This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2010, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
In "California's plan to store nuclear waste in Utah" (Opinion, Dec. 5), outgoing Rep. Jay Seegmiller, D-Sandy, argued that the proposed Green River nuclear power plant was a "back door approach by California to send Utah their nuclear waste," hinting that EnergySolutions might store the stuff, and California would dodge "the very large fees to ship their nuclear waste to Utah for storage."
In actuality, though, highly radioactive spent fuel rods are currently stored at the originating nuclear power plant, and according to the Northwest Interstate Compact On Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management, any low-level nuclear waste (the only kind EnergySolutions stores) generated by a nuclear plant in Utah would be sent to a facility in Hanford, Wash., not to Utah's west desert.
So by having a nuclear power plant in Utah, California would not avoid any fees.
Seegmiller also says that Utah may be a poor place for nuclear power because of its water situation: "Is this really the best use of our water?" Fair point, and a good area for ongoing discussion. However, California avoiding Utah waste shipping and storage fees is not.
Ben RengFounder, Utah Citizens for Responsible Waste Storage
Riverton