Feb 22
$1 Billion Proposal…What EnergySolutions Wants You To Know
2009 at 6:39 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 21 comments
EnergySolutions Internationally Generated Material
Disposal Proposal
EnergySolutions has been safely disposing Class A low-level radioactive material at its Clive facility in the west desert of Utah for 20 years. The material includes gloves, booties and coveralls worn by workers at nuclear power plants, byproducts of life saving cancer treatments, soil and debris from Department of Energy cleanup sites.
Class A low-level material decays to the end of its hazard life within 100 years. This is the only material accepted at Clive for disposal. Nothing of a higher classification of radioactivity is transported to or accepted at Clive. No spent fuel is transported or disposed of in Utah. Spent fuel remains on site at nuclear power plants across the country.
The nation is suffering from the worst economic recession in decades. Many States, including Utah, are suffering from budget shortfalls. As a result of the State of Utah’s $320 million budget shortfall, many important State programs will receive reduced funding.
EnergySolutions has offered to contribute to the State of Utah 50% of the net revenue from the disposal of material generated outside of North America. This could amount to over $1 billion to the State of Utah over the next ten years. The funding could be used in areas such as public and higher education, economic development, combating Utah’s air quality issues and supporting local charities and community based organizations.
EnergySolutions would use just 4.3 acres, which is 5% of the remaining capacity at Clive, for the disposal of this material and would only accept this material for disposal for ten years while the company sites other disposal facilities around the world. This material is the same material that is currently disposed at the site from the domestic nuclear industry.
Why I Know About This Issue
In the 2005 General Legislative Session, I was the House Floor Sponsor for the legislation that banned B & C Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) disposal in Utah (SB0241S Waste Amendments, Sen. Bramble [R-Provo]).
During the 2004 Interim I was assigned by the Speaker to participate on the Hazardous Waste Regulation and Tax Policy Task Force. For one solid year, I spent most of my “extra” time in the evenings and on the weekends trying to wrap my mind around one of the most caustic, complicated issues facing our state…the taxation and proper disposal of radioactive waste. I read dozens of reports, manuscripts, and texts. I toured, for several hours, the then “Envirocare” disposal site. I sat through countless meetings, compensated and uncompensated. I really tried to become one of the leading legislative “experts” on this issue. Since that time, I’ve continued to take an above-normal interest in the issues facing “Envirocare,” now called EnergySolutions.
Utah Already Imposes Excessive Fees On LLRW
According to a conversation I had last week with Bette Ariel, the State of Utah already collects around $30 million in fees alone from EnergySolutions each year. Not to mention the other tax revenue from payroll, sales, and property taxes. And, a large chunk of these dollars go to bolstering our Public Education coffers and provide significant cashflow to the state’s General Fund.
So, why then (if we already taking fee revenue from EnergySolutions) are we afraid to take another $100 million in revenues from the same business entity we’re already draining large streams of cash from? And, if they’re offering it to us on a silver platter…more money for education, more money for our struggling state general fund which pays for numerous social entitlement programs experiencing some significant cuts this year and for years to come…Why not take it? (And, don’t tell me it’s our green thumb governor who’s running for President that’s stopping us from doing it.)
Treat the Money Like One-Time Funds…and, Capitalize! OR Save!
Where the real problem exists is when we use a revenue stream like this to finance short-falls in on-going programs and projects. The solution is really simple…
If we treat this additional “fee” revenue like one-time money and capitalize instead of use the funds for on-going programs, we can maintain “structural balance” in our state budget.
It’s like getting a bonus check at work. One time bonus, one time expenditure. You wouldn’t count on another bonus (or spend it) until it happened again…would you?
Or how about this one…each time the state receives a big check from EnergySolutions we stick it in the Rainy Day Funds?!!! Could you imagine having over a billion dollars in the state’s Rainy Day Funds within the next decade?!!! We could do some significant things every year just spending the perpetual interest, alone!
It’s All the Same Garbage
The waste can come from Italy, or it can come from Texas, or Mississippi, or anywhere else for that matter…it’s all the same garbage (LLRW). And when the currently authorized disposal area is full, with or without the Italian waste, they’ll shut down the cell the same as they will when they reach capacity with domestic LLRW, anyway!
People Fear What They Don’t Understand
Before you formulate an opinion on this issue, take some time to educate yourself. Don’t flip open the local liberal newspaper, their agenda is to frighten you, to tease you, to sell newspapers by titillation, to get you to believe the nonsense they print about EnergySolutions and LLRW. You have the internet, you can get any information on the topic you want…anytime…day and night. Here’s an idea…start with the EnergySolutions website.
This Italian waste is no different than the waste currently accepted at the Clive site. It’s rated the same, shipped the same way, and disposed of the same way.
Utah is a federal “Agreement” state. Effectively that means we have just as high or higher standards than federal regulatory standards and agencies. Utah’s Dept. of Environmental Quality runs a very tight ship when it comes to meeting or exceeding these national regulatory standards for the disposal of LLRW.
Occupational rates of radiation exposure average about 8 mrem/year (milli-rem/year). In 2003 (latest numbers I have), there were only two workers at the Clive facility that received over 200 mrem. The nationally accepted safety standards for workers in a radioactive environment is 5,000 mrem/year.
By my calculations, it’s safer to live next to the EnergySolutions, Clive facility than it is to live on the east bench in Salt Lake City! (See the radiation calculator on the EPA’s website)
So, you tell me, should we take the offer? If yes, under what conditions? If no, why not?
21 Responses to “$1 Billion Proposal…What EnergySolutions Wants You To Know”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Representative Frank,
Thank you for taking the time to explain what EnergySolutions is proposing. When the facts are laid out like that, it makes perfect sense. I think the key to the issue is understanding the difference between nuclear waste and low-level radioactive waste. I mean, if we’re talking about clothes and the sort of things doctors use in cancer treatment, AND we’re storing the exact same stuff already, AND it’s all coming from outside of Utah anyway… why NOT do it?
I also appreciate the idea of looking at it like a “bonus check,” and not counting on the money far into the future. The thought of having over a billion dollars in the Rainy Day fund is pretty staggering. I imagine some folks will still think “toxic dump” and be against it without doing any research, even as they throw away another bag of trash (probably with some low-level radioactive waste in it) to be dumped into some landfill. As for me… I say do it, and the sooner the better.
It’s nice to have businesses looking for ways to bail out taxpayers for a change, instead of the other way around. What a breath of fresh air!
Lynn Taylor
Pleasant Grove
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
So as long as the payoff is big enough, bring it on in?
And since we already made a bad decision letting them bring what they have in so far, why not let them bring in more and laugh all the way to the bank? And it’s all the same garbage coming from domestic sources or foreign. Energy solutions is promising no more than 5% with this waste, but I think it’s putting a lot of faith in a corporation out to make money (which I don’t blame them for, overall… it’s business) to not come back for another handout from the legislators who’s campaigns they’ve been funding for years now. It’s like the Godfather scene… “someday I will call on you.” Energy Solutions is calling in the debt, and our legislators are all too eager to repay their debt by shilling for this short-sighted plan. And what to do when our own needs demand we build our own nuclear facility for energy needs, will we then sell our waste to Italy? And from a purely budgetary point of view, this could be no more than defacto deficit spending.
Over the course of 10 years, we’d receive $100 million a year for prostituting our land, which wouldn’t cover our budget shortfall this year. Basically all this says to taxpayers is that not only can our legislators be purchased, they can be purchased fairly cheap. It would only be fair that every member who votes for this proposal disclose (before the vote, preferably) how much in campaign contributions they have received from Energy Solutions in the past few years.
Also, it’s “banned,” not “band.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 am
I appreciate this detailed look at a hot topic. I have to admit that my media-driven opinion has changed once I got educated. I think it’s a reasonable option. I also don’t think the state should become dependent on those funds, for example, pouring them all into education – then what do you do in 10 years when the funds dry up? Putting them into the rainy day fund sounds like a much better idea.
Bottom line? I want to tour the Clive facility. The question is not “should we accept waste from outside our borders?” That question has already been answered and the answer is yes. The question is “should we be able to take the waste from anywhere, or just from within the continental US?” Jasonthe, you say it yourself – it’s the SAME WASTE. Why does it matter if it’s from Italy or New York or Alabama or Oklahoma? I think we’ve been sold a bill of goods from the media.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:35 am
Thank you for putting this in pespective. I also agree that whether the waste is from Texas, New York, or Italy, as long as it’s handled safely I don’t see a real difference. My understanding is that the NRC and the nuclear experts from Tennessee and Utah all agreed that there is no health or safety issue with the proposal for Energy Solutions to accept the Italian waste. If we can make 50 percent of the revenues, we are crazy not to take advantage of that offer. Let’s face it. As meeting our energy needs in the face of global climate change becomes a bigger political issue, nuclear power is going to play a large part in the mix. If Utah can get something in return for our willingness to store the low level waste, then the critics need to get out of the way.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:43 am
Thanks, jasonthe for the spell check…sometimes things just slip bye.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
[...] Craig Frank has posted an extensive blog post over at his site, Under the Dome. He knows much more about it than most people here in Utah, including [...]
February 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Thanks for this great review. It is really good to know that we have someone on the hill that understands this issue. Too many people think with their hearts on this issue, and their hearts all see Chernobyl. They need to really study this issue out and I am glad that you have. I agree. This is well worth the profits that it would bring this state. It isn’t selling our state for a mess of pottage. Rather, it is a safer risk that investing in Wall Street and I think the state should take this risk.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
If it’s so profitable for energy solutions to bring in this waste from half way around the world, why are the Italians so willing to pay so much to get rid of it? If the waste isn’t “that” bad and there is that much money to be made off it, why are the Italians not keeping it? Seems like there is a little more to the story.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Awesome. I love this blog. I get to learn about topics, get opinions of those I trust, and have them documented to teach others. This is a great hot topic that was definitely being influenced by the radio and other news. It’s great to learn from both sides, cause then I can see both points and see for myself which I agree with. I am FOR taking the waste. Transporting the waste will always have risk, and we are taking the equivalent risks TODAY with what is being processed at EnergySolutions. I agree with Rep. Frank’s philosophy of putting the money in the “Rainy Day Fund”. Let’s save our bonus checks for this recession time period, and careful use the interest for one-time projects that are needed. Thanks Craig for sharing your insights and great experience.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Brad B,
The reason the Italians are “so willing to pay so much to get rid of it ” is because the cost to build a (heavily regulated) facility to deal with waste is even more expensive!
Energy Solutions has already built the site, they only need to use 5% of their existing site and it will bring millions into the state.
Looks like a win/win to me.
We are always complaining that we need more money for education…here it is!
March 1st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Just a quick question for Rep. Frank. How much money have you accepted from Energy Solutions/Envirocare in political contributions over the past several years?
March 1st, 2009 at 9:49 pm
John T: Look it up, it’s a matter of public record thanks to our state’s comprehensive campaign reporting system.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Also, John T, this system won’t report the contribution I didn’t accept the year I served on the Hazardous Waste Task Force.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:46 pm
So much for openness in government Craig. It was a simple question to an elected public official and you evaded it nicely. Another question is how much Energy Solutions has contributed to the Republican Party that has benefited you directly or indirectly?
Do you think there might be a conflict of interest here when Energy Solutions is the largest political contributor in Utah and those Republican legislators who are the largest beneficiaries of these contributions are working on a backroom deal to accept a bribe to bring foreign waste into our state.
I suppose if Steve Creamer “greases” enough Republican palms anything is possible. Why don’t you Republicans take a poll and see how many Utah citizens are in favor of their state being known as the world’s dumping ground for radioactive waste. Of course if it is anything like poll on school vouchers the Republican majority will ignore the results and do whatever they like anyway in our one party system of government.
What amazes me is that you think the people of this state are too stupid to see through what you are doing. Trust me on this one—we’re not.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 am
John T: While you’re looking up how much ES has contributed to my campaign over the years, you might also look at how much ES has contributed to some of my Democrat colleagues in the legislature…you’d be surprised, it’s not just the R’s you’re demonizing…
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Let’s cut to the chase here Rep. Frank. How many of the D’s are supporting the proposal to allow Energy Solutions to bring in foreign waste? No one is demonizing anyone here. I’m just pointing out the facts. You still haven’t responded in print to my initial question. You don’t have something to hide do you?
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
John T, if we follow your logic/insinuation…
If a politician accepts donations from any “special interest” then the politician has been bought by that interest.
Two thoughts…how do you know the politician didn’t agree with the interest before they became a politician?
If politicians can’t accept donations without being bought and sold, how then does any regular Joe ever get into politics? Only the wealthy would be able to afford to run for public office.
That wealthy guy didn’t get wealthy in a vacuum; he comes with interests of his own. Just like you and me.
This is the system, the greatest in the world, I like regular guys like Rep. Frank that take the time to study issues, then vote a bill on it’s merits.
I hope he continues to accept donations and continues to run for office!
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
If a politician accepts donations from a special interest and then promotes that special interest even against the wishes of a majority of the people in the state as Rep. Frank has done here, what other conclusion can be drawn?
I take great exception to your statement that “this is the system” where politicians are bought and sold. Politicians are elected to represent the interests of the public, not those of the wealthy corporations who donate the most money to their individual campaigns or political party.
From Rep. Frank’s blog on this topic, it is clear to me that you and I can rest assured that we have the finest state legislature that money can buy.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
One parting thought. Just look at the title of Rep. Frank’s article. “What Energy Solutions Wants You To Know.” He is actually acting as the voice of Energy Solutions by putting this on his blog. Now tell me that Steve Creamer doesn’t have Frank Curtis right there in his hip pocket.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Thanks for your opinions John T…we’re all entitled to them…even on MY blog.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
John T,
Rep. Frank does NOT represent the majority of the people in the state. He represents me and my neighbors.
His responsibility is to become educated on issues, vote on them, and wait to see if he gets re-elected by US.
So far, he’s done remarkably well.
I didn’t say ” “this is the system” where politicians are bought and sold. ”
You did. I said I was gald regular guys can afford to get involved because of donations from outside sources.
I think politicans are able to make decisions based on education of issues, not based on who donated to their campaigns.