Yucca hearing flows against Nevada

Benjamin Grove

Friday, April 19, 2002 | 11:08 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- A familiar pattern of point and counterpoint arguments emerged Thursday during the first congressional hearing on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

And so it went, another session of give-and-take on the controversial Yucca issue, played out in front of the House Energy and Air Quality subcommittee.

The hearing was the first of several this year to on the proposed nuclear waste dump before full House and Senate votes, likely by the end of July.

But in the end, the hearing offered few surprises. It was clear that four hours of testimony had done nothing to change any minds.

Most of the 31 lawmakers on the panel plan to support Yucca in a vote scheduled for Tuesday. As Nevada lawmakers strained to make their points, subcommittee members generally dismissed their pleas.

"We need to make a decision, and I strongly urge my colleagues and the full committee to adopt the Yucca Mountain site," Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md., said early in the hearing.

Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., echoed the call.

"This is the most heavily studied piece of ground in the world," he said. "It is time we concluded this process."

The hearing was also a showcase for some of the arguments pro-Yucca forces are using to rally lawmakers to support the project.

Abraham argued that lawmakers should quickly approve Yucca because experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- not rank-and-file lawmakers -- should make the final call on whether the site is suitable.

If Congress approves Yucca, the NRC could be responsible for licensing the site as a waste burial ground. Abraham hinted that Yucca critics are afraid the NRC would deem the site safe and license it.

"We're confident enough to go to the next stage," Abraham said. "Those who oppose (Yucca) wouldn't even test it."

Abraham said his department's studies so far clearly indicate Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is a safe place to bury the nation's nuclear waste, despite Nevadans' claims. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., argued, "Regardless of what the DOE crystal ball may show, the future stability of Yucca Mountain is in question -- even by its own scientists."

But Abraham insisted the site passes department muster, throwing statistics at the panel. Abraham said Energy scientists had been studying geologic waste disposal for 24 years and spent $4 billion (other department estimates indicate even more has been spent).

Abraham added that he visited the site, talked with department scientists and pored over reams of documents, including summaries of 116 hearings and 37,000 public comments.

Those arguments seemed to hit home with panel members. Several nodded in agreement as Abraham spoke about Yucca studies.

Rep. Dick Boucher, D-Va., said he had been "persuaded" that there was enough scientific evidence for Congress to support the site. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., said, "It is my opinion that this has been not only very expensive, but very complete."

Nuclear Energy Institute President and Chief Executive Joe Colvin laid out several other pro-Yucca points for the nuclear-friendly crowd. He picked away at lawmaker anxiety over wasted money, explaining that ratepayers who use nuclear-generated electricity nationwide had contributed $18 billion to a fund designated to construct Yucca Mountain.

"They expect a solution," Colvin said.

Another witness urged lawmakers to consider the jobs nuclear plants create. Industry officials have said that without Yucca Mountain, some plants face closure.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, with 780,000 members and 15,000 at nuclear plants, supports Yucca, said James Dushaw, an IBEW director.

Even the union's Las Vegas chapter supports the project, Dushaw said, holding a letter dated Thursday to Congress from the local's business manager David Jones. The letter said, "Speaking as electricians, Nevadans, and Americans, we believe an aggressively managed repository at Yucca Mountain can make a meaningful and safe contribution to our country."

"There's much more than jobs at stake here," Dushaw said. "The IBEW submits that this issue is a challenge to the nation's will and determination to preserve and further develop all safe energy options."

The hearing was not all one-sided.

Barton allowed Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Gibbons to open the proceeding, and let them speak beyond their seven-minute allotment. Several Republican members praised Gibbons for his tenacious opposition to the project and "noble" service to his district.

Barton also invited Congress' own investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, which has been critical of the Energy Department's timelines. One GAO official summarized findings that included that the Energy Department was not prepared to submit a license application to the NRC because scientific studies are not complete.

Barton also invited Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Chairman Jared Cohon. The board was created by Congress in 1987 to act as an independent watchdog of scientific studies at Yucca Mountain.

Cohon said the board's view is that data supporting the department's Yucca performance estimates are "weak to moderate" because of unresolved technical studies and important "uncertainties" about the project. Among those: uncertainty about the long-term strength of alloy waste containers.

But lingering doubts about Yucca outlined by the officials -- and the arguments of the Nevada delegation -- likely had little effect on the subcommittee members. In fact, Barton and Vice Chairman John Shimkus, R-Ill., were the only lawmakers left in the hearing room by the time Cohon testified.

Barton t pressed Cohon and the GAO official on a point. He asked the two to clarify whether their agencies, despite doubts, had ever declared the Yucca site unsuitable. Both answered, "No, sir."

In other news:

Jeffords issued a press release strongly stating his support for the Yucca dump on Tuesday, but then issued a toned-down, one-paragraph statement late Wednesday: "I have supported the Yucca Mountain repository in the past and it is unlikely my position will change. However, I do recognize that legitimate questions remain about the proposal, including the safety of transporting nuclear waste to the site. I look forward to full and open discussions over the next few weeks."

Today Jeffords stressed that he was concerned about waste transportation, but asked if he was reconsidering his stance he said, "Not really. I have taken my position, although I'm always willing to listen."

After an Earth Day event today, Jeffords said the anti-Yucca ad was "something you have to be ready for in politics." He also would not say the number of people who have called his office. "We are hoping they go away quietly," he said, smiling.

Industry officials have said there have been more than 3,000 shipments since 1964 of high-level waste, mostly radioactive material from nuclear power plants and military sites. None of the shipments resulted in radiation release, industry officials say, although environmental groups dispute that.