We need to move forward on this issue beyond the current stalemate. I support the steps that Gov. Olene Walker and Lt. Gov. McKeachnie have taken to develop constructive dialogue at the local level. Almost two-thirds of Utah is federally owned. Utah leaders and citizens must have the central voice in decisions about these lands. I believe in multiple use, balance, and respect for our cultural heritage. Careful and fair analysis and open dialogue should determine which public lands should be available for recreation, mining, grazing, and other traditional uses. Balance is the key to accommodating the various uses, including wilderness. Many uses have longstanding economic and cultural traditions that deserve support. Local government should receive more funds from the federal government for loss of tax base on the public lands. We also must receive full benefit for the state trust lands by moving aggressively to achieve land exchanges for more productive and valuable federal parcels

14. Do you favor or oppose any hazardous or radioactive waste of a higher degree of toxicity being allowed into Utah storage facilities? If yes, specifically what kind of waste could, and should, Utah take?

I oppose the proposals for the storage, even temporarily, of high-level nuclear waste in Utah. I oppose storage of "hotter" radioactive waste — class B and C waste—in Utah. And I oppose the renewal of atomic testing in Nevada.

A. High-Level Nuclear Waste

The federal government is considering whether to allow Utahns to be exposed to the risk of transporting 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel through our most populated areas and indefinitely storing that fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation only 45 miles from our most densely populated urban area. I strongly oppose this plan. In any context, a plan to store spent nuclear fuel in Utah, a state that has never used or generated any nuclear fuel, would be objectionable to most Utahns. Why should we bear the risks of storing other states' nuclear waste? It is unacceptable. The Skull Valley proposal provides examples of the unacceptable conditions that arise in storing nuclear waste:

— The proposal is for storage of spent nuclear fuel, which will remain toxic for tens of thousands of years in a region of questionable seismic safety.

— Given the political and scientific difficulty in identifying a permanent storage site for the nation's spent nuclear fuel, serious questions have been raised about whether the Skull Valley proposal would result in a temporary storage site. Although the safety standards used to evaluate the site assume it will be temporary, common sense and experience tell us that storage of nuclear fuel at the Skull Valley site could very well be permanent. Assurances of temporary storage are inadequate, especially when there is no specified deadline for removal.

— The proposal contemplates storage of spent nuclear fuel within the driveway flight path of Hill Air Force Base's fighter jet training missions — a path that sees approximately 4,000 flights per year and which has experienced crashes over the years.