Tomorrow, April 28, Governor Huntsman of
I grew up in
Nevadaand don't even generate high level nuclear waste, so why should we have to clean up after the "other" states? Utah
- This radioactive material is going to remain dangerous for thousands and thousands of years--how can anyone be sure it will be safe even in the short term?
- The states' citizens have not been asked in any meaningful way what they think about the storage (be it temporary or permanent).
- What about transporting the fuel to the sites--near or even through some of our major population centers?
However, the Skull Valley situation offers one potential problem that I don't have an answer for. The nature of the Goshute Valley plan is that it is temporary. We aren't prepared for, and haven't studied the impact of, long-term storage at that site. Eventually, the waste stored there will be moved to a permanent storage site (presumably Yucca). There's one problem with this--Yucca Mountain was chosen as the nation's permanent storage site nearly 20 years ago (the "Screw Nevada" Bill of 1987), and according to the government website on Yucca Mountain, the project has not even begun to construct the repository. So forgive me if I feel doubtful that Yucca Mountain will ever be ready.
If my (rather pessimistic) scenario comes true, what happens to the waste stored at Skull Valley? With all the uproar about transporting it here in the first place, I somehow doubt anyone will want to try to move it again. And so, Skull Valley becomes a permanent site simply by default. And I don't think that's a good idea. Unless I can be convinced that this is highly unlikely to happen, I have to "vote" against Skull Valley.
Contact: Pam Schuller
E-mail address: email@example.com
Fax number: (801) 977-4397
Send letters to:
Bureau of Land Management
Salt Lake Field Office
2370 South 2300 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119