Commentary: Yucca Mountain nuclear waste decision needs broader action | McClatchy Washington Bureau

×
Sign In
Sign In
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Contact Us
    • Newsletters
    • Subscriber Services

    • All White House
    • Russia
    • All Congress
    • Budget
    • All Justice
    • Supreme Court
    • DOJ
    • Criminal Justice
    • All Elections
    • Campaigns
    • Midterms
    • The Influencer Series
    • All Policy
    • National Security
    • Guantanamo
    • Environment
    • Climate
    • Energy
    • Water Rights
    • Guns
    • Poverty
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Trade
    • Civil Rights
    • Agriculture
    • Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • All Nation & World
    • National
    • Regional
    • The East
    • The West
    • The Midwest
    • The South
    • World
    • Diplomacy
    • Latin America
    • Investigations
  • Podcasts
    • All Opinion
    • Political Cartoons

  • Our Newsrooms

You have viewed all your free articles this month

Subscribe

Or subscribe with your Google account and let Google manage your subscription.

Opinion

Commentary: Yucca Mountain nuclear waste decision needs broader action

The Tri-City Herald

March 02, 2010 11:41 AM

Hats off to the trio of Tri-Citians challenging President Obama's decision to abandon plans for a nuclear waste repository in Nevada.

But it's a curious turn of events that has individuals leading the charge against this sudden shift in the nation's nuclear waste policy away from Yucca Mountain.

The uproar from electrical ratepayers, taxpayers, the nuclear industry and local and state officials ought to be deafening. If the decision stands, it means pouring more than $3 billion of the ratepayers' money down a rat hole without any rational explanation.

As a nation, we ought to be outraged. Instead, the response has been inexplicably underwhelming from most quarters.

On Feb. 1, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that he was withdrawing the Department of Energy's licensing application "with prejudice."

The phrasing is important. It means that left unchallenged, Chu's action wouldn't just halt the licensing process, but also prevent Yucca Mountain from ever being considered for a nuclear waste repository.

The decision is purely political. Northwesterners especially shouldn't stand for it.

So far, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing review hasn't turned up any technical reasons to reject Yucca Mountain.

But the Obama administration's blue ribbon panel on nuclear waste won't even be allowed to consider the Nevada site.

That's terrible policy for a lot of reasons.

To read the complete editorial, visit The Tri-City Herald.

Read Next

Opinion

This is not what Vladimir Putin wanted for Christmas

By Markos Kounalakis

December 20, 2018 05:12 PM

Orthodox Christian religious leaders worldwide are weakening an important institution that gave the Russian president outsize power and legitimacy.

KEEP READING

MORE OPINION

Opinion

The solution to the juvenile delinquency problem in our nation’s politics

December 18, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

High-flying U.S. car execs often crash when when they run into foreign laws

December 13, 2018 06:09 PM

Opinion

Putin wants to divide the West. Can Trump thwart his plan?

December 11, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

George H.W. Bush, Pearl Harbor and America’s other fallen

December 07, 2018 03:42 AM

Opinion

George H.W. Bush’s secret legacy: his little-known kind gestures to many

December 04, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

Nicaragua’s ‘House of Cards’ stars another corrupt and powerful couple

November 29, 2018 07:50 PM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

McClatchy Washington Bureau App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Newsletters
Learn More
  • Customer Service
  • Securely Share News Tips
  • Contact Us
Advertising
  • Advertise With Us
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service