Bush Nuclear Proposal Prevails in House : Energy: In a 254-160 vote after heated debate, lawmakers approve a streamlined licensing amendment for new power plants.

The House, considering the first congressional attempt in more than a decade to craft a national energy policy, Wednesday adopted a Bush Administration proposal to stimulate the construction of nuclear power plants.

Voting 254 to 160 after a heated debate, the House approved an amendment that would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a single license for new nuclear power plants, streamlining the traditional two-step procedure that required separate licenses for construction and operations.

The amendment replaced language favored by nuclear power critics that also would have combined the licensing requirements, but would have made it easier for critics to delay start-up of a new plant. That version would have obliged the NRC to hold a formal public hearing if “new and significant information” related to plant safety were discovered while the plant was under construction.

President Bush threatened to veto the bill if that language remained, arguing that the additional safeguards, crafted by Interior Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Martinez), were intended to keep the nuclear power industry from expanding.

The provision adopted by the House, sponsored by Reps. Bob Clement (D-Tenn.) and Joe Barton (R-Tex.), substituted language already approved by the Senate, which passed its version of the complex energy legislation in February.

Nuclear power groups, which had lobbied tenaciously for the reform, welcomed the outcome as a new lease on life for their sluggish industry, which has received no orders for new plants since the late 1970s. The vote was “a major step toward assuring that nuclear power will be available as an American energy choice in the future,” the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, an industry lobbying group, said in a statement.

Environmentalists, however, denounced the decision as a potentially reckless compromise of public safety concerns and a “sell-out” to the powerful influence of the nuclear industry.

“This is another example of how out of touch Congress is with the American public,” said Scott Denman, executive director of the Safe Energy Communication Council, an environmental watchdog group.

Denman said the American public opposes one-step licensing, “but the nuclear industry has a PAC-size chokehold on Congress and the message isn’t getting through the wall of money. If the nuclear power industry is going to restore public confidence in nuclear safety, this is not the way to go, by cutting the public out of the process.”

Miller and other Democrats argued that their version of the licensing provision would have allowed nuclear power to go forward while preserving the right of citizens to raise safety concerns.

But the Administration, in a statement issued by the White House only hours before the vote, said Miller’s provision would have effectively “precluded new nuclear power plants” by “increasing regulatory and judicial burdens and delays without providing for any additional safety.”

On the House floor, Republicans also warned that Miller’s language was “veto bait” that would kill the chances of enacting the first comprehensive national energy strategy devised by Congress in more than 10 years.

The alternative they eventually approved would not compromise safety, they argued, because it would still require the NRC to certify that all licensing requirements had been met before a new plant could begin operating.

Removal of the Miller provisions addressed the Administration’s chief objection but did not altogether eliminate the threat of a veto.