Editorial: Case where haste does make waste

Friday, May 18, 2001 | 10:14 a.m.

President Bush, in announcing his national energy plan, on Thursday said he hoped there would be a civil discourse regarding his proposals. "Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in discussing energy and the environment; one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous," Bush said. "We've yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and to act."

No one could dispute the sentiments the president expressed. Sadly for Nevadans, however, Bush's views on nuclear waste storage affirm the contempt that Congress and the nuclear power industry have shown previously in targeting Nevada alone as a possible repository for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. Indeed, this often has been a one-way street, with the views of Nevadans shut out. So there is a hollow ring to it when Bush says we need an energy policy that is "less punitive."

In the only optimistic note on nuclear waste storage from the energy report, there is an acknowledgement that alternative technologies should be explored that could render nuclear waste less harmful. But the president still is insisting that a single repository be built to store nuclear waste. And since Congress has dictated that only Nevada is under consideration for a nuclear waste dumpsite, that is hardly encouraging news. That's not all. The president said "sound science" should be used in the investigation of Yucca Mountain's suitability, but that is a meaningless sop to Nevadans. What shouldn't be ignored is that Bush also said that the government should move "expeditiously" to find a permanent repository for nuclear waste.

The energy report's findings are weighted heavily in favor of energy producers, with short shrift given to environmental or public health and safety concerns. In the case of nuclear waste storage, this emphasis could be disastrous for Nevada.

archive