Yucca Mountain News Clips
Monday, July 25, 2005
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
July 25, 2005
Porter says full documents not received
By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- His staff may have 1,652 pages of Yucca Mountain project documents to begin to review today, but Rep. Jon Porter is still concerned about the pages that are not there.
The Energy Department did not include the project's draft license application in the documents it sent to Porter's office Friday. The draft was among the 10 sets of documents required by a subpoena delivered to the department last week.
Porter, R-Nev., chairman of a House subcommittee investigating potential scientific fraud at the project, said he will be consulting with the subcommittee's lawyers on what to do next. Failure to comply with a subpoena can result in a contempt of Congress charge.
"They are not in compliance, although that is not unusual when dealing with the Department of Energy," Porter said. "The bottom line is that they have not complied, that is a document that should be available."
But the department has not refused to turn over the draft application, it just did not do it by Friday's deadline.
"Congressman Porter's request potentially involves thousands and thousands of pages within a universe of millions and goes far beyond his original request," department spokesman Craig Stevens said.
"(Friday) the Department has produced all documents that were available within the two-day time period that was allotted, and it is only natural that it would take more time to assemble additional documents in light of the scope of his request.
"Any additional existing documents that would be responsive will be produced," Stevens said.
House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., sent the department the subpoena Wednesday with instructions for 10 different sets of documents to be delivered by 4 p.m. Friday.
Porter had requested the documents in writing and during an April hearing on the potential falsified scientific information. The department announced in March that it had discovered e-mails written by several U.S. Geological Survey employees that suggest they falsified work on water flow research, a critical safety component to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The Energy Department told Porter the documents could be viewed at the department headquarters, but Porter wanted his own copies.
"It's not like showing up at DOE for a cup of coffee and going through five documents," Porter said. "They have yet to explain to us why they failed to turn the documents over to us. It is obvious they were not ready."
Eric Fygi, the department's acting general counsel, said the additional documents will be given to the committee as "we identify and collect them."
Fygi emphasized that the subcommittee keep records of concerns raised by project employees confidential and requested that the staff members consult the department before disclosing any of the documents included in the collection.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
July 25, 2005
Celebrities come out to protest nuclear power
By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Anti-nuclear activists brought out like-minded celebrities Monday to protest nuclear components of the energy bill and storing nuclear waste on Native American lands.
Singer Ani DiFranco along with Emily Saliers and Amy Ray, who make up the group the Indigo Girls, and actor James Cromwell spoke against Private Fuel Storage, the proposed temporary nuclear waste storage site in Utah. They also objected to Congress passing any new incentives for future nuclear power plants, which may happen in a comprehensive energy bill.
DiFranco summarized her opposition to nuclear power in one word: "cancer."
She said there is no container than can stay air tight forever to keep radiation from nuclear waste away from people just as there is no way to ship the waste across the country "without mishap."
"Anyone who is trying to tell me that nuclear waste is clean is lying to me," DiFranco said.
House and Senate negotiators may be wrapping up work on a final version of the energy bill this week. The bill renews a government insurance program in the event of a nuclear accident and provides incentives to develop new plants.
Meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may issue a decision as early as next month on licensing the Private Fuel Storage facility in Utah on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation. The site is intended to store waste until the proposed permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would open.
Saliers said the existing nuclear waste should stay where it is and nuclear power should stop generating more. She would rather seen renewable energy like wind power used and more efforts to conserve energy.
The entertainers, along with U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, will visit congressional offices today, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
---------------------------
Washington Post
July 24, 2005
Uncertainties Slow Push for Nuclear Plants
Cost of Building New Facilities, Concerns About Waste Disposal Are Cited
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
When the nuclear industry looks at the Bush administration's initiatives to promote a new generation of nuclear power plants, it sees a giant dollar sign. Critics see a giant mushroom cloud. For investors and taxpayers, who will have to pony up the cash, the sign may be a giant question mark.
No one has placed an order for a nuclear plant since 1973, but a House-Senate conference committee is weighing an energy bill that includes a clutch of proposals to revive the moribund industry. No matter what bill comes out, however, financial experts and the companies that would order such plants predict that regulatory hurdles and economic risks mean the launch of new plants is at least a decade away -- if ever.
"Moody's would go bananas if we announced we were going to build a nuclear plant," said Thomas E. Capps, chief executive officer of the energy company Dominion Resources Inc., referring to the reaction of credit-rating institutions.
Virginia-based Dominion, which serves nine states and operates four nuclear plants, is among the handful of companies considered most likely to want to build a plant. Capps said the nation should invest more in such plants, but he held out little hope that that would happen without greater incentives than those being discussed on Capitol Hill.
The Department of Energy splits with industry the cost of selecting sites for new plants. Various proposals in the energy bill would have taxpayers share the cost of licensing the first generation of new plants, offer loan guarantees and set caps on industry liability in an accident. A proposal by the White House would protect investors against regulatory holdups by defraying the cost of certain types of delays. Some legislators would give the industry protection against fluctuations in the price of electricity.
Advocates in Congress say such measures are justified because nuclear energy can help reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, because nuclear energy seems ever more viable as oil prices soar, and because nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases that are linked to global warming.
Capps said the proposed incentives do not go far enough.
"A new 1,400-megawatt nuclear power plant is going to cost about $2.6 billion," he said. "It is going to take 6 1/2 years to build. While you are building, you have to issue equity, you have to service that equity. You have to issue bonds; you have to service the bonds with interest. You don't have any money coming in. You have an average of $1.3 billion out for 6 1/2 years that is not earning anything."
"We are not going to build one under those financial conditions," he said.
Capps said his main concern is that anti-nuclear activists would tie up the approval of new plants through court challenges, and that such delays would cause unacceptable financial risks. If the nation thinks nuclear power is important enough, he said, Congress ought to eliminate the possibility of lawsuits and decree that the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will be the final arbiter of concerns raised by the public.
Critics of the new initiatives say the federal government has a long history of subsidizing the nuclear industry, and warn that the proposals would hurt taxpayers -- and undermine public safety.
"If you throw enough money to build four, five power plants at industry, four, five plants may get built, but no one should confuse that with an economically healthy revival of nuclear power," said former NRC commissioner Peter Bradford, an energy policy consultant at Bradford Brook Associates in Vermont.
Anna Aurilio, legislative director at U.S. PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), an anti-nuclear environmental and consumer group, said improving energy efficiency would be seven times as cost-effective as building new nuclear plants. Although nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases, radioactive waste remains dangerous for long periods -- making nuclear energy an unattractive approach to deal with global warming, she said.
Both supporters and critics of the nuclear industry noted that continuing delays over the opening the government's long-term nuclear waste storage plant at Yucca Mountain in Nevada add to the problem. One industry group has sought to build a temporary storage site on the land of the Skull Valley Goshute tribe in Utah, but this proposal has been bitterly opposed, including by states through which the waste would have to pass.
Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nonprofit advocacy group, said it would be dangerous for the government to promise compensation for regulatory delays.
"It puts a lot of pressure on the NRC to hand out licenses, because it will be under pressure financially," he said of the Bush risk-insurance proposal. "Any form of risk insurance to compensate the industry for delays in the licensing process would be very detrimental to safety."
Bradford said market forces, not government incentives, ought to decide which energy sources the nation develops.
"I can tell you with some confidence that it is not sensible," he said. "Picking technological winners is the kind of foolishness that Republicans regularly accuse Democrats of in other areas."
But Wall Street and the nuclear industry say the high capital costs of nuclear power plants, their security needs and the nation's long-term energy needs make it essential that the federal government actively support new plants.
Marvin Fertel, chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, said the average age of the nation's 103 nuclear plants is 22 to 23 years. The oldest plants were built in the 1950s, and it is time to bring a new generation of plants online, he added.
New techniques in design and construction make it possible to standardize plants and make them safer, he said. Although taxpayer support will be crucial for the first few plants, private money would build subsequent plants because investors would see that the regulatory and political climate was receptive, he said.
Caren Byrd, executive director in the global power and utilities group at Morgan Stanley, agreed that for the first time in a long time, Wall Street believes new nuclear plants could be part of the nation's long-term future.
"But without something that indicates a federal policy, it will be difficult," she said. She recalled the fate of the Shoreham nuclear plant in New York, which was shut down after construction in 1985 because of public opposition. Dozens of plants were canceled in the 1980s, and others were plagued with cost overruns as a result of delays. "Tens of billions went down the drain that time," Byrd said.
"We can't take that risk, and the investment community has long memories," she said.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils J. Diaz said regulations adopted in 1992 ensure that companies that get a license to build a plant will receive an operating license. Companies will have to show the plant was built according to specifications, but new rules ensure that operators will not have to wait for an operating license after sinking billions into construction, he said.
Diaz said some companies were thinking about applying for licenses by the end of 2007 or early 2008. The commission would take as long as three years to approve such applications, Diaz said. Given that construction would take several years, the earliest that new plants could become operational would be around 2015.
Marilyn Kray, president of NuStart Energy Development, a consortium of nine utilities that is considering filing applications for two nuclear plant licenses, acknowledged that much could change in a decade. The companies she represents are optimistic about nuclear power plants, she said, but would ultimately decide which energy sources to explore depending on changes in the economic, financial and political climate.
"There is guarded optimism at this point," she said. "From a power company perspective, you say I am open as long as it is good for the shareholders."
---------------------------
Congressman Jon Porter
July 22, 2005
Press Release
DOE Produces Certain Yucca Documents to Subcommittee, but Fails to Fully Comply with Subpoena
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Energy (DOE) has started the process of handing over a number of key documents related to the investigation into whether or not science behind the Yucca Mountain Project was falsified. However, questions remain as to why certain requested documents which DOE should have readily available were not produced. On Wednesday, July 20, the House Government Reform Committee served a subpoena for the documents at the behest of Third District Congressman Jon Porter. Porter chairs the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee, which is leading the investigation. DOE had until 4 PM ET today to begin complying with the document requests, or risked being held in contempt of Congress.
“Since e-mails suggesting Yucca Mountain safety data had been falsified came to light in March, I´ve used every tool at my disposal as Chairman of the Federal Workforce and Agency Oversight Subcommittee to launch a full and thorough investigation,’ said Porter. “That includes issuing subpoenas to individuals and agencies who have refused to cooperate with my requests. Upon hearing documents had been delivered to the Subcommittee this afternoon, it appeared as though DOE had finally seemed to grasp the importance of this investigation and the effect it could have on millions of Americans. However, after personally reviewing what was delivered, the absence of certain key documents leads me to believe DOE is continuing to play games.’
The key document that was requested but not produced is the draft license application, which is expected to be handed over by DOE to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the coming months. If approved by the NRC, the license application would allow the Yucca Mountain Project to begin the process of accepting nuclear waste. DOE has not even attempted to explain why they failed to hand over this document, which remains a major element of the investigation.
The following is a list of documents DOE was asked to produce, as outlined in the subpoena:
1) All records that reflect the falsification and/or fabrication of records by any Federal employee, contractor, or any other person in connection with relation to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository not previously produced by the Department of Energy to the Subcommittee on March 29, 2005
2) All records referring or relating to the hiring, reassignment, or transfer of Joseph Hevesi, Alan Flint, or Lorraine Flint, to the Yucca Mountain Project (“YMP’), including the re-employment or reassignment of any such employees to YMP on or after December 1, 2004
3) All lists or glossaries of frequently used terms, including scientific terms, associated with the Yucca Mountain Project
4) All lists of water infiltration models relating to the Yucca Mountain Project from 1997 to the present
5) All lists of employees who worked on water infiltration models relating to the Yucca Mountain project from 1997 to the present, including but not limited to the employees and the models they worked on
6) All Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (“OCRWM’) organizational charts that show the names of employees and/or the management structure of the Yucca Mountain Project form 1998 to the present
7) Any portions of the current version of the draft license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC’) for construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain Repository referring or relating to the work or modeling performed by Joseph Hevesi, Alan Flint, or Lorraine Flint
8) A copy of the current version of the draft license application to the NRC for construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain Repository
9) All records referring or relating to any communications between Bectel SAIC and Department of Energy officials regarding the records listed in Item 1 of this Schedule, without regard to whether such records were produced by the Department of Energy to the Subcommittee on March 29, 2005
10) All records referring or relating to the Department of Energy´s review of scientific work conducted by Alan Flint, Lorraine Flint and Joseph Hevesi since December 1, 2004
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 23, 2005
Porter: DOE didn't quite comply
Energy Department spokesman defends efforts to deliver Yucca documents
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy failed to fully comply Friday with a subpoena issued by a House committee that demanded thousands of pages of documents about Yucca Mountain, Rep. Jon Porter said.
A DOE spokesman said the department delivered 1,652 pages of personnel and research records for the nuclear waste repository. The material was sought by the House Government Reform Committee for an ongoing investigation of e-mail messages that suggested quality assurance documents may have been manipulated.
Among the material that was not supplied was a copy of a draft license application for the Yucca site, a 5,800-page document that would be expected to detail the Energy Department's safety justifications for building a waste burial site in Nevada.
The department "is not in full compliance," said Porter, R-Nev., who is heading the House investigation as a subcommittee chairman. "I had an opportunity to look at some of the documents and it is quite clear they have not fulfilled the subpoena at this point."
Porter said the material did not arrive with an index, and the committee would be in contact with DOE on Monday for an accounting of what was delivered. He said the department could be given more time to fulfill the subpoena.
DOE spokesman Craig Stevens said the department believed it was "in full compliance" with the subpoena, which it received on Wednesday. He said some of the subpoenaed documents were in Las Vegas and were being summoned.
He said other documents had not been previously requested and could not be rounded up by the Friday deadline.
"We have made every reasonable effort to enable the subcommittee to examine the documents they requested," Stevens said.
The Energy Department continued to resist handing over the draft license application, which its lawyers have argued does not appear to fall within the scope of Porter's investigation.
The DOE and the state of Nevada have been involved in a separate legal dispute over access to the document, which was written by a contractor and delivered in July 2004. It was subsequently revised, attorneys have said.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------