Letter: Temporary site for nuke storage may be needed

Friday, Aug. 9, 2002 | 9:12 a.m.

In the Sun's Aug. 1 editorial on Yucca Mountain, you ask, "Just what's the rush, anyway?" You allude to the "political deal" made by the Bush administration with Utah's senators because of their interest and concerns with a temporary private storage facility being considered in Utah.

The answer to your question lies in the fact that the temporary facility in Utah would not have been required had the Department of Energy met the mandate in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act to begin waste acceptance from utilities in January 1998.

When it became apparent in the early 1990s that DOE would miss that deadline by at least 12 years, two things happened. Many utilities prepared for and filed lawsuits for breach of contract once the 1998 deadlines passed without performance. Further, those whose on-site storage capacity was going to be exceeded took steps to add additional storage. Some combined to form the joint venture that proposed to build a central facility in Utah instead of less economic facilities at individual reactor sites.

Well, it has been determined in federal court that the federal government is liable for damages to those utilities for failure to meet the 1998 deadline. Courts are pending determination of extent of damages the government must pay. We do not know what the total damages will be, but it is likely to be in the billions of dollars and that the liability remains until the government finally accepts the waste in each case. Hence, part of the concern for opening the repository by 2010.

If you compare the repository waste acceptance rate with the continuing rate at which it is generated, it leads to the conclusion that the Utah facility is needed to take up the slack until Yucca Mountain is nearing its current statutorily limited capacity.

If neither facility accepts waste in 2010, it is almost unavoidable that some nuclear power plants would need to shut down as the on-site waste capacity limits are reached. That would mean either reduced power supply in affected areas or substitute fossil-burning plants would be needed.

BRIAN O' CONNELL Washington, D.C.

Editor's note: The writer is director of the Nuclear Waste Program Office for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. The group supported Congress' approval in July of the Yucca Mountain project.