ECA Update: February 6, 2013
Published: Wed, 02/06/13
Wyden preparing bipartisan solution to waste debacle
Hannah Northey, Environment & Energy Daily February 5, 2013 The chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee yesterday confirmed that he's preparing a bipartisan package to untangle a political knot blocking the permanent disposal of nuclear waste and that he's working on a bipartisan agreement with the GOP-led House over Yucca Mountain.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said during an interview that he met with Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, top Republican on the Energy panel, and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) -- who lead the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee -- and that his staff is now preparing legislative text.
"We're drafting legislation. The four of us are working together to draft legislation that we are planning to have available in a matter of weeks," Wyden said. "It's clear to me the country needs a more permanent solution for the disposal of nuclear waste from both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons installations like Hanford."
Wyden said he also recently met with House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) and House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) to discuss the issue and is having some success. House Republicans have said they won't consider legislation that doesn't specify the use of Yucca Mountain, a site in the Nevada desert that the Obama administration has deemed unworkable.
"I think there's a lot of interest now in some bicameral solutions on these issues. I know there are strongly held views," Wyden said. "Regardless of how you feel about Yucca, I think there's concern that you're going to need more than one."
Wyden also said last year that he visited the site of the crippled Japanese reactors -- which were damaged by a massive earthquake and tsunami in 2011 -- and that he supports "finding a safer way to store spent fuel and go about picking a repository site than what happened with Yucca."
Murkowski also touched on the issue yesterday and said there was "general consensus" among herself, Wyden, Feinstein and Alexander about moving forward with interim storage sites while advancing the more difficult process of finding a permanent repository.
"It is fair to say there is a real commitment on the Senate side," she said.
Murkowski has embraced recommendations from an expert panel President Obama assembled to move forward with consent-based siting of a repository, which could include Yucca Mountain. "I'm a believer that Yucca is part of our answer in terms of long-term storage out there," she said. "But I also don't want to be in the situation where 10 years from now, we are no further ahead with any kind of a solution."
Murkowski said she's hopeful the four senators can craft legislation that's accepted in the House from both parties and from lawmakers hailing from different regions. "We will not shut the House out," she said. "We will keep them engaged in the conversation, but we cannot ... afford to have no answers."
Murkowski said Wyden's bill could mirror text that she, Feinstein and Alexander agreed on last year. The three senators were keen on moving ahead with temporary storage sites, which are seen as a way of saving the government millions in lawsuits for not upholding its legal agreement to take the waste.
The trio's efforts were at odds with former Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who was concerned those sites -- like one in his home state -- could become de facto permanent sites (E&ENews PM, Aug. 1, 2012).
Wyden confirmed the new bill could move forward with temporary storage sites while launching the process of finding a permanent solution, but he quickly noted that any temporary site would not be a substitute for a repository.
"We would be open to having an interim facility before a permanent repository is built, and I think what's important is to demonstrate that the interim storage facility directly reduces the risk to public health and safety," he said.
The legislation will also lay out a process for creating an entity to oversee the siting of new waste disposal facilities. Wyden said the new organization will need to be transparent and accessible to the public, and the head of the entity may need to report to the Energy secretary.
"Burying the program in a DOE bureaucracy without a Senate-confirmed director who lacks some standing to run a high-profile program, which is arguably the situation today, is a mistake," he said.
MOX Construction at SRS Faces Suspension in Sequestration According to "Exchange Monitor" Thomas Clements, The Aiken Leader January 31, 2013 The Exchange Monitor Monitor Morning Briefing of January 31, 2013 reported that the plutonium fuel (MOX) program underway at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina could face a "suspension" in the event that budget sequestration goes into effect.
The Morning Briefing, published by the Nuclear Weapons & Material Monitor, states that "the Obama Administration is considering suspending the National Nuclear Security Administration's Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility project as an option in the event of sequestration."
The Nuclear Weapons & Material Monitor is noted for reporting about Department of Energy (DOE) programs that that can't be read in other media outlets.
"The soaring MOX costs stick out like a sore thumb so it's no wonder that the $20-billion project has risen to the top of the program to be cut is sequestration kicks in," said Tom Clements with the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. "If the debt crisis is going to be met head on, then budget-busting projects like MOX must be eliminated and less costly plutonium disposition options pursued.
"That MOX is being perpetuated simply as a jobs program for South Carolina isn't justification enough for the tax payer to be strapped by the debt it is creating. Fiscal conservatives should celebrate if the Obama administration is finally taking steps to reign in the run-away spending on MOX," said Clements, a native of Georgia who has been active on SRS issue from a public-interest perspective for over 30 years. Clements holds a Masters in Forest Resources from the University of Georgia and has been engaged in nuclear policy issue on the national and international levels for over 20 years.
For more information on the mounting problems facing NNSA's MOX project, see a January 24, 2013 posting:
MOX on the Rocks: DOE Assessment of Plutonium Fuel Project at SRS Shows Chronic and Uncorrected Cost and Schedule Problems
And, this December 19 posting offers additional information:
SRS Projects in "Red Zone" Push Site Over its own Fiscal and Management Cliff; Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Leads the Way into Abyss
The construction of the MOX plant at SRS by Shaw AREVA MOX Service (SHAMS) has come under increasing scrutiny due to massive cost overruns and schedule delays. The cost for the MOX plant construction was $1.8 billion in 2004 and jumped to $4.8 billion in 2008, where the estimate has been frozen. Reports indicate that a "rebaselined" construction cost could jump $2 billion, making this program a perfect target for cutting in order to reduce the deficit.
The MOX plant is about 65% complete and the roof is expected to be finished in March 2013. (See associated photo for view of roof of MOX plant.) It has been raised in Congress that a halt to construction would be prudent after a roof was over the facility and the walls finished, in order to protect the facility for future use (such as disposing of plutonium as waste).
Estimated yearly operating costs have soared to almost $500 million a year, meaning that over a 20-year operating life that operations alone would total around $10 billion. It is believed that the still-secret $7-billion price tag for MOX plant construction and the stunning operational cost figure have caught the attention of the Office of Management and Budget during current budget negotiations over agency budget request to soon be released for Fiscal Year 2014,
The plutonium disposition agreement with Russia has helped Russia to obtain a new "breeder" reactor, the BN800, which can produce (or "breed") weapons-grade plutonium when operated in a certain way. The plutonium disposition agreement needs to be revised to reflect that the US will pursue the cheaper option to dispose of plutonium as waste.
A front-page article in The State newspaper in Columbia, SC on January 27 outlined the problems facing MOX in an article entitled "Critics fear $7 billion SRS boondoggle- Building costs soar at nuclear fuel conversion plant near Aiken."
It has been confirmed that a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on MOX has begun, at the request of the House Energy & Water Subcommittee, which funds DOE programs. The report from the subcommittee on the Fiscal Year 2013 DOE budget states that "Due to the considerable issues surrounding the current [cost] estimates, the Committee directs the Comptroller General to investigate the existing cost estimates for completing construction, performing cold and hot startup activities, and annual facility operations. The Comptroller General is directed to report to the Committee
with an assessment of the extent to which current NNSA estimates provide an accurate representation of the costs and time to complete the facility and whether those estimates adhere to good federal cost estimating standards." On January 14, Representative Ed Markey submitted to DOE a list of key questions to DOE about costs and schedule issues with the MOX program, and DOE has until February 15 to respond. (See news release at: "Markey Perturbed Over Problematic Plutonium Plan" )
On January 29, a presentation entitled Fissile Materials Disposition Program Overview by Jeffrey Allison of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to a meeting of the SRS Citizens Advisory Board in Augusta, Georgia, presented no new information about the problem-plagued MOX project. A list of burning questions about costs and schedule of the MOX project were once again ignored and left unanswered, a bumbling strategy that has not well served NNSA or Shaw AREVA MOX Services.
At the end of the day, big-spending politicians such as Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Joe Wilson, both from South Carolina, may well have a lot of explaining to do as why they chose to drive up the national debt via their support of the bungled MOX program.
Cost Overruns Plague Energy Department Projects Pam Radtke Russell, CQ February 5, 2013 The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, known as MOX, isn't the only high-profile project by the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration that is behind schedule and over budget. Of the 51 projects listed on the department's monthly project dashboard, 10 are expected to breach their cost, schedule or scope.
"Unfortunately, MOX has become par for the NNSA course," said Laura Peterson of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
She said the Government Accountability Office has had the agency on its high-risk list for more than 20 years and that "cost overruns at NNSA alone totaled more than $15 billion in 2007."
Last year, NNSA administrators acknowledged they would have to spend an additional $500 million for a uranium processing facility at the government's Y-12 facility in Tennessee because the equipment wouldn't fit into the building.
And the agency put the $5 billion Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico on hold last year for at least five years.
In an attempt to curb the cost overruns, lawmakers included a provision in the fiscal 2013 Defense Authorization law (PL 112-239) that requires a "detailed estimate of budget requirements associated with sustaining and modernizing the nuclear deterrent of the United States."
Some lawmakers wanted to go further. A Senate amendment to the defense bill by Arizona Republican Jon Kyl and New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall would have created a congressional advisory panel to review the NNSA's structure and recommend changes -- including whether to strip the agency of its responsibilities for nonproliferation activities.
Daniel P. Stout, senior manager of Small Modular Reactor Technology at the Tennessee Valley Authority, will speak on Nuclear Energy Policy and Small Modular Reactors, 1:30 - 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 6, at the 308 Pasqua Engineering Building at the University of Tennessee. Stout will present a colloquium on TVA's initiative to build small modular reactors at the Clinch River Site in Oak Ridge. The colloquium is also being Webcast.
Republican concern over NRC post-Fukushima oversight spreads to Senate Hannah Northey, Environment & Energy Daily February 6, 2013 Concern among GOP lawmakers that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is moving ahead too quickly with costly rules to upgrade safety at U.S. reactors is now expanding to the Senate.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member David Vitter (R-La.) and six other senators asked NRC Chairwoman Allison Macfarlane in a letter whether the commission is rushing safety upgrades stemming from the 2011 nuclear disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant without considering differences between the two countries.
"We are concerned that the NRC appears to be moving forward with implementation of costly post-Fukushima recommendations beyond those identified as Tier 1 without fully analyzing the differences between the regulatory atmospheres of Japan and the United States," the senators wrote.
NRC is beefing up security at U.S. plants after three Japanese reactors were crippled by an earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. Emergency diesel generators needed to keep the units cool were washed away, allowing hydrogen to build up and trigger explosions and radioactive leaks.
Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Boozman of Arkansas, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Roger Wicker of Mississippi also signed the letter.
The Senate letter mirrors concerns expressed by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who indicated in a letter to Macfarlane last month that they plan to scrutinize NRC's new post-Fukushima safety upgrades with the same zeal with which they have homed in on U.S. EPA's clean air regulations (Greenwire, Jan. 16).
Both GOP letters focus on the NRC staff's recommendation that almost a third of the U.S. nuclear fleet install filtering systems to prevent explosions during accidents.
The staff recommended in November 2012 that plants with Mark I and Mark II containment systems -- identical to those of the Japanese reactors that were crippled last year -- install systems to avoid the buildup of explosive hydrogen gas. The systems can cost up to $45 million each.
The Nuclear Energy Institute is opposed to the staff proposal and has said U.S. operators follow detailed procedures during severe accidents that would direct them when to vent early, and installing new equipment won't prevent a radioactive release.
NARUC, nuclear industry ask court to reopen waste fee case Platts January 31, 2013 The national body of state utility regulators and the nuclear industry asked a federal appeals court Thursday to reopen its review of their lawsuit over the US Department of Energy's collection of a fee worth more than $750 million a year from nuclear utility customers for a waste program that no longer exists and to order the department to suspend that action.
The motion the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute filed with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the fee adequacy report the department filed with the court January 18 in connection with the case does not justify collection of the fee.
"DOE has based its conclusion to continue to collect the Nuclear Waste Fee, unabated, on a plan that has not been, and may never be, authorized and implemented by Congress," NARUC and NEI said in the motion.
The DOE fee report is based on a revamped nuclear waste strategy the department unveiled earlier in the month in which the waste program would be moved out of DOE to a separate entity. Under the DOE proposal, the new waste organization would use a consent-based process to site a pilot facility that would store spent fuel from permanently shut reactors, a larger consolidated storage facility and a repository. Congress must pass legislation to authorize the program changes envisioned.
The three-facility program would replace the waste program that DOE dismantled in 2010 that centered on a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. NARUC and NEI sued DOE in 2011 over the department's refusal to suspend collection of the fee even though there was no program to spend that money.
Nuclear utility customers are charged one-tenth of a cent for every kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity sold in order to bankroll the disposal of utility spent nuclear fuel. The fee is paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund, a federal trust fund that was valued at more than $28 billion in waste fee payments and interest late last year.
The petitioners added that the fee adequacy report analyzes 42 different scenarios but that none of them assess whether the money in the waste fund would be adequate to maintain the program if no new revenues are added.
"DOE's conclusion [in their report] that there is no compelling evidence of either insufficient or excessive funds is further belied by the extreme (to say the least) uncertainty in the ending waste fund balance scenarios predicted by DOE," petitioners said in the motion. "DOE's 42 scenarios have a range of $7 trillion, from the Nuclear Waste Fund having $4.9 trillion more than is needed to having $2 trillion too little."
NARUC and NEI added that even though most of the scenarios in the report "show the Nuclear Waste Fund is overfunded, DOE admits it made no effort to assess the probability of any of the scenarios." They said that, as a result, the scenarios are "as speculative as they are uncertain, and show that DOE failed to conduct a meaningful analysis."
Murkowski launches push for expanded drilling, green-energy policy revamp Ben Geman, The Hill February 4, 2013 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the top GOP member of the Senate's Energy panel, is spelling out her priorities in a sweeping blueprint that ranges from opening more federal lands and waters to oil drilling to launching a new green-energy "trust fund."
The ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is launching the "Energy 20/20" blueprint with a PR push that includes a speech Monday morning to state energy regulators and a briefing with Beltway reporters later in the day.
The blueprint -- which Murkowski hopes will launch a broad discussion of energy and resource policy direction in coming years -- includes some proposals that are extremely unlikely to advance any time soon, such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
But the blueprint also contains an array of other ideas, such as expediting liquefied natural-gas exports to U.S. allies; promoting use of small modular nuclear reactors and creating a new quasi-federal agency for nuclear waste management; and bolstering energy storage R&D, to name just a few.
It calls for steering some revenues from expanded oil-and-gas development into a new federal "Advanced Energy Trust Fund" to finance programs on renewable power and alternative fuels, energy efficiency and advanced vehicles.
E2-Wire will have more on the plan -- which also aims to thwart restrictions on coal, boost hydropower, and more -- and its reception later on Monday.
Report: Top EPA air quality official in line to replace outgoing administrator Peter Schroeder, The Hill February 2, 2013 A top official overseeing air quality is reportedly President Obama's preferred choice to take control of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
According to Reuters, Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for the agency's Office of Air and Radiation, is the leading contender to replace outgoing EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who announced her plans to leave the agency in December.
The report cited two sources familiar with the matter in placing McCarthy at the top spot, but another source cautioned that no decision has been made yet. Bob Perciasepe, who works as Jackson's deputy, is another name reportedly in the mix to take over the environmental watchdog, and an announcement could still be weeks away.
Before joining the EPA, McCarthy served as a top environmental regulator in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and has served under governors from both major parties. She also served as an environmental policy adviser to Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Whoever takes over the EPA would be taking the reins of an agency that is often caught in the partisan crossfire. Congressional Republicans mounted significant pressure on Jackson and the EPA during her tenure.
However, the next EPA head will also be in charge as Obama gears up to do more to tackle climate change. The issue was not a major priority in the president's first term, but he gave a spirited endorsement to efforts to fight the environmental changes in his second inaugural address, leading many to believe he will be mounting a new effort on that front.
"We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," he said. "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms."
Obama signs debt-ceiling bill Donovan Slack, Politico February 4, 2013 President Obama on Monday signed legislation suspending the nation's borrowing limit until May 18.
The "No Budget, No Pay Act Act of 2013" also mandates that pay for lawmakers be held in escrow starting April 16 until their chamber has passed a 2014 budget resolution.
The statement from press secretary Jay Carney:
"On Monday, February 04, 2013, the President signed into law: H.R. 325, the "No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013," which temporarily suspends the public debt limit until May 18, 2013; and provides for depositing payments for compensation of Members of either House of Congress in an escrow account beginning April 16, 2013, unless and until that House has passed a FY 2014 budget resolution."
President asks for second sequester delay Kelli Lunney, Government Executive February 5, 2013 President Obama on Tuesday urged lawmakers to again delay the automatic, governmentwide spending cuts before they take effect on March 1.
Congress should pass a short-term package that includes spending cuts and tax reforms to postpone sequestration for a few months if they cannot agree on a longer-term deficit reduction plan by the March 1 deadline, Obama said during a White House press conference.
"This doesn't have to happen," Obama said of the looming across-the-board cuts. He acknowledged that Congress might not be able to put together a full budget by March 1, and so should craft a short-term measure that gives lawmakers time to agree on a bigger deal and protects the economy from indiscriminate spending cuts in the meantime.
"If Congress can't act immediately on a bigger package, if they can't get a bigger package done by the time the sequester is scheduled to go into effect, then I believe that they should at least pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would delay the economically damaging effects of the sequester for a few more months until Congress finds a way to replace these cuts with a smarter solution," said Obama.
The president and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney both emphasized that the administration is looking for a combination of decreased spending and increased revenues in any deal Congress passes -- short- and long-term.
"I think a balanced mix of spending cuts and tax reform is the best way to finish the task of deficit reduction," Obama said. Carney reiterated that point during his briefing with reporters. "The principle of balance applies in all things," Carney said, in response to a question over what kind of short-term package Obama favored.
Congress would need to find about $85 billion in savings to put off the automatic spending cuts through the end of fiscal 2013.
Obama's remarks seemed only to strengthen the current stalemate between the White House and many GOP lawmakers on the proper equation of spending cuts and revenue increases in deficit reduction. "We welcome President Obama to the table, perhaps better late than never," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., in a joint statement. "We are, however, concerned that his proposal will include the same mix of tax increases and defense cuts that Democrats have advocated for in the past. We must be clear. This approach is neither responsible nor balanced." McKeon and Inhofe are the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, respectively.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement Tuesday that Republicans "have twice voted to replace these arbitrary cuts with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect our national defense." He also said that "Americans do not support sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes."
Obama also said Tuesday that the proposals he offered to Boehner during the fiscal cliff negotiations are "still very much on the table." One of those reported proposals included a switch to the chained consumer price index formula to determine cost-of-living adjustments for federal retirees and Social Security beneficiaries. That formula would result in lower COLAs for retirees, including federal and military retirees, over time.
The administration on Monday missed the annual deadline to submit its budget recommendation for fiscal 2014, citing uncertainty over the fiscal cliff and sequestration as reasons for the delay. The administration's proposal is expected sometime in March, though it's not clear when exactly.
Congress delayed the sequester's original Jan. 2 start date in the fiscal cliff deal approved in early January.
Agencies to outline sequester plans soon Stephen Losey, Federal Times February 5, 2013 Federal agencies may start telling their employees as early as Tuesday about the cost-cutting steps -- which could include furloughs -- they are preparing to take if the steep budget cuts known as sequestration take effect.
Obama administration officials told federal union leaders on Monday that the Office of Management and Budget was issuing instructions to agencies on how to inform employees about their sequestration plans.
Those contingency plans could include personnel actions, such as furloughs, as well as reviews of contracts and grants for potential savings, said National Treasury Employees Union National President Colleen Kelley in a statement to Federal Times.
Federal Times obtained a draft memo from the Interior Department that said it will cut travel, training, facilities, supplies, and other operational and administrative costs to save money.
"We will use any and all flexibilities we have to protect our core operations and mission," the draft memo said. "However, our ability to do so will be limited by the rigid nature of the cuts imposed by Congress."
Kelley said agencies' communications will not be official furlough notices. But the administration is reminding agencies that they must give employees appropriate notice before issuing furloughs or taking other personnel actions.
In the draft memo, Interior pledged to give at least 30 days' notice before furloughing employees.
Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry and OMB Controller Danny Werfel reportedly told union leaders that agencies are expected to discuss sequestration plans with their unions and include unions in their plans to communicate with employees.
But the American Federation of Government Employees blasted OMB for not ordering specific cuts to contract spending, such as freezing new service contracts, contract options, or approval of contract modifications.
"OMB has served up a buffet of cuts for agencies to make to the federal workforce," AFGE National President J. David Cox said. "With respect to civilian workers, it seems that everything is on the table: Hiring freezes, furloughs, terminating temporary or term employees and encouraging our most seasoned workers to separate or retire. Yet OMB still hasn't given agencies any useful or explicit guidance for reducing spending on service contracts."
Sequestration, which is scheduled to take effect March 1, would likely result in massive furloughs throughout the government through the rest of fiscal 2013.
In its draft memo to employees, the Interior Department said: "Should these cuts occur, they would be harmful not only to our agency, but to critical domestic and defense priorities across the government and across the country. However, given that less than one month remains until these cuts would take effect and given that the delay enacted by Congress would give us less time in which to make the required cuts, our senior leadership team is engaged in extensive planning efforts to determine how we would deal with sequestration."
Kelley said NTEU has asked its agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service and Customs and Border Protection, to start talking about what sequestration might mean, but does not yet have any details.
NTEU said that federal employees have already contributed $103 billion to pension reduction over a decade through the ongoing pay scale freeze and higher pension contributions, and hopes that agencies will first cut from government contracts and other areas before furloughing employees.
"Sequestration could have devastating financial consequences for the very people our country relies on," Kelley said. Sequestration's cuts "will result in serious harm to taxpayers who rely on the services provided by federal employees and agencies. The indiscriminate cuts will impact the ability of federal agencies to secure the borders, protect the food supply, test new drugs and medical devices, deliver school lunches, and collect the revenue needed to operate the government and address the deficit."
President Obama on Tuesday called on Congress to delay the sequester for a few months if lawmakers cannot agree on a way to permanently avert it. Obama said his proposed mix of increased tax revenues and spending cuts from last year is still on the table, and said a "balanced approach" is necessary to fix the deficit.
"If Congress cannot act immediately on a bigger package ... by the time the sequester is [scheduled to] take effect, I believe they should pass a smaller package of cuts and tax reforms to delay by a few more months the sequester," Obama said.
"There is no reason" that Americans who work in fields such as national security or education should suffer because Washington cannot agree on the components of a sequester-avoidance bill, Obama said. "Congress is already working on a budget to avoid the sequester, and we should give them more time."
But congressional Republicans quickly slammed Obama's demand for further additional revenues.
And William Dougan, national president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, said federal employees' patience is running thin with the looming threat of sequestration.
"Kicking the can down the road may be a good option for elected officials, but it does nothing to relieve the pressure on federal workers living in fear of a furlough notice landing on their desk," Dougan said.
Why the White House keeps missing its budget deadline Niraj Chokshi, National Journal February 5, 2013 When the White House missed its deadline to release a budget on Monday, officials did something a little unusual: They declined to say when the blueprint would be released.
The failure to meet the deadline was not new. Under federal law, the president is required to release a budget for the following fiscal year sometime between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. For three years running, President Obama hasn't submitted the document on time. (And, for three years running, Republicans have pounced on the delay.) Here are the excuses the White House has given each year:
2013: Blame Congress
This year, the White House pushed the blame onto Congress and its inability to avert, ahead of time, the impact of the fiscal cliff, the massive combined tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect right around the end of 2012. Jeffrey Zients, director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, explained the delay in a Jan. 11 letter to House Budget Committee Chairman and former vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan. "As you know, the protracted 'fiscal-cliff' negotiations ... created considerable uncertainty about revenue and spending for 2013 and beyond," Zients wrote. "[B]ecause these issues were not resolved until the American Taxpayer Relief Act was enacted on Jan. 2, 2013, the administration was forced to delay some of its FY 2014 budget preparations, which in turn will delay the budget's submission to Congress."
When asked whether the budget would come before or after the president's Feb. 12 State of the Union address, White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday said only, "I don't have a date for you for when that will happen."
2012: "Finalize Decisions"
The White House gave a terse explanation for skipping last year's deadline: "As in previous years, the date was determined based on the need to finalize decisions and technical details of the document," an administration official told reporters. In announcing the delay, however, the White House gave the date when the budget would land. It came out, as promised, on the second Monday in February.
2011: Blame Congress: The Prequel
The budget proposal due out in 2011 was also released a week late. At the time, the administration blamed Congress on two counts: for taking six weeks to confirm the White House budget director and for its late approval of legislation to fund the government. "The administration is scrambling to assemble what could be a pivotal document following a six-week delay in the confirmation of the White House's new budget director," The Wall Street Journal reported at the time, citing a senior administration official. "The official also cited Congress's late moves to fund government operations for the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1."
Five Energy/Environment Hill Staffers to Watch Amy Harder, National Journal February 3, 2013 Congress is unlikely to tackle any major energy and environment legislation through regular order. So if any sliver of policy does get through either or both chambers, it will be thanks to the small cadre of energy and environment aides in congressional leadership offices. Here's who you need to know.
Alexander McDonough, senior policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
You know you have the trust of the top Democrat in the Senate when he directs you to oversee efforts to block Yucca Mountain, the now-defunct nuclear-waste repository site 90 miles from Las Vegas that President Obama shut down in large part because of Reid's staunch opposition to it. McDonough has managed Yucca for the better part of the seven years he has worked for Reid. The majority leader just promoted McDonough to be his top energy and environment adviser after Chris Miller, Reid's longtime energy and environment aide, left Congress after more than a quarter-century on Capitol Hill.
"They replaced him with someone who Reid trusts and counts on and has handled difficult issues for him already," said former Reid deputy chief of staff Kai Anderson, who worked with McDonough. Like many top leadership staffers, McDonough is responsible for writing policy and then orchestrating that policy within an increasingly partisan political environment.
"The portfolio is going to be even more complicated than the one he had before," said Anderson, who is now chief strategy officer and executive vice president at lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates. "There will be more broad-based responsibility working across the caucus."
Besides Yucca Mountain, McDonough has spent much of his time in Reid's office focusing on public lands and water infrastructure, two issues important to Nevada. As the top aide in this space, McDonough must now focus on more-political issues like repealing oil and natural-gas tax breaks (something Reid said last week he's planning on seeking as part of the sequestration debate) and defending the administration's authority to regulate carbon emissions.
Neil Chatterjee, senior policy adviser to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Seeking to shape policy and determine what issues get floor time when you're in the minority is a tricky job. But McConnell, with advice from Chatterjee, forced votes on a whole host of issues in the last Congress, including the Keystone XL pipeline and Environmental Protection Agency rules to control greenhouse-gas emissions. Expect much of the same this session as these two issues get even more intense when Obama finally makes his post-election decision on the pipeline project and EPA moves into the most controversial parts of its global-warming rulemaking. In addition to the big-ticket political issues in energy and environment, Chatterjee plays a central role working with committees and across the aisle on agricultural and transportation issues. In the last Congress, he helped both the farm-bill extension and the transportation bill cross the finish line.
Aaron Cutler, soon-to-be-announced director for strategic development and senior policy adviser for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.
Cantor's office is expected to announce this week that he has selected Cutler, deputy policy director and counsel on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as his policy adviser, National Journal has learned. Cutler will replace Mike Ference, who recently left Cantor's office to join a lobbying firm. When he was in Cantor's office, Ference advised the congressman on a number of policy issues, including energy and environment, technology and telecommunications, banking, and financial services. Cutler has spent about four years on the Energy Committee, focusing much of that time on energy and Clean Air Act issues.
Maryam Brown, senior energy policy adviser to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
From her new perch in the speaker's office, Brown will be instrumental in coordinating political strategy with the House Energy and Commerce Committee--where she most recently worked--and with Senate Republicans on how to capitalize on and urge approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Brown also will be critical in shaping the House GOP leadership's position on whether any oil and natural-gas tax breaks should be repealed as part of a tax-code overhaul. Brown is no stranger to Congress. She has worked for the Senate Republican Policy Committee and was staff director for the House Natural Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee. Her private-sector experience is heavy on oil, including ConocoPhillips and Amoco.
Mary Frances Repko, senior policy adviser to House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Repko is considered to have some of the deepest institutional knowledge of energy and environment issues among congressional aides. Indeed, she has a résumé stacked with Hill experience going back to 1994, including senior positions on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Repko is focusing much of her time on Hurricane Sandy relief efforts and what more the government could do to ensure communities are prepared for other extreme-weather events.
While most policy that Repko is working on probably won't see the light of day while Democrats are in the minority in the House, she did note that Boehner has been increasingly relying on Democratic votes to get big legislation, including the $50 billion Sandy-aid package, through the chamber. "There will continue to be times when Republicans will need Democratic votes in order to pass things," Repko said. "We continue to look for those opportunities where we can have a chance to work with the majority."
A central nuclear waste repository is years away The Washington Post Editorial Board February 3, 2013 IT HAS BEEN 15 years since the federal government was legally obliged -- but failed -- to begin accepting waste from the country's nuclear power plants. It has been four years since President Obama zeroed out funds for a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., eliminating hope that the government would live up to its obligation anytime soon. And, according to the Obama administration's new strategy for dealing with nuclear waste, it will be another 35 years until the government opens a permanent repository at a different site, location as yet unknown. Even if the government meets its new timetable, that adds up to 50 years of delay, a not-in-my-back-yard nightmare that the country is only partway through.
More than 68,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have accumulated next to U.S. reactors, which weren't designed for long-term storage, and that figure is increasing by about 2,000 metric tons every year. Even decommissioned nuclear facilities require gates and guards to protect the waste, a ridiculous misuse of land and money. Meanwhile, consumers financing a federal waste disposal fund through their electricity bills wonder what they've been paying for, and the federal government's financial liability for failing to collect the waste, already in the billions, continues to mount. The situation is safe enough, but it could be safer, and it's inexcusably expensive.
Since the president helped to kill the Yucca project, his administration has borne a particular responsibility to devise a workable way to clean up this mess.
Last month the Energy Department finally released its proposal. It is a reasonable plan for post-Yucca policymaking that nevertheless relies on a big assumption -- that someplace in the country will volunteer to host some waste.
The administration wants to build at least two centralized, interim storage facilities where waste could sit before its eventual transfer to a permanent repository. The first, to open by 2021, would be a pilot storage facility designed to take waste from decommissioned nuclear sites. The second would open by 2025; in combination, these facilities would draw down the amount of waste stored at current and decommissioned reactor sites. When the anticipated permanent repository comes online -- supposedly by 2048 -- the waste would move there.
Every step, the administration insists, must be "consent-based," with localities accepting waste facilities in return for their economic benefits and perhaps some additional compensation. Congress tried forcing Nevada to take the country's waste, the thinking goes; this time, the government should try recruitment rather than compulsion. We are skeptical that many localities would volunteer to host waste facilities, particularly the permanent repository, no matter the economic benefits. But perhaps the administration's staged approach might be a way to convince communities, with each step building confidence that this material can be stored safely.
DOE IG Report, The National Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition Program DOE IG January 29, 2013
The National Nuclear Security Administration met or exceeded its nuclear weapons dismantlement and nuclear weapon components disposition program goals for FYs 2010 and 2011. However, we noted potential issues related to the infrastructure for staging nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon components, and other weapon components at the Pantex Plant that could impact future dismantlement efforts and other Directed Stockpile Work programs. According to Pantex officials, as the infrastructure for staging nuclear materials at Pantex continues to age without needed improvements, Pantex may not be able to provide the level of protection required for safe and secure staging operations of nuclear materials. The security system in place to protect the Plant's Zone 4 Material Access Area was installed in the 1990s with an expected useful life of 20 years and has been due for refurbishment. Additionally, warehouses containing pits and nuclear explosives are deteriorating and in need of varying degrees of repairs. We also noted that facilities Pantex uses to stage weapon components are nearing their capacity levels. Additionally, Pantex could not provide documentation showing the estimated volume of space needed to store weapon components from future dismantlements and volume of space created through the disposition of components to demonstrate sufficient storage capacity for future dismantlement operations.
|
|
