It appears the NRC, DOE, Areva and the state of Idaho have the cart before the horse.
By MARGARET MACDONALD STEWART
On July 30, 2008, this newspaper printed an editorial entitled, "Is Idaho prepared to monitor uranium enrichment plant?" Two years later, this uranium enrichment plan in Idaho is in full swing and it's important that everyone in Idaho knows what's at stake if it's allowed to move ahead.
Areva, the French-owned nuclear giant, wants to build a $4 billion gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant—large enough to fuel 50 nuclear reactors—100 air miles east of Ketchum and Sun Valley. The nuclear fuel would be sent worldwide. Areva's profits would be sent back to France, but the resulting radioactive depleted uranium waste would remain above Idaho's Snake River Aquifer for decades.
Why would Idaho embrace Areva and the 350,000 metric tons of depleted uranium waste that would be created over the plant's 30-year lifetime and the transportation of radioactive material on the state's roadways?
There are several answers to these questions, but the most likely are jobs and a "nuclear renaissance."
The touted "nuclear renaissance" hasn't gotten much steam, and longer-term requirements for fresh reactor fuel may not be substantially larger than today's. In a November 2009 analysis, industry publication Nuclear Engineering concluded that, "... the potential pace of enrichment capacity expansion is expected to out-strip the growth in requirements." Simply said, we already have enough enriched uranium to fuel reactors for the foreseeable future. Areva's product doesn't have a market and this project is a huge financial risk to the people of Idaho.
Areva's uranium-enrichment process is problematic because, unlike most radioactive waste, the depleted uranium created through enrichment becomes increasingly radioactive for each of the 1 million years after its generation. In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that licenses nuclear facilities has just begun to study how to dispose of this waste, which currently has no disposal location.
To add insult to proposed injury, the state and federal governments are throwing money at this project. The Snake River Alliance opposed the 2008 Idaho Legislature's granting of state and local tax breaks designed specifically for Areva, not to mention the recent $2 billion in Department of Energy (DOE) federal loan guarantees (that's us taxpayers) that Areva claimed were necessary to make the project financially viable.
And, as if that weren't enough, the state Commerce and Labor departments recently showered Areva with another $750,000 to help finance a $2 million U.S. Highway 20 overpass the company wants for access to its non-existent site. That project wasn't vetted through regular state Transportation Department screening procedures, and the money was awarded before Areva even secured an NRC permit. In a cash-strapped state, there are dozens of better uses for scarce monies to be spent to the advantage of all Idaho taxpayers.
It appears the NRC, DOE, Areva and the state of Idaho have the cart before the horse. Until there is a pathway for radioactive waste disposal, a need for newly enriched uranium and a nuclear industry that can play on Wall Street, this kind of facility should be stopped. Other energy sources should be looked to for future energy needs like a diversified portfolio of wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, energy efficiency and conservation. All are safer, cheaper, cleaner and faster than nuclear power. Nuclear power uses too much water, costs too much money, does not have a solution to its waste and will not solve climate change given the timeframe we have to address this critical issue.
The NRC is accepting public comments on this project's environmental impact statement until Sept. 13 at EagleRock.EIS@NRC.gov. Idahoans are encouraged to learn more by contacting the Snake River Alliance at www.snakeriveralliance.org and find out how they can speak up in opposition to this unnecessary Areva enrichment factory.
Margaret Macdonald Stewart lives in Ketchum.
