Site Near Roswell Studied for Nuclear Waste Reprocessing
Associated Press
ROSWELL — Roswell's mayor says relying on foreign oil is dangerous, and the nation needs nuclear power.
Sam LaGrone spoke Tuesday night to several hundred people attending a U.S. Department of Energy hearing on the possibility of a nuclear waste reprocessing center near Roswell.
The owners of a hazardous waste site between Roswell and Tatum, Gandy-Marley Inc., in partnership with EnergySolutions, are receiving $1.1 million to study the site for a spent fuel recycling facility. A site near Hobbs, proposed by Eddy Lea Energy Alliance, was awarded $1.5 million for a similar study.
That funds were among more than $10 million awarded by the DOE for detailed site studies on 11 areas nationwide for so-called integrated spent fuel recycling facilities, which the department said will allow the nation to recycle spent nuclear fuel safely. Studies are due by May 30.
The recycling facilities are part of President Bush's proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, which seeks to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.
Paul W. Lisowski, deputy assistant secretary for fuel cycle management with the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, told Tuesday's public hearing that the proposed nuclear fuel reprocessing plant would be the first of its kind in the world.
Some speakers said people should get informed and not prematurely judge the project.
"I've been all over that land,'' said Roswell resident Todd Waggoner. "I don't think (the plant) would harm it. I think it'd probably enhance it,'' a remark that drew chuckles from the audience.
And Bill Marley, vice president of Gandy-Marley, said his business has no intention of building anything that is unsafe.
Letters of support came from Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M.; Republican state Reps. Nora Espinoza, Candy Spence Ezzell, Dan Foley and Keith Gardner; and Republican state Sens. Rod Adair and Gay Kernan.
Other speakers expressed skepticism.
They asked why the facilities aren't being built where the nuclear waste is produced, how much water it would use and how long it would store highly radioactive spent fuel rods. Others expressed concern about toxic byproducts; one questioned whether leaders are compromising the environment to reap economic benefits.
"We're a cash-strapped community. We shouldn't compromise our futures because we're in dire straits,'' said Aldo Carrasco, a graduate of Dexter High School and the New Mexico Military Institute in Roswell.
Retiree John Popham said the potential for disaster outweighs the benefits.
"Just because we need jobs ... doesn't mean we should accept anything that comes along,'' he said.
Several Albuquerque environmental groups also opposed the idea.
"GNEP is another expensive, technologically unworkable and environmentally disastrous proposal which will fail,'' said Don Hancock of the Southwest Information and Research Center.
He pointed to cleanup projects at nuclear facilities in Hanford, Wash.; Savannah River, S.C.; West Valley, N.Y.; and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, which he said "were great failures both economically and environmentally.''
A draft environmental statement is expected to be published this summer. Richard Black, associate deputy assistant secretary with the Office of Nuclear Energy, said a final report is expected in the summer of 2008.
Public comments are being taken until April 4 via by e-mail at GNEP-PEISnuclear.energy.gov; telephone at 866-645-7803; fax at 866-645-7807; or mail to Timothy A. Frazier, Office of Nuclear Energy/U.S. DOE, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C. 20585.
news 
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
