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

Elk Ridge residents protest "anti-Hill Billy" ordinance. When you live in a...

Patriots generally do not support the succession of their state from the...

Fair enough ...then using your arguement we should not be funding any...

you ask "Gee utah fans, how does it feel to have been undefeated twice and...

To "to:RedShirt | 11:26 a.m. | 1:04 p.m." so, what you are saying is that it...

And what qualifies you as a coach? If you were so good and insightful why...

Already has a lobby run by ex-congressmen who happen to be ex-college...

Bowls at a glance

If playing in the Poinsettia is eating humble pie, please remind me who...

WWII veteran had Hitler's art book

They should burn this book and anything else of Hilter's that they happen to...

At 72 yrs of age it still amazes and confounds me at the hatred that the so...

Advertisements