Deseret News | Board reverses on uranium storage

Reader comments
Board reverses on uranium storage

We should allow all this | 5:26 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009

Uranium to come here, then put nuclear power plants all over Utah, this is enough Uranium to power Utah until the sun goes out. Seriously, this is an enormous amount of energy.

Blessings sometimes come disguised, this is an enormous blessing.

Say NO to Energy Solutions | 7:20 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009

Please keep this wasted out of Utah.
Protect our children and grandchildren from this poison.

The Frenemy. | 4:43 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

When Energy Solutions was given the license to be disposal site of hazardous waste this was the foreseeable future to their plans, add more dangerous and hazardous storage in much large quantities.

Should their license to expand storage it will also give them authority to expand waste site with hundreds more acres. If research was done they would probably find they have already purchased land well beyond their current site.

Energy Solutions has never been honest and open in any of their dealings with Utah and this expansion is a deadly curse if approved. It will label Utah as the new world dump site for used uranium from the US nuclear reactors as well as other countries.

This so called clean energy is not so clean after all when you have to lay to waste thousands of acres to store the leftovers. Air pollution may be less but the land pollution is even greater.

Comments continue below

Dumb Environmentalists | 6:09 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

The storage facility out in the West desert is completely safe and up to code. I don't see what the big deal is. Environmentalists want "clean" energy, but coal causes global warming and nuclear produces waste uranium. What do they want? To go back to the stone age, with a hamster running in a wheel to produce electricity? - oh wait, they would complain that it's animal cruelty. . .

Utahn through and through | 8:11 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

DONT'T make Utah the Nation's dumping ground for radioactive/nuclear/hazerdous waste. We don't even have nuclear reactors here. I am telling you... this is a very slippery slope we are setting foot on. I know it provides jobs and helps to boost the local economy but really, the long term externalities outweigh the short-term benefits. DONT'T keep expanding this kind of industry in the State of Utah! Please! It is a dead-end one that sets a terrible precedence for those States who don't want to take any responsibility for their own toxic waste ("It's ok, we'll just dump it in Utah, they are gullible and they have plenty of space"). Once the door is open it will make it harder and harder to turn away the others who want to store their nuclear waste here. It's a Pandora's Box - seductive and enticing at first but the ills it will unleash are not worth it. This is not just about us but also our future generations. DON'T do it Utah. Don't make Utah the Nation's nuclear waste dumping ground! We are better, smarter than this.

loves Utah | 8:18 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Utah, do not sell your and your future generation's birthright for a mess of nuclear waste porridge.

Better Solution | 9:18 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Allow the Indian tribes of Utah to open gambling casinos. Keep the depleted uranium out.

Disgraceful | 10:07 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

I was at the hearing yesterday- and was disgusted with the outcome. The board met in closed seession, afterwhich they made their decision without comment- to remove regulations on Energy Pollutions until regulations can be adopted- probably 13 months from now. In the meantime, they will import as much depleted uranium as they can- and provide the same reliable protection no doubt as Quail Creek Dam and Syncrete. These guys should be run out of the state.

But they will continue to pay big bucks for PR campaigns to sell their message. Wish they were as interested in safety as they are in PR.

Chad | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

I bet not one of the posters or even readers of this article have been out in the nothing that is the west desert. If you had, you would have to agree that it is utterly worthless and virtually devoid of life - kind of like the surface of the moon.

If there ever was a place made by the hand of God to store potentially harmful waste that comes from the Providential miracle of nuclear power, that is it. If you doubt me, leave civilization and drive the several hours it takes to get there. You will see almost nothing after passing Tooele. Make sure and take plenty of water and extra fuel, and an emergency kit; because if you get stranded alone without these things, you will die. It is not a place for humans to live or even be. As such, it is an excellent place to put things that should not be stored near humans.

Anyone objecting to storage is doing so out of a purely emotional response with no regard whatsoever to logical thought or reason. It is stored safely far away from your homes in the middle of nothing. It can't get you.

rnoble | 1:53 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

chad---i have spent considerable time in the west desert and while it is certainly inimical to the average human, my continued exixtence proves it is not unsurvivable---there are many plants animals and insects that do quite well there---

about storing spent nuclear fuels---there are areas in the east "desert" and in neighboring colorado that is a major source of raw uranium of which these fuels are made---i personally do not believe that storing the end result is antithetical to mining the source material---in other words we should be willing to accept the storage if we are willing to be part of the supply---

the quantity and source of the spent fuel should be regulated to somewhat mirror the mining and disposition of the ores---

To Disgraceful | 12:07 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

If you were at the meeting, you totally missed the point or the Board's action. ES can receive DU waste now under their current license--that can't be changed. The ammendment they passed in Oct likely would not be enacted for 6 to 18 months, and only after a judge made a ruling. By changing to a rule making and adopting the previous worded ammendment, the Board got financial assurance and commitment for remediation from ES that whatever they do between now and the end of the assement process would be fixed (without this ammendment, ES has no restriction). Additionally, the rule could be enacted in 90 to 120 days, instead of up to 1yr or more by the other approach. In short, what the Board did was beyond anything they've done in the past and it significantly limits ES's options for appeal or challenge. If you can grasp the big picture you can see that this was good for UT.

RE: Chad | 7:47 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009

Have you ever heard of the "downwinders"? Supposedly the nuclear testing going on in the Nevada desert was far away enough as to not harm civilization - yeah, of course it was... history has said otherwise. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If we continue to store this radioactive waste in one concentrated location we continue to create a liability for terrorists or other nut jobs or even simple human error to occur which could then endanger the health and well-being of hundreds of thousands of people.

RE: rnoble | 7:59 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009

I find your reasoning faulty when you state: "the quantity and source of the spent fuel should be regulated to somewhat mirror the mining and disposition of the ores---." I completely disagree. Why make us shoulder that burden? The value of the electricity generated from the uranium via the nuclear reactors is far greator than the value of the uranium itself. If we are to be fare then, I think those States with the Nuclear reactors should shoulder the bulk of this burden in storing the spent fuel in their own back yards as they are the ones who by far benefit from the uranium. Punish the mining companies perhaps yes, make them pay to help the Nuclear facilities find a way to store the spent fuel in their own backyards once all used. But, it is a wrong premise to punish the citizens of the State of Utah with this burden when the majority had no idea these mining companies were even mining and selling the uranium in the first place.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.