OCR Text |
Show Western Resources Wrap-up Energy storage a priority in Carter budqef By Helene C. Monberg (Special to The Times) Washington The 1979 energy en-ergy budget highlights the importance that this Administration Adminis-tration is paying to energy storage, both for emergencies and for long-term storage of nuclear wastes. New efforts are also to be made to stabilize the inactive uranium mill tailings piles throughout the West. The price tag on these efforts is about $5 billion in fiscal 1979, beginning Oct. 1, 1978. And that's just for starters. Petroleum Reserve We must be prepared for energy emergencies in the future, the new budget emphasizes. em-phasizes. A 1975 act provides the authority to the Executive to create a 500 million barrel reserve of petroleum by 1982. The Administration is committed commit-ted to completing storage of 500 million barrels of oil by December 1980, and it is seeking Congressional authority author-ity to develop a 1 billion barrel strategic petroleum reserve by 1985. It's vastly expensive. Out of $12,763,000,000 sought in budget authority by the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal 1979, $4,255,000,000, or one-third of the total, is allocated to the strategic petroleum reserve. The budget explains, "DOE began storing crude oil in July 1977. The oil is stored in salt domes (natural salt formations) forma-tions) along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast. Further development of storage facilities facil-ities with their associated pipelines and docking facilities and storage of oil will continue in 1979." Budget authority of $4,255,-000,000 $4,255,-000,000 is requested in 1979 fiscal, when outlays are estimated at $3.3 billion, in addition to supplemental funding fund-ing now before Congress for the current 1978 fiscal year. The 1978 outlays are estimated at $2.3 billion. Purchases and storage of the first 250 million barrels of oilk for emergencies are now underway. The 1979 funding is to buy and put in storage the second 250 million barrels, and to start work on the third 250 million barrel increment. The Administration Administra-tion is requesting $72 million to initiate design and construction construc-tion of facilities for the third increment in 1979. Why Not Coal? Why isn't similar emphasis put on storage of a coal reserve by "the feds" to meet the energy crisis now building in the industriasl Midwest as a result of the record-long coal strike? The rationale is that the oil reserve is to protect the United States against a foreign disruption of supply, such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo, not from energy shortages due to domestic causes. Organized labor would go all-out to oppose such a coal reserve on grounds that it could and would weaken its powerful right-to-strike weapon. It's a political no-no. Whatever storage stor-age is done has to be carried out by industry and by the utilities themselves. At least that's the present state of affairs. Nuclear Waste Storage The Administration is addressing ad-dressing the ever-growing problem of storage of nuclear waste in the 1979 budget. Most nuclear waste comes from the manufacture and replacement of nuclear weap-ong, weap-ong, not from civilian power plants. Satisfactory long-term storage facilities have never been found. The Administration Administra-tion plans to throw about a half billion bucks at this problem in fiscal 1979. Its goal is to provide permanent disposition of nuclear nuc-lear waste by 1985. The 1979 DOE budget says DOE hopes to make a site determination on a national waste terminal storage facility in fiscal 1979, and to start pre-construction work on such a site, including land acquisition, design work and long-lead procurement. The project is estimated to cost $55 million for the site selection and initial work, of which $25 million is sought for use in 1979. DOE is looking at a number of sites. DOE's plan appears to be highly optimistic. optimis-tic. The Kansas Congressional delegation bitterly fought the location of a nuclear waste storage facility in some Western West-ern Kansas salt domes several years ago. Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, the last chairman of the now defunct Atomic Energy Commission Com-mission and now Governor of Washington, told Western Resources Wrap-up several years ago such permanent nuclear waste storage facilities would probably have to be built on federal land already dedicated to the nuclear program because of other sites would be so difficult to obtain. Broad Nuclear Goals The Administration's objec- Continued on B6 4 - i . ; . . -v - . - ",. ' ... . .. ' -".x V " . . -i. J V , '-: : T : . . .i . . . v .. ... , - .'. . " - " ; ' . Y - S f; Vsu. Vs ' " -I ' " . 1 I t ; '1 - -: s I ,s ' ; is , ; ' .. v . ....... . .. ' : ...s. ... . . . . . . .s. 'V . v .y -. . . .. Greg Hiatt of Grand Junction, Co., proudly presents his mare Kacbina Jepp. Together, they were awarded Reserve Champion in Showmanship at the 1977 American Junior Quarter Horse Association's World Championship show. They will be in Moab to hold a free clinic on Saturday, March 4 at 10 a.m. in the Grand County Arena. Energy storage a priority . . . Continued from Bl fives relative to nuclear energy are spelled out in the 1979 budget in this manner: "The objectives are to provide a viable nuclear energy option through the development of nuclear fuel cycles and waste management systems that minimize the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, make efficient use of natural resources, re-sources, and protect the environment." It said geologic investigations would continue to locate a site for terminal storage repository operations as well as providing adequate facilities to process and package radioactive wastes and acceptable for transport and storage. Meanqhile. it must manage and store such wastes as best it can at sites available. Assured of Safety In 1979, it said, "The nuclear waste management programs for both comcmrcial and defense related nuclear wastes will be strengthened to assure that these long-lived hazards are isolated from the biosphere." The 1979 DOE budget contains $350 million for defense waste management, manage-ment, as compared with $287.7 million for the current 1978 fiscal year. It contains $186.8 million for commercial waste management in 1979, compared with $180.5 million In 1978 for such budget authority. Within these figures are funds to continue construction of the waste isolation pilot plant in the Delaware Basin near Albuquerque, N.M., and the fluorinel dissolution process pro-cess and fuel receiving improvements im-provements project near Idaho Falls, Idaho. The sum of $100,400,000 is sought for continued construction of the Idaho plant facilities, on wnicn the total cost is estimated at SI 15,400.000; and $40 million is sought for the New Mexico pilot plant which carries a $68 million price tag. New authorization and construction con-struction money is sought to build a new waste management manage-ment facility at Savannah River in South Carolina at a cost of $75 million, in addition to a high-level waste storage facility at the same location which will cost $42 million and on which DOE seeks $26 million in construction money in 1979. DOE wants to upgrade the environmental, safety and security aspects of the waste management and materials processing facilities at Richland. Wash., at a cost of S40 million, and it has programmed S30 million for such work in 1979. Confusing Budget Only the new S75 million Savannah River facility is not yet authorized. The others have been, but higher authorizations authori-zations are sought because construction costs have gone up since the initial authorizations. authoriza-tions. One of the problems that the press has had here deciphering the 19"9 DOE budget is that the White House used the 199 budget to plug the President's national energy plan. So it is difficult to determine what projects must be authorized as well as funded. The problem is compounded because DOE claims it has generic authority in its basic authorization for many of these projects or programs whether Congress comes through with specific authorizations or not. Congress Con-gress has had problems moving authorization bills prior to appropriations bilis in recent years. DOE came into existence on Oct. 1. 197. Mill Tailings Sites DOE is clearly asking for new authority in Congress this year to take remedial action to decontaminate former AEC facilities and private inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Most of these sites arc located in the Colorado Plateau area, including portions of Colorado. L'tah, Arizona and New-Mexico. New-Mexico. Surveys indicate "22 mill tailings sites in eight Western states, as well as about SO other locations, have radiation levels above estab. lished standards," it DOE is proposing a five-yeir program to Congress to. authorize it to neutralize thesr "hot spots." ; It is seeking $5 million in the', 1979 budget to start such ' work. This is in addition to S2S -million in funding it already! has under current authority to ' decontaminate and decommis.' sion inactive mills and old AEC facilities, some dating back to the old Manhattan project which initially launched launch-ed the nation's atomic weap. ons program. So the total amount it jj seeking in funding for this program in 1979 is $30 million to prepare environmental in. pact assessments, evaluate alternative sites for relocating ' mill tailings, and for research and development of methods to stabilize such tailings areas Nuclear safeguards show up in the DOE budget. Budget authority for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1979 totals $331 million, np from $292 million in 1978 "Much of this increase reflects the funding in NRC of safety-related research," the budget said. In addition to hs function to regulate the siting, construction and operation of nuclear reactors, NRC has authority over nuclear fuel storage and waste disposal, including prevention of loss or diversion of such material. The DOE budget generally also includes $43 million in 1979 for : providing security and safeguards safe-guards for nuclear materials used for defense in addition to the requested NRC funding. |