Suzanne Winters, Ph.D.
Utah State Science Advisor

Continued...

Verdoia: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the licensing entity for the PFS proposal.

Dr. Winters: That has been debated.

Verdoia: Help me understand that.

Dr. Winters: Okay, well it's my understanding from the legal, legal experts involved in this that the question as to whether or not NRC, in fact, has the authority to license such a facility needs to be addressed. Because as we interpret the statute, it says that they have the authority to license a federally owned facility. That is not true here.

Verdoia: But does it become problematic when the land in question, is in fact, a sovereign Indian nation, treatied with the federal government.

Dr. Winters: Again, it will come down to the lawyers interpretation because will our non-native activities able to be regulated on a reservation? I don't know. The courts will have to decide that. Do we as citizens have the right to say what members of the tribe can do? Obviously not. But it has to be within the, the greater good, if you would, of the community, of the state and of the nation.

Verdoia: As I was alluding to in terms of setting up the role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it's been held forth to us that the state has put forth a number of grave concerns with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and that routinely, in order, they have been quickly dispatched those concerns that have been dispatched, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Does that ensure faith in the process or does it leave you even more concerned that perhaps the full review will not be in place?

Dr. Winters: Oh, I think the Draft EIS and it's deficiencies speak for themselves. This is a document that's being reviewed by NRC and with the arguments that we have thrown up, that have been dismissed, I think that sets up a pretty clear message that this is not as thorough a review or as an objective review as we would prefer.

Verdoia: As we were talking this interview is playing out against the back drop of what we're now calling the California energy crises, which is a misnomer because there are critical aspects that ripple through the entire nation.

Dr. Winters: Correct.

Verdoia: It has been held forth to us, in numerous interviews, that this California energy crisis draws in sharp focus the interconnection of all the states when it comes to issues of energy policy and energy production and energy supply. And that Utah, is in fact adopting an isolationist stance when it comes to nuclear waste in direct conflict with that interdependence. How would you address that?

Dr. Winters: I wouldn't say isolationist at all. I think the fact that we're dealing with a sovereign nation brings up a whole host of issues that would eliminate that argument. We have not been isolationist at all when we're considering federal programs for transportation and storage of waste. But going back to your question on energy policy, I think if you objectively look at the national position, we as a nation debate defense policy every year, as we should. But we have been loathed to debate energy policy and energy, any energy policy that is discussed must include nuclear. And you cannot discuss nuclear policy until you address the issue of waste and that's the issue that I think, as a country, we haven't dealt with.

Verdoia: Time and again, it's been stressed to us that high level radioactive waste is not Utah's problem.

Dr. Winters: That's correct.

Previous | Next