by Wyoming Liberty Group
It's a basic mathematical equation: A lack of money + a need to pay for stuff = pressure.
Pressure to find another source of revenue, if you're the state government in Wyoming. And if we're not careful, we'll end up with a deal with the proverbial devil. It's a dangerous promethean promise if the conversation has to do with the possibility of dumping nuclear waste somewhere in the wide-open expanses of our beautiful state.
Which is precisely what Rep. Donald Burkhart Jr. (R-Rawlins) wants. Recently, Burkhart, co-chair of the Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee, said he plans to introduce such a bill this October.
We are all well aware that the Wyoming energy sector is undergoing change, with coal production and sales on a decline, as a prominent example. Burkhart apparently sees the storage of nuclear waste in Wyoming as a potential new windfall. The promise is that it could yield over $4 billion annually—a promise, mind you. "Just to let us keep it here in Wyoming," he said in a committee meeting in Casper. Sen. Stacy Jones (R-Rock Springs) added, "It was just brought to us as a possible money maker for Wyoming."
But, hold your horses.
While Burkhart disclosed some kind of draft of the proposal to his committee colleagues, he didn't share it with the rest of us folks.
Which, of course, raises a host of questions.
Here's what we know so far: He indicated that used nuclear fuel would be stored in dry, not wet, form. That apparently means the waste would be kept in casks, which is a method of storing highly radioactive waste that has been cooled for some number of years.
But did you catch the key term? Highly radioactive?
Burkhart also indicated that it would cost about $2 million to buy the land for such a facility and another $400 million or so to build it. While he said that money would come solely from private sources, who is he talking about?
Bill Gates, the tech billionaire, who's already made moves in Wyoming to bring his nuclear project? Amid much fanfare, Gates is working with the U.S. Department of Energy to build a $4 billion nuclear power plant near Kemmerer.
Burkhart said the storage of nuclear waste would not be permanent. But what does it mean to temporarily store nuclear waste? Especially when you consider one pertinent fact: Because there is no such permanent place yet in the United States to store nuclear waste, given the complexities and hazards involved.
Burkhart also held out the hope—another promise, mind you—that nuclear waste stored in our state could be reprocessed as a way to create more revenue. But nobody does this in the United States, so who could do this?
The idea to store nuclear waste in Wyoming isn't new, by the way. In fact, it rears its head every so often and goes back to the early 1990s. And yet, it hasn't happened.
Why is that?
Well, let's consider some of the risks of storing nuclear waste. How about this whopper: It's so radioactive that nuclear waste, containing poisonous chemicals, can be toxic for not just hundreds of years—but thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years.
This means, to state the obvious, that nuclear waste is dangerous to human health. Damage from radiation can come in many forms, including mutations that could cause cancer, especially among children and teenagers.
How would the storage of nuclear waste in Wyoming protect against such human hazards?
What about the threat of nuclear waste to Wyoming's environment, one of our points of pride? Nuclear waste, if not handled carefully, can contaminate rivers, groundwater, forests, land used for agriculture and water for fishing.
How does the Wyoming proposal to store nuclear waste protect our environment?
And what of the threat posed by terrorists who could attack nuclear facilities, which could create all kinds of havoc, including releasing toxins in the air? What safeguards would be put in place to prevent such a catastrophe in Wyoming?
We haven't even talked about the less sinister but equally alarming problem: What if there's an accident at the nuclear facility? It has, after all, happened. Remember the Chernobyl disaster in the 1980s? How about the meltdown at the plant in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011? Death, destruction and countless costs have followed in their wake.
How will Wyoming avert such disasters?
There are many unanswered questions. Let's hope we get them soon.