NUCLEAR POWER; Chu, House GOP spar over Yucca Mountain decision

Katie Howell, E&E reporter /716 words/4 March 2010
Environment & Energy DailyENENDEnglish
© 2010 E&E Publishing, LLC. All Rights Reserved

House Republicans yesterday used an Energy Department budget hearing as an opportunity to blast a top Obama administration official on the shutdown of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu spent a large portion of his time at the House Science and Technology Committee justifying the administration's decision to cut ties with the ill-fated repository.
The Obama administration drastically cut funding for the decades-old project in its fiscal 2010 budget request, and it followed that move by cutting funds entirely in the current request. Yesterday, the Energy Department filed a motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"It's time to prepare a more comprehensive review about what's going on," Chu said. "We know more now than we did in the mid-1980s."
Chu reiterated the administration's plan to convene a "blue ribbon" commission to review and recommend policies to manage U.S. nuclear waste, and he stressed such a move would not impact future nuclear energy expansion in the United States.
But many Republicans remained unconvinced and called on Chu to back up the move to shut down Yucca with scientific basis.
"What I'm hearing is that no scientific analysis was made" in the decision to withdraw the Yucca license application, said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.).
Ranking member Ralph Hall (R-Texas) agreed, saying, "Nuclear waste storage is critical, and the administration's determination that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option seems cavalier when not based on any scientific, engineering or economic analysis."
Chu would not pinpoint a specific scientific study, but he cited the 25 years of experience working at Yucca as the basis for the decision. At a hearing last week, John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, told the Science Committee that the years of experience at Yucca hadn't been wasted as they led to a better understanding of the characteristics of nuclear waste and the changes necessary to best store it.
But not all Republicans objected to the administration's plan. "There are far better ways to deal with nuclear waste than the Yucca Mountain plan," said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), who plans to retire at the end of this session. "I think the Department of Energy did the right thing."
Nuclear loan guarantees

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) criticized Chu for spending federal dollars to build reactors based on decades-old technology. The department's first nuclear loan guarantee is slated for a plant that will use a light water reactor based on technology originally developed decades ago.
But Chu defended the loan guarantee, saying major advancements have been made in the technology since the last light water nuclear reactor was built more than 20 years ago.
The new reactor "is considerably safer than older designs from the previous generation," Chu said, adding that DOE is currently researching the next generation of nuclear reactors. "We want to support that as well, but nuclear takes time."
Other budget concerns
Republicans also expressed concerns about DOE's decision to cut funding for fossil energy R&D.
"Most important -- and most concerning -- to me in this budget is its approach to energy security," Hall said. "While I recognize and generally support efforts to advance energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, any serious approach to strengthening American energy independence must be all of the above and complemented by a comprehensive effort to expand traditional sources of domestic energy, primarily oil and natural gas."
Chu said the department was not cutting funding for oil and gas programs that the industry was not yet able to pay for, specifically the methane hydrate research program. And he highlighted the flood of money from the stimulus bill and last year's appropriation for carbon capture and sequestration research for coal-fired power plants.
"As soon as the oil and gas industry ... has the commercial means, the financial means, we want to let the companies take over," Chu said. "And we pick up in those instances where the companies say it's too speculative and they don't want to do it."

Document ENEND00020100304e63400004