From Deseret News archives:

Nuclear waste shift may aid PFS

Opposition to Yucca renews the focus on proposed Utah site

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 11:24 p.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
WASHINGTON — A new effort to keep nuclear waste at commercial power plants may help keep Private Fuel Storage alive, according to its chairman, but Utah lawmakers will continue to fight it.

John Parkyn, Private Fuel Storage chairman and chief executive officer, said by supporting a bill that "shuts Yucca down," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has shifted sides in the nuclear waste debate. This could allow companies to renew their involvement with Private Fuel Storage in the future or encourage other ones to sign up that would need storage.

"It's a question of where is the fuel going to go and is this country going to honor the 1982 vote," Parkyn said. "We have to have a place to put spent fuel."

Congress voted in 1982 to take nuclear waste from power plants and store it in a federal geologic repository. Congress eventually approved Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the site but it did not open in 1998 as planned. Utilities have been waiting for the government to come through with a storage site, and eight companies created PFS, which planned to use the Goshute Skull Valley Land in Tooele County.

Story continues below
Four of the eight original investors, making up about 68 percent of the consortium, have written Hatch this month pulling their financial backing of PFS. All of them mentioned the government's progress on Yucca or any federal storage facility as a reason for their decision.

"Everything is predicated on progress at Yucca Mountain," Parkyn said.

Three of the companies that have changed their minds — Florida Power and Light, Southern Company and Entergy — were part of the six pledging to Hatch and Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett in 2002 that they would not put any money toward constructing PFS "so long as the Yucca Mountain project is approved by Congress and repository development proceeds in a timely fashion."

"We want to emphasize that our clear preference is that Yucca Mountain licensing, construction and operation proceed in a timely manner," the six companies wrote in 2002. "We understand and respect your opposition to PFS, and want to make it clear that our support for PFS comes entirely from the past failures of the United States government to fulfill its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and concerns about the timely development of the Yucca Mountain facility."

Xcel Energy, which held 33 percent of the consortium, was not on the 2002 letter but told Hatch on Dec. 8 it also would hold future investments. Entergy does not mention Yucca specifically in its letter but wants to see progress toward "federally sponsored away-from-reactor storage and disposal for the nation's spent nuclear fuel."

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

Image
Deseret Morning News graphic

previousnext

Latest comments

Couldn't agree more! Having a local buying 49% is fantastic! Go RSL!

Celtics crush Jazz

No chance. Fesenko and Koufus could boost stagnant game but Sloan being...

Celtics crush Jazz

We really are a lottery team, aren't we?

Audit calls for end to 'double dipping'

Double Dipping is good for the one who is double dipping.

U. wants home-court edge

Honestly guys, if you think it is the layout of the spectrum that creates the...

What others say about the Utes

I would suggest you tone down your remarks and ethusiasm. You will probaly...

Look even futher at how ineffective 911 is after you call. Why does each...

Lou Dobbs resigns from CNN

Well, he'll probably go and join the "fair and balanced" NOT! station as he...

The legislature should go case by case on this issue. If a suitable...

UNC is the only place for a player like Ohai. That's like asking a football...

Advertisements
Advertisement