Editorial: ‘Bias’ isn’t part of his vocabulary

Wednesday, April 25, 2001 | 9:12 a.m.

Nevadans were left shaking their heads in disbelief after the U.S. Department of Energy's inspector general asserted Monday that there was no evidence to "substantiate the concern that bias compromised the integrity of the site evaluation process" on the Yucca Mountain Project. After all, from its very inception, it has been clear that the Yucca Mountain Project has been imbued with a bias that a repository should be built in Nevada. Considerable scientific evidence has been ignored that shows how dangerous it would be to store 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste just 90 miles from Las Vegas.

The inspector general investigation was sought last year by then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. The probe was prompted after the Sun reported that a DOE subcontractor, in a two-page memo that accompanied a 60-page draft overview on the Yucca Mountain Project, concluded that Yucca Mountain was safe to store radioactive waste. This obviously demonstrated bias since the DOE wasn't supposed to have formed an opinion before the scientific studies had been completed.

Inspector General Gregory Friedman may not have been able to bring himself to use the word "bias" in describing the DOE contractor's activities, but it sure sounds like that is what he found. Friedman noted that the DOE contractor had been "inappropriately advocating a position" that Yucca Mountain would be suitable. Friedman defended the department, however, saying that its officials had told the contractor the language used was inappropriate. What's missing from the inspector general's report, though, is an acknowledgement that since the DOE relies so heavily on outside contractors to run its programs, as is the case with Yucca Mountain, genuine oversight is virtually nonexistent. So when Friedman writes that the department objected, it really was a meaningless gesture because it's not minding the store in the first place.

Another disturbing piece of information is that one witness told the inspector general that the DOE has not created incentives to "rock the boat." The witness said that while the DOE "has changed assumptions when provided supporting data, two factors must be true before assumptions will be changed: (1) the evidence must be unambiguous, and (2) the resulting change cannot threaten the program." In other words, "showstoppers" that question Yucca Mountain's suitability are swept under the rug. This appalling attitude shows that the Yucca Mountain Project has nothing to do with science. Meanwhile, it should be noted that the inspector general's investigation was severely restricted -- the probe did not assess the validity of the technical and scientific review of Yucca Mountain's suitability. So the Yucca Mountain Project's inept performance to date wasn't p ursued, which offers little comfort to Nevadans.

A problem with the federal government's advocacy of a single national repository to handle this deadly waste all along has been its haste, which is an excellent example of bias. Don't forget that at one time three states were under consideration -- Nevada, Texas and Washington state. Then in 1987 political pressure led Congress to remove the latter two states from the list, leaving only Nevada to be studied. So much for objectivity. The DOE knows where Congress stands on nuclear waste storage, and the department has done everything in its power to please its master that holds its purse strings. In this case it means running a slipshod review that the department tries to pass off as a scientific inquiry. It is disheartening that the inspector general didn't see through this ruse as others already have.