Comments (25) | Add a comment
Energy chief blasted as panel foresees battle over Yucca shutdown
Tools
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Criticism of the Obama administration's handling of Yucca Mountain hit a new level Wednesday when Energy Secretary Steven Chu was raked by House lawmakers challenging his moves to shut down the nuclear waste repository project.
The chairman of a House energy subcommittee suggested the administration might have a fight on its hands after panel members questioned the legality of terminating the Yucca project office and restructuring its work force.
There also were protests about the Department of Energy's effort to withdraw its repository construction license bid from a pending review, as well as Chu's efforts to forbid members of a blue-ribbon panel on nuclear waste from including Yucca Mountain in an upcoming waste management study.
Rep. Ed Pastor, the subcommittee chairman, said it was the intention of the House that the panel have all options on the table, including Yucca Mountain.
"That is a political battle that we will have to fight somewhere else," said Pastor, D-Ariz.
In multiple appearances on Capitol Hill over the past two months, Chu has fielded scattered criticism about the Obama administration's decision to end the Nevada project.
But members of the House appropriations energy and water subcommittee asked about little else, and most of the questions were pointed.
The subcommittee will be the first body on Capitol Hill to weigh the department's request to zero out the Yucca program when it writes a fiscal 2011 energy spending bill this summer, and several lawmakers signaled they were not happy with that request.
The contentious session came on the heels of a resolution introduced in the House this week by South Carolina and Washington state lawmakers to formally disapprove of the Obama administration's nuclear waste policy change, and as business groups mounted new pressure to oppose the shutdown.
President Barack Obama has shown no sign of reversing course, and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who extracted Obama's pledge to end the Yucca program, which is generally unpopular in Nevada, has said no change will be forthcoming.
Alluding to Reid as "the white elephant sitting in the room," Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said, "We all know why it is closing, and it has nothing to do with science or anything else. That is reality, and I get it. It is closing."
But the process to end the two-decade Yucca Mountain effort probably will take longer than initially advertised. The Obama administration's hope was to be out of Nevada by the end of September. Now it appears that fights on Capitol Hill, in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and in the courts could continue later into the year, at least.
"The level of complexity with the different moving parts associated with the program, I don't think it will be a short or easy task to bring all those together to a complete conclusion quickly," said Irene Navis, nuclear program planning manager for Clark County.
At the hearing, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., argued that the Department of Energy needs specific permission to shut down the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management because Congress created that office in a 1982 law.
Frelinghuysen said he has asked the Government Accountability Office to study that issue and also whether Energy Department officials might run afoul of a separate law that limits work force restructuring in the department. The department has asked permission from Congress to reprogram $115 million from licensing accounts to shutdown accounts, Capitol Hill aides said.
Chu said he believes his department has legal authority to move forward with the shutdown, but he promised to consult further with Congress. He said the Department of Energy does not have a backup plan if ordered to keep the Yucca Mountain project alive.
Even if the repository application were withdrawn "with prejudice," meaning it could not be legally resurrected, Simpson said, officials could get around that by changing the project slightly and resubmitting the paperwork.
"It just makes it more expensive. They could say we are going to expand Yucca Mountain, change it somehow so it would be a different license."
Simpson also asked Chu what the Energy Department was going to do with the site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "Are you going to blow it up? It is a big hole in the ground. Are they going to put cement over it?"
Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Indeed, all the next President needs to do is submit a reprogramming request for the health care plan, and defund any enforcement.
It would be appropriate that every single law that Obama supports is "reprogrammed" and ignored by the next administration, whenever it is.
One would think he would recognize this possibility and not do it on the NWPA. Perhaps the guy who writes his speeches for the teleprompter was out of town when the decision was made on Yucca Mountain, and Obama winged it.
Basically, if Obama wins on Yucca the whole country for the rest of history loses.
@thomas:
Yours is the most germane question on this blog.
As we see in the recent lawsuits filed by SC, WA, and others, and as the RJ story suggests, what is at stake here is a separation of powers issue, and some of the lawsuits have invoked that principle.
If the will of the legislative branch can be so easily subverted, as seems to be happening in the case of the Yucca Mountain Project, then we should be worried.
Many of us who support the Project have said, repeatedly, that if opponents want to shut it down, repeal the legislation that mandates construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain. It's that simple: Use the necessary legislative means and repeal the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
If Harry Reid could accomplish that, we wouldn't need to raise to specter of an executive branch circumventing the will of the legislative branch by way of budgeting and arbitrary acts by agency heads.
That's why the lawsuits filed by SC and WA discuss the Administrative Procedures Act and the potential breach of the separation of powers element of the Constitution.
The very scenario you mention becomes even more possible if Yucca Mountain is allowed to fold unchallenged. It will be all the more easy for any subsequent administration to kill a legislatively mandated act simply by defunding it and ordering an agency head not to pursue or enforce it.
@James:
I think the three new NRC appointees were asked by Sen. Boxer, not Speaker Pelosi, and they were specifically asked to give a "yes" or "no" answer.
However, even though this question came directly from Sen. Reid (as Boxer stated), it is in no way a binding question, and nor does it suggest that the appointees are in Reid's pocket.
The NRC is an independent regulatory agency -- one of the best we have, in fact. Boxer's question was essentially a non-question that has little bearing on the future obligations of the three new appointees.
It is not within the authority of NRC commissioners either to oppose or support the Yucca Mountain Project. In fact, their only possible intervention in the proceeding would arise in the event of an appeal of whatever decision is handed down by the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) currently adjudicating the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding.
Also, I seem to recall that Boxer's question was something like, "Would you oppose DOE's effort to close the Yucca Mountain Project," or something to that effect. And as I've suggested, it is not within the scope of the commissioners' authority to either oppose or support that effort -- they are supposed to be neutral.
If the ASLB were to deny DOE its request for a withdrawal of the license application, then I suppose that decision could be appealed to the commissioners, and at that point they could overturn the ASLB's ruling, in effect giving the DOE its request.
But their answer to Boxer's question, as framed, doesn't necessarily bind them to that outcome. In fact, their answer would have been the same if Boxer had asked "Will you support the continuation of the Yucca Mountain Project." As commissioners, they would be obligated to say "no" in a "yes-no" context.
my comment would be to build a power plant at the yucca repository, it is the new green fuel all the states are turning towards, our taxes have put billions of dollars into building it, and millions in lawsuits because we are not using it, just like Harry Reid to cap it with cement and not allow anyone to use it, its like having a new chev pickup in the yard, and your dad telling you it cost twenty eight thousand dollars, but you cannot use it for anything, because your dad said not to, well Senator Reid, we are out of work here in Nevada, and with construction and the like, and the need for power, lets take a bus ride out to the repository, and make some plans to get Nevada off of its knees, and with nine other states putting in gambling, here we sit with our arms folded, lets get rid of Harry Reid, everyone take the bus ride out to see the site and you can see we have alot to offer the United States of America, what else do we have people, a new industry, and Harry Reid tells Obama not to let it happen, I am a democrat if there is a question, Reid wants all coal, and biomass power plants shut down, what is left? nuclear power, and a short term storage. arda
To aBadReid:
The NRC has NOT stopped their review of the Yucca Mtn. license application. Their work continues with the goal of issuing the first part of their review this Fall(!). Dirty harry attempted to stop this work by slashing NRC funding but they have continued their work. The license application has NOT been pulled (and may not be for months? if ever?) and thus the NRC review process continues.
It should be noted that outgoing NRC Commissioner Dale Klein, in a speech given in March 9 at the NRC Regulatory Information Conference in Rockville, MD.,blistered the obamination for politicizing the work of the NRC. He stated "But I do know that, under the law, that licensing determination… and the technical evaluation of the science… is the NRC’s responsibility.
". Not chu's, dirty harry's, or the obamination's responsibility.
I had to laugh yesterdaw when I read in the RJ that Shelley Berkley opened her pie hole comment on the project. "President Obama pledged to Nevadans he would kill Yucca Mountain, and he kept his word by pulling the license for this failed $100 billion project," Berkley said. Someone should get Shelley's head out of dirty harry's "asset" and inform her that the license has NOT yet been pulled and work continues to this day at the NRC.
I wanted to follow up on my comment below:
Right before the election, then Candidate Obama was given key science related questions by a Science Debate 2008 panel. Here is an interesting answer to one of those questions:
SD2008: Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?
Obama: I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees. More broadly, I am committed to creating a transparent and connected democracy, using cutting-edge technologies to provide a new level of transparency, accountability, and participation for America’s citizens.
TWO WORDS: YOU LIE
http://aBadReid.com
The NRC was two years away from completing the study submitted to them via the nation's National Laboratory.
Secretary Chu should have at least let that study continue. What were they afraid of? They still could decide NOT to continue Yucca Mountain, but at least you would have had certified documentation by the one entity qualified to make such a decision (i.e. not politicans or the news media)!
Instead this "SCIENTIST" decided to pull the license with 'prejudice' in an attempt to kill the project WITHOUT ANY sound reasoning why. Nice scientific decision based on SOUND science (which the Obama administration PROMISED it would base decisions on).
You can be PRO or CON over Yucca Mountain, but the fact is the study was TWO YEARS away from being completed and was yanked.
What was everyone AFRAID of? The license would be certified for construction by the nation's Nuclear Energy experts? HEAVEN forbid that to happen.
Hey, let's just YANK IT, and leave tens of billions that it took to get this far on the table as we walk away. Oh, BTW, there will be silly fines by the nuclear power industry, and we are breaking the law, but hey, it's good to be the king!
BRILLIANT
For more information go to http://aBadReid.com and click on the "Yucca Mountain" tab.