Money talks when it comes to Yucca

Wednesday, June 3, 1998 | 9:53 a.m.

Sen. Richard Bryan calls the nuclear industry's lobby an 800-pound gorilla, but the industry says it's merely playing the same money game the Nevada Democrat and his congressional colleagues play.

It plays that game rather well. Like other special interests, it directs campaign contributions to those who can do it the most good.

It's no coincidence the industry's largest campaign contributions have gone to congressmen whose committees have led efforts to ship high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.

A survey of 66 political-action committees representing operators and manufacturers of nuclear power plants showed that they gave nearly $10 million to congressional candidates from the 1994 election cycle through March 1.

The top 10 House recipients sit on either the Commerce or Appropriations committees. Six of the top 10 Senate recipients belong to the upper chamber's Energy and Natural Resources or Appropriations committees. Those four committees have the most impact on Yucca Mountain legislation.

All of the top recipients also represent states that either have nuclear power plants or weapons-related radioactive waste.

Industry members want Congress to approve temporary storage of nuclear waste at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, arguing that the federal government promised to take spent fuel off their hands. Power plants store their waste on site, but many utilities have complained that they have diminished capacity to do so and may be forced to shut down.

In addition, the 275-member Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's chief lobbying arm, wants Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, to be the permanent dump site if it is recommended by scientists. Institute spokesman Scott Peterson in Washington said the nuclear industry favors congressmen with "shared interests," such as those facing problems with nuclear waste in their states.

"It's clearly one of the most important issues we deal with day to day," Peterson said. "But all the (campaign) money disbursed by the industry is not just for nuclear waste disposal. Deregulation is also a big-time pocketbook issue for the utilities. They want to make sure the framework to compete is done right.

"Another issue is commercial nuclear trade with China. China has a market and we want U.S. companies to participate in it."

The industry's financial clout poses a major hurdle for dump opponents, including Nevada's congressional delegation and environmental groups. Bryan called the nuclear lobby one of the nation's strongest. He said the lobby has thrived despite a 1997 University of Maryland study that found two-thirds of Americans opposed shipment of nuclear waste to Nevada.

"They are a political heavyweight when it comes to fund-raising," Bryan said of the nuclear industry. "What is not heard is the voice of the people."

Some environmental groups have PACs, but their contributions to candidates are minuscule compared to those of the nuclear industry. Public Citizen, a nonpartisan public-interest group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, opposes the dump proposal but has found access to congressmen hard to come by.

Auke Piersma, the group's analyst of energy policy in Washington, said Public Citizen doesn't have a political-action committee because "we're opposed to the current system of bribery." He conceded that congressmen usually vote for the side that gives them campaign money.

"We fight their (nuclear industry) money and influence by using the truth," Piersma said. "If I were to call a member of Congress and talk about the issue of nuclear waste, I'm going to be talking to a member of the staff. If a utility calls up and says their president is coming to Washington, they'll get to meet with the members of Congress themselves."

Peterson countered that Nevada's congressional delegates play the money game by accepting PAC money from other special interests, such as the gaming industry.

"Being called an 800-pound gorilla is just some of the rhetoric involved in the issue from the Nevada side," he said. "If you look at the Nuclear Energy Institute, we're not an 800-pound gorilla compared to other groups."

The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington compiled the survey of nuclear industry PACs for the Sun based on Federal Election Commission statistics.

Like those of most industries, nuclear power PACs gave more money during the 1994 election cycle to Democrats ($2.11 million) than Republicans ($1.63 million) because the former still controlled Congress. When the Republicans swept into power in the November 1994 elections, the nuclear dollars followed them.

During the 1996 election cycle, GOP candidates collected $2.95 million compared to $1.27 million for the Democrats. Through March 1 of the current cycle, Republicans attracted $1.25 million compared to $739,000 for the Democrats.

Money from the nuclear industry, however, represents only a small percentage of the contributions that members of Congress receive from energy producers. And as Peterson noted, a congressman's position on nuclear waste isn't the only reason he gets the industry's largesse.

Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., for instance, ranked high among senators favored by the nuclear industry even though he hasn't been particularly vocal on Yucca Mountain. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, however, he backed pro-industry legislation to remove Securities and Exchange Commission oversight of multi-state utilities.

Seven members of the House Commerce Committee, which has initiated Yucca Mountain legislation, are among the top recipients of money from the nuclear industry. They include committee Chairman Rep. Thomas Bliley Jr., R-Va.; former chairman and ranking Democrat Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.; and Rep. Dan Schaefer, R-Colo., who chairs its Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

Other committee members favored by the industry include Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas; Michael Oxley, R-Ohio; Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J.; and Ralph Hall, D-Texas. Pallone and Hall also are on the energy and power subcommittee, with the latter serving as its ranking Democrat.

Schaefer has a keen interest in nuclear waste because his congressional district includes Rocky Flats, the controversial nuclear complex near Denver that shut down in 1989. The site where plutonium triggers for atom bombs were made is considered one of the most dangerous for radioactive waste in the country.

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M., is a potential site for Rocky Flats waste. But Schaefer spokeswoman Dana Perino said the congressman supports a separate dump at Yucca Mountain because of the government's promise to handle nuclear waste.

"He believes the science is good out there," Perino said. "He would like us not to have this problem at all. But we've put billions of dollars into studies of this facility. He trusts the scientists and the Department of Energy to do their jobs."

Perino also noted that Schaefer is a lead sponsor of legislation to deregulate utilities, an issue some nuclear power companies oppose because it would lead to increased competition and smaller profits.

"The nuclear industry doesn't like the bill, so it's not like Mr. Schaefer is kowtowing to the nuclear industry," Perino said.

Barton spokesman Craig Murphy said the Texas congressman hasn't been vocal on Yucca Mountain but is a staunch proponent of the nuclear power industry. The House last year passed a bill Barton sponsored to allow a proposed site for low-level nuclear waste in western Texas to accept shipments from Maine and Vermont. The bill awaits Senate approval.

"He is a longtime supporter of nuclear energy," Murphy said. "He believes it's safe and clean compared to other types of fuel."

Barton, chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, drew the wrath of Nevada Gov. Bob Miller in early May for instigating an audit that could have caused the Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office to run out of money by July 1.

The preliminary government audit charged that the state office misused federal money earmarked to monitor the Energy Department's study of Yucca Mountain. Barton said he learned that the state used the money to lobby against the dump proposal and to finance other anti-nuclear activities.

Miller argued that Nevada was disseminating information that the nuclear power industry wasn't making available to Congress. Nevertheless, federal funding for the state office was frozen, and the Nevada Legislature's Interim Finance Committee will be asked June 23 to approve $1.2 million in contingency funds to keep the office open through March 1.

Dingell, another longtime advocate of the industry, has the Enrico Fermi nuclear power plant in his southeastern Michigan district. Nuclear waste is piling up in Dingell's corner of the state, as it is elsewhere in Michigan.

Dennis Fitzgibbons, a staff member for the Democrats on the House Commerce Committee, said Dingell's constituents support his efforts to get rid of the waste.

The Senate's two leading advocates of a Yucca Mountain dump, Sens. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, also have received generous contributions from the nuclear industry. Murkowski chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has initiated Yucca Mountain bills. Craig sits on that committee, as does Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., its second-ranking Republican and another friend of the nuclear industry.

Craig is a friend of the industry largely through his support of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, which researches spent nuclear fuel such as that used by nuclear-powered submarines. Like other Department of Energy facilities, the laboratory desperately wants to get rid of its nuclear waste.

In a 1996 speech on the Senate floor, Craig termed Yucca Mountain "an isolated, unpopulated, dry desert location that has a long history of uses for some of the most extreme research known to man." He was referring to its location near the Nevada Test Site, which for 40 years was used for testing of nuclear weapons before a test ban went into effect in 1992.

Murkowski once threatened to hold up the nomination of Energy Secretary Federico Pena in hopes of convincing President Clinton to approve Yucca Mountain as a temporary dump site. Clinton hasn't budged from his opposition to that proposal, but the senator has been equally firm in his position.

In their capacities as committee chairmen, Murkowski and Bliley announced in March that they intended to work together on a single Yucca Mountain bill they hoped would move quickly through Congress and go to Clinton this year.

"The administration has refused to confront an important environmental issue," Murkowski said last year. "They have no interim plan to stop the pileup of high-level radioactive waste at 80 locations in 41 states near our homes and schools."

Both the House and Senate Appropriations committees, which have funded the ongoing Energy Department study of Yucca Mountain as a potential dump site, also had several members among the top nuclear PAC recipients.

On the Senate side were Domenici, who chairs its Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development; Craig; Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C.; Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. On the House side were Reps. Vic Fazio, D-Calif.; John Murtha, D-Pa.; and Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Some have owned stock in the nuclear industry. Faircloth and Fazio invested in Duke Power Co. and Wisconsin Power & Light, respectively -- both are operators of nuclear power plants. Murkowski has held stock in General Electric, a leading manufacturer of nuclear plant generators and boilers.

General Electric, however, is like many other companies with nuclear ties. It is a conglomerate with fingers in several industries. Lynn Wallis, spokesman for General Electric Nuclear Energy in San Jose, Calif., said his subsidiary has no position on the issue of nuclear waste.

"That's a utility issue but not one for General Electric," he said.

His company, however, is a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

"We're a member of the institute for many reasons but not because we're in the waste end of the business," Wallis said.

General Electric topped the list of nuclear industry PACs that have given the most money since the 1994 election cycle. It was joined on the top 10 list by Southern California Edison, Southern Co., Carolina Power & Light, Pacific Gas & Electric and Detroit Edison -- all operators of nuclear power plants.

Also on the list were General Atomics, a leading developer of gas-cooled nuclear reactor technology, and power-plant manufacturers and engineers Westinghouse Electric, McDermott Inc. and Bechtel Corp.

Many nuclear power utilities limit their political activity to campaign contributions, relying on the Nuclear Energy Institute to do their lobbying on the waste issue. The institute, formerly known as the American Nuclear Energy Council, spent only about $80,000 combined on contributions to congressional candidates over the past three election cycles.

But the institute spends about $3 million annually on lobbying. The group once threw a re-election party for Craig. It also has run advertisements in big-city newspapers touting its position on nuclear waste.

Late last year, it hosted a dinner in Washington for Nevada state legislators. Bryan was livid, but lawmakers who attended said they did so merely to hear the other side of the waste issue.

The institute also has picked up the air fare, food and lodging for congressmen and their staffs on fact-finding trips on the waste issue to Yucca Mountain, France and Sweden.

Gannett News Service reported last year that the institute underwrote at least 86 trips for congressmen and their aides in 1996 and early 1997, including 54 to Yucca Mountain.

Bryan has criticized the trips, including one in 1995 when the institute refused to allow one of his staff members to participate. He was told at the time that the trip was only for House members.

"What troubles me about it is a special-interest group taking individuals to federal property with clearly an advocacy point of view," Bryan said. "It troubles me that in effect the Department of Energy opens the facility to a special-interest group that advocates using it for nuclear waste."

But Peterson said DOE managers and scientists have done all the talking on tours sponsored by the institute.

"We think the trips are a very important part of our education package in terms of bringing members of Congress and their staffs up to speed on Yucca Mountain," he said.

"It's not a luxury cruise or a ski trip to Tahoe. It's totally a DOE program. We don't go stand on top of Yucca Mountain and say this is the greatest place for used nuclear fuel."

archive