| The Bulletin Board
forum offers you the chance to voice your opinions and join your
fellow citizens in a marketplace of ideas.
Posted January 30, 2006: Regarding the question of dumping high-level nuclear waste in Utah, I wish to say I'm opposed to the dumping of anybody's garbage, no matter how safe, here. Utah is just too beautiful to become the garbage dump for the rest of the nation, and I say: If you made it, you keep it!
Posted April 9, 2002: I saw your Skull Valley program
for the first time tonight. I feel stupid because I had no idea
this was happening. Why is this not on the "Big Four"
news broadcasts every night?
The Private Fuel Storage, LLC (PFS) representatives deliver persuasive
theories regarding the safety of nuclear energy, the safety of
the waste containers and (my favorite) the comparison of automobile
deaths vs. deaths from nuclear waste. How strangely their protests
echo to my own son's youthful defenses for errant behavior. Thankfully,
now that he is grown, he laughs about his transparent agenda to
distract me from the original infraction.
Although I am a democrat, I fell in love with Utah Governor Michael
Leavitt tonight and his earnest legitimate attempts to fend off
the garbage. I hope that, this one time, good triumphs over bad.
We've heard from an inhabitant of unsullied nature and a leader
in his community [Skull Valley Goshute Tribal Leader Leon Bear].
Although from a traditionally earth-friendly culture, he is only
mortal and therefore able to be seduced by his own greed and denial.
He appears to half-believe his own propaganda: "it is for
the good of my neighborhood." \
We all hide our heads in the sand for one reason or another every
day of our lives. It's what protects us from those hideous truths
we can't face. How embarrassing it must be to get hooked by the
East Coast city slickers' oozing flattery and smirking promises.
I cringe with mixed embarrassment and empathy to hear gleeful
boasts from a representative of the sovereign nation that advantage
has been gained by the controversy because "we're getting
more money now than we would have without the hysteria."
My stunned response is shared by many: This only proves they got
cheated in the first place! We are being sold a bill of goods
akin to the snake-oil elixir sold by the Eastern ancestors from
days of old. Our cultural tendencies toward helping out are being
exploited.
I humbly apologize that I did not recognize the needs of our
neighbors before the socio-paths got their hooks into them. My
only defense is that I envied the Native American culture, beliefs
and traditions and never dreamed they wanted something different.
Just because I've become suspicious of a life of wealth without
responsibility doesn't mean that we shouldn't all have the chance
to arrive at this conclusion by way of prosperity. How sad is
it that the desire for money can make people betray those parts
of themselves that are most beautiful?
Here are two of my unanswered questions:
1. Can I do anything to help the Skull Valley inhabitants obtain
the upwardly-mobile lifestyle they yearn for? Is it too Jimmy
Stewart-ish to believe if each Utahan donated $1 to them, they
would be financially secure and avoid the consequences looming
like a ghoul over bins of nuclear waste? Has my simple mind been
warped by Hollywood? (By the way, where ARE the usual suspects,
Martin Sheen and Robert Redford and Bob Dylan in this drama? Don't
they believe this is a good cause?)
2. The argument that all of America can't share responsibility
for our electricity addiction is so obviously lame. So what if
it costs more money? Of course, it appears greed is the only incentive
that gets the job [storing the nation's nuclear waste] done. We
all have to accept responsibility and rise to the occasion. We
can't wait until it's too late and our descendants are asking
"what were they thinking?!"--Sandee McMaster
Posted April 8, 2002:
Comment: To transport high level nuclear waste to a temporary
site in Utah is ludicrous. This is the equivalent of sweeping
arsenic under the rug in your home and hoping it goes away. This
absurd recommendation from science leads me to believe that some
doctorate degrees need to be revoked.
How dumb do they think Utahns are? The "Duck and Cover"
generation was fed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) propaganda,
but this generation is smarter and more informed of nuclear waste
dangers. The NRC is still pumping out its propaganda, as well
as Private Fuel Storage, LLC (PFS), but the people of Utah are
not buying it.
Why send nuclear waste to one spot on a map? It seems to me that
70 different sites of nuclear waste pose a much more difficult
target for terrorists than just one "above ground" site
in the middle of the desert. Mohamed Atta would have only needed
one plane to crash into the "Skull Valley Spent Nuclear Fuel
Waste Site" and would have made a 10,000 year disaster. I
pray to God that this never happens, but in today's world, we
must prepare for that possibility. In today's world, it is much
too dangerous to move the waste than to keep it where it is.
To quote the many people who were interviewed in the program,
"If the stuff is so safe, why not keep it where it is? Why
transport it at all?"
The people of Utah will not allow storage of this waste to come
to their state. Hopefully, the 2002 Winter Olympics showed the
world just how beautiful this state is. If the waste is allowed
to come to Utah, the 2002 Winter Olympic slogan of "Light
the Fire Within" could take on a completely different meaning.--Peter
C. Frenzel
Posted March 21, 2002:
Comment: Yucca Mountain will be a good place to safely store
spent nuclear fuel (SNF), but a far better place if SNF is first
stored at the Skull Valley Goshute reservation or at the Pigeon
Spur Fuel Bank until it has been out of the reactor 50 years.
SNF must be stored in water pools for the first five years before
it is cool enough to store in above-ground storage casks, using
convection air. If five-year old SNF is stored in Yucca Mountain
(YM), packed in bumper to bumper, the containers will get up to
165 degrees C unless fans with a force of 10,000 horsepower are
used to move air through.
The fans use $5 million in electricity per year for 50 years
before the SNF heat output is down to half and the fans can be
turned off. This expense, plus purchasing fans and digging more
drift tunnels (if extra space is left between packages) can be
avoided by aging the fuel to 50 years before putting it in YM,
thus saving many billions of dollars.
Corrosion of waste containers is guesswork above 120 degrees Celsius,
so before YM is approved it is necessary to have either more studies
conducted or a low-temperature option. Aging the SNF to 50 years
provides the low-temperature option, while still allowing bumper
to bumper packing, which could double the
ultimate YM capacity.
If U.S. companies begin reprocessing (recycling) SNF again, it
will be much easier to access from the surface. With or without
reprocessing, surface storage works as a good partner to improve
and extend YM. This surface storage will open the way for more
U.S. nuclear power so we can have less coal-fired power, which
emits greenhouse gases and smoke--responsible for about 20,000
deaths each year. Nobody has yet died from radiation from U.S.
nuclear power plants or storage.--William D. Peterson, M.S., P.E.
Posted November 26, 2001:
Comment: I oppose the transporting of nuclear waste here
to Utah or Nevada. Nuclear waste should remain on site where it
is produced. Adding to already present transportation safety issues,
terrorism is a very real and omnipresent danger in our land as
well, and allowing nuclear waste to roll across our highways and
railways is an open invitation to those with ill intent.--Patrick
Maggard
Comment: I was born in Mt. Pleasant, Utah, and hold a
great fondness for Utah in my heart. I think it is outrageous
that nuclear waste from a private utility in a state as far away
as Ohio is probably going to be shipped across the country and
dumped in an Indian reservation in my home state. I live in Ohio
now, and I want the nuclear waste created by AEP Company of Ohio
to stay right where it is--in Ohio. We made it, and we can keep
it. A nice little reminder of how stupid nuclear power generation
really is.
I used to drive a semi-truck across the country, and I know that
it is not safe to transport nuclear waste across interstate highways.
That's my opinion. Thanks for the informative Web site.--Jack
Byrom, Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Posted August 15, 2001:
Comment: I don't respect opposition to nuclear waste storage
on the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians Reservation unless
it includes a serious proposal for alternative means of economic
development.
Environmentalism that ignores reality is no better than Pres.
Bush's hare-brained plans to drill the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. The reservation may be beautiful in its starkness, but
its residents have next to no means by which to make a living,
support their families, and keep their kids close to home.
If you are not part of a workable solution then you are the pollution.--John
Pace
Comment: Much public education is needed on this issue
and KUED is to be commended for telling this story. Still, there
were some points either not covered in Skull Valley or
not given enough emphasis. Your editors had to ensure that no
viewpoint was given more time than others. I thought, however,
that Gov. Mike Leavitt was given more than his share of air time
to basically repeat the same message.
Distrust is a major sub-theme in the Skull Valley story. The
utilities don't trust the federal government, which promised to
take responsibility for spent nuclear fuel and move it from the
power plants to a safe permanent disposal facility, beginning
in 1998. For many reasons, not least of which is the active and
steadfast opposition of the State of Nevada and other opponents
of developing a repository in Nevada, the government failed to
fulfill the promise. So, many of the utilities are suing the government
for breach of contract and some formed Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C.
(PFS) as a means to "take matters into their own hands."
Leavitt seems to have two primary objections: it is, in his view,
"unsafe" to ship it to the site and he does not believe
the material would ever leave Skull Valley, making Utah a de
facto permanent disposal site. Let us examine those points.
First, it should be understood that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) regulates all aspects of high-level radioactive material,
including spent fuel that is proposed for storage in Skull Valley.
The NRC and other federal agencies regulate transportation, whether
rail or truck, with license requirements. The NRC can also provide
the facts on safety record of shipments of nuclear waste over
the past 30 or more years. As one of the persons interviewed said,
there has never been a transportation accident that resulted in
radioactive release.
As I understand it, the Skull Valley Band and PFS have agreed
to a 25 year lease of certain terms and PFS is seeking a license
under 10 CFR Part 72 (available at www.nrc.gov) for a 20 year
period, with some possibility of renewal under terms of the same
regulation. The NRC is conducting the license application review
that Scott Northard termed the most public proceeding for a nuclear
license he had ever seen. The Governor communicated his concerns
to the Commission as early as 1997. He must know that the proposed
storage is temporary, but he doesn't seem to believe it. In other
words, he does not trust what PFS, the Skull Valley Band and the
NRC accept as the terms of the proposed license.
Let us examine what PFS has been established to do and what the
motivation of the utilities that formed it may be. PFS was born
out of necessity to solve the problem that the federal government
presented them. PFS members don't want to be in the "nuclear
waste management" business. They want to produce and sell
electricity. Why would PFS' backers want to manage the storage
facility any longer than they need to? They'll likely try to make
a profit while they are managing the waste for the member utilities,
but it seems that their objective is cost avoidance for their
power plants. PFS can clarify that premise if they have not already
done so.
By inference, Leavitt does not trust that the federal government
will ever successfully develop a geologic repository for permanent
disposal of the spent nuclear fuel being proposed for temporary
storage in Skull Valley. That is the current plan pursuant to
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 and the 1987 Amendment
directing that Yucca Mountain in Nevada be studied for suitability
and eventual license by the NRC. The Department of Energy (DOE)
has struggled, but seems on track for preparing the Secretary
of Energy's recommendation to Pres. Bush later this year on the
site's suitability for proceeding to the next step: seeking an
NRC license to begin construction that could lead to waste acceptance
and emplacement by 2010 at the earliest. As some may know, there
is a provision in the law that the Governor of Nevada can "disapprove"
the site. That would end further work on Yucca Mountain unless
Congress votes to override.
If Yucca Mountain is not found suitable, the federal government
is still responsible for nuclear waste disposal (unless the NWPA
is repealed or substantially changed). Whether the DOE would have
to begin a search for another site (which Congress directed not
be done in 1987) is unknown. What is known is that the radioactive
waste at present DOE sites, like INEEL, in Idaho, must move. It
is also likely that nuclear utilities will press further for damages
from breach of contract to accept their waste. There would likely
be demands made from states where ratepayers have been paying
a fee on their electric bills into the Nuclear Waste Fund ($16
billion so far) that was intended under the NWPA to pay for safe,
permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel-fuel that is presently
stored at reactor sites in 31 states. Suffice it say, the government
does not seem to have a Plan B.
My last comment is to agree with former Tribal Counsel Danny
Quintana in crediting the Skull Valley Band for going into this
venture with their eyes wide open. I assume that the Band and
PFS have negotiated the lease on terms that have advantages and
risks for both parties. I am an engineer with over 35 years experience
working in and with the federal government; I have justifiable
faith that the NRC will only license this facility when assured
that it protects the public health and safety of the Skull Valley
Band and the citizens of Utah. Further, I expect that the NRC
will be just as vigilant of public health and safety concerns
when it comes to licensing a permanent geologic repository if
Bush determines that Yucca Mountain is suitable under terms of
the NWPA, all related regulations and in the best interests of
the United States.--Brian O'Connell, P.E.
Posted July 16, 2001:
Comment: More than 50 million people live on the transportation
routes in 43 cities in close proximity to the tons of high level
nuclear waste that would roll down the rails and highways across
America to Utah and Nevada.
Think about this. We are poised on the brink of gambling with
the lives of millions of Americans when there are real solutions
at hand that can and WILL resolve the nuclear waste problem. Scientists
and businesspeople worldwide have technologies on hand that will
make nuclear waste nontoxic plus they are also developing nontoxic
energy generators that will power our homes and businesses for
10-25 years, using self-contained systems that require no outside
power source.
Skull Valley and the Yucca Mountain project are not slated, fated
or destined to occur. The situation is not hopeless. We have to
ask ourselves, is shipping high level nuclear waste across the
country to be dumped in anyone's back yard really the legacy we
want to leave our children's children? We can point our fingers
at the big bad government and the nuclear power industry but ultimately,
we must take responsibility for the situation and actively support
Real Solutions by buying renewable, nontoxic, alternative energy
products, educating others, letting our voices be heard, attending
meetings and writing letters to the editors, friends, relatives,
our representatives, the President, the DOE, Energy Secretary
Abraham and the Vice President).
There are people with financial interests in these projects who
want to divide us. United we must stand. -- Celia Sue Hecht
Posted July 12, 2001:
Comment: As a Downwinder who has suffered the health effects
of radiation for 45 years, Utah and Nevada must stop this
madness.
The program was excellent, especially the concentration on the
heart of the problem; economics and the Goshute nation.
I am proud of my membership tonight. -- Jamie V. Stewart
Comment: I just finished watching the open forum discussion
on the Skull Valley issue. During the discussion the representative
for Private Fuel Storage stated that we are the United States
of America and this is a national problem. My question for him
would be, "If we are all sharing the problems of this country,
by what criteria was the decision made that the state of Utah
should be the nation's garbage can?" --Wayne Christiansen
Comment: It would seem obvious to me that having that
much nuclear waste stored above ground near a major U.S. city
makes us a primary missile target for a rouge government or organization
trying to prove something! Have we forgotten our lessons from
WW II that it is foolish to put all your resources or targets
in one nice, neat spot that is easy to hit! -- Gerard Dauphinais
Comment: Congratulations, again, Mr. Verdoia and KUED,
for a wonderfully balanced presentation of the issues involved
in this sad business.
As to the public dialogue following the program, thank you, though
I was disappointed that no phone-in questions were provided for.
Particularly, I would have loved to ask Mr. Northard, exactly
how his conglomeration would "stand behind" all liabilities
which might result from the waste site over the next 40 ("hopefully
fewer") years (or did I misunderstand his comment?)
Precisely what financial arrangements have or will be made to
indemnify and make whole any citizens of Utah (or elsewhere) who
might be hurt as a result of this endeavor? What insurance company
will cover the risk? And how will the cost of that risk be calculated?
Or, if PFS is self insured, does it specifically plan to put
money or other assets in trust to cover any eventuality which
might occur? Again, how much money or assets and how will this
indemnification be calculated? Who will pay for it? And, does
PFS (and its utility owners) specifically deny itself the right
to bankruptcy in the event things go really bad with this deal?
Finally, who knows (or can predict) what will happen to a nuclear
waste container which might be safe today, given the ravages of
nature and time over the next "40 years?" We have occasionally
heard of leaking nerve gas canisters being dealt with at the Tooele
incinerator, and those incidents must absolutely scare religion
into and challenge the professional skill of the incinerators
employees; how can we possibly know that similar leaks will not
occur in the future with the nuclear waste canisters? Short answer
is that we cannot know and anyone who says that they do know does
not. Only time will tell.
My heart goes out to the Goshutes. I sincerely hope that the
tribe (and the cousin who participated on the public dialogue
panel) can reconcile the pain, divisiveness, and poverty that
they clearly are dealing with, and pray that this occurs through
some method short of bringing another nuclear curse upon the land.
I also believe that the elected officials of the great state
of Utah better get off their noble high horses, sink their attitude
of moral superiority, and deal with this situation, the Treaty
that Abraham Lincoln signed so many years ago, and the Goshute
people fairly, while at the same time protecting the future health
and welfare of the population of this fast growing state. I was
astonished and shamed to learn that the crummy $2 million economic
development consideration for the tribe was not appropriated by
our genius legislature during the last session. How much more
bad faith (and "see here young man" attitude) must we
continue to show these people? Seems to me that our elected officials
better take this very seriously - rhetoric alone is not going
to get it this time.
Thanks again for the splendid presentation of this business.
I will not be sleeping well for the foreseeable future. -- Jay
S. Bachman
Comment: I am absolutely aghast at the lack of public
response to this serious issue. How can we as a group be so utterly
complacent in the face of what could possibly be the most significant
risk issue ever to cross our border, an issue that will so devastatingly
and permanently affect us and our children?
PFS is a for-profit corporation who is trying to ram benign-sounding
propaganda down our throats and force us to take what no one else
in the nation will accept. They have a serious disposal problem,
folks, and they have targeted us to solve their problem because
they believe we are of a politically and numerically insignificant
population to fight their raping of our environment.
They allege that the proposed high-level nuclear waste storage
site at the Skull Valley reservation is entirely safe, but they
refuse to store it's contents in or around their eastern
seaboard states where, consequently, most of the benefit of the
nuclear power was used to keep bills low in those states. Do you
not wonder why they are willing to spend the astronomical amounts
of money it will take to transport the waste here? Do you not
wonder why, if it is so safe, they don't simply cut the cost and
store the waste there on their home turf?
The answer is this question is as obvious as it is simple. Whenever
there is a question as to why an action is taken or not taken,
you must look at motives, and the motives are usually just as
easy to ascertain as whether or not there will be traffic on I-15
at rush hour. Follow the dollar, and you will find the motive.
PFS has chosen to perpetrate their radioactive problems upon
us because we are a cheap solution to their problem. They found
a tribe, the Goshute tribe, who were small enough and needy enough
to take their waste for money. More radioactivity than that released
by the atom bomb upon Hiroshima, will be stored 40 miles from
our back yards where our kids play.
PFS is well aware of the fact that the tribe has sovereign rights,
and can act against the will of the rest of the state. Those in
the council of this tribe are willing to risk their lives and
the lives of all those around them, including those of the people
in the Salt Lake Valley as well as any future generations, because
they were offered enough money with which to purchase blinders,
allowing them to forget who, as a nation, they are or once were,
allowing them to ignore the horrible risk involved. . .all in
the name of money. Mother Earth can be raped for a price. They,
blinded by the gold, will simply stand by and look the other direction.
I was heartened to hear one of the tribe stand up and challenge
the leader of the tribe, saying that 80 percent of the tribe now
opposed the storage of the nuclear waste. The leader of the tribe
did not really respond, because he did not care to hear what his
group really wanted. He was asked if it was true that each and
every member of the tribe would stand to gain approximately $2
million for their participation in the storage project. He would
not comment. His silent response spoke louder than words ever
could. Selling out for baubles is not a new game, but it is one
of those lessons in which we would hope that history would not
repeat itself.
Whether or not you take philosophical exception or agreement
to the above, you must not stand by and watch the unfolding
of this event with complacency or, even worse, apathy. The few
people on the council of this tribe are making the decision for
all of us. You as Utah citizens need to know that, regardless
of the outcome, you adequately considered the options, alternatives,
arguments for and against and rationales being proposed in this
monumental decision that, like it or not, will be forced upon
us if we do nothing. Your children will have to live with the
results of your lack of concern, and to me, that would be the
most unbearable burden of all. --Debi
Comment: It has been said that all Americans benefit from
nuclear power since it is used in the manufacturing of vehicles,
food and clothing. This may be true-but to what extent is certainly
unclear to me. Furthermore, I would gladly avoid purchasing any
consumer products where nuclear power was used in the manufacturing
process to keep the nation's nuclear waste only 40 miles away
from my children's home and my children's children's home. I would
recommend a law to notify all consumers of produces manufactured
using nuclear power.
Utah has done more than its part in developing and testing nuclear
power. Above ground nuclear testing has cost the lives of mothers,
fathers and children for whom there are those who still suffer
sever health problems. True, the storage of nuclear power is not
the same as above ground nuclear testing. However, the high level
nuclear storage contains dangerous level of radiation that will
have the exact same effect on human life and the environment as
above ground nuclear testing should any accident or disaster occur
however unlikely.
Lastly, and the most heartfelt is the fact that anyone would
consider taking advantage of the poor economic conditions of the
American Indians and the constitutional laws regarding American
Indian reservations to send nuclear waste to the other side of
the nation where the smallest fraction of nuclear power is processed
and 80 percent of the people do not want it. It would seem to
me that if nuclear waste is safe to transport and safe to store,
the nations nuclear storage facility should be in the center of
the nations nuclear power producers creating transportation cost
savings. One can only speculate the intentions of why to some
it makes sense to use the West Coast for a toxic waste dumping
ground when the vast majority of nuclear waste is produced on
the East Coast. In addition, why did the nuclear storage powers-to-be
not select an American Indian Reservation on the East Coast? Perhaps
Iowa is a more centrally located and contains an Indian reservation
with poor economic conditions that can be taken advantage of?
In closing, it makes sense to me that if we Americans are going
to deal with nuclear power than we Americans need to have a nuclear
disposal plan that makes sense for America. I believe these are
all better options that the one currently presented: 1) Any state
that produces nuclear waste is responsible for storing its nuclear
waste on its own land. 2) If there are significant cost savings,
and I mean significant, to store the waste in one large location,
it should be directly in the center of the United States perhaps
Iowa or Kansas. Since nuclear waste is safe to store and safe
to transport, neither Iowa nor Kansas should oppose such a decision.
3) Should neither of the two above options be accepted by America,
I propose the last option is to store toxic waste far away from
inhabited areas like perhaps Alaska or somewhere in the ocean.
Why not dump it in the ocean if it's safe to transport and safe
to store?
I believe that if you are a decent American and you recognize
this problem, you will not try to dump your toxic garbage on you
neighbor's home. We need a better solution than the one that is
being proposed for storing the nations toxic garbage for which
I have provided three. It is my hope that we will find a solution
that will solve this issue that is right for all America not just
those who produce nuclear waste or have more voters or O.J. Simpson
lawyers. To be clear, I in no way support placing nuclear waste
on any Indian reservation whether they want our toxic waste for
large amounts of money or not; they should not be given the choice
to have their lands store our garbage for which they did not produce.
I believe there are other ways for their economy to be strengthened
without having to store toxic waste they did not produce. --Scott
Lovell
Comment: Gentlemen: I think storage on the West Desert
is a great idea. Lets put that wasteland to creating some jobs
and tax revenue. It is too bad the people of this state believe
all the rubbish put out against atomic energy. We will never have
a clean environment until we do go atomic energy power production.
I worked in atomic energy for 26 years at the INEEL west of Idaho
Falls and I feel a lot safer there than with these gas lines in
my home. Now that we know how to handle it and what the consequences
are if we don't handle it right it can be a great boom to our
society. They have a process to reprocess this waste. Europe uses
atomic energy for 60 percent of their power and they reprocess
the waste. By the way they are using our technology while we sit
around and fight over it. I blame the AEC for not educating the
public on atomic energy. Its too bad atomic energy was introduced
with the bomb.
Well I've said enough. I was only a technician, I did the work
and my engineer got the credit but I am definitely in favor of
atomic energy. I watched your program tonight and it astounds
me how our politicians are so against putting the millions of
acres wasteland on the West Desert to work. Instead they tax us
to death. -- Bill Love
Posted July 11, 2001:
Comment:
Unfortunately, we are coming to a period in time where all Americans
are going to be held responsible for our wastefulness and overconsumption.
Pointing fingers and name calling is not going to change that
fact. One of the things that got us in this situation as a nation
is looking out for number one --whether it be me as a person,
a religious organization, a community, state or nation. So here
we are once again, denying our responsibility and pointing fingers
at "the other."
None of us
have any easy answers because there are none. But in a situation
like this a little respect could go a long way.
-- Kenna Rodgers
Posted July 7, 2001:
Comment: There really is no actual energy crisis. California
power companies manufactured a shortage by going offline. Forty
percent were off-line compared to 12 percent over previous years.
Utilities shutdown on purpose and charges might be filed against
those who did. -- Scott Portzline
|
