THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 26, 1995 TAG: 9501260353
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: D1 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Medium: 99 lines
Department of Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary spoke at Norfolk State University on Wednesday. O'Leary, a native of Newport News, has been fanning across the country talking up the Clinton administration agenda.
Staff reporter James Schultz spoke with the secretary about her department's policies and prospects.
Q: How would you describe to the average person exactly what the Department of Energy does?
A. It has a three- or four-pronged mission. The heart and soul of it is science and technology. The Department of Energy has responsibility for 27 national laboratories, whose science and technology has really powered progress and growth in the United States in the last 40 years.
We're responsible for the supercomputing that now makes it possible for us to solve problems. I would then go to our national defense mission, our national security mission, responsible for the civilian side of designing, manufacturing, the material for and building of the nuclear weapons that helped us to win World War II and the Cold War.
We have responsibility for the cleanup of all of the toxic and poisonous material used to produce those weapons that helped us win the cold and the hot wars. Finally, we have the responsibility for setting and implementing the national resources policy of this nation.
It is a department whose reach is awesome and impacts the lives of every American, albeit they don't realize it.
Q: One of the local issues in Hampton Roads has been nuclear waste - the fact that the area is a ship-through point for U.S. waste shipped mostly from Europe. What is the DOE doing to change its nuclear-waste disposal policy?
A. Several things. First of all, the people here in Tidewater need to understand the United States is trying to move bomb-grade material out of the hands of people who cannot secure it. Twenty years ago, we signed a treaty with our counterparts in Eastern and Western Europe, saying: ``If you will stop using weapons-grade nuclear material for your research reactors, those reactors that help us develop the isotopes with which we're treated for thyroid condition, with which we get a CAT scan and the like, we agree to take that material back.'' We wanted those research reactors to use a much lower-grade nuclear material.
We're taking as much material as we can possibly get back. We don't want it on the market where nuclear nations such as Iran, Israel and Iraq can get it and use it. And we don't want it to fall in the hands of terrorists.
Q. What's the future of nuclear power in this country? What are we going to do when we have to decommission these aging nuclear fission reactors on which we've come to rely for power?
A. When I came into the job as the secretary of energy, the commitment made in 1981 to have a deep repository for the spent commercial nuclear fuel had not been met and could not have been met. Several people in the Congress this year have introduced legislation to untie my hands so that I can start on an interim facility which would be government-owned or operated, but does not force each utility to store at site.
It's going to be a big debate as we go through the 104th Congress. Some utilities, if the government does not provide this interim storage facility, might have to close down their generating stations. We cannot as a nation afford to do without that energy.
Q. Are we looking aggressively enough into alternative energy sources, like solar and wind power?
A. Yes, to quote one of my favorite movies and books, ``I'm Dancing as Fast as I Can.'' When we came into this administration, the expenditure and the commitment to alternative energy and energy efficiency were very modest. We've changed that in terms of the way we focus our work and the way we focus our budget.
We presented in the first year, five weeks after we were in office, the first billion-dollar budget in support of alternative energy and renewable energy.
In the time since I last left the Carter administration, I've seen wind power become competitive in the marketplace. Solar, photovoltaics are very promising. There's a firm right here in Newport News that produces thin (photovoltaic) film that can be used for applications on roofs and is very acceptable esthetically.
Q. With all the talk about government downsizing, is the Department of Energy worth keeping? Why shouldn't it be abolished and its various functions folded into other Cabinet-level agencies?
A. We have looked at the constitutionally mandated functions, especially in the national security and the nonproliferation initiatives. We've looked at the science and the technology. And we've looked at the environmental management work.
And we've asked ourselves two questions. One: How does it get run best? It gets run best if it's effective and it's cohesive and it has a mission. We're cohesive, we have a mission and, more importantly, we've shown we can run the department as a business proposition.
I've already saved $5 billion in two years, before anybody told me to, because as a good businessperson I knew I could. I have now committed to save $10 billion over five years.
We're clear we can do it better and we can do it cheaper. On balance, the nation is better off with the Department of Energy. ILLUSTRATION: Color photo by Motoya Nakamura, Staff
Hazel O'Leary
KEYWORDS: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY by CNB