When is nuclear waste “high level?” The Trump administration has tossed out the old definition and says a new one that labels more as “low level waste” will be more efficient and yet safe.
But critics are not so sure.
This is Trahant Reports.
This country has not come to grips with how to dispose of nuclear waste. The problem is no community is eager to receive this kind of bonus. And, on top of that, many of the proposed solutions do not wash scientifically.
The rules that had been in place are cumbersome. And that means the waste problem is only getting worse.
So the U.S. Department of Energy last week gave itself the authority to deregulate storage tanks with more than 100 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste in South Carolina, Idaho and Washington.
The new definition, says the Energy Department’s assistant secretary for science, will be based on the radioactivity levels in order to “dispose of it more efficiently to improve public health and safety of our environment.”
Under current law “high level waste” must be buried in deep geologic formations in order to protect public health (as if even that is a guarantee). The new role say that waste is now “low level” and it can be contained in a shallow storage facilities.
It will be cheaper. And more efficient.
.@ENERGY will define nuclear waste according to its radioactivity and dispose of it more efficiently to improve public health and safety of our environment. Learn about DOE’s high level waste interpretation here: pic.twitter.com/MtPTeIilys
— Paul Dabbar (@ScienceUnderSec) June 5, 2019
Tom Carpenter, executive director of Hanford Challenge in Washington, says there are significant issues in the region involving the Columbia River.
The Columbia River is where tribes have treaty fishing rights to salmon.
Previous administrations have proposed turning Hanford into a permanent storage facility for high level waste, something that the Yakama Nation (working with other regional tribes) successfully blocked in 1982.
But that proposal could be debated again as some of the Hanford waste will not be considered “low level.”
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Fergerson said in a joint statement: “Washington will not be sidelined in our efforts to clean up Hanford and protect the Columbia River and the health and safety of our state and our people.”
It’s a similar problem in Idaho. The reclassification of nuclear waste will make it easier to move out of state. Or, just leave it in place since the Department of Energy no longer considers it dangerous.
As Geoff Fettus, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said last week: “Pretending this waste is not dangerous is irresponsible and outrageous.”
The bigger issue here is there is no consensus about what to do about this lethal nuclear waste, material that will remain dangerous for thousands of years. There is no consensus in the Congress or in the public discourse. Yet every year we keep adding to the toxic pile.
I am Mark Trahant.
