Skip to main content

DOE to File Yucca Mountain License Application in June, Official Says

The Department of Energy expects to file a license application in June for construction of the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository, the program’s director said last week.

Edward Sproat, director of DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Office, said that he could not predict an operational date for the Nevada repository until Congress remedies the funding profile for the facility. Lawmakers have reduced funding for the repository in recent years, and several attempts to reform the funding mechanism for the project have stalled.

In addition, Sproat suggested that Yucca program funding would not be changed until DOE received construction authorization from the NRC. Such approval could occur as early as 2011 or 2012, he said.

The Yucca Mountain project “is alive and well,” Sproat said.

Sproat also suggested the possibility of a public-private partnership for managing the Yucca Mountain project. Here is the Associated Press take on the DOE Idea: Going Private With Nuclear Waste.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"Lawmakers have reduced funding for the repository in recent years,..."

I don't understand how this can be done. I thought the work on Yucca Mtn. was funded by a millage levied on nuclear-generated electricity. That should be a more or less constant about of inflow, given the operating record of the fleet in recent years. If actual spending is being reduced, then either the millage should be correspondingly lowered, or Congress is re-directing the funds to "something else", which I would imagine would be illegal (i know it would be for me if I "redirected" project funds from their original intent).
KenG said…
Anonymous, using logic to assess government actions is very naive.

The waste fund goes into the general government revenues. It is "allocated" to nuclear waste issues, but none of it can be used until Congress appropriates. In the interim, it is a surplus in the budgets and makes the annual deficit appear smaller than it actually is. Does that explain why Congress is reluctant to actually spend it?
Anonymous said…
IOW, Keng, it's a rip-off.

One of my former employers had a policy where if project managers allocated project money to things other than work applied to the project, they'd be immediately fired, and in some cases brought up on civil/criminal charges. Guess that's one difference between industry and government.
Anonymous said…
"Alive and well" should read "on life support and doing a 411 on Kevorkian." Sadly Yucca Mountain will not happen until Harry Reid is pushing up daisies.
Anonymous said…
Well, if Harry Reid is the reason why Yucca Mtn. eventually collapses, he should be personally responsible for refunding the money paid by ratepayers to build the thing. That should break the SOB.

Likewise any intervenor groups.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…