 |
Information
And Advocacy For Social And Economic Justice |
| Home | | | About Us | | | Issues | | | News and Press | | | Calendar |
October 30, 2002
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:
Steve Erickson
801-554-9029
CITIZENS EDUCATION PROJECT STATEMENT ON INITIATIVE 1
Initiative 1 would ban disposal of Class B & C wastes in Utah, and if that were all it did, CEP would enthusiastically support voter approval of the Initiative. Utah should ban B & C wastes. Unfortunately, one can’t pick and choose among the many provisions Initiative 1 proposes. It’s a tough call, but overall, in our estimation, the negative and problematic provisions outweigh those that are worthwhile. Therefore, CEP opposes Initiative 1.
Initiative proponents argue that the State of Utah should receive substantially more tax revenue for radioactive wastes disposed of here, and the Initiative imposes a tax levy on much less “hot” Class A wastes akin to the taxes other states charge for disposal of B & C wastes. We don’t presume to know what would be a “fair” or appropriate tax levy on the current types of Class A and mixed wastes allowed into Utah. That was the subject of heated debate in the 2001 Legislature, which did increase waste taxes and fees moderately. Whether those taxes should be hiked again, and how taxes should be structured for different types of Class A waste, is certainly worth examining and debating, and that can be done without an initiative process. The debates over Initiative 1 have shed more heat than light over a complex tax and revenue issue.
Envirocare argues that the Initiative taxes, applied to less radioactive Class A wastes, will drive them out of business. That may or may not be true, but there is no question that the proposed taxes will put it in a much less competitive position in the “A” market. Would the huge new revenues for schools and the homeless materialize, or would the new taxes force Envirocare to close, meaning no radioactive waste would come to Utah in the future? Initiative proponents say either result is fine by them, but they can’t have it both ways.
Our biggest problem with Initiative 1 is that it exempts from taxes Canadian-chartered International Uranium Corporation, which operates a mill south of Blanding, Utah. IUC receives radioactive materials from sites around the country for processing to recover small amounts of salable uranium under a special license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which defines these contaminated and radioactive soils as “alternate feed material”.IUC’s alternate feeds operation has been highly controversial, opposed by the White Mesa Ute Tribe, the Utah Navajo Commission, the Glen Canyon Group of the Utah Sierra Club, Downwinders, and others. The state has taken legal steps, unsuccessfully, to block IUC’s receipt of these materials, and has labeled the operation “sham reprocessing”. The state Division of Radiation Control is pursuing primacy over these materials (Agreement State Status) to obtain some control over IUC’s operation. The Legislature specifically targeted IUC in the 2001 radioactive waste tax bill, charging a ten cent per cubic foot fee for “reprocessing” materials.
Initiative 1 exempts IUC from taxes before they have paid a single dime to state coffers under the 2001 law. Their current production run of the Tonowanda, New York materials will not be taxed because it was “grandfathered in” by that legislation, which exempted pre-existing contracts. The Initiative will “grandfather out” taxes on any new contracts. Initiative proponents claim they want radioactive waste taxes to be more equitable with those in other states, but the Initiative would make those taxes more inequitable within this state. IUC would receive a clear competitive advantage in this segment of the waste market. Ironically, this flaw in the Initiative could increase import of radioactive wastes to Utah, a potential we find unacceptable.
The most critical question that needs to be asked of Initiative 1 is who benefits? CEP believes that, whether intended by the sponsors or not, the biggest beneficiaries would be competitors – International Uranium Corporation (in Utah), Waste Control Specialists (Texas), Envirosafe (Idaho), Cotter Corporation (Colorado), U.S. Ecology (Richland, Washington) and Duratek (Barnwell, South Carolina), among others.
Some Initiative proponents have argued that Utahns shouldn’t care what happens with radioactive wastes in other states, as long as we don’t have those wastes here. CEP rejects that argument. Disposal of low level radioactive wastes is a national problem that has spawned cut-throat competitive corporate “Dump Wars”. Envirocare is a major player in those Dump Wars, and our opposition to the Initiative is not in any way an endorsement of their business practices. Unfortunately, in our view, Initiative 1 fuels the Dump Wars fires.
There has been much talk lately of a “Plan B”, wherein Utah could reap huge tax income by “stealing” Private Fuel Storage’s planned high level nuclear waste storage facility from the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes and putting it on state lands. While that is unlikely to happen, we suspect there is another “Plan B & C” out there, in which the biggest opportunistic players in the Dump Wars maneuver to garner a greater share of the waste market, with one competitor weakened by a heavy tax burden. What that plan might be and how it might affect Utah we can only speculate.
Utah should reject B & C wastes. However, our radioactive waste tax policies shouldn’t compound the national problem. A national solution, federalizing all current and future radioactive waste permanent storage and disposal operations, coupled with real, ironclad citizen oversight, is desperately needed.
- END -
For the full statement, please visit http://www.citizensedproject.org