Scientist’s testimony in Yucca e-mail probe raises questions

Suzanne Struglinski

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 | 11:02 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Testimony last week from a Yucca Mountain scientist at the center of the investigation into the alleged falsification of documents did little to help resolve the issue.

"We have really just begun," said Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., chairman of the House subcommittee looking into the allegations. "I still think there are a lot of questions to be answered."

Last Wednesday's congressional hearing seemed to further entrench the proponents of the planned nuclear waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas and the project's opponents.

Porter and other Nevada officials say a series of e-mails sent between project scientists as much as 10 years ago raise serious questions about the scientific integrity of the project.

Scientists wrote about "fudging" work and made disparaging remarks about quality assurance. One e-mail suggested keeping two sets of documents -- one for inspectors the other with the real data.

Project supporters, though, dismiss the e-mails and say any questions about the science will be answered when the Energy Department applies to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build the repository.

"We don't lay out our safety case in e-mails," Yucca Mountain project spokesman Allen Benson said.

He said technical documents supporting the Energy Department's work on Yucca will be evaluated by the commission, not the e-mails.

Still, the e-mails paint a troubling picture. U.S. Geological Survey scientist Joe Hevesi wrote of being able to poke holes in the scientific work.

Hevesi had to be subpoenaed to testify Wednesday before the House Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee.

But he provided few answers.

He dismissed his remarks as "poor wording" or emotional responses. He and the Energy Department have described the e-mails as "water cooler chatter."

Porter said Hevesi's statements "absolutely" do not take away any of the e-mail's value in the fight against Yucca Mountain. He said the testimony will open the door for other aspects of his investigation.

Porter said Hevesi has agreed to meet with the subcommittee staff to answer at least 50 to 100 more questions. Two other scientists have also met with staff members. Porter said he would continue to put and would not hesitate to subpoena Energy Department documents or others involved with the e-mails to testify.

Nevada officials have long criticized project management and the science supporting the work. Porter said he is concerned by the frustration Hevesi seemed to have with the department management and Hevesi's inability to recall why he would write "Live by the sword, Die by the sword" in one message. Porter also found it hard to believe that Hevesi did not know anything about the "Tiger Teams" he referred to in several e-mails beyond that they were part of a review process.

"I am hoping for his sake he is telling us the truth," Porter said.

Joe Egan, a Washington attorney who handles Yucca issues for Nevada, said the full story will come out when the state challenges the Energy Department's license application. State officials expect to depose scientists and others involved during their challenge.

"This guy's deposition will be a lot more interesting," Egan said. "Clinton said he didn't have sex either."

Egan said a deposition is different than testifying before a congressional subcommittee. They are likely to go document by document and line by line asking what he may have falsified or changed. Egan noted that Porter does not have all the documents yet so it was hard to ask specific questions.

"We never got to the uncomfortable questions," Egan said. "We're lawyers, we're litigators, we can cross examine. We have much more time."

Until then, Porter will use his subcommittee's jurisdiction over all federal agencies and their employees to investigate the problem, which includes looking at data that was allegedly changed to support the Energy Department's position.

"The real question is, did in fact those findings that were changed, give the tools to DOE (the Energy Department), the Congress and the White House to make a decision that it was safe and based on sound science," Porter said in an interview. "I think those e-mails go to the genesis of the whole project and that is the mountain leaks, and it was chosen as the site because it didn't."

Porter continues to battle with the Energy Department over getting documents.

W. John Arthur, deputy director of the department's Office of Repository Development, said during the hearing that his appearance is part of the department's cooperation with the investigation and the department sent an e-mail to Porter last week. The e-mail told Porter that he can go to the department headquarters to view certain documents.

Arthur said he wanted to put the matter "into perspective."

"Out of more than 10 million e-mails, the object of this hearing is a handful of e-mails that indicate a possible intentional circumvention or misrepresentation of compliance with Yucca Mountain Project quality assurance requirements by these same U.S.G.S. employees," Arthur said.

Porter called Arthur's answers to his questions the "classic bureaucratic response" and said that going to the library to view documents was "unacceptable."

Even when the department has turned over documents, they have been incomplete, he said. He asked for an organizational chart of employees from 1995 to today, and it was sent without names.

"I believe part of it is arrogance on the part of the Department of Energy because they have never really been questioned," Porter said. "I don't believe they have ever been questioned by Congress to this degree. I don't believe that they can find part of the documents that we've asked for, which is part of the management culture, but I think the bulk of it is arrogance."

He said he would like to see that information in the next two weeks or he may request another subpoena.

But site supporters say these issues should be dealt with in the licensing process.

Rod McCullum, senior project manager for waste at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's trade group, said the e-mails are just a tiny portion of thousands of pages of documents related to the Yucca project.

He said there's nothing to support Porter's idea that the e-mails signify widespread problems with the project.

"Mr. Porter wants to get to the truth, the vehicle that takes us to the truth will be the licensing process," McCullum said. "The ultimate test if the science is correct is the licensing process."

McCullum said since 2000, the department has gone through and looked at quality assurance problems.

"We knew there were scientists venting about QA (quality assurance)," he said.

McCullum said all types of documents, even beyond what Porter is requesting, will be available once the department finalizes its document collection for the NRC's database.

"You have to ask yourself what they did about it (issues raised in the e-mails)," McCullum said. "We have that in the licensing process. These are statements made by individuals. What about e-mails after that? They didn't just ignore these things."

Porter, however, said there "is still the underlying question of falsifying data on the very genesis of Yucca Mountain and that is whether the mountain leaks."