|
Suzanne Winters, Ph.D.
Utah State Science Advisor
Suzanne Winters serves in the role of State Science Advisor.
A wide-ranging role that touches on everything from education
to economic development, the Science Advisor has been called on
to lend support to Utah's opposition to the temporary storage
of high level radioactive waste.
Dr. Winters was interviewed in her office at the Utah State Capitol
by program Producer Ken Verdoia.
Ken Verdoia: So as we begin, I want you to help explain
to me how you view your role in this ongoing concern with the
Private Fuel Storage initiative to bring high level radioactive
waste to the state of Utah. How do you fit into this picture?
Dr. Suzanne Winters: Well, as the state's Science Advisor
I have been involved in discussions over many years of nuclear
waste transportation, primarily, and safety. And we have been
dealing with, not only the transuranic shipments that are coming
through the state currently, but many years of preparation for
Yucca Mountain shipments. And the congress through the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, did see fit in their 180C Section to talk about
the implications to the states, which are immense. So these discussions
have been ongoing with all of the states that would be corridors,
to address safety and transportation. So primarily that has been
my role.
Verdoia: Private Fuel Storage, in material released yesterday
to the Utah State Legislature, assures that this facility on the
Skull Valley Reservation will not be built unless it is absolutely
safe. And in the same document they assure that it will be absolutely
safe. End of story? Is that the concluding statement? Are your
concerns being, have they been adequately addressed?
Dr. Winters: Is there anything that is absolutely safe?
I'm not sure I can buy into that argument. Particularly in light
of the failure of PFS through the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)
to address any of the transportation risks. Those are immense.
Those are something have, that will take years of preparation
and coordination between many states, not just Utah. They have
huge implications for our state, more so than the transportation
is the risk of the facility itself. Were this to be done under
the Department of Energy there would be considerable other safeguards
and opportunities for input from the state. We don't have those
under a Private Fuel Storage scenario, in dealing with a sovereign
nation.
Verdoia: And that sets up this notion of the process that's
in place for Yucca Mountain as opposed to the process, if we can
call that, that's in place for Private Fuel Storage initiative.
Help me understand.
Dr. Winters: No comparison.
Verdoia: There is no comparison. Explain how you view
there's no comparison.
Dr. Winters: Well, as I said, we have been years in the
planning of shipments for even the waste that's going down to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant down in New Mexico. We have agreed
between the states and the Department of Energy on what levels
of preparedness each community must maintain. What instrumentation
they have to have in the event of an accident. I think what you're
seeing is Joe American off the street hears the word nuclear and
gets very concerned and I think that's part of the reason in some
of these other states saying not in my backyard. We need to educated
the public that these things can be, be handled appropriately
and safely but that it's a huge process to go through. And we
don't have that opportunity. We don't have that funding. We don't
have the resources to address those issues as it relates to the
PFS proposal.
Verdoia: In the Yucca Mountain proposal, there's a scientific
process, scientific contribution, but then it draws to a close
and then there's a political decision making period that opens
up. Does that same sense of full scientific exposition, study
and examination exist for the PFS proposal in Utah? And then in
fact, does it give away to the full sense of a political decision
making process as is being considered for Yucca Mountain?
Dr. Winters: Well you have to understand where science
hits the arena of public policy. Many times the science is only
one factor that has to be considered. In my opinion, of course,
the science has to be there and has to be sound behind it. In
the case of PFS, you don't have any science, from what I can see,
in terms of the level of testing of the storage or transportation
casks, for example. That has all been addressed under a federal
program or will be addressed but will not be addressed under this.
Next
|
