Fund Yucca Mountain

By David Wright

If President Barack Obama plans to live up to his promise of “science over politics” in determining policy, he will not discontinue funding for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

Between 1983 and 2009 the federal government collected nearly $33 billion in fees and interest from electric utilities and their ratepayers for the express purpose of disposing of used nuclear fuel. Georgia ratepayers have contributed nearly $680 million of that amount. Just when it appeared this country had a viable solution, the president is expected to eliminate funding for the Yucca Mountain project for apparently no reason than “because I said so.”

When Obama assumed office a year ago, he said his administration would be based on the precepts of preserving the integrity of science in public policy-making.

As documented in the license application submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, more than 25 years of studies conducted at a cost of more than $8 billion indicate that a Yucca Mountain repository, to be built beneath a barren ridge in the Mojave Desert, would meet stringent Environmental Protection Agency standards and NRC regulations for public safety.

But the president’s fiscal 2010 budget stripped all funding from the project except the bare minimum required to review the repository license application. The trade press now reports that the FY 2011 Department of Energy budget request will zero out the budget and DOE will withdraw the license application.

Terminating the project now will short-circuit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s ongoing independent safety review of the repository. Instead, a “Blue Ribbon Commission” will study the issue of nuclear waste, but with directions from the White House that a Yucca Mountain repository is not an acceptable option.

Why not? The law of the land — the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and a bipartisan joint resolution from Congress in 2002 — calls for a repository at Yucca Mountain if it proves to be safe.

Despite repeated requests from Congress and others, the administration has offered no rationale for its actions and intentions. It is apparent the answer lies in politics, not science. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is a staunch opponent of the project. How is that consistent with making decisions based on objective science?

The commercial nuclear industry has proven that it can store used fuel safely at nuclear power plants for a very long time. But something eventually must be done with it. Moreover, electric utility customers are now paying twice for used fuel — first to cover the waste fee, and again to store used fuel at reactor sites long after the federal government should have disposed of it.

Utilities have begun to collect damages from the government for its inaction on contracts to dispose of nuclear waste. The government’s failure to accomplish anything with the $33 billion already collected for the repository has resulted in a financial liability to all taxpayers — not just ratepayers — that will reach $12.3 billion by 2020, and continue to grow $500 million for each additional year of delay. The Obama administration plan for nuclear waste — essentially starting over — ensures that the taxpayer will be paying those costs for decades.

Nuclear power produces electricity safely, economically and without generating greenhouse gases. Like all means of energy production, nuclear power produces waste, but the volume of used fuel is relatively small. The technology of geologic disposal of nuclear waste is sound and proven. The waste problem is not one of technology, but of political will.

David Wright is a commissioner with the South Carolina Public Service Commission and chairman of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition.