DOE warns of job losses in Nevada if funding cut

Suzanne Struglinski

Thursday, May 27, 2004 | 11:06 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Escalating the political battle over the funding for the proposed nuclear waste repository, Energy Department officials say more than 1,700 of its employees and contractors in Nevada could be laid off if Congress does not give the department $880 million for the project.

The department, which for years has been pushing for more money for the Yucca Mountain site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has put the funding of the site on a collision course with congressional members who oppose the department's approach.

"This is just jockeying for more money for the department," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said of the layoff predictions. "It's a numbers game played in Washington, D.C."

The department has failed so far in its efforts to get Congress to agree to change the rules to allow it to sidestep the regular budget process. The department wants $749 million of next year's money to come directly from the Nuclear Waste Fund, an account funded directly by a surcharge on nuclear power.

The proposed policy change has been criticized because many people in Congress have said it would cut them out of the funding loop, letting the Energy Department draw from the fund without going through the competitive budget process. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has cut the Yucca Mountain budget requests several years in a row through the regular process.

Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, which creates the Yucca budget, doubts the policy change will go through. If it fails to pass, that would leave the department with only $131 million in the subcommittee's bill for next year's budget.

If Congress gives the Yucca project only $131 million, "the department would have to conduct a Reduction-in-Force (RIF) of approximately 70 percent of the 2,400-person federal and contractor workforce," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in a letter sent to Hobson on Monday. The project's payroll is about $400 million alone, Abraham wrote.

Hobson wrote the department April 29 asking 13 questions about how a lower budget would affect the department.

Abraham said more than 70 percent of the workforce would have to be eliminated and the remaining employees would focus on preparing the license application. The job cuts "would likely cause turmoil within the program and result in the loss of highly skilled technical personnel" that would put the license application "at risk," he wrote.

If the license application goes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later than December, the project may not open in 2010, its projected date.

"This would deprive the nation of a nuclear waste repository for an indefinite period of time," Abraham wrote.

In Nevada the lower funding could affect 105 federal employees and 1,650 contractor employees. Additionally, the state and local governments would not receive any funding. The change would also affect employees in eight other states and Washington, D.C.

Yucca Mountain project spokesman Allen Benson said the letter does not mean all the Nevada employees would be fired. Once Congress allocated the exact amount of money, if it is lower, the program would be refocused.

The department fights for full funding for the project every year, always arguing that without it, the site could not open on schedule. Last year the department requested $591 million but received only $580 million.

The threat of layoffs didn't change any of the congressional delegation's strong opposition to the project.

"Given the potential economic catastrophe that Las Vegas could face as a result of Nevada becoming the nation's nuclear garbage dump, including the loss of countless jobs, I am willing to accept the limited impact that reduced funding for Yucca Mountain could have locally," Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said. "Rather than continue to waste billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, Congress should use the funding from this hopelessly flawed program to pay for the on-site storage of high-level waste."

Amy Spanbauer, spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said the economy in Nevada continues to grow and new jobs are created every day, whereas adding the waste site to the state would be "detrimental to the state, its safety and public health."

Adam Mayberry, spokesman for Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said the loss of jobs overall is a "tremendous concern" for Porter.

"There could be opportunities for those workers to be reassigned," Mayberry said. "He (Porter) still opposes the project 100 percent."

Reid had not seen the letter yet and could not be reached for comment Wednesday, his press office said. Reid is the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that will create the Senate's version of the Yucca budget.

Also in the letter, the department listed all of the federal and commercial sites holding spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste destined for Nevada, including 19 metric tons of foreign reactor fuel collected from 41 countries.

The department estimated it would spend $500 million a year to store high-level waste in Idaho, Washington and South Carolina until it can be removed. In Idaho, under another agreement, the department would have to pay the state $60,000 a day for every day waste is not removed by Jan. 1, 2035.

Also mentioned are the potential damages the department will have to pay to nuclear utilities for failing to take waste in 1998, the original date the agency was to take nuclear waste for storage. So far, 66 lawsuits have been filed against the department by nuclear power companies.

"This really is a matter of DOE (the Energy Department) putting politics over science," said Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects.

A Hobson aide said the letter shows, as expected, that the lower number would cause serious damage to the project and other department programs. She said the exact next steps based on the response remain to be seen.