Now that President Obama has put Yucca Mountain on the shelf, it's time to call the bluff of the project's supporters in Congress.
The need remains for a long-term solution to storage (or reprocessing) of dangerous, high-level radioactive waste. Congress still is on the hook legally for the promises it made decades ago to the nuclear-power industry.
In the interest of fairness " something Nevada never received in the selection of Yucca Mountain as the proposed site for nuclear storage " this would be a good time to rethink and reopen the process of determining the best means of dealing with radioactive waste.
Would we be wasting the $13 billion already spent at Yucca Mountain? No, because much of the research remains valid. Science has, indeed, progressed since the studies began in 1978.
For one thing, the focus of the engineering at Yucca Mountain changed significantly when it was shown that geologic faults and potential seepage into groundwater meant that underground vaults in the Nevada desert weren't necessarily the ideal place to put material that could remain dangerous for hundreds of years.
Instead of designing for Yucca Mountain, the engineers designed despite Yucca Mountain. If they are correct, the casks should be able survive just about anywhere.
That would include Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alaska and Illinois " places whose members of Congress over the years have thought the Yucca Mountain proposal was a swell idea. If the representatives of those states, or others, are convinced by the sound science that led President Bush to give the go-ahead in 2002, then they should be prepared to offer up sites in their own states for study on the suitability of nuclear storage.
At the same time, they can begin to calculate rail routes from the dozens of temporary storage sites around the country through the communities in their states that will lead to the newly proposed sites.
They also can explain to the communities and industries around those proposed sites why having nuclear waste stored near them would be a good thing, and why it is their duty " as several have suggested it is for Nevadans " to set aside petty NIMBY concerns and help solve a problem for their country.
We look forward to seeing those representatives step up to offer their own states as nuclear repositories. Who will be first in line?
What should be done to fulfill the nation's need to store or reprocess
high-level radioactive waste? Send us your thoughts about the matter.
Letters intended for publication must bear the writer's name, signature, address and phone number. They should be no more than 350 words. The Appeal reserves the right to edit them. Letters also may appear on the Appeal's Web site.
- Mail it to: Letters to the Editor, Nevada Appeal, P.O. Box 2288, Carson City, NV 89702
- E-mail to: editor@ nevadaappeal.com