Previous | Next

Narrator: For more than 30 years the federal government has struggled with a permanent means of dealing with highly radioactive waste.

For more than a decade the focus of that struggle has been found one hundred miles north of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Much of what plays out at this massive underground project echoes in Utah's Skull Valley.

In the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress instructed the Department of Energy to study Yucca Mountain as a permanent underground storage center.

Allan Benson, Department of Energy: "It probably is the most intensely studied piece of rock anyplace in the world. We've spent, out there, about three and a half billion dollars since the nuclear waste policy act was enacted. That's a lot of money."

Narrator: The money paid for tunnels to be bored deep into the mountain to study the geology. . .water motion. . .and seismic activity.

The scientific and engineering studies have stretched on for a decade, turning Yucca Mountain into an elaborate underground laboratory.

The premise is simple: the best, long-term storage solution for nuclear waste must be found underground.

This is not Nevada's first introduction to the complexities of nuclear power and radiation.

Throughout the 1950s and early 60s dozens of above ground nuclear weapons tests were conducted in close proximity to Yucca Mountain at the Nevada test site.

Back then, Nevada had no voice in the federal testing program.

But now, Nevada and Las Vegas are waging an all out political war to fight the designation of Yucca Mountain as the permanent storage site for nuclear waste.

Robert Loux, Nevada Nuclear Waste Office: "I think that Nevadans and the Nevada leaders view nuclear waste disposal as a threat to some of our primary industries, i.e. tourism, gaming, conventions, that sort of thing."

"So what we believe is that we ought to be able to determine ourselves, as a state, what our economic future ought to be, and not have sort of threats from the outside that in fact are imposed on us against our will."

Allan Benson: "People have this reaction when you mention nuclear, when you mention radiation. It scares people. They don't understand it. You can't see it. You can't touch it, smell it, but you know it can hurt you. And not properly handled, that's true. It has to be properly handled and we know how to do that, but nevertheless, people are still afraid."

Narrator: The arguments closely parallel the back-and-forth between supporters and opponents of the Skull Valley project in Utah.

And, like the Utah debate, Yucca Mountain shows the struggle over the nation's radioactive legacy.

Allan Benson: "We have to do something with this material. Is it better, is it safer in 70 some odd sites around the country? Or in one single location sitting under a thousand feet of solid rock?"

Robert Loux: "DOE has been engaged in what we call advocacy science. Stake out a position in advance. This is the premise. This is the nuclear waste site, and go about collecting data and information that essentially proves that point and either ignoring or not researching other areas that would seem to detract from that objective. And that's what DOE has done at Yucca Mountain."

Narrator: The Department of Energy is caught in a political vise.

On one hand, it promises to fulfill its duties to honestly and objectively study Yucca Mountain. To promise to stop the study the minute there is scientific evidence that it is an unacceptable location.

At the same time DOE has already lost lawsuits because of its inability to deliver a site. There is clear political pressure to commit to a definite, long-term radioactive storage center.

Robert Loux: "This is going to be a purely political decision. It's going to be made by the President and Congress. . .who all have nuclear power plants in their own states that would like to get rid of this waste. So there is a built in motivation to reach the political conclusion that this is where it out to be, regardless of what the science is."

Narrator: There is another political wrinkle as well.

While Nevada and Utah have given public support to each other in their individual battles over nuclear storage. . .both sides acknowledge, off-the-record, they are rooting for their neighbor to lose.

Sources in Nevada say that approval of Utah's Skull Valley project could buy Nevada more time to block the permanent storage site at Yucca Mountain. . . or at least hold it off for a few decades.

Utah sources say they are pulling for a quick decision from Washington naming Yucca Mountain as the permanent site. . . hoping it would remove the need for a temporary site in Utah.

Rep. James Hansen: "That's the point exactly. If you have a permanent spot to put it, why do we need a temporary one?"

Narrator: So while Nevada and Utah publicly pledge to work together to raise national concerns about transporting nuclear waste. . . they may also be looking at each other's setback as the only way out of their individual fight.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14