[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2278, THE RESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017; AND H.R. 2389, TO REAUTHORIZE THE WEST
VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 18, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-130
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-962 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, CaliforniaL RUIZ,
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Environment
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOE BARTON, Texas RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio TONY CARDENAS, California
BILL FLORES, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina DORIS O. MATSUI, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
TIM WALBERG, Michigan officio)
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 49
Witnesses
Hon. Tom Reed, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
York........................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Mark Gilbertson, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Regulatory and Policy Affairs, Office of Environmental
Management, Department of Energy............................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions............................... 58
Noah Shaw, General Counsel and Secretary, New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority............................. 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Answers to submitted questions............................... 64
Submitted Material
Statement of Carmelo Melendez, U.S. Department of Energy......... 50
Answers to submitted questions............................... 54
Statement of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment.................................................... 52
Letter of May 18, 2018 from Hon. Scott R. Tipton, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, to the
subcommittee................................................... 53
H.R. 2278, THE RESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017; AND
H.R. 2389, TO REAUTHORIZE THE WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
----------
FRIDAY, MAY 18, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus,
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Shimkus, McKinley, Johnson,
Flores, Walberg, Duncan, Tonko, and Green.
Staff Present: Samantha Bopp, Staff Assistant; Daniel
Butler, Staff Assistant; Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk,
Energy and Environment; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Staff
Assistant; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment;
Zach Hunter, Director of Communications; Mary Martin, Chief
Counsel, Energy and Environment; Drew McDowell, Executive
Assistant; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member,
Energy; Austin Stonebraker, Press Assistant; Everett Winnick,
Director of Information Technology, Priscilla Barbour, Minority
Energy Fellow; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff
Director, Energy and Environment; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff
Assistant; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tuley
Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; and
Catherine Zander, Minority Environment Fellow.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. The Subcommittee on the Environment will now
come to order.
The chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
Thank you for joining us at this morning's hearing to
review legislation to reauthorize two projects within the
Department of Energy's portfolio of environmental remediation
activities.
I am pleased to report that last week, the House
overwhelmingly passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act
of 2018. This long overdue legislation provides a disposal path
for commercial spent nuclear fuel and our nation's defense
high-level radioactive waste. This defense waste material
requires the most careful handling and the most stringent
isolation requirements in the Federal Government's inventory.
However, extensive decontamination work remains to be
accomplished across the country at DOE sites.
DOE's Office of Environmental Management faces a
significant workload to complete decontamination work at legacy
Cold War sites. Since its establishment about 30 years ago,
Environmental Management has successfully remediated 92 sites,
but the most technologically challenging projects remain in
process at 17 locations.
This morning, Mr. Mark Gilbertson will represent the
Department on issues addressed in the legislature proposals.
Since this committee last discussed the critical programs under
the Office of Environmental Management, the Department has
welcomed a new Assistant Secretary, Anne White. We look forward
to working with Assistant Secretary White on the rest of
Environmental Management's portfolio.
Our hearing today will discuss one of the Department's
unique projects. During the early years of our nation's
civilian nuclear industry, New York State leased land to a
private entity to demonstrate the feasibility of reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel. The legacy cleanup at the site, known as
West Valley Demonstration Project, is jointly overseen by DOE
and the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, on behalf of New York State.
Prior to his election to Congress, the ranking member of
this subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, was the President and CEO of
NYSERDA. I look forward to the unique perspective and the
interests he brings to this morning's hearing based on his
previous experience.
In 1980, Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration
Project Act to direct DOE to partner with New York to address
legacy environmental issues, and authorized $5 million to spend
on this project for fiscal year 1981. The project has not been
reauthorized since, and Congressman Reed's bill provides
Congress a chance to review the project. The lingering question
of how to dispose of the high-level radioactive waste, which
was generated prior to passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
is an important one that needs further examination.
I welcome my colleague here this morning, and thank Mr.
Reed whenever he shows up, for his leadership on behalf of his
constituents to bring attention to ongoing issues at the West
Valley site.
DOE will provide context regarding key upcoming milestones
and remaining challenges at the West Valley site, while NYSERDA
will give a voice to the New York State government. These
respective viewpoints provide this subcommittee important
information as Congress considers the next steps at the site.
We will also receive testimony on a bipartisan bill
sponsored by Congressman Tipton to extend the authorization of
the Grand Junction, Colorado, disposal cell. Mining and
processing uranium generate a byproduct known as uranium mill
tailings. Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act 40 years ago to establish a framework for DOE to
dispose of mill tailings. The bill also authorized the Grand
Junction, Colorado, site to serve as a disposal location.
H.R. 2278, the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act,
extends the site's authorization for another 25 years. The
proactive reauthorization exemplifies the foresight needed for
these disposal sites to plan accordingly.
I am pleased to hold the hearing today, and I look forward
to the testimony.
And with that, I have a minute remaining. Does anyone seek
the rest of my time?
Seeing none, the chair now recognizes the ranking member of
the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Thank you for joining us at this morning's hearing to
review legislation to reauthorize two projects within the
Department of Energy's (DOE) portfolio of environmental
remediation activities.
I am pleased to report that last week the House
overwhelmingly passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act
of 2018. This long-overdue legislation provides a disposal path
for commercial spent nuclear fuel and our nation's defense
high-level radioactive waste. This defense waste material
requires the most careful handling and the most stringent
isolation requirements in the Federal government's inventory;
however, extensive decontamination work remains to be
accomplished across the country at DOE sites.
DOE's Office of Environmental Management faces a
significant workload to complete decontamination work at legacy
Cold War sites. Since its establishment about 30 years ago, EM
has successfully remediated 92 sites, but the most
technologically challenging projects remain in process at 17
locations.
This morning Mr. Mark Gilbertson will represent the
Department on the issues addressed in the legislative
proposals. Since this Committee last discussed the critical
programs under the Office of Environmental Management, the
Department has welcomed a new Assistant Secretary, Anne White.
We look forward to working with Assistant Secretary White on
the rest of EM's portfolio.
Our hearing today will discuss one of the Department's
unique projects. During the early years of our nation's
civilian nuclear industry, New York State leased land to a
private entity to demonstrate the feasibility of reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel. The legacy cleanup at the site, known as
the West Valley Demonstration Project, is jointly overseen by
DOE and the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, on behalf of New York State.
Prior to his election to Congress, the Ranking Member of
this Subcommittee, Mr.Tonko, was the President and CEO of
NYSERDA. I look forward to the unique perspective and interest
he brings to this morning's hearing based on his previous
experience.
In 1980, Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration
Project Act to direct DOE to partner with New York to address
legacy environmental issues and authorized five million dollars
to spend on this project for Fiscal Year 1981. The project has
not been reauthorized since and Congressman Reed's bill
provides Congress a chance to review the project. The lingering
question of how to dispose of the high-level radioactive waste,
which was generated prior to passage of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, is an important one that needs further examination.
I welcome my colleague here this morning and thank Mr. Reed
for his leadership on behalf of his constituents to bring
attention to ongoing issues at the West Valley site.
DOE will provide context regarding key upcoming milestones
and remaining challenges at the West Valley site, while NYSERDA
will give a voice to the New York State government. These
respective viewpoints provide this Subcommittee important
information as Congress considers the next steps at the site.
We will also receive testimony on a bipartsian bill
sponsored by Congressman Tipton to extend the authorization of
the Grand Junction, Colorado disposal cell. Mining and
processing uranium generate a byproduct known as uranium mill
tailings. Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act 40 years ago to establish the framework for DOE to
dispose of mill tailings. The bill also authorized the Grand
Junction, Colorado site to serve as a disposal location.
H.R. 2278, the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act,
extends the site's authorization for another 25 years. The
proactive reauthorization exemplifies the foresight needed for
these disposal sites to plan accordingly.
I am pleased to hold this hearing today and look forward to
the testimony.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, first, let me welcome our colleague from New York, Mr.
Reed, to discuss his bill on the West Valley Demonstration
Project. Thank you for your interest, Tom. It is an important
part of the energy concept in New York and environmental
concerns.
I also want to welcome our other witnesses, Mark Gilbertson
of DOE's Office of Environmental Management, and Noah Shaw, who
I am proud to say is representing my former employer, the New
York State Energy Research and Development Authority. NYSERDA
is, I think, a great collection of consummate professionals.
Thank you, Noah, for being part of that and for the legal
expertise you provide and for your commitment to West Valley.
It is incredibly important.
Thank you both for joining us for this legislative hearing
on two bills: H.R. 2278, the Responsible Disposal
Reauthorization Act of 2017; and H.R. 2389, to reauthorize the
West Valley Demonstration Project.
While this committee, under the leadership of Chair
Shimkus, has made progress in addressing some of our nation's
most significant nuclear waste challenges, a number of
outstanding issues remain.
DOE's Office of Environmental Management was established to
remediate sites contaminated with high-level radioactive waste,
spent nuclear fuel, excess uranium and plutonium, and
contaminated soil and groundwater. These sites located across
the country are dealing with the legacy of our nation's entry
into the atomic age.
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act established
a process for remediating an active uranium or processing
sites, such as the site in Grand Junction, Colorado. H.R. 2278
would authorize DOE to continue to operate the Cheney Disposal
Cell until September 30 of 2048, or until the disposal cell is
filled to capacity. Currently, DOE is authorized to operate
this cell through September of 2023.
I want to give some additional attention to Mr. Reed's
legislation. The bill authorizes some $75 million for the West
Valley Demonstration Project for fiscal years 2017 through
2026. This is identical to the amount appropriated in fiscal
year 2018, and will ensure the cleanup will continue on
schedule. But West Valley is a unique site. Its history is
unlike other properties, and this has caused the point of
disagreement between the relevant stakeholders for decades,
which is addressed in the other provision of H.R. 2389.
From 1966 through 1972, the Western New York Nuclear
Service Center was the only privately-owned facility for spent
nuclear fuel reprocessing in the United States. When that
business ceased operating, the site eventually reverted back to
its owner, New York State. And, of course, DOE's predecessor,
the Atomic Energy Commission, was intimately involved in the
operation of the site.
Approximately 60 percent of the spent nuclear fuel
reprocess at the site came from Hanford, and 80 percent of the
recovered plutonium was returned to Hanford. Ultimately, this
activity resulted in transuranic waste and high-level nuclear
waste continuing to be stored at that site.
This bill is not the first time Congress has had to
consider a unique solution to address West Valley. In 1980,
Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration Project Act,
which directed DOE to carry out high-level radioactive waste
management. This bill made DOE responsible for 90 percent of
the cost of the site's cleanup. And 2 years later, the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act made it clear that costs resulting from
permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste from atomic
energy defense activities should be paid by the Federal
Government. However, since 1986, based on a DOE IG report, DOE
has classified the high-level waste at West Valley as
commercial waste, rather than waste deriving from atomic energy
defense activities.
Under this formulation, DOE believes the cost for disposal
of the waste should be borne by the State of New York due to
its ownership of the site, and that is the crux of the
disagreement. I understand that DOE will reiterate that under
the statute. It cannot own the waste at West Valley. But that
is immaterial to the question of who is responsible for bearing
the cost of cleaning up and disposing of it.
The standard under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is whether
the waste was generated in whole or in part from any atomic
energy defense activity or at any facility used in connection
with any such activity. Under the Act it is either defense
related or not.
So where the waste generated, as a result of atomic energy
defense activities, I think the record is clear that this is
the case for West Valley. The high-level radioactive waste and
transuranic waste left at this site are primarily from atomic
energy defense activities and should be disposed of as such,
but obviously this issue remains unsettled, which is why we are
here today.
I look forward to a full debate on West Valley this
morning. And even if this bill does not move forward, I will
continue to urge DOE to engage with the State of New York to
try to each an understanding on this critical issue.
So, Mr. Chair, I thank you again, and yield back, and look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair doesn't see the chairman of the full committee
nor the ranking member, so with that, we will conclude our
member opening statements.
The Chair would like to remind members that pursuant to
committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made
part of the record.
We want to thank all our witnesses for being here today and
taking the time to testify before this subcommittee. Today's
witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening statements
followed by a round of questions, although we usually don't
question Members of Congress, especially you.
Mr. Tonko. There was a key word there: ``usually.''
Mr. Shimkus. That is right.
Our first witness panel for today's hearing includes the
Honorable Tom Reed, Member of the U.S. House of
Representatives, from the great State of New York. With that,
sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM REED, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Reed. Well, thank you very much, Chairman. And good
morning to my colleagues, to the Ranking Member Tonko and my
fellow colleagues on the committee today. Thank you for an
opportunity to address you and to offer testimony in regards to
the legislation.
I am proud to have introduced H.R. 2389, to reauthorize the
West Valley Demonstration Project, along with my colleagues,
Congressman Nadler and Higgins, and the late Congresswoman
Slaughter.
Nuclear cleanup sites must be at the top of the priority
list. There are still nuclear sites in the United States that
need to be managed and cleaned up. The Western New York Nuclear
Service Center in my district is one such site.
The Department of Energy estimates that making the
investments needed now in nuclear site remediation will save
our nation hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming
decades. The cleanup at this site, designated the West Valley
Demonstration Project, is very important to our constituents in
New York State, as nuclear waste cleanup is a matter of
environmental health and the health and safety of our fellow
citizens.
I have worked with the constituents on the West Valley
Citizen Task Force, the Department of Energy, State and local
officials, along with my colleagues in Congress, to raise
awareness about the need for consistent funding at this
facility. Given the public safety issue of dealing with
radioactive waste and the long-term cost savings, this bill
makes good sense from a governmental and a financial
standpoint.
H.R. 2389 will provide the necessary resources over a
sufficient number of years to continue the cleanup work
required by the Demonstration Project Act. At its core, the
Western New York Nuclear Service Center was an Atomic Energy
Commission project. And because New York State was encouraged
by the AEC to develop it, the Federal Government should provide
a disposal path for all waste on the site.
Records show that the majority of waste at the site was the
result of reprocessing federally owned nuclear fuel, most of it
from the Federal Government's Hanford facility in Washington
State. The result of that reprocessing then went to the Federal
Government, in some part for weapons research or weapons use.
In summary, this bill will authorize sufficient funding to
continue the cleanup work and reduce overall life cycle costs
and treat all radioactive waste at the site as resulting from
the atomic energy defense activities. I appreciate your
commitment to this important issue, and encourage you and your
staffs to continue working with our office, as we will work
with you to solve this important issue.
Thank you very much for your time this morning. I do look
forward to your questions, but hopefully you will honor the
commitment of not asking those questions of your witness before
you.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The gentleman from Texas, do you seek recognition?
Mr. Flores. No, I was just going to ask him a hard
question, but I know he couldn't answer it so----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
So thank you, Tom, for being here. Obviously, you have got
a good ally and friend who is the ranking member of the
subcommittee. We have worked well on a lot of issues together,
so this will be something new for many of us, and we look
forward to finding out more about it.
With that, you are dismissed.
Mr. Reed. Thank you very much. Have a good day.
Mr. Shimkus. And we will sit the second panel down.
So welcome.
Joining us now is Mr. Mark Gilbertson, Associate Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary, that is a mouthful, for Regulatory
and Policy Affairs, the Office of Environmental Management,
Department of Energy.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARK GILBERTSON, ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR REGULATORY AND POLICY AFFAIRS, OFFICE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Gilbertson. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and
members of the subcommittee. I also would like to recognize
Representative Reed's interest on behalf of his district and
the support for the West Valley site. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to represent the
Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management. I
will provide you with an overview of the impacts of the bill,
H.R. 2389, which proposes to amend the West Valley
Demonstration Act.
Regarding the bill, the Department has several concerns.
Section 1(b) of the bill appears to be inconsistent with
section 5(b) of the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, as
it could be construed to have the effect of assigning the
Department the responsibility and financial liability for all
radioactive waste at West Valley resulting from atomic energy
defense activities.
Further, section 1(b) would not be consistent with the
Department's financial responsibilities that are clearly
defined in existing laws, agreements, and settlements, as well
as the Department's historical position on responsibilities and
liabilities for the vitrified commercial high-level radioactive
waste.
For example, the consent decree entered into by the State
of New York and the Federal Government provides that the
Federal Government is only responsible for 50 percent of the
cost, depending on the activity, for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission licensed disposal area.
The Federal Government and the State of New York have
reached similar allocation agreements regarding other cleanup
activities at West Valley. The proposed bill contradicts,
without expressly eliminating, these legally binding
agreements. This could also set a precedent for the
Department's liability for disposal costs for other commercial
waste that would be designated as defense waste.
The Department's historical position has been and remains
that the high-level radioactive waste was generated as a result
of commercial activities. And the explicit mission of the AEC,
Atomic Energy Commission, was to foster a private nuclear
industry, including a private reprocessing capability. The
Atomic Energy Commission made its reprocessing technology
available to private industry and also provided spent nuclear
fuel for reprocessing operations in order to incentivize
private investment and reprocessing business operations.
While 60 percent of the spent nuclear fuel reprocessed at
West Valley did come from the end reactor at Hanford, this
reactor generated both electricity and plutonium for the
nuclear weapons program. This arrangement was agreed to in a
deliberative manner to honor the Federal Government's
commitment to provide spent nuclear fuel to support West
Valley's commercial reprocessing operations.
The contract to provide spent fuel from the Department for
reprocessing at West Valley was entered into for this purpose,
not as a means to manage or dispose of defense spent nuclear
fuel. The West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980
explicitly assigns title to the West Valley vitrified
commercial high-levelradioactive waste with the State, and
deferred the question of its ultimate disposition to generic
legislation then under consideration.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, passed just 2 years
later, did not alter the West Valley Demonstration Act
provisions. The disposition of the West Valley vitrified
commercial high-level radioactive waste was the responsibility
of New York State and not the Department.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to
represent the Department's views on H.R. 2389. The Department's
Office of Environmental Management is committed to achieving
its mission and will continue to apply innovative environmental
cleanup strategies to complete its work at West Valley in a
safe, efficient, and cost effective manner, to serve as a
strong steward of taxpayer resources.
I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilbertson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, sir.
And now we will go to a round of questions, and I will
start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
When Congress directed the Department to partner with the
State of New York to remediate this site, Congress explicitly
prohibited DOE from acquiring title to any high-level
radioactive waste at the site. This leaves the waste in the
hands of the State of New York. As we will hear from the next
witness, Congress recognized that the Federal Government had a
role in cleaning up the site, and Congress has met this
commitment by appropriating over $1.4 billion just over the
last 20 years for this purpose. H.R. 2389 would reclassify the
waste as a result from atomic energy defense activities,
thereby affecting previously established disposal
responsibility.
According to New York, there is a balance of nearly $30
million set aside to pay for disposal costs in a trust fund
from a legacy account in 2016. But in 1986, the DOE, Department
of Energy IG, said that the State would owe $68 million to the
Nuclear Waste Fund.
Has DOE reassessed how much would be due to the waste fund
based on that outdated estimate?
Mr. Gilbertson. Thank you for that question. We have not
reassessed that amount recently in recent times, and I would
like to take that question for the record.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Has DOE conducted any preliminary
cost analysis to determine how much it would cost to dispose of
West Valley waste, either at a commercial facility for the
Greater-than-Class C or at another disposal facility?
Mr. Gilbertson. Thank you for that question. At the present
time, the Department has not analyzed that particular cost
because the repository is not available to take the waste.
Mr. Shimkus. Would you agree that having that information
would be helpful to move the conversation forward?
Mr. Gilbertson. Could you please repeat that, sir?
Mr. Shimkus. We are asking these questions obviously to put
in the record but also try to figure out how we move forward.
Do you think that our ability to have that information will
help us deliberate and decide to move forward in one way or
another?
Mr. Gilbertson. I believe it would help you.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. That's all the questions I have.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the sub, Mr.
Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Shimkus.
Mr. Gilbertson, thank you for being here and for the work
done by the Office of Environmental Management. I hope today's
discussion can help us better understand some of the
disagreements around the West Valley site.
In October of 2016, members of New York's delegation,
including Mr. Reed, who we just heard from, and myself, wrote
to DOE regarding West Valley. And we asked for calculations,
including the method of such calculations of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act disposal fee for the State of New York and how much
it would have to pay if such a fee were to be assessed both
today and in 2048.
Now, in response to the chair, you just indicated that you
will work on that information and get it to the subcommittee,
and I hope it does include the methodology along with the
number. I think that would be useful information. And so, thank
you for agreeing to provide that to the committee.
In DOE's response to that October 2016 letter, DOE stated,
and I quote, ``There may be considerable merit in disposing of
the West Valley high-level waste and defense high-level waste
in the same repository.'' And we do believe such a conversation
is timely and would welcome a dialogue with the State of New
York and other interested parties with respect to the potential
disposal of the West Valley high-level waste.
I understand from the State that other than one initial
meeting, and I believe that was in March of 2017, DOE has not
responded to requests to engage in any such discussion. Can you
or will you commit to following up with the State of New York
on this matter and to provide whatever information you can in
response to the State's request?
Mr. Gilbertson. Thank you for that question. We have an
ongoing dialogue with the State where we are exploring through
the Phase II planning process, which I am sure you are aware
of, the ultimate disposition of a lot of the materials on the
site. So it has been a conversation and I agree that it will be
a conversation going into the future. So, yes, we will talk
with the State, continue to talk with the State about that.
Mr. Tonko. All right. And NYSERDA's review of documents
from the West Valley site shows that 60 percent of the
materials sent to West Valley was from facilities where defense
activities were underway and that 80 percent of the reprocessed
plutonium shipped out of West Valley was sent to Federal
defense facilities. Also, that the character of the materials
was suitable for bomb making, not civilian uses.
So do you have any reason to question these facts? And
would you agree that if they are true, then the West Valley
waste was generated at least in part related to defense
activities?
Mr. Gilbertson. Thank you for that question. Those facts
are facts that have been known for a long period of time. They
have been known since when the original act was put into place.
It is the Department's position, based on that set of facts,
that the materials that we provided were for commercial
purposes and not defense. So I think that we stipulate that the
facts are the correct facts. We have a different interpretation
of what that material is.
Mr. Tonko. I would hope that these would be the cornerstone
of the discussion between the State of New York and the
Department.
In your testimony, you noted that DOE does not own the West
Valley site. As I understand it, this bill does not implicate
ownership. And the question whether the waste is related to
defense activities does not need to be directly linked to who
technically owns it.
Apart from the ownership question, is there any evidence
that has caused DOE to believe that the majority of this waste
is not related at least in part to defense activities?
Mr. Gilbertson. So we go back to the origins of the intent
of why the material was provided to West Valley. The material
was provided to West Valley for commercial purposes, which is
why we have the split with regard to costs we are doing the
work at the sites that we do. So we believe that this is the
long-standing position that we have, it is commercial material.
Mr. Tonko. But you say that, but the products sent back
were all usable or characterized as defense related, the
reprocessed materials. So how can you suggest that there is not
a defense-related component to that?
Mr. Gilbertson. So the materials that were taken back, you
are right, the percentages of materials have been known for a
long time where they went, it was part of a commercial process.
So we believe that the material was provided originally to a
commercial kind of process, would allow it to be sold back as a
commercial entity, and so----
Mr. Tonko. But if it is sold to a private entity doesn't
mean it is ranked commercialized; it was being used for
defense-related purposes. Isn't that at the crux of this
question here? Isn't that the big debate? And doesn't it
suggest or indicate strongly that it is defense related?
Mr. Gilbertson. So I believe this set of facts and
information was known when the act was put in place originally
when we entered into negotiations with the State of New York.
We have moved forward with the cleanup with regard to the
division of responsibilities and have--it is our position that
it was provided for commercial purposes in that we have divvied
up the responsibilities for costs with regard to moving forward
with the cleanup at the site.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I am out of time, but I do have to
indicate that acts are always revisited and that there is
always amending that can be done. And I think as more
information is presented, we need to have the facts guide us.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The chair would now recognize the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Gilbertson, thanks for being here today. For
States that have a Department of Energy cleanup site, the
disposal of radioactive waste is a top priority. I know this
because we have one in South Carolina, the Savannah River Site.
It is right outside my district, but I am very engaged with the
site.
SRS serves as a DOE site responsible for cleanup, waste
management, and disposition of nuclear materials. Sixty percent
of the missions at SRS are environmental management missions.
This includes the disposition of solid, liquid, and transuranic
waste. One of the largest check DOE EM projects of liquid waste
is the liquid waste cleanup at SRS. The South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control describes its
mission as the single greatest environmental risk at South
Carolina.
I have been to the tank farms. I have seen the
vitrification facilities. I have been to Hanford. I have seen
the closure process out there with EM. The defense waste
processing facility at SRS vitrifies high-level waste, has been
doing so for over 20 years, and remains the only site in the
country able to do so. I guess Hanford has got a defense waste
vitrification plant underway, I don't know the status of that.
When I was there in 2008 092009, they were working on it.
There is over 34 million gallons of radioactive byproduct
held in 45 waste tanks at Savannah River Site. So from your
perspective at DOE's Office of Environmental Management, what
do you believe the Department's cleanup priorities are for the
Savannah River Site?
Mr. Gilbertson. So for the Savannah River Site, we do
believe that cleanup of the tank waste is the highest priority
for the Department to complete there. And we are moving forward
with the Salt Waste Processing Facility to bring that onboard
so we can clean up the tanks at an even faster pace down there
at Savannah River.
Mr. Duncan. Is the priority to single line the thinner
metal tanks first?
Mr. Gilbertson. Right. The priority are the higher risk
tanks first, to disposition the materials in those tanks first.
Yes.
Mr. Duncan. So more than half of DOE's environmental budget
at SRS is spent on this tank waste, and some tank waste meets
the WIPP acceptance criteria, but it cannot be sent there
because it is considered high-level waste due to how that waste
was created, right? So WIPP is currently limited to only being
able to accept defense-related transuranic waste. This is the
issue with West Valley that we have been discussing earlier.
And can you talk a little bit about how the lack of clarity of
what is considered high-level waste affects disposal efforts at
Savannah River Site?
Mr. Gilbertson. So we believe that under the 435 order,
that we have the ability to disposition various materials. And
there has been legislation that was put in place to affect your
site. The 3116 legislation that allowed us to dispose of tank
waste materials not as high-level waste. So there are
provisions with the regulations. We are constantly looking at
ways to improve the process to make it more clear as to what
waste can be dispositioned in the proper technical manner at
sites.
Mr. Duncan. Do you see in the future the ability to take
this vitrified high-level waste from sites like Savannah River
Site, and if Yucca is not online, to a place like WIPP?
Mr. Gilbertson. So at the present time, we are not able to
take----
Mr. Duncan. Because of the classification?
Mr. Gilbertson [continuing]. Take tank waste to the WIPP
facility to dispose of it. There is a provision in the current
permit that doesn't allow us to take tank waste. We have a
permit modification that we put in to the State of New Mexico
to potentially allow for them to take tank waste.
The issue is, is currently, as defined, the high-level
waste, without some clarifications, tank waste can't go to the
WIPP facility. The issues of it, there is a potential for some
of the material that is tank waste, though, to be within the
characteristics, technical characteristics of what can be
disposed of from a performance assessment perspective at WIPP.
Mr. Duncan. So I am about out of time. Let me make this
statement.
You can't take the waste from the tank farms and the EM
efforts at Savannah River Site, even though it is similar to
the waste from other places, because of how it is created, and
its classification is highly radioactive waste--defense waste--
because it was created for defense purposes.
I can tell you, if it doesn't go to WIPP, it needs to go to
Yucca Mountain. And If Yucca Mountain doesn't come onsite, we
are going to have to do something, because the concrete slab
that these vitrified, stainless steel tanks are sitting in,
under a metal building at Savannah River Site, is not a long-
term repository for this waste.
It is time for this nation to follow the law, which is
Yucca Mountain. Open Yucca Mountain up and let's get this waste
out of South Carolina and out of Hanford and out of Idaho and
out of Oak Ridge, and all the other places where it is stored,
and put it in a long-term repository known as Yucca Mountain,
because it was studied and it is the law of the land and it is
time for us to do that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The chair appreciates your passion, and we are
glad you are on the committee.
So the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mr. Flores,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. It is OK. We have been there since 1725, so it
will work out.
Mr. Gilbertson, one quick question. What would happen if
the Cheney disposal site is closed?
Mr. Gilbertson. Please repeat that, sir.
Mr. Flores. What would happen if the Cheney Disposal Cell
is closed?
Mr. Gilbertson. If the chain?
Mr. Flores. Cheney. The one in Colorado.
Mr. Gilbertson. So I am not familiar with that disposal
cell, and so I will take that question for the record.
Mr. Flores. It is the only location in the country that can
take uranium mining tailings. So we will submit the question
for the record and ask you to respond supplementally.
That is it. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, seeing no other members wishing to ask
questions, we would like to thank you for being here and thank
you for answering our questions. Obviously, some of my
colleagues are going to pose some questions, including myself,
for you. We would hope you get those back to us in a timely
manner, and you are dismissed. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Shimkus. So for our last panel, we have Mr. Noah Shaw,
general counsel and secretary, New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority. Sir, thank you for being here. I
have learned a lot this morning, and I look forward to learning
more.
With that, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Your full
statement has already been submitted for the record.
STATEMENT OF NOAH SHAW, GENERAL COUNSEL AND SECRETARY, NEW YORK
STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Mr. Shaw. Good morning, Mr. Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko,
and members of the committee. My name is Noah Shaw. I am the
general counsel of the New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, or NYSERDA. It is my honor to be here
today, not only to support the long-term reauthorization of
funding for the cleanup of the Western New York Nuclear Service
Center, known as the West Valley site, but also to present you
with facts regarding the defense origin of West Valley's
nuclear waste.
Before I begin, let me just say that I appreciate
Congressman Tonko's opening statement, which tees up my
testimony in which I will expand on the discussion of the
defense origins of West Valley's nuclear waste.
Activities at the West Valley site began in the early 1960s
when the Department of Energy's predecessor, the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission, or AEC, provided a so-called baseload of
spent nuclear fuel from defense-related sources. The intent was
that such an arrangement would only be necessary until
additional civilian nuclear plants could be constructed. But,
ultimately, during the facility's operation from 1966 to 1972,
60 percent of the fuel reprocess came from defense-related
activities. About 80 percent of the plutonium and 99.8 percent
of the uranium shipped out of West Valley went back to defense
complex sites.
In 1972, nuclear fuel services, which operated the
facility, shut it down for upgrades and then never reopened it.
NFS withdrew from the reprocessing business and turned West
Valley, which was by then highly contaminated, over to New York
State, which owned the property.
In 1980, Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration
Project Act, pursuant to which the Department of Energy has
taken possession of more than 150 acres where the reprocessing
activities took place and the Federal Government agreed to pay
90 percent of the cleanup costs. Two years later, in 1982,
Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which recognized
the Federal Government's responsibility for permanent disposal
of high-level radioactive waste from the country's atomic
energy defense activities.
Historically, the Federal Government has recognized that
West Valley waste was from defense sources. The Congressional
Record supporting the 1980 West Valley Demonstration Project
Act includes many references to how and why the West Valley
site's cleanup is appropriately a Federal responsibility, given
the site's role in the country's defense complex. And even the
Department of Labor's employee compensation program for work-
related illnesses at DOE complex sites, which was set up less
than 20 years ago, designates West Valley as an ``atomic
weapons employer.''
However, in 1986, the Department of Energy Inspector
General, without explanation, designated West Valley as a
``commercial site,'' in a report regarding the growing
potential costs of the NWPA. This designation has been repeated
by DOE ever since without any stated factual or legal support.
West Valley is truly unique, as both the chair and ranking
member have stated today. It is the only site managed by the
Office of Environmental Management with onsite waste that DOE
calls commercial or where DOE asserts that the State is
responsible for a disposal fee. West Valley also houses the
only transuranic waste in the Nation, waste that was generated
by DOE as part of its cleanup project that is prohibited from
disposal at the Waste Isolation Pileup Plant, WIPP, in New
Mexico.
DOE's designation of the West Valley waste as commercial
not only creates a roadblock to completing the cleanup of the
site, but it also means that scarce EM cleanup funds have to be
expended for potentially perpetual storage of the TRU at West
Valley.
On January 13, 2017, DOE wrote to Congressman Higgins,
after discussions between the Department and the New York
delegation, to say that DOE had determined that it would
consider whether West Valley waste could or should be disposed
of with the remainder of the country's similarly packaged
waste. But despite its repeated attempts to discuss this matter
with the Department since then, DOE staff has failed to engage.
This is just the latest in a long history of DOE's apparent
resistance to addressing this matter. Repeatedly stating its
``historical position'' that it doesn't own the waste and,
therefore, isn't responsible for its disposition, even though
ownership, per se, is not a relevant question with respect to
whether the waste is defense related or not. To say the issue
is lingering may be an understatement, at least as far as New
York and the surrounding communities are concerned.
The State is left to conclude that legislation is the only
path forward regarding how the West Valley waste will be
disposed, just as, in 1980, Congress had to intervene regarding
the responsibility for the site's cleanup.
A statutory designation of the West Valley waste as defense
waste would finally allow it to be treated similarly to the
other high-level and transuranic waste associated with our
country's atomic defense activities. This is the equitable
outcome for these wastes for the site, and for the communities
who have now hosted the site for generations.
We also wish to emphasize the importance of funding
authorization. Funding for the West Valley cleanup has been at
an all time low in recent years. Appropriate funding levels
allow for work to continue as contemplated by the Act, by the
West Valley Demonstration Project Act. And in the absence of
appropriate funding levels, work is delayed, adding to total
project cost and timeframe.
Thank you for your attention, and I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much, sir.
And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for opening
questions.
Enactment of H.R. 3053 would break the current impasse on
our nation's nuclear waste management program and provide a
path to complete the Yucca Mountain repository, while allowing
DOE to pursue temporary storage efforts in the meantime. Your
testimony notes concern that a repository might not be
available for decades, but with congressional support, the
nuclear waste could be transported well within a decade.
Do you support reconstituting DOE's nuclear waste
management program and moving forward with a repository and
storage program to remove the West Valley waste?
Mr. Shaw. We support a pathway for the West Valley waste,
whether that pathway is an interim solution----
Mr. Shimkus. OK. We need your help here, right? I have this
debate and discussion with locations all around the country. If
you need it moved, you have to have a place for it to go. There
is current law of the land, which is a Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, amended in 1987, the national government assigned a
location. That location has been politically blocked for about
9 years. We are unblocking it.
It would be helpful for States to realize what the Federal
law is and be helpful. A lot of the New York colleagues have
been strongly supportive of the bill we just passed last week.
It is kind of timely that you are here now. And so if you don't
want it there, you have to have a place to go.
What we have done in H.R. 3053 is allow both options for
completion, and I am going to--the follow-up question will show
the timeliness of this. But we have accepted the premise that
an interim is an important process in getting to a final
repository.
Without a national solution, you will be an interim site
forever, right? And no one wants that. Science is a long-term
geological repository, and so--I am not meaning to lecture, we
are just asking for your help----
Mr. Shaw. I understand.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. In how we phrase this to your
State and to the Nation. What is the current estimated
timeframe for DOE to complete the decontamination and
remediation of the West Valley facilities?
Mr. Shaw. There is, as you may know, an ongoing
supplemental environmental impact statement process with
respect to the future of the site right now. The range of
options includes, obviously, as you might imagine, a variety of
timeframes for the completion of the project. I think the last
EIS suggested that we could be looking at anywhere from 10 to
35 years. I think that we will know more about the likely
timeframe once the SEIS process is completed.
Mr. Shimkus. And I think DOE has between 2040 and 2045,
which would be the worst-case scenario. Based on the estimated
work remaining and the timelines associated with DOE's waste
management program, it seems that the best and the most
expeditious disposal path available to the State of New York is
to have the Senate consider the bipartisan nuclear waste bill
passed by the House just last week.
And, again, I wanted to thank my colleagues, obviously, and
the ranking member who was very helpful in moving this forward.
By the time West Valley is done, worst case 2045, the
repository will be open and accepting long-term geological
storage. So we are glad to have you there, and I would take
back to your folks in the State that a positive response on the
Nation trying to solve this problem for all 50 States is moving
forward, and we would hope that New York State would be fully
supportive.
With that, I yield back my time, and I turn to the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, Mr. Shaw, thank you again for your testimony and,
again, thank you for your work on behalf of the residents of my
home State of New York. It is helpful for the committee to have
a full understanding of the history of the West Valley site.
Can you explain what the effect would be on ultimate
cleanup of the West Valley site if H.R. 2389 became law?
Mr. Shaw. It would provide a pathway for both the
transuranic waste and a practical pathway for the high-level
waste. Right now, because of the commercial designation, the
transuranic waste has no pathway, it can't go to WIPP. And
because of the application by DOE of the NWPA provisions
regarding the disposal fee, we are looking at a cost to the
State, at the time of an ultimate repository that may very well
be prohibitive. So it would open the path for actually getting
the waste off the site.
Mr. Shimkus. You also mentioned the--Mr. Gilbertson was
asked about discussions, and he said that they are routine,
they are ongoing. But I am understanding from your comments
that some elements of that discussion have not occurred.
Mr. Shaw. To be clear, the discussions that I believe Mr.
Gilbertson was referring to are the discussions with respect to
the ongoing environmental impact statement process. I commend
our site staffs, they work well together on a daily basis. They
work in the same building, a very close working relationship
there. However, when it comes to this higher level question of
the defense versus nondefense character of the waste onsite, we
have attempted to engage and have not been provided much of a
response.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you for that clarification.
Earlier this morning, DOE mentioned that the Department
does not and cannot own the waste at West Valley. Can you
explain how the Nuclear Waste Policy Act considers waste
ownership, and how it is or is not relevant to today's
discussion?
Mr. Shaw. My reading of the Act is that it is not relevant.
The question under section--well, the statement under section 8
of the Act is that the fee provisions do not apply to ``any
atomic energy defense activity or to any facility used in
connection with any such facility.''
I believe that the facts as we have stated them, and the
facts that were considered by Congress in passing the Act back
in 1980, clearly establish that the activities at West Valley
were defense related. The question of ownership, while it may
be consistent with the way DOE thinks about other sites, really
doesn't apply here, and it is a unique site with a unique
history and a unique waste profile. And, unfortunately, it
doesn't fit into the boxes that DOE usually applies.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And compared to some other sites in
the DOE complex, West Valley is relatively small, that is, it
does not have nearly as much waste as places like Savannah
River and Hanford. Can you explain why Congress should step in
and clarify the waste designation as defense related?
Mr. Shaw. Thank you for the question. Precisely because of
some of the themes that have been repeated here. It is a unique
site. It doesn't fit the usual equations that DOE has used in
the past with respect to deciding pathways for waste. And after
30 years of attempting to reconcile this disagreement with
respect to the defense nature of the waste, we don't see
another pathway forward.
We have requested the calculation of the fee, as you have
related numerous times, and that has not been forthcoming. We
have requested a factual or legal analysis for the designation
of commercial, and that has not been forthcoming, other than to
say that it was provided for ``commercial purposes.''
I will say, lots of private contractors have been handling
defense waste around the country and made a lot of money on it
for a long time. That is not the question that needs to be
answered when determining whether this material is defense
related or not.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I understand that the next phase
of the environmental impact statement process for this site
recently began. There were a number of community meetings and
comments have been submitted. Can you summarize the reactions
you have received and how they relate to this proposed
legislation?
Mr. Shaw. Thank you for the question. I think it is
important to understand the full thrust of the community
engagement and concern with respect to the site and how it
relates to this bill. I was at the meetings. Large sectors of
the community showed up from across the political spectrum to
emphasize their concern about what would happen to the waste
and, in particular, to say that it should be a cleanup, a full
cleanup.
Obviously, that is one of the options within the SEIS
process that is being considered. However, there are a number
of options within the SEIS process, including the full cleanup,
that won't be practically feasible unless this waste has a
pathway. And the only way this waste can have a pathway is if
it is designated as defense waste.
Mr. Tonko. And the $75 million that is appropriated in
fiscal year 2018 is also the level included in the Reed bill.
Mr. Shaw. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. What is the impact of underfunding West Valley?
Mr. Shaw. Well, in the past, the funding levels have been
down in the 60s. That differential between 75 and in the 60s
doesn't seem like a lot, however, when you consider that nearly
more than a third of the budget is just to keep the lights on
and keep it safe, that differential makes a big difference in
the work that can be done on the site. There is a lot of work
that is going to be happening over the course of the next 10,
15 years especially, as they start to go below grade in Phase
II of the cleanup and, therefore, the need for sufficient
funding is even more imperative going forward maybe than it has
been in the past.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Shaw, thank you. And my best to the NYSERDA
team.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair, seeing no other members wishing to ask
questions, I would like to thank all our witnesses today.
Before we conclude, I would like to ask unanimous consent
to submit the following documents for the record: a statement
for the record from Carmelo Melendez, director, Office of
Legacy Management at U.S. Department of Energy; a letter from
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; and a
letter from Representative Scott Tipton.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. And pursuant to committee rules, I remind
members that they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record, and ask the witnesses to submit their
response within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:00 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning and welcome to our subcommittee hearing where
we will discuss legislation to reauthorize certain Department
of Energy (DOE) environmental cleanup projects.
This Congress, the Energy & Commerce Committee, under the
stewardship of Vice Chairman Barton and Energy Subcommittee
Chairman Upton, has looked at several DOE programs with lapsed
authorizations. Today, we will examine two of those projects
within the jurisdiction of the Environment Subcommittee.
DOE's cleanup and disposal projects are not limited to
high-level radioactive waste. The Department manages and
monitors other environmental remediation projects such as sites
authorized under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP), the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
My Oregon district includes the Department's Lakeview
Processing and Disposal Sites, which are overseen by DOE's
Office of Legacy Management. At this location, a uranium mill
processed ore fifty years ago, leaving behind mill tailings to
be sent to a nearby disposal cell for safekeeping. When
Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Control
Act of 1978, this site in my district was included as one of
the 22 inactive ore processing sites to be remediated by DOE.
The bill sponsored by Representative Tipton extends the
authorization of a similar disposal cell in his district and I
am glad to support this effort.
Additionally, I welcome Representative Tom Reed to speak
about the bill to reauthorize an important remediation project
in his western New York district at the West Valley site. West
Valley was the location of the nation's only commercial
experience with reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Cleanup at the
site continues today, over forty years after the site's
operations were terminated.
The Department of Energy and New York State witnesses this
morning will provide additional context about DOE's ongoing
activities at the site and remaining challenges, such as
finalizing a disposal pathway for the project's high-level
radioactive waste.
Last week--with a strong bipartisan vote in support--the
House of Representatives helped pave the pathway for the
restart of the Nation's nuclear waste disposal program with the
passage of HR 3053. This should help address some of these
long-term challenges. Yet, there are further issues to resolve
to deal with our nation's legacy waste.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance
these straightforward bills. Thank you and I yield back.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]