Nuclear energy is not clean or safe

Salt Lake Tribune, Eileen McCabe-Olsen and Pete Litster
Published March 12, 2006

Some of Utah's lawmakers argue that nuclear energy is clean, safe and cheap. We disagree with them on the supposedly low level of greenhouse gas emissions released throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, and the economic nonsense of huge taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power. However, we are more concerned with the legacy of long-lived nuclear waste. Waste from nuclear power currently resides at the generating plants, awaiting permanent storage in the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada. Yucca Mountain is geologically unstable and is on land sacred to the Western Shoshone Indians. Recent studies indicate that designs for this project could allow groundwater corrosion within decades, resulting in contamination of the huge aquifer that lies beneath. This supplies water to one of the West's largest dairy lands. Assuming that Yucca Mountain actually opens, what will we do when it's full? Its capacity was calculated based on the premise that no more nuclear plants would be built and that no existing plants would be relicensed beyond their initial 40 years. Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign, as well as our own senators, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, have proposed changing federal law to keep waste at the generating plants. Power plant owners and neighboring residents oppose these changes, not wanting such "safe" waste in their backyards, thus efforts to "sweep it under the rug" here in the West. It is unclear that the industry-supported waste fund will cover these expenses, leaving taxpayers with the bill. Members of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes and the State of Utah are fighting the Private Fuel Storage nuclear dump proposed for the Goshute Reservation in Utah's West Desert. Oscar Shirani, an industry whistleblower, has done extensive analysis of the dry storage casks designed for the PFS project, and noted that even a mild sandstorm could clog the casks' cooling vents, and that birds or rodents building nests in them could cause containment failure and radioactive release. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy noted the gross lack of funding for emergency responders to handle a nuclear accident en route to our Great Basin home. Further, studies by the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C., describe, in detail, consequences of even moderate damage to a "spent" nuclear fuel cask from a common automobile-train collision, including release of Cesium-137, a dangerous radionuclide. Finally, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences conceded that no analysis had been made of the terrorism threat to nuclear waste in transit to Skull Valley, because the relevant information was classified. Nuclear proponents are pushing a false "solution" for reducing this waste burden: recycling or reprocessing nuclear waste. The technology being discussed by the Bush administration is merely theoretical. Even nuclear advocates, like the Nuclear Energy Institute, acknowledge that it will take decades and serious expense to mature. Despite these factors, 11 new plants are being planned. Since 2000, 39 have been relicensed, 12 more applications are under review, and 27 more applications are expected by 2012. Disposal of the expected waste output requires planning far beyond what we can even currently imagine. It is unconscionable that certain Utah lawmakers are trying to trick Utahns into contributing to this already massive and dangerous boondoggle. It is hypocritical to oppose the storage of nuclear waste within state lines, when you are considering becoming an actual generator of the waste. Tons of radioactive rock is not clean. Radioactive water is not clean. Further creation and expansion of nuclear waste dumps is not safe. Enabling this with huge taxpayer subsidies makes no economic sense. Utah has many energy options it can consider. Let us not make the critical error of gambling our future on a choice we cannot undo.