Видео: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=qnxEXdmecMo

My name is Judy Treichel. I'm the executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force. I've been in that position for probably about 27 or 28 years, because it began when Nevada was singled out as the one state to take the nation's nuclear, high-level nuclear waste, at Yucca Mountain. And so we were opposed to that, for many reasons, and previous to that I had been working in opposition to nuclear weapons testing. So while doing that work, I learned a lot about radiation, so it seemed sort of natural to be involved in working on the nuclear waste issue because shortly after Yucca Mountain came up as the spot to be named for the nation's nuclear waste, testing at the Nevada test site stopped. So all of our efforts were aimed at the Yucca Mountain project.

Oleg: May I ask you to explain the key points of the Yucca Mountain project?

Judy: Yucca Mountain was selected by the government for the place to dispose of both the spent fuel rods from commercial nuclear reactors and also the high-level waste from the weapons program. And the people of Nevada, especially in the southern part in Las Vegas, were very much opposed to this, because all of it would have to be transported through Las Vegas in order to get, or most of it would have to come through Las Vegas, in order to get up to the mountain. And then the more of the sites was studied, the more it became clear that it was simply a bad site. It would leak, it would not contain the waste in the way that it needed to be for all of the time that the waste would be dangerous. So we wound up opposed to it at a social level and also on an environmental level.

Oleg: What was the position of the opponents? What was the background information for the position against the project?

Judy: it was the fact that it was technically unsound, that it would pose a threat to people in that area and to the groundwater, because Nevada has so little water and it would contaminate a pristine aquifer that serves Nevada. And also that the nation picked a spot that didn't have very many representatives in Washington, so we really couldn't put up a big fight when it came to Congress making the decision to choose Yucca Mountain.

Oleg: What was the position of the proponent the project? Why do they want to do this in this area?

Judy: The nuclear industry had most of its plants in the eastern part of the country, very, very far away from Nevada and from Yucca Mountain. They were looking for a place that didn't have many people and when you go out to that area you see that there are no big cities and not a lot of people, so that was what they were really looking for. They also were wrong when they thought that Nevada wouldn't care. Because there had been a test site for nuclear weapons, they thought that this would be something nobody would even care about. If they allowed explosions, why wouldn't they allow this? Nevadans saw that very differently. They saw the nuclear tests weapons program as something that was very important when we were all afraid of each other, and that they were just doing a favor for a very wealthy industry, looking to find a garbage dump for things they didn't want.

Oleg: What was the key moment that stopped the project?

Judy: Well, Senator Harry Reid represents Nevada and he's been in the Congress for a very long time. He was a congressman and then became a senator. When Bill Clinton was our president, he was helpful to us and that he understood the unfairness and so while this project was going along, he did things that helped us a lot. And then when Barack Obama was campaigning to become president, he came to Nevada and said he agreed with us. He didn't like this project. And as president he would not allow it to go forward. So soon he was selected, he opposed the product and the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, decided that the Yucca Mountain site was unworkable. So all of the work stopped. And since that time, the work did stop. There were court cases. There were court decisions. And now there's very little going on out there. But we're all kind of waiting. If the balance of power will change in Washington, if Sen. Reed will no longer be in that very important position, if perhaps in 2016 we get a complete change in Congress. Then there could be someone who would say, OK, well let's go back to Yucca Mountain and start up again. So our work has to stay ready to start up again. And I think one of the problems that we have, and perhaps every country has, is that you have a problem that's going to present dangers for thousands or millions of years and you have election cycles, and people may decide they want to go it totally different way. So it's going to be hard for anyone to find a real solution to this problem when you have short-term politics and long-term dangers.

Oleg: What do you think about the idea of import to another country? For example in Russia, the industry from time to time discusses the idea of using an area in Russia that is empty to take everybody's waste. What is your personal position about the export of spent nuclear rods not only to Russia but to Africa for example?

Judy: The primary concern would be where people had very little power, had nothing politically going for them, and the world would decide whether to sacrifice those people. That would be a horrible, horrible thing to do. As far as a country like Russia who would want to entertain this idea, I think there be a lot of mistrust. Why do they want all this plutonium? What are they really thinking about? So, I don't know that that would ever really work out. I think that you have a responsibility when you produce the waste, you should know what you're going to do with it.

Oleg: What is the your vision of a solution to the problem of spent nuclear fuels?

Judy: I suppose the nuclear industry would think that I am very unfair. But I'm not looking for a solution to nuclear waste which would move the waste out of their pools, or away from their sites, just so they can replace it with new waste. If waste is a problem, and if it's very dangerous, I really want to help solve that problem.But not to enable someone to make more.So I would like to know that they're phasing out, they don't have to turn them all off tomorrow, but that they have a plan to phase out. And then I'd be really happy to find a solution where perhaps there is geology that would be able to contain the ways. I think Finland is very optimistic about the site they are working on in granite....

But I would like to see the waste itself studied more, exactly what is this stuff, what does it do and then how do different rock types react to high heat, radiation, all of those things and come up with the best thing that we can do. I know that people have talked about putting it in the ocean, out in the deep ocean, underneath some of the plates. And on paper, that probably looks very good. But getting the stuff there and actually doing that, and dealing with all the treaties against dumping in the oceans is going to be a formidable problem. But you don't have to worry, the stuff will be a long around for a very long time. You've got plenty of time to think.

Oleg: A next question, the commissioning is really an international problem. What is your vision about a solution?

Judy: Of course I would like to see all plants closed and decommissioned. I do think there needs to be international cooperation. I'm not convinced that we were told exactly what happened at Chernobyl, or that we have been told exactly what happened at Fukushima. And it involves everyone. We've received on the West Coast of this country a lot of the debris that came from Fukushima. So radiation doesn't stop at borders. And I think there needs to be very strict rules, a deep understanding of what's happening with nuclear power and the decommissioning of the plants.

Oleg: What kind of American legislation hasbeen most effective in this realm?

Judy: Well, the government doesn't get, like Congress, doesn't really get completely involved in the nuclear industry. There is an appointed Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Congress oversees that commission. And they try to ask them the hard questions. But the nuclear regulatory commission is a lot more impacted by the industry that runs the plants than the public that feels the threat or the danger from the plants. So there's always a disconnect with the commercial industry and the public that's out there that is not, and does not have the kind of access and power in the decisions.

Oleg: What is the role of the non-government organizations to stop nuclear power plants, or to stop thje Yucca Mountain project?

Judy: Well, we have people power and we can ask the hard questions. We can make it an election issue. And we have great communication across the country with very large organizations that are located primarily in Washington and regional organizations. We work with a lot of communities around nuclear power plants and we thought we needed to do that because we were worried that people, say, in the Northeast around the Maine Yankee and Vermont Yankee plants, would think it was a good idea to just close those plants and send all their waste to Nevada.

So we made contact with those people and we've worked very closely together and what they really want is for their plants to be closed. And they want to be safe from the waste that comes out of the plants. So we've been working together to get it kept as safely as possible on the site. And they have been very helpful to us as well by telling their politicians, don't just send our waste to somebody else, don't take our problem and make it somebody else's problem. So we work closely together and we have good friends area around the reactors.

 Oleg: What is the model of your work in order to provide involvement of the people around nuclear plant? Do you have production of booklets or something else or meetings or demonstrations, what is the most effective?

Judy: oour organization does not put out educational materials having to do with nuclear power plants, because they are all very far away from here. This is not something were very familiar with. But, there are so many issues involved in nuclear waste disposal in a country as large as the United States. The biggest constituency you find for people who want education and are concerned are people all across the country who live near high-level ways and railroad tracks where the waste would be shipped. And in the places like Chicago or Omaha or St. Louis, large cities where many of the railroad tracks come together and you would have waste sitting in the rail yards. They worry a lot, and there are people who live near old bridges, and they're worried about their being able to bear the weights of these shipments coming through. So there is a national interest in nationwide transportation. So go ahead.

Oleg: Your interview will part of education program. What main message might you have as a veteran of the anti-nuclear movement to know and remember?

Judy: I think we're all in the same problem together. I worked years and years ago on a project called Nevada Semipalatinsk, having to do with testing and we all shared like stories. And I think we all have a lot of experience that is very much alike. You have people working for the nuclear industry who think that there is no problem with radiation, it's not a big deal, it's easy. I've been working with it. And then you have people you now, who have become very ill from radioactive exposures. So I think this is one where the public needs to stand up and say: this has to be done right. And we demand that it's done right. And I would support anybody in your country, and I would expect they would support us.

Oleg: Thank you.

Nat: What is your view of the WCS facility?

Judy: I've never been to WCS. I know where it is on the map. And I know that it's been operating for quite some time. And I know it was started as a money-making operation. And I'm sure they're making a lot of money because they're entertaining the idea of taking more waste, more dangerous waste, even thoughts of high-level nuclear waste and irradiated fuel. And I think that's probably crazy and I don't know if they have public support or not. But it certainly seems to need more thinking rather than just looking at the bottom line and how much money is involved in it.