Opponents Find Hope in Nuclear Dump Study

Opponents to the use of Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as the nation’s ultimate underground repository of high-level nuclear waste on Friday claimed their best chances yet to derail the project that already reflects a government investment of 20 years and $6 billion.

They cited a draft report by the General Accounting Office, Congress’ bipartisan investigative unit, that concluded that the U.S. Department of Energy “has no reliable estimate of when, and at what cost, such a repository could be opened.”

The GAO urged that the Energy Department not recommend adoption of the Yucca Mountain site until 2006, to allow for more scientific review. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has said he planned to make a decision this winter about whether to recommend to President Bush that Yucca Mountain be formally adopted as a nuclear waste dump, and he indicated Friday that nothing had changed his mind.

In a letter to the GAO, Abraham lashed out at the premature release of the study, saying its conclusions were “fatally flawed” because his staff hadn’t reviewed them to challenge any possibly faulty findings.

The draft report said Yucca Mountain is not likely to open by 2010 and probably not until 2015 at the soonest, because of unresolved technical and scientific questions.

The Energy Department previously promised the nuclear energy industry that the site would be ready by 2010. The site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would store 20 years worth of stockpiled radioactive fuel--transported from around the country--where it is supposed to remain safe for 10,000 years.

In addition to the congressional report, critics said they were bolstered by the announcement that one of the nation’s largest law firms had stopped helping the Energy Department prepare legal and technical paperwork for Yucca Mountain’s anticipated licensing hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Chicago-based firm, Winson & Strawn, also had offered advice to the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the industry’s lobbying and trade organization and which had campaigned for Yucca Mountain’s development.

Last month, investigators for the Energy Department concluded the firm was in potential conflict of interest by not disclosing to the department that the firm also was working on behalf of the nuclear power industry.

The law firm, which was paid about $16.5 million for its Yucca Mountain government work since 1999, denied any conflict but informed the government it would nonetheless step aside. It had stopped representing the nuclear power industry in July.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said Friday he and Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would seek a congressional investigation into whether the law firm’s work on behalf of Yucca Mountain was biased. A bias finding could force the Energy Department to regroup in pursuing the licensing process.

Abraham said his department would continue studying the feasibility of Yucca Mountain as a geologic repository for 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel.

A spokesman for Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, voiced frustration at the report’s release.

“There is some question in our mind about whether or not it’s accurate,” Ken Johnson said. “This is simply a draft report.”

But others jumped on its contents--as well as the withdrawal of the law firm--to herald the political demise of the controversial project.

“They dumped a huge amount of ammunition into our laps, and now we have to decide which weapon to grab and what to point at next,” Ensign said.

Gov. Kenny Guinn said that, with the GAO study, “It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the Yucca Mountain project is doomed to failure,” and he called on the Energy Department to terminate the project.

But Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis rebuffed that notion.

“The GAO has no statutory role,” he said. “The secretary is moving forward with what Congress told us to do. . . . The law says we don’t have to have the license application in hand to make a site recommendation.”

Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Mitch Singer said the industry is unfazed by the GAO report.

“What we think it’s saying is that the process should continue to move ahead based on what’s been studied so far, and any other technical and engineering questions can be answered while the process moves along, including during the actual licensing process,” he said.

“We know there’s a lot of political opposition in Nevada to this, and they’ll try to impede it,” he said.