Decade
of Resistance 
shundahai@shundahai.org
Shundahai Network
Dedicated to Breaking
the Nuclear Chain
Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and Harmony with all Creation"
|
Disposal by Milling is Legal, but is it in Society's Best Interest?
I'd like to compliment my friend and colleague Bill Sinclair on his Nov. 6 op/ed piece regarding the Japanese "ore" that will be milled by International Uranium Corporation in San Juan County. It appears to me that both the Utah Division of Radiation Control and IUC have met their obligations in the handling of this matter, and that the material that has been imported from Japan meets the legal definition of "ore" as established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I would like to offer not a rebuttal, but an additional perspective on the matter. But first, let me be clear. My purpose is to clarify the issue in terms of a public-policy perspective. It is not intended to be critical of IUC or the DRC, and it would be a mistake to view this as such. Also, although I am a member of the Utah Radiation Control Board, this piece reflects my perspective alone. According to the NRC, ore includes material "in its natural form prior to any processing, such as grinding, roasting, or beneficiating, or refining." DRC must honor this definition. Note, however, that the definition is silent on uranium content. It does not say that the ore must contain enough uranium to be processed profitably. Uranium mills may: a) utilize ore from their own mines, b) purchase ore from other mines, or c) process material from third parties for a fee (toll milling). In the latter case, the mill owner is not necessarily concerned with the quality of the ore, as a fee from milling generates the income. All debris that comes out of the mill goes into a tailings pond for disposal as "waste." Imagine you had a large but worthless landscaping boulder you were eager to be rid of. In theory, you could hire a mill to "process" the boulder as "ore," and you would be rid of it. Your boulder would be crushed and run through the mill and the remnants placed into a tailings pond. The minute your boulder entered the front door of the mill, the "waste" that came out the other end would be the responsibility of the mill and its regulator. Because the Japanese material meets the legal definition of ore, which is being milled for a fee, the spoil material will become the responsibility of IUC to properly manage and the DRC to regulate. You and I would instinctively define "ore" as material that could be processed and the recovered uranium sold for a profit. Such is not the case with the Japanese material as the uranium concentration is too low. To the layperson, calling this material "ore" is like using the word hay to describe a bale of tumbleweeds. But, such is the nature of the NRC definition. Media reports have characterized this material as waste. Yet, I find it ironic that what you and I would call "ore," containing much more uranium and therefore posing a larger hazard, could be transported to the mill without raising an eyebrow. IUC is motivated (and properly so) to profitably operate its mill. The DRC is motivated to protect public health and safety within the parameters of the state's radiation control rules. The Japanese party responsible for the material, however, is under court order to have it removed. Make no mistake, as far as Japan is concerned, this is disposal, and I suspect that they are unconcerned that their actions may be viewed as "disposal by milling" in this country. Again, as Mr. Sinclair notes, IUC and the DRC have strictly followed all legal requirements. Our society, however, may wish to decide whether or not the importation of such material is in our best interests. One argument might be that because the Japanese material is less radioactive than conventional ore, and provides sorely needed economic activity to San Juan County, the importation is a good thing. A counter argument might be that it sets a bad precedent, making Utah a dumping ground for the world. Both viewpoints are probably valid, and for now, legal precedent says that it is OK. Steve Nelson teaches in the department of geology at Brigham Young University.
|