipal non-radioactive waste disposal sites or to consumer products. Blended wastes remain low-level waste and must be disposed in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.

EnergySolutions seems hell-bent to increase its revenue stream by diversifying the waste stream flowing to its low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Tooele County. Its efforts to serve as the depository for the nation's depleted uranium and the world's low-level radioactive waste are well-documented. And now, the for-profit firm is arguing in favor of "blending" trash , which would allow it to introduce even hotter trash to the Beehive State. Company officials made their case for blended waste before the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tuesday. The process, if approved, would allow hotter Class B and C low-level wastes to be mixed with Class A waste as long as the blended waste does not exceed the standards for Class A waste, the least radioactive of low-level wastes and the only type Utah law allows. It should come as no surprise that the nuclear industry would endorse such a practice. EnergySolutions is a private company looking to improve its bottom line. And the nuclear power industry is seeking a repository for its Class B and Class C waste, after a disposal site in South Carolina stopped accepting waste from 36 other states in 2008.

EnergySolutions seems hell-bent to increase its revenue stream by diversifying the waste stream flowing to its low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Tooele County. Its efforts to serve as the depository for the nation's depleted uranium and the world's low-level radioactive waste are well-documented. And now, the for-profit firm is arguing in favor of "blending" trash , which would allow it to introduce even hotter trash to the Beehive State. Company officials made their case for blended waste before the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tuesday. The process, if approved, would allow hotter Class B and C low-level wastes to be mixed with Class A waste as long as the blended waste does not exceed the standards for Class A waste, the least radioactive of low-level wastes and the only type Utah law allows. It should come as no surprise that the nuclear industry would endorse such a practice. EnergySolutions is a private company looking to improve its bottom line. And the nuclear power industry is seeking a repository for its Class B and Class C waste, after a disposal site in South Carolina stopped accepting waste from 36 other states in 2008.

The Department of Energy is adding another type of radioactive waste to those that won't be sent to Hanford until the vitrification plant is fully operational. Tuesday, DOE prepared a statement saying that even though its agreement with the states of Washington and Oregon did not cover greater-than-class-C low level radioactive waste, "this waste will not be imported to Hanford for the duration of the moratorium that defers the importation of waste to Hanford." Greater-than-class-C low, or GTCC, waste is more radioactive than the waste Hanford now is burying in its landfill for radioactive waste, the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. As part of a proposed settlement with the states over a lawsuit brought against DOE, DOE had agreed to recommend in a draft environmental study not to import certain kinds of waste to Hanford until the vit plant is operating to treat high level radioactive tank waste. That's expected to be about 2022. Federal law requires the environmental study before a final decision on the moratorium is made.

The Department of Energy is adding another type of radioactive waste to those that won't be sent to Hanford until the vitrification plant is fully operational. Tuesday, DOE prepared a statement saying that even though its agreement with the states of Washington and Oregon did not cover greater-than-class-C low level radioactive waste, "this waste will not be imported to Hanford for the duration of the moratorium that defers the importation of waste to Hanford." Greater-than-class-C low, or GTCC, waste is more radioactive than the waste Hanford now is burying in its landfill for radioactive waste, the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. As part of a proposed settlement with the states over a lawsuit brought against DOE, DOE had agreed to recommend in a draft environmental study not to import certain kinds of waste to Hanford until the vit plant is operating to treat high level radioactive tank waste. That's expected to be about 2022. Federal law requires the environmental study before a final decision on the moratorium is made.

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options. Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term. It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches. The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas. GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options. Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report. GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

Earlier this month, a shipment off-site of seven barrels of tritium- and mercury-contaminated oil put the Savannah River Site on a fast track to remove legacy mixed waste originally scheduled for disposition in 2053. "Not only is it radioactive for its tritium content, it is hazardous for mercury, which can make treatment of this waste challenging," said Jacob Nims, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) project engineer. "We had plans to let all of it decay to be able to ship it off-site in the future." Decaying would have taken 10 to 50 years. Instead, funding from the Recovery Act accelerated the project as part of the cleanup that will reduce the footprint of the Site by 67 percent. In essence, the removal of the mixed waste frees space in N Area, allowing for the consolidation of the remaining waste from a total of 30,000 square feet of space to a smaller 3,600-square-foot facility in E Area. "The plan is to ship all we can from N Area and move only what is necessary into E Area to allow maximum space for all future generated waste," Nims said.

Earlier this month, a shipment off-site of seven barrels of tritium- and mercury-contaminated oil put the Savannah River Site on a fast track to remove legacy mixed waste originally scheduled for disposition in 2053. "Not only is it radioactive for its tritium content, it is hazardous for mercury, which can make treatment of this waste challenging," said Jacob Nims, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) project engineer. "We had plans to let all of it decay to be able to ship it off-site in the future." Decaying would have taken 10 to 50 years. Instead, funding from the Recovery Act accelerated the project as part of the cleanup that will reduce the footprint of the Site by 67 percent. In essence, the removal of the mixed waste frees space in N Area, allowing for the consolidation of the remaining waste from a total of 30,000 square feet of space to a smaller 3,600-square-foot facility in E Area. "The plan is to ship all we can from N Area and move only what is necessary into E Area to allow maximum space for all future generated waste," Nims said.

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a rule change that would allow hotter radioactive waste to be mixed with less hazardous waste so it could be disposed of in Utah. Utah is home to the only low-level radioactive waste facility available to 36 states. But it only disposes of Class A waste, considered the least hazardous. NRC regulators are proposing the blending of hotter Class B and C waste with Class A waste so that it can legally come to Utah. Much of the nation's class B and C waste has had no place to go in the past two years since a South Carolina facility was closed to all but three states. An NRC paper cites industry estimates that blended waste could slash the volume of orphaned Class B and Class C waste by two-thirds, from 12,000 cubic feet a year to about 4,000 cubic feet."

Cleaning up the environment often creates waste, which in turn must be carefully handled, treated and/or disposed to make sure it doesn't hurt the environment again on the back end. Make sense? Anyway, there are seven cleanup projects under way at the Y-12 National Security Complex that are funded by the Recovery Act, and it's estimated those projects will generate something approaching 3 million cubic feet of waste (of various categories). Here's where the waste will be sent for disposal: * 803,708 cubic feet to Y-12's sanitary landfill. This waste is likely to be uncontaminated demolition rubble and the like. * 1,775,029 cubic feet to the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility. This is the CERCLA landfill just down the road from Y-12, and it's set up to receive low-level and mixed low-level radioactive wastes from Oak Ridge cleanup projects. * 222,376 cubic feet to Nevada Test Site. No details here, but the waste typically sent to Nevada is the hotter low-level waste that doesn't meant the waste-acceptance criteria at the Oak Ridge landfill.

Given the high cost to empty and treat Hanford's radioactive tank wastes, the government should consider leaving more waste in the underground tanks, according to a new Government Accountability Office report. The report also challenges the Department of Energy to find ways to reduce costs for retrieval and final disposal of high-level radioactive wastes, saying they could be more costly than justified by the reduction in risk. The estimated price tag to empty Hanford's underground tanks of radioactive waste and treat it are rapidly escalating and could be from $86 billion to more than $100 billion -- rather than the $77 billion that DOE estimates, according to the report. The study was prepared at the request of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Cost escalation is the result of a range of issues, including the difficulties Hanford workers have had in emptying the leak-prone tanks of millions of gallons of waste, questions about how well vitrification plant technology will work and a decision not to send treated wastes to Yucca Mountain, Nev., for disposal, the report says.

Given the high cost to empty and treat Hanford's radioactive tank wastes, the government should consider leaving more waste in the underground tanks, according to a new Government Accountability Office report. The report also challenges the Department of Energy to find ways to reduce costs for retrieval and final disposal of high-level radioactive wastes, saying they could be more costly than justified by the reduction in risk. The estimated price tag to empty Hanford's underground tanks of radioactive waste and treat it are rapidly escalating and could be from $86 billion to more than $100 billion -- rather than the $77 billion that DOE estimates, according to the report. The study was prepared at the request of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Cost escalation is the result of a range of issues, including the difficulties Hanford workers have had in emptying the leak-prone tanks of millions of gallons of waste, questions about how well vitrification plant technology will work and a decision not to send treated wastes to Yucca Mountain, Nev., for disposal, the report says.

When Oregon and Washington's governors announced a settlement with the U.S. Department of Energy in August for cleanup of radioactive tank waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, they said it included a "moratorium" on shipping new radioactive waste to Hanford until a plant to treat the tank wastes was up and running. But in fact a big chunk of radioactive waste -- including contaminated metal from decommissioned U.S. nuclear plants -- isn't included in that proposed moratorium, Oregon officials confirmed Friday. Ken Niles, assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy, said Oregon continues to oppose importing the waste, formally known as "Greater than Class C" or GTCC waste.

When Oregon and Washington's governors announced a settlement with the U.S. Department of Energy in August for cleanup of radioactive tank waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, they said it included a "moratorium" on shipping new radioactive waste to Hanford until a plant to treat the tank wastes was up and running. But in fact a big chunk of radioactive waste -- including contaminated metal from decommissioned U.S. nuclear plants -- isn't included in that proposed moratorium, Oregon officials confirmed Friday. Ken Niles, assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy, said Oregon continues to oppose importing the waste, formally known as "Greater than Class C" or GTCC waste.

The hazardous waste industry, and nuclear waste in particular, have never been simple issues within Tooele County. While some along the Wasatch Front would like to see this genie put back into the bottle, most local residents have long realized our hazardous waste corridor is here to stay - requiring us to take a more pragmatic and nuanced view of the industry. Hazardous waste has created jobs for county residents. It has also contributed millions of dollars to county government coffers in the form of mitigation fees - funds that were used to construct Deseret Peak Complex. Although that contribution has declined drastically in recent years, it remains an important revenue source within county budgets.

The hazardous waste industry, and nuclear waste in particular, have never been simple issues within Tooele County. While some along the Wasatch Front would like to see this genie put back into the bottle, most local residents have long realized our hazardous waste corridor is here to stay - requiring us to take a more pragmatic and nuanced view of the industry. Hazardous waste has created jobs for county residents. It has also contributed millions of dollars to county government coffers in the form of mitigation fees - funds that were used to construct Deseret Peak Complex. Although that contribution has declined drastically in recent years, it remains an important revenue source within county budgets.

The hazardous waste industry, and nuclear waste in particular, have never been simple issues within Tooele County. While some along the Wasatch Front would like to see this genie put back into the bottle, most local residents have long realized our hazardous waste corridor is here to stay - requiring us to take a more pragmatic and nuanced view of the industry. Hazardous waste has created jobs for county residents. It has also contributed millions of dollars to county government coffers in the form of mitigation fees - funds that were used to construct Deseret Peak Complex. Although that contribution has declined drastically in recent years, it remains an important revenue source within county budgets.

The Savannah River Site (SRS) achieved a significant milestone Wednesday when the 1,000th shipment of transuranic (TRU) waste was made to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) located near Carlsbad, N.M. The shipment marks the eighth year of SRS shipping radioactive waste from South Carolina to New Mexico without incident. SRS made its first shipment of TRU waste to WIPP on May 8, 2001. SRS has safely shipped more than 28,200 55-gallon drums of TRU waste for disposal at the WIPP geologic repository since that time. "This is a significant accomplishment for the Savannah River Site and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, demonstrating the Department of Energy's commitment to cleaning up legacy waste sites and safely disposing of the waste inventories," said Jeff Allison, manager of DOE's Savannah River Operations office. "Every shipment is inspected by the South Carolina Department of Transportation and the Department of Health and Environmental Control to assure it's safe to go on the road before it's released. Both agencies have played important roles in maintaining the safety of shipments and supporting the Department of Energy in this accomplishment." Since the beginning of SRS operations in the early 1950s, more than 30,000 drums and 3,000 non-drum containers of TRU waste have accumulated on concrete pads, where they were covered over with soil, awaiting final disposition.

"The weaknesses of federal regulatory agencies have been exposed by recent high-profile accidents. Guest columnist Tom Carpenter fears the Department of Energy will reduce its oversight of cleanup at the nation's nuclear waste sites.\n\nBy Tom Carpenter\n\nSpecial to The Times\n\nPREV of NEXT\n\n \n\nRelated\n\nMillions of gallons of oil gush continue to rush unabated from BP's mile-deep well in the Gulf of Mexico, and 11 workers are dead from the massive explosion that caused the biggest oil spill in decades. Weeks before this event, the news was dominated by the preventable explosion that killed 29 West Virginia coal miners.\n\nIn both cases, the not-so surprising news was that the mine and the oil rig had abysmal records of safety violations before the explosions yet were still allowed to operate by the captive regulatory agencies.\n\nWhere is the government accountability? It is the government's job to assure that ultra-hazardous industries operate safely and responsibly.\n\nIs nuclear next? The Department of Energy sits on the nation's biggest nuclear nightmare. Its inventories of highly radioactive and toxic wastes defy comprehension. Washingtonians are familiar with the DOE's No. 1 accomplishment, the Hanford nuclear site, which holds the lion's share of the nation's radioactive detritus. Suffice it to say that the escape of even a small fraction of such material into the environment would constitute a Chernobyl-sized catastrophe."

"Utah, say federal regulators, can help solve a big problem for the nuclear industry: the pileup of low-level radioactive waste at many of the nation's reactors. Much of the hottest low-level waste -- though far less radioactive than used fuel rods -- is stored at 90 power plants because nuclear companies have nowhere to dispose of it. So, staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed changing federal rules to make that waste permissible at the EnergySolutions Inc. disposal site in Utah through "blending." By allowing more hazardous "Class B and C waste" to be mixed with lower-hazard "Class A" waste, regulators would make the blend legal for disposal at EnergySolutions, the only commercial site open to low-level radioactive waste from 36 states. The blending proposal reflects a big shift in NRC policy, and it directly contradicts the public positions of Gov. Gary Herbert, the Utah Division of Radiation Control and the state's Radiation Control Board. The Utahns object to blending "when the intent is to alter the waste classification for the purposes of disposal site access." Five years ago, Utah banned "Class B and Class C" low-level radioactive waste. "

Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.

Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.

Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.

If a friend asked to dump his garbage in your yard because he knew you would know what to do with it, what would you say? Probably, no thanks. That's what the U.S. should say to countries that want to send their nuclear waste here for processing and storage. Thankfully, Sen. Lamar Alexander and U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon are sponsoring legislation in Congress to keep other countries' nuclear waste out of the U.S. No other nation allows the importation and storage of another country's nuclear waste. We shouldn't, either. The controversy arose when a private Utah company, EnergySolutions, asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to bring in 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste from Italy. The company would process the waste in Tennessee and store the resulting 1,600 tons at a private facility 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. The NRC also said it has applications from Mexico and Brazil to do the same thing.

If a friend asked to dump his garbage in your yard because he knew you would know what to do with it, what would you say? Probably, no thanks. That's what the U.S. should say to countries that want to send their nuclear waste here for processing and storage. Thankfully, Sen. Lamar Alexander and U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon are sponsoring legislation in Congress to keep other countries' nuclear waste out of the U.S. No other nation allows the importation and storage of another country's nuclear waste. We shouldn't, either. The controversy arose when a private Utah company, EnergySolutions, asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to bring in 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste from Italy. The company would process the waste in Tennessee and store the resulting 1,600 tons at a private facility 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. The NRC also said it has applications from Mexico and Brazil to do the same thing.

Businesses that handle some of Utah's most dangerous materials are being inspected less often because of dwindling funds to pay for the work. State monitoring of hazardous and radioactive waste has for years been funded by fees collected from commercial waste companies. That fund - which reached nearly $6 million in 2006 - has fallen off with the down economy, dwindling to just $30,000 at the end of the last fiscal year. Utah is still adequately regulating hazardous waste operations but is no longer able to inspect them as often as in the past, said Dennis Downs, director of the state's hazardous and solid waste division. That not only includes monitoring of large hazardous waste disposal sites in Utah but also regular checks on hundreds of smaller operations - from autobody shops and dry cleaners to oil refineries - that generate and store dangerous materials.

Businesses that handle some of Utah's most dangerous materials are being inspected less often because of dwindling funds to pay for the work. State monitoring of hazardous and radioactive waste has for years been funded by fees collected from commercial waste companies. That fund - which reached nearly $6 million in 2006 - has fallen off with the down economy, dwindling to just $30,000 at the end of the last fiscal year. Utah is still adequately regulating hazardous waste operations but is no longer able to inspect them as often as in the past, said Dennis Downs, director of the state's hazardous and solid waste division. That not only includes monitoring of large hazardous waste disposal sites in Utah but also regular checks on hundreds of smaller operations - from autobody shops and dry cleaners to oil refineries - that generate and store dangerous materials.

Concerns were raised about whether the state can make the federal government stick to its moratorium on importing certain radioactive wastes to the Hanford nuclear reservation at a public hearing Thursday night in Richland. About 40 people attended the hearing on a proposed settlement agreement reached by the state of Washington and the Department of Energy to resolve a lawsuit brought by the state against DOE almost a year ago. The state sued after it became clear DOE could not meet legal deadlines in the Tri-Party Agreement to empty leak-prone underground tanks of radioactive waste and treat the waste. The proposed settlement agreement would extend deadlines to dates DOE and the state say are realistic. And in one concession for doing that, the state won a commitment from DOE not to import several types of waste to Hanford until the vitrification plant is fully operational to treat the waste. That's scheduled for 2022.

Concerns were raised about whether the state can make the federal government stick to its moratorium on importing certain radioactive wastes to the Hanford nuclear reservation at a public hearing Thursday night in Richland. About 40 people attended the hearing on a proposed settlement agreement reached by the state of Washington and the Department of Energy to resolve a lawsuit brought by the state against DOE almost a year ago. The state sued after it became clear DOE could not meet legal deadlines in the Tri-Party Agreement to empty leak-prone underground tanks of radioactive waste and treat the waste. The proposed settlement agreement would extend deadlines to dates DOE and the state say are realistic. And in one concession for doing that, the state won a commitment from DOE not to import several types of waste to Hanford until the vitrification plant is fully operational to treat the waste. That's scheduled for 2022.

"EnergySolutions says it no longer aspires to import the world's nuclear waste to Utah. Instead, it wants to export its expertise to the world, and help other nations dispose of their own radioactive waste. After the company doggedly pursued a license to import waste from Italy in the face of overwhelming opposition, the shift in strategy announced this week seems a welcome turn of events. This page has long advocated that the company grow its business by exporting landfills instead of importing waste. So, arrivederci, foreign waste. The world will have to find another sap. EnergySolutions' low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Tooele County is not the solution to the planet's radioactive waste disposal needs."

When we talk of garbage not being disposed off well, we do not think about garbage other than the regular kitchen waste and plastic. One major type of waste that we hardly talk about is radioactive waste, produced at cancer hospitals. While our kitchen waste may not be so harmful, radioactive waste can be hazardous. On a casual inquiry, I found out that the cancer hospitals in Bengaluru were apparently disposing residual radioactive waste into the public sewerage and garbage. This sounds alarming, but this is what they are supposed when the radioactive material (used for treatment) is 'fully used'. On matters of radioactive waste disposal, cancer hospitals in India are governed by guidelines issued by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). According to radiotherapy physicists (doctors), once the radioactive material is fully used (or spent) and decayed, it does not remain harmful.

The U.S. House sent a message to Italy, to Utah-based EnergySolutions, and to the world Wednesday -- the United States will not be a dumping ground for other nations' radioactive waste. By a vote of 309-112, members wisely approved the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act, which bans radioactive waste imports. Co-sponsored by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the measure aims to tame EnergySolutions' international business aspirations. The company is seeking a license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to import 20,000 tons of contaminated materials from Italy's nuclear power industry. The waste would be processed at the firm's recycling facility in Tennessee, and 1,600 tons of leftovers would land in the company's low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Tooele County, the only repository available for waste from 36 states.

The U.S. House sent a message to Italy, to Utah-based EnergySolutions, and to the world Wednesday -- the United States will not be a dumping ground for other nations' radioactive waste. By a vote of 309-112, members wisely approved the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act, which bans radioactive waste imports. Co-sponsored by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the measure aims to tame EnergySolutions' international business aspirations. The company is seeking a license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to import 20,000 tons of contaminated materials from Italy's nuclear power industry. The waste would be processed at the firm's recycling facility in Tennessee, and 1,600 tons of leftovers would land in the company's low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Tooele County, the only repository available for waste from 36 states.