May 10, 2012
By Jack Spencer
Solyndra was back in the news recently. The big story: It had left some buckets and barrels of toxic waste at one of its shuttered facilities.
Big whoop. The federal government has abandoned 65,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel at plants across the country — even though it's legally required to remove it all.
The Obama administration has often been criticized for its lawless behavior, but its [non]handling of spent nuclear fuel is an especially egregious example of its complete disregard for the law of the land.
The waste currently sitting at nuclear sites across the country was generated with the understanding, codified in law, that the government would be responsible for removing it. But, remove it to where?
Enter the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository. The debate over Yucca Mountain has gone on for decades. But this week, a federal appeals court heard arguments that could result in a court order forcing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to complete its long-overdue review of the Yucca proposal.
To fully understand the extent to which the Obama administration, specifically the Department of Energy (DOE), has acted in direct contradiction of federal statutes, a quick refresher on the Yucca project may be helpful.
In 1982, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It mandated DOE to build a national repository and move spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites to the repository. Five years later, Congress enacted a law specifying that the repository would be located in Yucca Mountain, an NRC safety review and license.
In 2008 — 21 years and some $15 billion later — the DOE finally submitted its licensing application to the NRC.
The law requires the NRC to make a decision on DOE's application within three years of submission.
With that deadline fast approaching in 2010, Mr. Obama's DOE defied the law's clearly defined statutes and tried to withdraw its licensing application for Yucca Mountain. The president quickly proceeded to striking any future funds for Yucca.
Mr. Obama's decision to unilaterally terminate the Yucca project is troubling enough. But his attempted justification was even more objectionable. The administration admitted it had no scientific or technical grounds for terminating the project. Mr. Obama was pulling the plug, he said, simply because it lacked "social and political acceptance."
This is a textbook example of letting political motivations trump the rule of law. Essentially, the president decided that, if he disagrees with a law, he needn't uphold it. And why work with Congress to change a law, when it's so much easier just to act as though it doesn't exist?
By blocking the Yucca project, the administration has imperiled the future of nuclear energy. The growing waste stockpiles must be safely disposed of somewhere, yet the president has offered no Plan B. Sure, he appointed a blue-ribbon commission to look into the matter, but its recommendations are simply gathering dust.
Besides, even the commission acknowledged that the nation needs a geologic repository. The only reason it didn't address Yucca is because Energy Secretary Steven Chu explicitly told the commissioners not to.
Yucca matters because the government's inability to fulfill its legal waste-disposal obligations creates a huge impediment to building additional nuclear-power plants. The federal government's refusal to take possession of the used fuel leaves itself (that is, the taxpayers) liable to the plant operators for an increasingly enormous amount. And it leaves plant owners in the tenuous position of having to store ever-increasing amounts of waste on site indefinitely. That creates a great deal of uncertainty for investors in nuclear energy.
It's all quite sad. No scientific or technical data existed to merit ending the project. But, desiring to please the anti-nuclear crowd, the administration chose the backdoor route to kill Yucca. Without a solution to allow for the proper disposal of nuclear waste, the administration is slowly killing cheap, reliable and "green" nuclear energy.
Jack Spencer is senior research fellow in Nuclear-Energy Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
First Appeared in The Washington Times.
Director, Roe Institute
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 450,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2014, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973