Depleted uranium: Both sides sound off

The state's plans for stricter depleted uranium controls has sparked a war of words, with EnergySolutions Inc. calling the proposal a violation of state law and the company's critics saying Utah should close the gates to the stuff forever.

"Please keep a rein on EnergySolutions and other pollutant companies who want to take advantage of Utah," wrote Carolyn Potter of Sandy. "This is our state not the world's dumping ground."

Potter's was one of more than three dozen letters that arrived by the Feb. 2 deadline at the Utah Division of Radiation Control on its pending DU regulation. The regulation, when finalized, would block more DU until EnergySolutions develops a technical report telling why its low-level radioactive waste site in Tooele County is suitable for large quantities and the state signs off on it.

DU is a form of enrichment waste that becomes increasingly hazardous for at least 1 million years. And whether any shallow burial site can contain DU effectively became an issue last year after the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it would take another three years before it could begin to answer the question.

The Tooele site already has more than 50 tons of DU. Another 6,000 tons is ready to be shipped from a government cleanup site in South Carolina before the new regulation is put in place, probably over the next few months. Potentially 1.4 million tons more will need to be disposed of in coming years.

The company noted in its 2-inch thick comment package that federal regulators have given DU a Class A designation, so it is allowed at the Tooele County landfill under its state license and federal law.

The company said there is no proof the new regulation "is needed to protect the public health and environment of the State of Utah." And the state, charged the company, will be violating its own "no-more-stringent" law that prohibits state environmental regulations tougher than federal ones.

The Utah Manufacturers Association, the Nuclear Energy Institute and four others sided with the company in criticizing the proposal.

David Moir, a Tooele paralegal, said state regulators and the Radiation Control Board are now joining with a chorus of "antagonist fanatics who pitch outright lies in the attempt to generate fear which spends just like cash."

Meanwhile, most letters praised regulators for the proposal and encouraged them to take whatever steps necessary to make sure that any DU buried in Utah is safe.

"It is simple common sense to understand the hazards of DU BEFORE it is shipped, BEFORE it is received -- and even before it is produced," wrote retired biologist Naomi Franklin.

Among those advocating tough controls was Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon. The Utah Medical Association, like many citizens, said DU simply doesn't belong in the state.

Several highly technical critiques were offered, too, including one from two Brigham Young University scientists and a fellow Great Salt Lake expert now based in Kansas. They said there is a high likelihood historic Lake Bonneville will inundate the site again, ruin the containment and spread radioactive materials over a vast area.

A University of Notre Dame engineering professor suggested "a robust peer review" of the final report. "The six-month delay this peer-review would cause seems warranted when it is weighed against the potential consequences of poor decisions," said Peter C. Burns, a member of past NRC panels on DU who called it "unwise to dispose of DU in landfills."