EnergySolutions contaminates, cheats on taxes, competitor's attorney argues

SALT LAKE CITY — An attorney for a competitor of EnergySolutions told Utah Supreme Court justices Thursday that the company has not only contaminated areas surrounding its Clive-based radioactive waste site, but it is cheating on its taxes.

Lewis Francis stood before the state's high court to argue that the company he represents, Cedar Mountain Environmental Inc., had the right to intervene after the Radiation Control Board renewed EnergySolutions' five-year license to operate, despite a list of issues presented by Cedar Mountain.

Francis said the board's decision disregarded 14 issues presented by Cedar Mountain, including two "undisputed" contaminations and an allegation that the company often fails to properly cover some of the waste it houses.

"The Radiation Control Board is supposed to put conditions on the license to guarantee that radioactive activity will not come off of the site," he said. "As part of the (license) renewal process, (the RCB) should impose new conditions or clarify the conditions that are unclear."

Francis went on to say that EnergySolutions cheats the tax system out of as much as $10 million a year because it fails to document and report the type and quantity of waste that it receives, which he said should dictate the company's tax rate. Instead, he claimed company officials fill out the forms in-house and no one compares their claims to the waste on their property.

Chief Justice Christine Durham questioned the relevance of an alleged tax issue to the case, telling Francis the Radiation Control Board was "not in the tax business" but is meant to regulate public health and safety.

But Francis argued it's an issue because it cheats the state of money and information pertinent to understanding what radioactive waste Utah is housing. He also said it creates an unfair playing field for competitors who file honestly.

EnergySolutions attorney Craig Galli questioned the legitimacy of Cedar Mountain's claim, saying it failed to show there was any harm involved in the contamination incident, which he said was more minor than Francis indicated.

"(Francis) relied on so-called undisputed evidence of on-site contamination. … Whoa, whoa, those levels were barely above legal background levels," he said.

Assistant attorney general Laura Lockhart argued on behalf of the control board and assured the justices that the board "always considers compliance issues when issuing a license." She asked the justices to consider the "motivation" of Cedar Mountain Environmental, as she said the company had "no demonstrated interest in protecting public health and safety."

But Justice Jill Parrish asked if the "mere fact" that Cedar Mountain is a competitor should disqualify its concerns.

The justices will determine whether Cedar Mountain Environmental has the legal standing to challenge EnergySolutions' license in the coming months.

e-mail: emorgan@desnews.com