TMCnet News
Mountain of waste: Landfill would save $1 billion, but is it the best alternative?(Paducah Sun, The (KY) (KRT) Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) Jun. 1--Tearing down the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant would generate enough waste to fill the Paducah Expo Center roughly 100 times, according to the Department of Energy. Dealing with a mountain of radiologically contaminated soil, debris and scrap is essential in planning for the ultimate use of the plant once it closes starting in 2013. Much of the material would come from four huge uranium-enrichment buildings; each of the two largest spans 26 acres and is 80 feet high. One idea is to put the waste in an above-ground landfill covering 40 acres and standing about as high as the US Bank building in downtown Paducah. DOE projects the landfill would generate local construction and maintenance jobs, and save as much as $1 billion in packaging, trucking and disposal costs. "It would potentially make the site available for economic reuse or reindustrialization sooner than later," said Reinhard Knerr, who leads DOE work at the plant. "We recognize the fact that this facility at some point is going to have to return to the community, and we want to maximize the options for future use." An alternative is to ship the waste for burial in approved sites in other states, which could push overall disposal costs to nearly $2 billion, DOE says. Shipping would lessen environmental risk at Paducah but increase transportation hazards. A third option is to continue waste disposal project by project. Currently some of the waste goes into plant landfills, and the rest is shipped. Public involvement DOE officials have asked the plant Citizens Advisory Board to help gauge public views on the issue, expected to take about four years to resolve with approval by state and federal regulators. DOE has sent fact sheets to plant neighbors and will hold several public meetings starting this fall. Although similar landfills are in place at other DOE sites, they are too new for a track record, said Tony Hatton, director of the Kentucky Division of Waste Management. Although the radiation level in the waste is low, it takes a long time to dissipate, he said. "You're talking generations, primarily because of the radiation." If built, the Paducah landfill would be largely above ground with a series of protective layers, such as clay or plastic. DOE would have to demonstrate safety, reliability and long-term management, plus ensure more robust cleanup of the entire site, including old burial grounds, Hatton said. "If it's just a place for them to put the buildings they've knocked down, I'm not sure it's worth it," he said. "I fully anticipate this to be a much discussed and vetted issue with lots of diverging opinions." Advisory board Chairman Allen Burnett wrote Knerr May 16, recommending extensive public involvement. Among other things, board members want to visit other sites that have large landfills, Burnett said. "We're willing to listen to DOE, but we haven't taken a position yet." Varied views Board member John Anderson doubles as director of the Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization, an economic development group that wants to make good use of plant resources. Even if the landfill generated local jobs, its sheer size and location -- probably near the plant access road -- might well deter industrial prospects, Anderson said. On the other hand, Oak Ridge, Tenn., has done a good job developing business in its former gaseous diffusion plant area, even with a large landfill in place, he said. "Whether you think it's a good idea or a bad idea, everybody needs to be heard so there's some type of consensus," Anderson said. Board members expressed serious concerns when DOE began investigating the landfill proposal in 2000. Plant neighbor Linda Long, who served on the board then, said her opinion hasn't changed. "We didn't like the idea because we realized the landfill was going to be huge, and there was really no place to put it," she said. "It's much less expensive than shipping the waste, but there are no guarantees that it could be safely disposed of." Mark Donham, another former board member, said the landfill would pose an environmental threat regardless of modern engineering. He advocates a full-blown environmental impact study. "I don't think anybody disputes the fact that the potential for leaking is pretty good over time, even with liners," he said. Donham doesn't like the idea of shipping the waste and worries about contaminated dust from demolished buildings. Whether the buildings could be reused depends on the extent of contamination, he said. Seismic concerns Donham and other former advisory board members also raised concerns about whether the ground beneath the landfill would dissolve during a major earthquake, spreading contamination into the groundwater and elsewhere. Burnett -- who once helped engineer a plant seismic upgrade -- said previous studies indicated liquefaction would not be a major concern if the landfill were built south of the plant. He said the studies showed the landfill would have to be built to withstand a major earthquake that would not occur more than once in 2,500 years. Hatton said thicker clay makes land south of the plant a better site for a landfill, but the state expects a new seismic study to address the safety issues. Joe Walker can be contacted at 575-8656. Landfill contents 46 percent soil 21 percent concrete 18 percent construction debris 13 percent scrap metal 2 percent dry solids and asbestos Waste breakdown 71 low-level radioactive and/or hazardous 29 percent nonhazardous * To see more of The Paducah Sun, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.paducahsun.com. Copyright (c) 2008, The Paducah Sun, Ky. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email [email protected], call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA. |