Fund Yucca Mountain

Fund Yucca Mountain

Jun 22 - Augusta Chronicle, The

It's been more than two years since Congress - after decades of studies and more studies - finally approved Yucca Mountain, Nev., as the permanent storage site for the nation's high-level nuclear waste, yet so far not a nickel has been approved to get the project under way. The designated repository is supposed to start receiving those wastes in 2010, but much preparation must take place first - preparation that costs money.

The latest obstacle to Yucca Mountain is a key House subcommittee that won't allocate the funds to get the waste disposal project moving. The panel, like many of their colleagues in Congress, has what they consider "better uses" for the money.

One such use is to apply the money against the deficit, to make the deficit look smaller than it really is. Another would be to spend the money on something a lot more glitzy or glamorous than storing nuclear waste. Besides, why anger Nevadans who are still upset that their collective back yard is being used to bury the nasty stuff?

The answer is because, over the decades, nuclear-power rate- payers have been charged $14 billion with the understanding that the money would be used to safely store the most dangerous nuclear waste. To spend that money on anything else, including the deficit, is a bait-and-switch scheme that breaks faith with the public. It's actions like this that make people distrust the government.

Congress also is playing into the hands of the anti-nuclear energy crowd, who know that when Yucca Mountain starts taking in the highly toxic wastes, it will be a boon to the nuclear power industry. Many of the anti-nuke zealots are the same environmental radicals who oppose fossil fuels and just about any other practical means of meeting the nation's energy needs. They are basically anti- power, anti-progress and anti-free enterprise.

The extremists argue that something could go wrong at Yucca Mountain. Of course it could. Something could go wrong anywhere. The bigger danger, though, is in keeping the waste where it is now - at the 100 or more largely unmonitored sites in 39 states, including Georgia and South Carolina. Clearly, dangerous wastes would be safer at a single, well-monitored site such as Yucca Mountain.

Congress needs to have its feet held to the fire on this issue, which means House and Senate members in this election year must start hearing from the grass-roots. End the bait-and-switch. Spend the $14 billion in nuclear waste funds on what they were promised for.

For far more extensive news on the energy/power visit: http://www.energycentral.com .