Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu

News
Feb. 19, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Lack of money spells uncertainty for Yucca nuke dump, DOE says

By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Long-range prospects for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain are clouded because there is no fix in sight for budget shortfalls plaguing the Nevada program, a Department of Energy official said Monday.

Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said DOE is poised to meet a key licensing milestone by the end of the summer after budget cuts forced the latest in a series of retoolings for the repository, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

But Sproat said the department has abandoned its "best achievable" goal of having a repository opened by 2017. Now, he said, DOE is reluctant to set a new target.

"A firm date cannot be set until the funding issue is resolved," Sproat said in a speech to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the organization of state public service officials.

Most Popular Stories
  • LANDLORD: AS TENANT, FLEISS FOR THE BIRDS
  • Experience Ending
  • NORM: Owner Jay-Z says 40/40 Club is fine
  • JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE COMMISSION: Panel suspends Halverson
  • 1958 CRASH: DEATH IN DESERT AIR
  • CALICO BASIN: Tranquillity lost
  • NORM: 'Idol' contestant set to go country
  • NORM: Reid book reveals 'Casino' mystery
  • NORM: Jackson in action possibly in Vegas
  • NORM: Cruise the object of a twin crush



    • Sproat urged them to step up lobbying for Congress to pass a bill that would loosen the strings on the fund earmarked to pay for the repository.

    Ratepayers for nuclear utilities are charged a fraction of a penny per kilowatt hour of electricity they consume, a rate that has built the fund to a $21 billion balance.

    In time, more than $1 billion will be needed annually for construction, DOE officials say. Budget caps in Congress, plus the efforts of repository opponents such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have limited annual payouts to about $400 million.

    "Until we get this issue fixed I can't, nor can anyone else, tell you with any degree of certainty when the repository is going to open," Sproat said. "This is the single biggest issue we as a country need to address so this repository can go forward."

    At $400 million a year, "we are never, ever going to build this repository with that kind of cash flow funding; it just ain't going to happen," he said.

    The longer a repository goes unopened, the more taxpayers will pay to utilities who have sued the Energy Department for delays, Sproat said.

    If Yucca were to open by 2017, the liability would be some $7 billion, he said. A 2020 opening would cost $11 billion in settlements and judgments.

    Sproat said those numbers are getting the attention of lawmakers.

    "We are talking big bucks," he said. "It is one of the levers that gets people interested and gets them to understand we just can't leave things the way they are."

    In the near term, Sproat said, DOE plans to file a repository license application "sometime this summer" with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Spending limits engineered by Reid in this year's budget caused DOE to push back a June 30 target.

    Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or (202) 783-1760.

    Links powered by inform.com


    Leave Your Comment 4 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Jon H. wrote on February 19, 2008 01:06 PM: The ASME printed this article about the Pebble Bed reactor design this month.

    It is a good very safe design, that can use recycled weapons grade material.

    http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/features/pebbles/pebbles.html


    Former YMP wrote on February 19, 2008 10:55 AM: Also on the books at national labs is an "integrated fuel reactor" that could also help lessen the amount of spent fuel without the bomb-grade byproducts.

    DOE can't consider this, but Yucca Mtn. is destined to be a temporary parking lot for a large percentage of the spent fuel. It's too valuable not to reprocess (spent fuel contains the most expensive metals on earth). Nearly all the worrisome long-term safety concerns will thus vanish, or at least be reduced greatly in scale.

    We still need a safe place to park this extremely dangerous material where, if societal controls collapse, the stuff would be safe long-term. That means on-site storage is NOT a good option.


    Ray wrote on February 19, 2008 08:03 AM: Very true, Vic! Not only would it reduce the waste stream AND generate more electricity, it would eliminate the need for a second repository.

    Unfortunately, those funds are earmarked for Yucca's construction. But it seems those in Congress believe they can use the funds in any way they think prudent. In the end, their lack of releasing those funds to construct the repository WILL cost us taxpayers in the end. The money awarded in the settlements and judgements against the goverment come out of everyone's pockets. People seem to forget this little detail.


    Vegas Vic wrote on February 19, 2008 03:09 AM: With all of the "proposed" future costs of the Yucca storage, that money would be better used to build breeder reactors. These are the reactors that "revitalize" nuclear fuel and have been used in France since 1967 and in Europe for only a few years less. In a breeder reactor, out of 100% of the waste that comes in, 96% is returned as usable nuclear fuel. The waste is ONLY 4%. That 4% could easily be kept at the reactors. If the DOE is dead set on Yucca, that lessening of waste would only be a good thing. Instead of the estimated 77,000 tons of waste, there would only be 3,080 tons.