Thursday, May 29, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

FIELD HEARING: Reid, Ensign say DOE behind no-shows

Official denies two witnesses were discouraged from appearing

Two empty seats represent two witnesses who decided not to testify about Yucca Mountain project quality assurance concerns at a field hearing Wednesday in Las Vegas. Nevada officials expressed concern the witnesses were pressured not to show, but a Department of Energy spokesman said they were not discouraged. Waiting to testify are, from left, Bruce Belke, Allison MacFarlane and Robin Nazzaro. Photo by K.M. Cannon. Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., left, and John Ensign, R-Nev., attend a Senate energy and water subcommittee field hearing Wednesday on quality assurance issues in connection with the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Photo by K.M. Cannon.

Nevada's senators accused the Department of Energy of quashing testimony Wednesday by two witnesses who were scheduled to speak but failed to show up at a field hearing on quality assurance problems in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project.

"These are people who wanted to come and testify but they are afraid," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who arranged the hearing conducted by the Senate's energy and water subcommittee at the Clark County Government Center.

He was referring to former DOE quality assurance director Robert Clark and Donald Harris, an auditor for a Yucca Mountain Project quality assurance contractor, Navarro Research and Engineering.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., joined Reid in criticizing the Energy Department for not resolving quality assurance problems found by the audit team before proceeding with plans to build a multi-billion dollar repository to entomb the nation's highly radioactive waste in the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

"These are two witnesses who very much support the Yucca Mountain Project. No one could question their motives," Ensign noted before three other witnesses described a history of problems with designing, collecting data and predicting performance of the planned repository.

"I am concerned that responsible workers ... are being retaliated against by DOE and its contractors," Ensign said in his opening remarks.

Both senators said they will explore ways to get concerns by Clark and Harris on the record and look into whether any whistle-blower laws have been broken by government officials.

Clark, who was transferred after he had urged DOE officials to correct deficiencies in the project's quality assurance program, could not be reached late Wednesday.

Harris said through his wife that he had no comment.

An Energy Department spokesman in Washington, D.C., Joe Davis, denied that the two scheduled witnesses had been discouraged from participating.

"These witnesses can testify at any time if they choose to do so and we did not stifle anybody," Davis said.

He referred to a letter Friday in which Margaret Chu, director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, answered Reid's request for the pair's testimony, that states, "We have given no direction to Mr. Clark or Navarro, Mr. Harris' employer, regarding this hearing."

Davis said the two-hour hearing accomplished nothing other than to demonstrate that Reid and Ensign oppose Yucca Mountain.

"I think the department has demonstrated that the science behind the Yucca Mountain decision is sound and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who I don't speak for, will make the ultimate decision on whether the science is sound," Davis said. "We believe it is and we're moving forward."

But Bill Belke, a former senior on-site representative for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who for seven years looked over the shoulders of Yucca Mountain quality assurance workers, told the senators that DOE drug its feet in correcting problems with data, software and modeling. He said some actions by DOE officials had a chilling effect on workers.

"I was told to suck it up," Belke said after stating, "I think people should be held accountable for actions they are performing."

In a four-page written statement, Belke outlined his experience in monitoring the project while DOE struggled to resolve technical issues that must be fixed for a belated license application review now expected by the end of 2004.

His written testimony lists nine areas of deficiencies and errors in the scientific process, from collecting valid geological samples at the site to "erroneous or questionable calculations found in final technical reports."

"DOE needs to provide confidence not only to the NRC but all affected units, that the little things can be done correctly and down the road, the big things will be done correctly," according to Belke's written testimony.

Another observer who testified, Robin Nazzaro, director of natural resources and environment for the General Accounting Office, which is the investigative arm of Congress, said DOE's track record for correcting quality assurance problems "is less than desirable."

She noted that of 293 key technical issues with the project that were found in the late-1990s, only 77 had been closed or resolved as of April.

A third witness, Allison MacFarlane, co-director of the Yucca Mountain Project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the project is fundamentally flawed because politics instead of science prevailed in the decision to study Yucca Mountain as the only repository site.

Among other things, she said, DOE has underestimated how much water could infiltrate the repository floor and how quickly it could accumulate there, potentially corroding waste canisters and carrying off deadly radioactive materials.