Leavitt was interviewed in his Capitol Hill office by program Producer Ken Verdoia.
Ken Verdoia: Governor, you have been adamant in the past that the relocation of radioactive waste, high level radioactive waste to Utah is something you do not view as being in the best interest of this state. Why?
Gov. Michael Leavitt: We don't produce it. We don't benefit from it and we don't want to store it for those who do. We think it's unsafe in the context of our community, having lethally hot nuclear waste 40 miles from where I sit right now and within a very close range of the major population center of this state is inconsistent with our vision of what we want this state to be.
Verdoia: If it was any other form of industrial waste, we probably would not be having this conversation, but the sheer subject matter, radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods, enlarges and inflames the dialogue that takes place. Why?
Gov. Leavitt: There are many reasons. One is that I suspect there is a social bias against it. It does taint the reputation of a state or a place that would become the capital for it. Second, there is a bonafide public safety issue. Not just in the context of the radioactive waste itself, but in this case the place it would be stored. It's very close to the Utah Test and Training Range, which is a very important economic asset to the state, as well as an important defense asset to the United States of America and we fear that it could, in fact, jeopardize the use of that. We're also concerned about the fact that we already store 44 percent of the nation's stockpile of chemical munitions in that very area. We think it makes us quite a target for mischief, among terrorists and others. A piece of this that's not ever been fully vetted by federal regulators. In fact, they've refused to even focus on it as an issue.
We have fears that it, long term, is a permanent facility. We don't see this as a temporary facility. Once it's moved there, we fear it will stay. We have some experience with radioactivity in this state and it's not a happy experience. We have been told at times that testing that was done in the West, the desert just west of there was safe. Well, it wasn't and my schoolmates died of cancer and other kinds of ailments that are directly related to it. And we were told at various times, by the federal government, that there was no testing going on with chemical munitions and entire sheep herds died. Then we were told, well, there was no connection, that it was just a coincidence. Well, it turns out that wasn't true either. So if we appear to have a fairly hefty dose of skepticism, it's been well earned.
Verdoia: What about those scientific assertions that this can be transported safely? That it can be stored safely? The challenges or risks attendant to the transportation and storage are so infinitesimally small as to be statistically nonexistent.
Gov. Leavitt: If it's so safe, why don't we just leave it where it is? There's capacity. It's stored at the site where it was produced. They're not going to change the nature of the technology used in storing it. This does not pass the logic test. Why would you move it twice? The ultimate solution here is to find a permanent place to store this or to revisit the national policy on how we dispose of it. But to move it to a "temporary site" and store it there for a period of time and move it again simply doesn't jive with the safety with which they proclaim.
Verdoia: In outward appearances you would therefore seem to pit Utah vs. Nevada. Nevada, if they're going to be a permanent location, they should receive the shipments so there wouldn't be the two shipments of the same material. On the other hand, some in Nevada maintain that if we can establish that Utah is safe for a temporary storage then Utah should receive the shipments. Do you feel these states are being pitted against each other or are you in fact allies in this battle?
Gov. Leavitt: Well, we walk a very sensitive balance. I've had lengthy conversations with Governor Gwen, and Governor Miller before him about this issue. The one thing we are united on is that it ought to stay where it is until there's a permanent, safe alternative.
Verdoia: Is there a sense, for all of the opposition voiced by you and other state officials, the opposition being expressed in the public at large, that you're shooting paper bullets at a speeding locomotive?
Gov. Leavitt: Well, I'm shooting every bullet I can muster, at every target I can find when it comes to this matter. We're going to use every legislative tool, every political tool, every environmental tool, and every litigation tool that we can find to keep this high level nuclear waste out of our state. It remains hot for 10,000 years. We don't want it here. We don't want it here now. We don't want it in the future. We don't ever want it here.
Verdoia: Time and again the issue of Native American sovereignty is brought forward. The ability of the tribal government to enter into a contract with a private business concern without interference. How do you view the issue of the sovereignty of the Skull Valley Band and the Goshute Indians?
Gov. Leavitt: That sovereignty is very much in keeping with the constitutional right that every citizen of this country has for private property. And yet there are times when the good of the collective has to come into play with respect to private property rights. An example, we do have planning and zoning laws in our country to prevent someone from putting a pig farm in the middle of a metropolitan area. One might argue I own this property. This is my property, I can do with it what I will, but what happens on one persons property clearly has an impact on others, and therefore we recognize that there are times when those conflict. Now I have great respect for the sovereignty of the Goshute tribal community. I recognize it, but I don't think it is an unlimited license to do anything you want when you're 40 miles from your neighbors and you're talking about putting high level nuclear waste there that will last 10,000 years. It's the same principle.
Verdoia: The state could be perceived as insensitive to the suffering of these people as they desperately seek their way out of the poverty that's been created by governments that went before. How do we address that?
Gov. Leavitt: I recognize that there is an argument that could say you're preventing them from making a living on their land. There are lots of times and places in society where, for the good of the larger group, we recognize that we have to find other ways of helping a small group. Again, I recognize the sovereignty of this group but let's put it in perspective. This is 30 or 40 people who actually live there. We're talking about that by comparison to the public safety of two million people. It isn't as though we're unwilling to help them. We are. But I don't think this country has actually had a good success in being able to take Tribal governments and simply sustain them with financial handouts. We're prepared to help them with education, with transportation, with finding jobs, doing what we can to help them develop other kinds of economic stimulus.
For example, there's the potential of using that area for a test and training range for various propellants that, it was actually used before and we'd like to help them get that lined up again. But again, we're talking about 30 people here and this may not be the best way and certainly not the only way in which to do it. And I would also point out that I don't think the way that they've gone about conducting this has necessarily been direct or fair with us. They're not prepared to let us know anything about the financial arrangements that they've developed. I think when we get to the bottom of it we're going to find things have not all been straight up and that there have been those who have benefited from this on a personal basis and that in fact there are the interests of the Goshute nation, themselves, has not always been looked after as well as it should. I think the BIA has been, is worthy of significant criticism in the way that they have dealt with this issue. They have not been willing to be the "honestly broker" between the tribe and others. They've not been willing to supply information. They've not been as forthcoming, in my judgment, as they should have. And that's harsh criticism, but I direct it pointedly and with deliberance.
Verdoia: What about Private Fuel Storage itself? This consortium of power companies that employ nuclear power. Some in your administration have said PFS has done everything it can to avoid public scrutiny. Fair criticism?
Gov. Leavitt: Absolutely a fair criticism. In fact, I think they've been flat misleading at times. In one of their filings to the Minnesota Public Service Commission, they indicate that there's broad public support in Utah for this concept. Nothing could be further from the truth. They've been unwilling to share their agreements. They've been unwilling to share their financial arrangements. What they've been willing to do was to put a substantial amount of money into buying up everybody in their way. These are people with a serious financial incentive but they've done it in a way as to protect themselves from financial liability. They've created a limited liability company. It has virtually no assets. We don't know who the management of that will be long term. Even some of the partners in the limited liability company are currently in financial peril themselves.
That begins to give some real expression to the worry we have about this. Who's going to be responsible for this 10,000 years from now? Who is it that's going to be assuring that this is cared for and why are they bringing it here when they have the capacity where they produce it to keep it? This just doesn't pass the sniff test and I don't think PFS has been straight forward. It isn't like they came to us and said we want to do this. We want to work through a regulatory process in a cooperative way. Everything's been litigation. We've had to seek alternative ways of being able to get in, to really understand what they want to do.
Verdoia: You have told me in many different settings, that government which governs best, governs closest to the people. I submit to you the Tooele County Commission, which has signed a cooperative agreement with PFS. A lucrative contract to provide mitigation for the impacts that might exist on county government.
Gov. Leavitt: Well, there is also a compelling state interest in this situation and I think their interest is defined simply by financial support. They don't believe it's unsafe. I disagree. The Legislature of the state of Utah disagrees. The broad cross section of the people of the state of Utah disagree and I think if you get right down to it, a large segment of the people in Tooele County disagree. They clearly have cut a financial deal on the basis that if this comes, we want to be taken care of. I'm prepared to understand that but not agree with it, and I'm prepared to do all I can to block the capacity of a local government to offer services to anyone who would bring high level nuclear fuel rods to this state.
Verdoia: What about the process of approving this private sector initiative? We just returned from Yucca Mountain. Down there it's been a ten year study period, exacting scientific standards must be met and then after the scientific considerations complete, it moves into a political arena for that deliberative process and consideration. Compare that to the deliberative process associated with Skull Valley proposal.
Gov. Leavitt: The Environmental Impact Statement, the regulatory process that they've gone through, the Department of Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy, have just been completely inadequate. Major questions that they've been unwilling to look at in terms of an adequate study. The issue I spoke of earlier, that the facility would sit next to the Test and Training Range, where in the last two years we've had two separate incidents where cruise missiles have gone awry. One actually hit a building and the other had to be shot out of the air by our own forces because he didn't have control of it, or they had to self destruct it. Now, they've been unwilling to even look at that as part of the issue. And I submit to you that's incomplete.
Verdoia: Let's consider this notion of temporary storage, although by definition temporary is almost certain to outlive you and I. Are you assured that it's temporary?
Gov. Leavitt: I'm fairly certain, I'm certain it's not temporary. They're not going to go through this twice. Once they have moved it out of their backyard, there will be no lift to move it anywhere else.
Verdoia: A full blown third stage energy crisis has enveloped the state of California now for the better part of six weeks. We have seen the ripple effects in the state of Utah. We've seen ripple effects in the western power grid. We've seen the ripple effects on energy prices and now perhaps, we're seeing ripple effects on energy production in this nation. Some say this may redo the mandate, the once dead mandate, or increase nuclear generating capacity, that in fact the flagging stock of nuclear power may be on the rebound because of the energy demands that must be met. Increase nuclear power production, you increase nuclear waste. You create a greater imperative for dealing with nuclear waste. Does the energy crisis in California in fact work against the interest of Utah on this storage issue for high level radioactive waste?
Gov. Leavitt: I have never intended that my opposition to moving their waste here, as an anti-nuclear statement, in general. That's a separate issue. But if we do continue to generate nuclear power and if we do continue to generate waste, we need to find a place to either dispose of it or to store it and I would argue that those who use it ought to take care of it. Those who don't shouldn't be expected to care for those who do. It's as simple as that.
Verdoia: National decision makers conceivably play a role in this issue, a significant role perhaps. George Bush, friend of the Western Governors, friend of Governor Michael Leavitt. How concerned are you about the national outlook towards Utah's concerns?
Gov. Leavitt: We need a national energy policy. Part of a national energy policy will be a means of being able to take care of the by-products of our energy development, whether it's nuclear waste, whether it's coal, or whether it's gas, they all have some form of downside with respect to their residual. I don't believe that this ultimately will factor into the decision on what we do with the existing fuel rods. It could, but at this point I don't see exactly what it will be.
Vedoia: You have, at numerous points in your career, pointed to the responsibility we have as a current mature generation to deliver a solid state for future generations. Native Americans refer to this as the pledge to the seventh generation. What do I do today? How will it impact seven generations from now? I'd like you to take that generational commitment and offer me a final thought on why this issue is important to Utah.
Gov. Leavitt: It's important to us because it defines, in large measure, how we are perceived by the world and the level of safety that we achieve. Safety, as defined in increments of 10,000 years, I will deal with very few issues during my public service that will have that kind of a half-life. This one does. We don't want it here. We'll do everything we have to do to prevent it.
Source: http://www.kued.org/
Questions:
1. What is the strongest point of opposition to the plan that Gov. Leavitt mentions?
2. How do you think Gov. Leavitt would respond to Mr. Bear's charges of racism?
3. Given that Mr. Bear is so convinced that the facility is safe, do you think that Gov. Leavitt's concerns about the veracity of information is founded?
4. Do you feel from this interview that Gov. Leavitt is compassionately interested in the plight of the economically impoverished Goshute Tribe? Remember that this tribe is only 100 members at its maximum, and he represents a state of millions of people.
5. Mr. Leavitt is the only interviewee in the five interviews that you will read who mentions that the material stored in the facility will have a "hot" half-life of 10,000 years. After learning this does it change your opinion about the proposed storage facility?
6. Finally, Mr. Leavitt makes the claim that the Goshute's claims of sovereignty are no different than a neighbor's claims to his property rights, and that these rights can be governed by zoning laws and other government ordinances. Do you find this to be convincing? Why might he make this claim?
