by Wyoming Liberty Group

Recently, the state legislature's Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee passed draft legislation that would open the door in Wyoming to the temporary storage of nuclear fuel waste.

Temporary, by the way, is a relative term. More on this in a moment.

But what this means, in the short term, is this: We all need to pay close attention. Highly radioactive nuclear waste may indeed one day come to our beautiful state of Wyoming. Various interests have been pushing this idea for decades. This isn't going away. In fact, the bill will be considered in January when the full state legislature convenes.

Rep. Don Burkhart, R-Rawlins, the committee co-chair, has been championing this proposal for some time, citing, among other things, the economic boon it may mean for the state. Many other advocates have touted the long-term benefits of the nuclear industry to power communities well into the future.

But there are many who have grave reservations about making Wyoming a dumping ground for others' nuclear waste. There are valid reasons, including the fact that nuclear waste is so radioactive that it can remain toxic not for thousands of years but for tens of thousands of years. It also goes, almost without saying, that nuclear waste can be so hazardous to human health that it can cause cancers. And, of course, there are concerns that nuclear waste can contaminate our environment—rivers, forests and fishing waters.

There are other serious questions, and chief among them is: What does it mean when Burkhart says that the storage of nuclear waste will be temporary?

The question is complicated by a single fact: There is no permanent place in the United States to store nuclear waste. It hasn't happened yet, despite the many years that leaders have been wrangling with this basic question. Which raises another fundamental question: Why doesn't the United States have a permanent nuclear waste storage facility?

As it turns out, it's an inconvenient—but important—question.

For one, policymakers have been wrestling with this question but haven't been able to come to a mutual agreement for years. A lot of people don't want nuclear waste in their backyard, especially if it's going to remain radioactive for centuries.

Another nettlesome problem is the cost of storing nuclear waste. By some estimates, it will cost over $30 billion to finalize a permanent site to dispose of nuclear waste.

There's also this challenge: Because nuclear waste can remain toxic for so long, it's a technical issue to figure out how to design a solution that will last long enough.

And, finally, there is this issue: The storage of nuclear waste requires a site that digs deep—a deep geologic repository that can allow the waste to lose its radioactivity over perhaps thousands of years. And the stability of such potential sites is considered speculative.

So, where does that leave things? Well, for one, the federal government has been paying utility companies to store the nuclear waste themselves. As such, you'll find that much nuclear waste is stored in dry casks at nuclear power plants across the nation. In fact, the amount of spent nuclear fuel is piling up at such commercial reactors—about 88,000 metric tons, by some estimates.

And it's growing.

This, by the way, is the definition of temporary as it stands now in the world of nuclear waste storage. That's what the experts say. And they note that, while it is safe to store nuclear waste in this matter for decades, it does not solve the problem of containing the radioactive material for potentially thousands of years. That is what we'd call a permanent solution.

Other countries are grappling with much the same problems. Sweden, for instance, is moving ahead with plans to create a deep geologic repository as a permanent way to dispose of nuclear waste. Finland also has begun construction on such a permanent deep repository to store nuclear waste.

But other countries are still trying to figure out what to do. That includes us in the United States. The U.S. Energy Department, which is in charge of figuring this out, has been plagued by fits and starts, experts say. That, they say, is due in part to what happens whenever a new administration comes into office. But they better start coming up with a permanent solution soon. That's because experts say it will take not years but decades to design and build a permanent repository for nuclear waste.

What will happen to all of those reactors if they don't have any more space to temporarily store nuclear waste? And what will happen to us in Wyoming if we are designated as a temporary site for nuclear waste storage? Will we become a de facto permanent site for nuclear waste?