[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES: ENSURING SAFE
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-45
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-925 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair 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, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of
South Carolina, opening statement.............................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 92
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 93
Witnesses
Maria G. Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Robert J. Halstead, Executive Director, State of Nevada, Office
of the Governor, Agency for Nuclear Projects................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Answers to submitted questions............................... 210
Austin Keyser, Director, Political and Legislative Affairs,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers................ 31
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Geoffrey H. Fettus, Senior Attorney, Nuclear, Climate, and Clean
Energy Program, Natural Resources Defense Council.............. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Lake Barrett, Former Acting Director, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy........ 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Answers to submitted questions............................... 212
Submitted Material
H.R. 2699, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019....... 94
H.R. 2995, the Spent Fuel Prioritization Act of 2019............. 147
H.R. 3136, the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act of 2019.................... 149
Letter of June 11, 2019, from Edward F. Sproat III, Former
Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S.
DOE, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko...... 160
Letter of June 7, 2019, from Steve Sisolak, Governor, to Mr.
Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Tonko................. 167
Letter of June 7, 2019, from Michelle Lujan Grisham, Governor, to
Hon. Rick Perry and Hon. Kristine Svinicki, submitted by Mr.
Tonko.......................................................... 169
Letter of June 4, 2019, from Virginia Valentine, President and
CEO, Nevada Resort Association, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 171
Letter of June 11, 2019, from Geoff Patnoe, Director, Office of
Strategy and Intergovernmental Affairs, County of San Diego, to
Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Tonko............. 173
Letter of June 6, 2019, from Principal Man Ian Zabarte, Western
Bands of the Shoshone Nation of Indians, to Mr. Pallone,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 174
Letter of June 11, 2019, from Janet Tauro, Clean Water Action, to
Mr. Pallone, submitted by Mr. Tonko............................ 175
Letter of June 12, 2019, from Greg White, National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 178
Letter of June 13, 2019, from William C. Miller, Jr and et al.,
American Gaming Association, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 179
Letter of June 12, 2019, from Nancy S. Vann, President, Safe
Energy Rights Group, to Mr. Pallone and et al., submitted by
Mr. Tonko...................................................... 183
Letter of June 13, 2019, from Tim Judson, Executive Director,
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, to Mr. Tonko and Mr.
Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................ 185
Letter of June 13, 2019, from Arlen Orchard, CEO, Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 194
Letter of June 13, 2019, from Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste
Specialist, Beyond Nuclear, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Pallone,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 197
Letter of June 12, 2019, from Leo Blundo, Nye County Board of
Commissioners, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr.
Tonko.......................................................... 201
Letter of May 16, 2019, from Coalition of Labor Unions, et al.,
to Ms. Pelosi and et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko............... 203
Statement of June 13, 2019, from Representative Steven A.
Horsford, on Behalf of the Nevada Congressional Delegation,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 205
Statement of June 13, 2019, from Representative Susie Lee,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 209
CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES: ENSURING SAFE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF SPENT
NUCLEAR FUEL
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters, Barragan,
Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Matsui, McNerney, Ruiz,
Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus (subcommittee ranking
member), McKinley, Johnson, Long, Flores, Carter, Duncan, and
Walden (ex officio).
Staff Present: Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Waverly
Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and
Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy
Coordinator; Tuley Wright, Energy and Environment Policy
Advisor; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Adam
Buckalew, Minority Director of Coalitions and Deputy Chief
Counsel, Health; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary
Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and
Climate Change; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; and
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member,
Environment and Climate Change.
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for five
minutes for the purpose of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Politics of nuclear waste disposal are unquestionably
difficult. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act directing the Department of Energy to remove spent nuclear
fuel from commercial nuclear power plants in exchange for
certain fees and transported to a permanent geologic repository
beginning no later than January 31 of 1998; 1998 has come and
gone. And year after year, we continue to debate how Congress
can help break the impasse in which we currently find
ourselves.
Today, there are over 70,000 metric tons of waste, which is
expected to grow significantly in the decades to come. We are
also dealing with more and more reactors shutting down, many of
which are decommissioning early.
I take our Nation's nuclear waste challenges seriously.
Today, there is not an easy or clear solution. But while we
fail to make progress, American taxpayers continue to make
payments from Treasury's judgment fund. There are many members
on this committee on both sides of the aisle that would like to
see a fair outcome that acknowledges these challenges, finds
workable solutions, and protects American taxpayers.
And I want to give credit to Mr. Shimkus for his tireless
efforts on this issue. I appreciate his commitment to helping
communities dealing with waste and seeking to protect taxpayers
from future need to make payments from the Treasury.
Today, the subcommittee will consider three bills which
take different steps to address our Nation's nuclear waste
issues. First, H.R. 2699, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments
Act of 2019, introduced by Mr. McNerney and Mr. Shimkus. It is
very similar to H.R. 3053 from the 115th Congress, which passed
this committee and the House with bipartisan support. The bill
makes a number of updates to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. H.R.
3136, the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act of 2019, introduced by Ms.
Matsui, directs the Secretary of Energy to establish an interim
storage program. And then, finally, H.R. 2995, the Spent Fuel
Prioritization Act of 2019, introduced by Congressman Mike
Levin, which would require the Secretary of Energy to
prioritize the removal of spent nuclear fuel from
decommissioned nuclear sites in areas with large populations
and high seismic hazard.
I doubt any piece of legislation alone will solve our waste
challenges, but I do believe that we need to be considering all
options for disposal in an effort to find the safest and,
indeed, most cost-effective way to move forward.
Today's panel attempts to cover many different and critical
perspectives, and I look forward to the discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
The politics of nuclear waste disposal are unquestionably
difficult.
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
directing the Department of Energy to remove spent nuclear fuel
from commercial nuclear power plants in exchange for certain
fees, and transport it to a permanent geologic repository
beginning no later than January 31, 1998.
1998 has come and gone, and year after year we continue to
debate how Congress can help break the impasse in which we
currently find ourselves.
Today, there are over 70,000 metric tons of waste, which is
expected to grow significantly in the decades to come. We are
also dealing with more and more reactors shutting down, many of
which are decommissioning early.
I take our nation's nuclear waste challenges seriously.
Today there is not an easy or clear solution.
But while we fail to make progress, American taxpayers
continue to make payments from Treasury's Judgment Fund.
There are many Members on this Committee, on both sides of
the aisle, that would like to see a fair outcome that
acknowledges these challenges, finds workable solutions, and
protects American taxpayers.
And I want to give credit to Mr. Shimkus for his tireless
efforts on this issue. I appreciate his commitment to helping
communities dealing with waste and seeking to protect taxpayers
from future need to make payments from the Treasury.
Today, the Subcommittee will consider three bills which
take different steps to address our nation's nuclear waste
issues.
H.R. 2699, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019,
introduced by Mr. McNerney and Mr. Shimkus, is very similar to
H.R. 3053 from the 115th Congress, which passed this Committee
and the House with bipartisan support. The bill makes a number
of updates to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
H.R. 3136, the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act of 2019, introduced
by Ms. Matsui, directs the Secretary of Energy to establish an
interim storage program.
And finally H.R. 2995, the Spent Fuel Prioritization Act
of 2019, introduced by Congressman Mike Levin, would require
the Secretary of Energy to prioritize the removal of spent
nuclear fuel from decommissioned nuclear sites in areas with
large populations and high seismic hazard.
I doubt any piece of legislation alone will solve our waste
challenges, but I do believe we need to be considering all
options for disposal in an effort to find the safest and most
cost-effective way to move forward.
Today's panel attempts to cover many different and critical
perspectives, and I look forward to the discussion.
With that, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. McNerney
or Mrs. Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to be very brief. But I just really want to
thank you for having this hearing. We are going to hear all the
reasons why it continues to be an issue.
But with more than 20 percent of the fresh water in the
world being in the Great Lakes, the threat of nuclear waste
being stored there continues to be an enormously frightening
issue for those of us in the Midwest but should be for everyone
in this country. And I will yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. You are most
welcome.
And now the Chair will recognize Mr. Shimkus, ranking
member for the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
surrounded by several boxes, for five minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad so many of my colleagues were able to join us
today, because every time we get a chance to address this, we
get to continue the educational process.
So, before I address the three bills today, I do want to
explain what these stacks of science beside me are and why they
matter in this debate.
Together, these represent the Federal Government's
scientific and technical case for the permanent geological
repository we are required by law to build and operate. This is
a product. The larger of the two is the Department of Energy's
16 volume applications submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in 2008 to license a permanent repository for
nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.
So, my colleagues, this is $10 billion of, actually, those
of you who live in nuclear States, that you have paid for
because of the rate-based funding stream.
This is a product of 20 years and more than $10 billion of
scientific research by eight of our national labs, our National
Academies of Science and Engineering, the U.S. Geological
Survey as well as DOE staff and contractors. It demonstrates
that DOE can safely build and operate the repository in
compliance within NRC's regulations.
This smaller stack, I point my colleagues to this big but
smaller stack, is the NRC's five-volume analysis of this
application. This is a product of NRC's technical staff and
experts in geochemistry, hydrology, climatology, structural
geology, volcanology, seismology, health physics, as well as
chemical, civil, mechanical, nuclear, mining materials, and
geological engineering.
Their review of DOE's application found--and the NRC is an
independent agency of the United States Government. Their
review of DOE's application found that, as proposed, a
repository at Yucca Mountain would safely contain spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste for, get this, one million years. I
trust the work done by the world-class scientists and engineers
who produced these reports. I believe their work can stand up
to the scrutiny of the skeptics if put to the test. Those
skeptics, some of whom we will hear from today, don't believe
the science. They claim Yucca Mountain is unsuitable based upon
their own studies. Yet they are unwilling to make their
contentions before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
of judges who are themselves scientists and engineers. That is
the appropriation debate we are having. The skeptics who do not
believe in science are unwilling to take their science and have
it debated in front of this board.
Members have at their desk a packet with the NRC
backgrounder on the licensing process--it is in the brown
folder at your desk--a State-specific fact sheet, a map of the
121 sites in 39 States, a 1-pager addressing transportation
concerns, the Peters-Duncan letter to appropriators seeking
funding for the licensing, a 1-pager on the cost of doing
nothing, which is $2 million a day, a chart showing the
funding, or lack thereof, of appropriations since 1997.
So, I would ask my colleagues to keep that in mind today as
we consider the stalemate, we find ourselves in. Ask yourself
why those who oppose Yucca Mountain on supposedly scientific
grounds would object to having their day in court.
With that said, the three bills we are here to talk about
all reflect sincere efforts to address concerns that are
arising out of our present impasse. And as we examine these
proposals, we must remember the broader framework of our
Nation's nuclear waste policy. This framework, funded almost
entirely by ratepayers, is based upon a system that ensures
that there will be a permanent repository. That is the focus of
the fees collected in the Nuclear Waste Fund and the focus of
the contract the utilities signed with the Department of Energy
to eventually dispose of the spent fuel.
It is the point of the taxpayer spending for disposing of
defense waste. You cannot take shortcuts here, whether it is
with allowing the scientific adjudication to go forward or
develop a system that accelerates the transportation of
stranded fuel from decommissioned sites.
Shortcuts lead to dead ends, and I am concerned that the
proposed measure that focused solely on interim storage without
integrating it into a permanent system for disposal may sound
good and expedient, but they will not work, and they may
actually harm ratepayers and taxpayers in the long run.
I have a few more paragraphs, Mr. Chairman, but in lieu of
time, I will submit those for the record.
And I will yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Before I address the three bills before us today, I want to
explain what these two stacks of science beside me are and why
they matter in this debate. Together, these represent the
Federal Government's scientific and technical case for the
permanent, geological repository we are required by law to
build and operate.
The larger of the two is the Department of Energy's 16
volume application, submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in 2008, to license a permanent repository for
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
This is the product of 20 years and more than $10 billion
of scientific research by eight of our National Labs, the
National Academies of Science and Engineering, the U.S.
Geological Survey, as well as DOE staff and contractors. It
demonstrates that DOE can safely build and operate the
repository in compliance with NRC's regulations.
The smaller stack is the NRC's five volume analysis of
DOE's application. This is the product of NRC's technical staff
and experts in geochemistry, hydrology, climatology, structural
geology, volcanology, seismology and health physics, as well as
chemical, civil, mechanical, nuclear, mining, materials and
geological engineering. Their review of DOE's application found
that, as proposed, a repository at Yucca Mountain would safely
contain spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste for one million
years.
I trust the work done by the world-class scientists and
engineers who produced these reports. I believe their work can
stand up to the scrutiny of the skeptics if put to the test.
Those skeptics, some of whom we'll hear from today, don't
believe this science. They claim Yucca Mountain is "unsuitable"
based upon their own studies, yet they're unwilling to make
their contentions before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
panel of judges who are themselves scientists and engineers.
Members have at their desk a packet with (1) an NRC
backgrounder on the licensing process, (2) a state specific
fact sheet, (3) a map of the 121 sites in 39 states, (4) a one
pager addressing transportation concerns, (5) the Peters-Duncan
letter to appropriators seeking funding for the licensing, (6)
a one pager on the cost of doing nothing, and (7) a chart
showing the funding (or lack thereof) appropriated since 1997.
So I would ask my colleagues to keep that in mind today as
we consider the stalemate we find ourselves in. Ask yourself
why those who oppose Yucca Mountain on supposedly scientific
grounds would object to having their day in court.
With that said, the three bills we're here to talk about
all reflect sincere efforts to address concerns that are
arising out of our present impasse. And as we examine these
proposals, we must remember the broader framework of our
nation's nuclear waste policy.
This framework, funded almost entirely by ratepayers, is
based upon on a system that ensures there will be a permanent
repository. That is the focus of the fees collected in the
Nuclear Waste Fund, and the focus of the contracts the
utilities signed with the Department of Energy to eventually
dispose of their spent fuel. It is the point of the taxpayer
spending for disposing of defense waste.
You cannot take shortcuts here. Whether it's with allowing
the scientific adjudication to go forward or developing a
system that accelerates the transportation of stranded fuel
from decommissioned sites.
Shortcuts lead to dead ends. I'm concerned that proposed
measures that focus solely on interim storage without
integrating it into a permanent system for disposal may sound
good and expedient. But they will not work, and they may
actually harm ratepayers and taxpayers in the long run.
For example, H.R. 3136, introduced by my friend Ms. Matsui,
provides for interim storage, including private interim
storage; it provides for consent-based siting for interim
storage facilities; and it requires that waste fees on
utilities do not start until there is a licensing decision on a
repository.
Similar measures were part of H.R. 3053 that we moved with
a strong bipartisan vote of 340-72 through the House last
Congress. And they are reflected in H.R. 2699, the bill Mr.
McNerney and I introduced last month that we are also
considering today. But there are defects with H.R. 3136.
First, it will be very difficult to gain acceptance for
interim storage if it is not directly linked to permanent
disposal. And second, if interim storage is authorized to be
funded out of the Nuclear Waste Fund, it could effectively
force operating reactors, and ratepayers to pay more in the
future. The more money diverted from that fund to interim
storage, the more ratepayers - or taxpayers-will have to pay in
the future for permanent disposal.
In contrast, H.R. 2699 preserves the fund for the
repository system and links progress on interim to completing
the adjudication of the permanent repository. Only by showing
the public the full information from this process can we build
the trust in the sites, the decisions we make, and the eventual
success of our nuclear waste program.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our discussion
this morning.
Mr. Tonko. So the gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Pallone, chairman
of the full committee, for five minutes for his opening
statement. Mr. Pallone.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
It has been over 30 years since Congress last made
significant changes to this law. Unfortunately, in that time,
very little has been accomplished to address our Nation's need
to safely store and dispose of the spent nuclear fuel that is a
byproduct of electricity generation at nuclear power plants
across the country.
Today, there are 121 communities across the country that
have nuclear waste nearby. These communities are rightfully
expressing frustration as more and more nuclear plants close,
but there is no concrete solution to storage or disposal of
this spent nuclear fuel. Whether it is a general safety concern
or the desire of the committee to redevelop the land currently
housing the spent fuel, we must find a path forward to begin
the process of moving nuclear waste out of these communities.
At this hearing, we will be discussing three bills that
take different approaches to addressing the spent nuclear fuel
stalemate in our country. Representative McNerney and Ranking
Member Shimkus have introduced H.R. 2699, an updated version of
the legislation reported by the committee and passed by the
House in the last Congress. I want to thank both of them for
their leadership on this issue. In the last Congress, then-
subcommittee Chairman Shimkus worked with us to address our
concerns and incorporate interim storage language authored by
Representative Matsui. That led to a successful effort in the
House, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and
Mr. McNerney on this issue.
We will also discuss H.R. 3136, the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act,
introduced by Ms. Matsui. The bill establishes an interim
storage program at the DOE which will allow for consolidated
temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel with priority given to
waste currently stored at decommissioned nuclear power plants.
Authorizing interim storage will allow DOE to consolidate waste
at one or two sites instead of 121 sites in communities across
the country. And consolidated storage will ensure spent nuclear
fuel is managed more safely and securely, in my opinion, while
allowing communities with decommissioned plants to begin
working towards redeveloping those sites.
Interim storage is the best near-term solution to stop the
nuclear waste stalemate, and I commend Representative Matsui
for her efforts and leadership on this issue.
And, finally, the committee will review H.R. 2995, the
Spent Fuel Prioritization Act, introduced by Representative
Mike Levin of California. This bill prioritizes the removal of
spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned nuclear plants in areas
with large populations and high seismic hazard.
So, once again, I appreciate the efforts of the bill
sponsors and thank them for their leadership on this important
issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
It has been over 30 years since Congress last made
significant changes to this law. Unfortunately, in that time
very little has been accomplished to address our nation's need
to safely store and dispose of the spent nuclear fuel that is a
byproduct of electricity generation at nuclear power plants
across the country.
Today, there are 121 communities across the country that
have nuclear waste nearby. These communities are rightfully
expressing frustration as more and more nuclear plants close,
but there is no concrete solution to storage or disposal of the
spent nuclear fuel. Whether it is a general safety concern, or
the desire of the community to redevelop the land currently
housing the spent fuel, we must find a path forward to begin
the process of moving nuclear waste out of these communities.
At this hearing, we will be discussing three bills that
take different approaches to addressing the spent nuclear fuel
stalemate in our country.
Representative McNerney and Ranking Member Shimkus have
introduced H.R. 2699, an updated version of the legislation
reported by the Committee and passed by the House in the last
Congress. I would like to thank them both for their leadership
on this issue. Last Congress, then Subcommittee Chairman
Shimkus worked with us to address our concerns and incorporate
interim storage language authored by Representative Matsui.
That led to a successful effort in the House and I look forward
to continuing to work with him and Mr. McNerney on this issue.
We will also discuss H.R. 3136, the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act,
introduced by Ms. Matsui. The bill establishes an interim
storage program at the Department of Energy (DOE), which will
allow for consolidated, temporary storage of spent nuclear
fuel, with priority given to waste currently stored at
decommissioned nuclear power plants. Authorizing interim
storage will allow DOE to consolidate waste at one or two sites
instead of 121 sites in communities across the country.
Consolidated storage will ensure spent nuclear fuel is managed
more safely and securely, while allowing communities with
decommissioned plants to begin working toward redeveloping
those sites. Interim storage is the best near-term solution to
stop the nuclear waste stalemate, and I commend Representative
Matsui for her efforts and leadership on this issue.
Finally, the Committee will review H.R. 2995, the Spent
Fuel Prioritization Act, introduced by Representative Mike
Levin. This bill prioritizes the removal of spent nuclear fuel
from decommissioned nuclear power plants in areas with large
populations and high seismic hazard.
Once again, I appreciate the efforts of the bill sponsors
and thank them for their leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Pallone.And I would like to yield the balance of my
time now to Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Finding a solution to managing the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel has been a top priority of mine for many years,
particularly as my district utility, the Sacramento Municipal
Utility District, is one of the many across the country forced
to play host to this dangerous radioactive material long after
they committed to do so.
I think we all agree that this stalemate is unsustainable.
The best and most pragmatic path forward involves a
consolidated interim storage program that will engage with
affected States and local governments through a consent-based
process. That is why I have introduced the STORE Nuclear Fuel
Act, which puts forward a plan that has historically garnered
broad support.
The Federal Government has reneged on its promise to our
constituents. A consolidated interim storage approach will
allow the over 120 communities across the country to redevelop
nuclear reactor sites that for many have been decommissioned
for years. I believe this is one of the greatest energy
challenges of our time. And I am grateful to the committee
today for bring up my bill for discussion. Thank you. And I
yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Unless someone else wants my time, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Duncan from South
Carolina for five minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has an enduring and
strong bipartisan record supporting nuclear energy. Nuclear is
a critical component of our Nation's energy system. It also has
been vital to our national security powering the nuclear Navy
and providing for our common defense. Not only is nuclear power
an affordable and reliable energy source, it is also emissions-
free. Any serious efforts to reduce emissions from energy
production to address the effects of climate change must
include the continued use and expansion of nuclear power. And
there is great potential, if we get the policies right, to
benefit from nuclear energy far into the future.
Over the past few years, we have moved legislation to lay
the groundwork for advanced nuclear and to ensure more
efficient regulation of the existing reactor fleet. We have
explored policies that will ensure nuclear infrastructure for
tomorrow, ranging from advanced small modular reactors like
those under development by Oregon-based NuScale currently in
NRC licensing to advance fuel systems for the next generation
of reactors.
Yet, as we look forward, we have the responsibility to
ensure that we implement the existing policies that address the
issue of long-term storage for spent nuclear fuel and the
defense legacy waste that the Federal Government has a
responsibility for cleaning up.
This is no small matter. Thirty-five years ago, Congress
enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act into law. This law was the
culmination of decades of experience by the Federal Government
to develop a policy to permanently dispose of high-level
radioactive waste and commercial spent nuclear fuel.
Some of the material was created during the Manhattan
Project and through the Cold War at the Hanford site, a vital
national security facility located on the Columbia River.
Today, this nuclear material sits on a vibrant waterway
waiting to be processed and transported to Yucca Mountain
repository in the Nevada desert. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act
also established a fee tied to the generation of nuclear energy
to finance the cost of a multigenerational disposal program.
Along with 33 other States, Oregon ratepayers and South
Carolina ratepayers, fulfilled their financial obligation under
the law and paid the Department of Energy over $160 million to
dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel. That was Oregon, and
$1.5 billion from South Carolina.
As we all know, the Federal Government has been prevented
from completing the licensing process for a permanent
repository. The cost to the American taxpayer to pay for the
Federal Government's delay in opening Yucca Mountain repository
have more than doubled to $35 billion since 2009. And that
figure continues to escalate rapidly as time goes on.
Meanwhile, the Federal Government has been paying out nearly a
billion dollars a year from the judgment fund for its failure
to dispose of the waste.
Against this backdrop, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
moving forward on examining legislative reforms that can help
to restart this process. The Energy and Commerce Committee
should continue to lead the effort to ensure the Federal
Government meets its moral and fiduciary responsibility to
clean up its defense waste and ensure the permanent safe
disposal of spent nuclear fuel which sits at 121 sites around
the Nation.
We made important strides in the last Congress to reform
the fundamental statute to help to accelerate this complicated
process. My friend and Republican leader of this subcommittee,
John Shimkus, led the work in the House to pass the Nuclear
Waste Policy Amendments Act by a vote of 340 to 72.
Unfortunately, that effort fell short in the Senate.
But we know from the last Congress and from the strong
bipartisan support both on this committee and in the House of
that legislation, how a thoughtful, deliberate, legislative
process produces good policy. I am pleased to see the past work
has informed the current work, particularly in H.R. 2699, led
by Mr. McNerney, which follows closely to H.R. 3053 from the
last Congress. This bill provides for accelerating interim
storage of waste without undermining the important system for
the permanent disposal established in the underlying law. This
represents the best path forward for getting the Nation to a
licensing decision which is necessary for public confidence in
our nuclear waste program no matter the outcome of that
decision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the lead on this
legislation, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Duncan
The Energy and Commerce Committee has an enduring and
strong bi-partisan record supporting nuclear energy. Nuclear is
a critical component of our nation's energy system. It also has
been vital to our national security, powering the nuclear navy
and providing for our common defense. And there is great
potential--if we get the policies right--to benefit from
nuclear energy far into the future.
Over the past few years we've promoted new nuclear
technologies that will provide reliable, emissions free power
for our homes and factories, our industrial processes, that
will help address climate risks. We've moved legislation to
streamline regulations to lay the groundwork for advanced
nuclear and to ensure more efficient regulation of the existing
reactor fleet
We've explored policies that will ensure a nuclear
infrastructure for tomorrow-ranging from advanced small modular
reactors like those under development by Oregon-based NuScale,
currently in NRC licensing, to advanced fuel systems for the
next generation of reactors.
Yet as we look forward we have responsibility to ensure we
implement the existing policies to address the back end of the
nuclear fuel cycle, and the defense legacy waste that the
Federal Government has a responsibility for cleaning up.
Here too, Mr. Chairman, I think the Energy and Commerce
Committee should continue its leadership to identify what is
necessary for the Congress to ensure the Federal government
meets is moral and fiduciary responsibility to clean up its
defense waste and ensure the permanent, safe disposal of spent
nuclear fuel.
We made important strides in the last Congress to reform
the fundamental statute to help to accelerate this complicated
process. That fell short in the Senate, but I remain hopeful
that the record of work by this Committee will continue to
inform policy efforts.
This is no small matter. 35 years ago, Congress enacted the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act into law. This law was the culmination
of decades of experience by the federal government to develop a
policy to dispose of high-level radioactive waste and
commercial spent nuclear fuel permanently.
Some of the material was created during the Manhattan
Project and through the Cold War at the Hanford site, a vital
national security facility located on the Columbia River about
40 miles north of my district. Today, this nuclear material
sits on a vibrant waterway waiting to be processed and
transported to the Yucca Mountain repository in the Nevada
desert.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also established a fee tied to
the generation of nuclear energy to finance the costs of a
multi-generational disposal program. Along with 33 other
states, Oregon ratepayers fulfilled their financial obligations
under the law and paid the Department of Energy over $160
million to dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel.
I've note in the past how the Trojan nuclear power plant,
located in northwest Oregon, stopped producing electricity in
1993, with the expectation that DOE would begin to remove the
spent fuel in 1998, as was required by law. That never
happened, as we know, and since the plant's decommissioning
activities were completed in 2007, only spent nuclear fuel
remains stranded at the site, hampering any redevelopment
efforts surrounding the site.
This example is repeated across the nation, with states and
communities waiting for DOE to fulfill its obligations and
dispose of the spent fuel.
As we all know, the Federal government has been unable to
complete the licensing process for a permanent repository. The
costs to the American taxpayer to pay for the federal
government's delay in opening the Yucca Mountain repository
have more than doubled to $35 billion since 2009 and that
figure continues to escalate rapidly as time goes on.
Against this backdrop, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
moving forward on examining legislative reforms that can help
to restart this process. We know from the last Congress, and
from the strong bi-partisan support both on this Committee and
in the House, how a thoughtful and deliberate legislative
process produces good legislation.
I'm pleased to see this past work has informed the current
work, particularly in HR 2699, led by Mr. McNerney, which
follows closely the H.R. 3053 from the last Congress.
This bill provides for accelerating interim storage of
waste without undermining the important system for permanent
disposal established in the underlying law. This represents the
best path forward for getting the nation to a licensing
decision, which is necessary for public confidence in our
nuclear waste program, no matter the outcome of that decision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for taking the lead on this
important issue.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall
be made part of the record.
Now we go to introduction of our witnesses. And we thank
them all for joining today on what is a very important topic.
First, we have Ms. Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of
Nuclear Energy Institute. Welcome. Mr. Robert Halstead,
Executive Director, State of Nevada, Office of the Governor,
Agency for Nuclear Projects. And, again, welcome. Mr. Austin
Keyser, Director of Political and Legislative Affairs With the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. We welcome
you. And Mr. Geoffrey Fettus, senior attorney with Nuclear
Climate and Clean Energy Programs at the Natural Resources
Defense Council. Again, welcome. And, finally, welcome to Mr.
Lake Barrett, former Acting Director, Office for Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management with the United States Department
of Energy.
Again, thank you all for your time today.
And before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting
system. In front of you are a series of lights. The light will
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The
light will turn yellow when you have 1-minute remaining. Please
begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will
turn red when your time has indeed expired.
At this time, the Chair will recognize Ms. Korsnick for
five minutes to provide her opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF MARIA G. KORSNICK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NUCLEAR
ENERGY INSTITUTE; ROBERT J. HALSTEAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE
OF NEVADA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS;
AUSTIN KEYSER, DIRECTOR, POLITICAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; GEOFFREY H.
FETTUS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NUCLEAR, CLIMATE, AND CLEAN ENERGY
PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND LAKE BARRETT,
FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
STATEMENT OF MARIA G. KORSNICK
Ms. Korsnick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear
Energy Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
on the three pieces of legislation which seek to address and
end the long overdue stalemate of disposing of our Nation's
used nuclear fuel.
Nuclear energy is the largest and most efficient source of
carbon-free electricity in the United States. Currently, we
have 97 commercial nuclear power plants in 29 States, and they
provide nearly 20 percent of America's electricity and more
than half of our Nation's emissions-free electricity. These
reactors are carbon-free workhorses essential to addressing
climate change in any realistic manner.
That said, the advanced reactors of tomorrow and the
current U.S. operating fleet are continually subject to
reputational damage because Congress, for two decades now, has
played politics with the issue of used fuel. It is vitally
important that the U.S. remain a global leader in the
commercial nuclear arena. And yet we are the only major nuclear
Nation without a used fuel management program.
The U.S. nuclear industry has upheld its end of the
bargain. At sites in 35 States around the country, commercial
used fuel is safely stored and managed awaiting pick up by the
Federal Government, which was scheduled in 1998. Additionally,
the Nuclear Waste Fund, which was set up to finance the
development of a national repository, currently has over $41
billion in its coffers, which has been contributed by
electricity consumers and nuclear generation companies. Each
year, over $1.5 billion more in interest accumulates in this
fund. And, finally, each day that we don't have a solution cost
American taxpayer $2.2 million in damages.
In recent years, this has come to over $800 million
annually, and it has the unfortunate distinction of being the
single largest liability paid out of the judgment fund year
after year. It is time to solve this, and I am excited to talk
about how that can be achieved. We need a durable used fuel
program. Politicizing this issue has stymied progress for far
too long. We must allow the science, not politics, to guide us
forward. But let me be clear: congressional action is
necessary.
First, we need an answer on the Yucca Mountain license
application. DOE submitted the application to the NRC more than
a decade ago, and Congress directed the NRC to issue a decision
in 2012. This deadline, like too many, was missed because DOE,
without basis, shut down the Yucca Mountain project. For the
sake of the communities holding stranded commercial fuel
wishing to redevelop their sites and others holding high-level
defense waste, we must move forward and allow Nevada's
technical concerns with Yucca Mountain to be heard by NRC's
independent administrative judges. This will allow a licensing
decision to be determined based on its scientific merits rather
than politics.
Second, as the licensing process of Yucca Mountain moves
forward, interim storage can play an important role in helping
to move spent fuel away from the reactor sites. Moving interim
storage forward in parallel with the Yucca Mountain project
helps to alleviate State and local concerns that interim
storage will become a de facto disposal facility. This point
was, in fact, highlighted just last week by a letter from New
Mexico Governor Lujan Grisham.
That said, I am pleased interim storage is addressed in
several of the bills that are being discussed today, and I
strongly believe interim storage can be successful if moved in
parallel with Yucca Mountain.
Finally, the nuclear industry and electricity consumers
around the country have paid their fair share to address the
back end of the fuel cycle. In fact, the Nuclear Waste Fund's
annual investment income alone was $1.5 billion last year. Both
H.R. 2699 and H.R. 3136 correctly understand the importance of
not prematurely reimposing the nuclear waste fee, especially
given the substantial balance and large investment interest
which accrues annually.
The industry believes the fee should not be reinstated
until, one, the annual expense for the program's ongoing
projects exceed the annual investment income on the fund. And,
two, the projected lifecycle cost demonstrates that the fee
must be reinstated to achieve full cost recovery over the life
of the program.
The fact that we are here today considering three pieces of
legislation that address solving the used fuel stalemate is a
positive step in the right direction. The industry sincerely
appreciates the committee's awareness and motivation to find a
durable solution. We look forward to continuing to work with
each and every one of you to reach a bipartisan approach for
the long-term management of the Nation's used fuel.
Thank you, and I look forward answering your question.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Korsnick follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Korsnick.
And next, Mr. Halstead, you are recognized for five
minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. HALSTEAD
Mr. Halstead. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here this morning. I am Robert Halstead. I am
executive director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects, which is
part of the Office of Governor Steve Sisolak. Governor Sisolak
has made three points in his letter to the full Energy and
Commerce Committee and to the chair and ranking member.
First, the State of Nevada opposes the Yucca Mountain
project based on scientific, technical, and legal merits.
Second, under the current law, only the Governor is empowered
to consult with the Federal Government on matters related to
siting a nuclear waste repository. And, third, Governor Sisolak
has been fully briefed on the bills and specifically opposes
H.R. 2699 and the Barrasso version in the Senate because it
continues a central failing of the current Federal law, which
was the selection of Yucca Mountain based on political science
rather than Earth science. Governor Sisolak's letter is
attached to my testimony. Attachment 2 explains in detail our
specific concerns about H.R. 2699.
I want to thank the committee staff for helping me overcome
the difficulties I had in filing my testimony for today. The
rest of my comments summarize a few key points.
Yucca Mountain contradicts the foundational principle of
geologic disposal, but the site itself, its geology and
hydrology, not engineered barriers designed by humans must
prevent the radioactive contamination of groundwater and the
accessible environment for tens of thousands to one million
years. Without engineered barriers, Yucca Mountain would
inevitably contaminate an aquifer from which water is used for
a variety of purposes, including drinking water, agriculture,
food processing, and Native American religious ceremonies.
After three decades of DOE failures at Yucca Mountain, H.R.
2699 bets the farm on Yucca Mountain and doubles down on DOE.
Both are bad bets. Yucca Mountain would have to survive
Nevada's 218 admitted contentions and 30 new contentions if
licensing restarts. It would likely be 20 years or more, if
ever, before any spent fuel could be received at Yucca
Mountain.
And as DOE's own studies show, walking away from Yucca
Mountain and starting over with a repository in salt or shale
would save tens of billions of dollars and likely be available
sooner. DOE bungled the first repository program. They bungled
the second repository program. They bungled the Oak Ridge
monitored retrieval storage program in its pronuclear estate as
Tennessee when now-Senator Lamar Alexander was Governor. He
made the decision to cast the first veto under the Waste Policy
Act. The nuclear program must be taken out of DOE if you want
it to succeed.
Two other measures before your committee, the Levin and
Matsui bills certainly are a good first start in addressing the
problem of stranded nuclear fuel. That is a furtherance of the
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's
Nuclear Future. And, also, many people probably are not aware
here yet. In 2018, the Western Interstate Energy Board has also
adopted a resolution that would prioritize removal of stranded
fuel. However, the funding provisions of H.R. 3136, like the
funding provisions of 2699, need to be closely examined.
H.R. 2699 is not a good solution for stranded fuel because
the licensing conditions would severely limit the amount of
stranded fuel that could be accepted at the MRS. Yucca Mountain
is not a good solution because the spent fuel at the shutdown
reactors as all the reactors go into dry storage are being
welded into storage canisters that are not compatible with
DOE's license application. And the safety evaluation report
that has been referred to by Representative Shimkus clearly
says as a condition established by the NRC staff, that fuel
can't be received without being repackaged.
Turning to consent-based siting, Nevada supports the
Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act, H.R. 1544, introduced by
Representatives Titus, Horsford, and Lee of Nevada, and the
companion bill, S. 649, to require a consent agreement between
any State--but here we are particularly looking at Nevada--
between DOE, the repository host State, affected counties,
affected Indian Tribes prior to the construction of a
repository. This would extend consent to the State of Nevada
for Yucca Mountain. This approach is also going to need to be
considered for the interim storage facilities in Texas and New
Mexico.
We think the better vehicle for fixing the program is S.
1234, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2019. Governor
Sisolak concluded his letter with a pledge. If your committee
is truly interested in fixing the Nation's broken nuclear waste
program, my staff and I and Nevada's congressional delegation
would be happy to meet with you and explore constructive
alternatives. I hope the subcommittee will consider my
testimony today as a first step in fulfilling Nevada's part of
the Governor's pledge.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Halstead follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman concludes his statement. We thank
Mr. Halstead.
Next, we recognize Mr. Keyser for five minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF AUSTIN KEYSER
Mr. Keyser. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and
members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Environment and Climate Change, thank you for inviting me.
My name is Austin Keyser. I am the director of the
International Brotherhood and Electrical Workers Political and
Legislative Affairs Department. I have been asked by our
president, Lonnie Stephenson, to speak on his behalf.
The IBEW is the largest energy union in the world. We
represent more than 775,000 members in the United States and
Canada, and we work in a variety of energy related fields
including utilities, construction, telecommunications,
broadcasting, manufacturing, railroads, and government.
Nuclear energy in America produces 20 percent of our
electricity and accounts for 50 percent of all zero-carbon
power. The need for the country's only carbon-free-source that
can ensure around-the-clock generation had become even greater
as we move toward more renewable energy.
Supporting nuclear generation is critical if the U.S. is
going to reduce emissions while meeting our increasing base
load energy demands. Fifteen thousand members of the IBEW are
employed full-time by the nuclear industry at 55 facilities
across the United States. Thousands more IBEW members rotate
through nuclear plants for maintenance and refueling. The
IBEW's history in the industry coincides with the construction
of the very first nuclear facilities.
The nuclear industry supplies high wages and safe jobs.
These options pay one-third more than the average jobs in the
communities where they exist and tout safety records that are
the high watermark for American industry. These are the types
of family-sustaining careers that Americans are looking for and
policymakers should support. Hundreds of IBEW members lose
their jobs every time a nuclear facility closes often
eliminating the biggest source of economic activity in the
community. We have already seen the adverse impacts that plant
disclosures cause. We fear similar fate for workers at Davis-
Besse and Perry in my home State of Ohio and other communities
at risk of losing their facilities.
But critical to the future of the Nation's nuclear sector
is opening a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel, SNF.
Under Federal statute, a permanent geologic repository was
scheduled to open at Yucca Mountain Nevada no later than
January 31, 1998. Over two decades later, ratepayers and
workers are still waiting for a place to safely store over
80,000 metric tons of SNF sitting at 121 sites in 35 States
across the country.
The IBEW supports effort to restart the licensing process
of Yucca Mountain. Going back to the late 1970s, the IBEW has
endorsed legislation that ensures timely central storage, safe
transportation, and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuels.
The IBEW was part of the construction of Yucca Mountain site
before work halted in 2010. If work recommences there, it would
create 2,000 construction jobs lasting a decade. A permanent
repository would help alleviate concerns about nuclear power
and boost support for nuclear generation as a foundational part
of Nation's energy portfolio.
A permanent repository is also necessary to ensure public
support for the next generation of advanced nuclear reactors
that we hope will come online in the near future. Additionally,
the IBEW supports the authorization of a consolidated interim
facility to safely store SNF particularly for dry caskets and
nongenerating nuclear plants.
An interim facility would allow for the redevelopment of
shuttered nuclear plants bringing economic revitalization, tax
review and jobs to working families and communities that were
hard hit by the closures. Many closed stations are ideal sites
for future development of other forms of electrical generation,
including renewables, due to the existing electrical
transmission infrastructure. A consolidated interim storage
facility should have the support of the host State and local
community. Authorizing legislation should have clear language
ensuring that an interim facility does not become a de facto
permanent storage site.
Today's hearings focus on three bills. The Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act, the Storage and Transportation Residual
and Excess Act, and the Spent Fuel Prioritization Act. The IBEW
supports the opening of a permanent storage facility as soon as
one is properly licensed to build. H.R. 2699 would help resolve
key issues such as land withdrawal and site infrastructure at
Yucca Mountain and require the NRC to conclude its review of
the application within 30 months of enactment.
This legislation would authorize the Energy Department to
open interim storage facilities to consolidate SNF from sites
with a decommissioned and provide a pathway for the State of
Nevada and local communities to discuss benefits associated
with these projects.
Similar legislation passed the House of Representatives
last year with strong bipartisan support. H.R. 3136 would
authorize the Energy Department to open at least one interim
facility. It would require consent from the State and local
community before an interim site could be licensed.
We support the provisions in the STORE Act to prioritize
SNF at closed nuclear facilities for interim storage. The IBEW
would strongly prefer that Congress take action to open a
permanent repository as soon as possible. But we recognize that
an interim facility may be the best first step toward a
comprehensive solution that will consolidate SNF at a central
repository. H.R. 2995 would prioritize storage of SNF from
decommissioned nuclear plants near large populations and
seismic hazards.
Congress and Federal regulators should treat all
communities fairly by also considering the length of time the
plant has been decommissioned and the other potential
environmental risks. The IBEW supports congressional action
that will protect ratepayers who have paid tens of billions of
dollars into the Nuclear Waste Fund for decades by ensuring
fees are not prematurely reinstituted until it is demonstrated
that additional moneys are necessary to achieve full cost
recovery of the program.
We appreciate that the sponsors of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act and the STORE Act included these protections.
In conclusion, the IBEW respectfully urges Congress to take
the necessary steps to open a permanent repository. Now is the
time to come together and pass bipartisan legislation that will
honor the Federal Government's promise to the nuclear industry,
union workers, and ratepayers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keyser follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Keyser.
And, Mr. Fettus, you are recognized for five minutes,
please.
STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY H. FETTUS
Mr. Fettus. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to present NRDC's views. We hope this hearing can
be a new beginning. With more than 80,000 metric tons in more
than half of our States and reactors moving to decommissioning,
we need to reset the process. The drafts before us today,
however well intentioned, will not solve the current stalemate
and won't lead toward workable solutions.
For more than 50 years, Congress has offered and sometimes
passed bills that are variations on these themes. Restart the
Yucca licensing process or kick open a door in New Mexico for
an interim storage site. When that State was promised
repeatedly, no such thing would ever happen.
We sit here today because these efforts have failed
repeatedly over decades. In Tennessee, in Kansas, Nevada Utah,
everywhere else. Another such attempt restarts litigation and
controversy, the likely result if these bills move forward:
continued stalemate.
Seven years ago, President Obama's bipartisan blue ribbon
commission keenly described why past attempts failed. That
Presidential commission wisely asserted we can't keep doing the
same thing, which is what we are doing here today. Congress
must create a process that allows any potential host State to
consent and, for that matter, not consent.
Our written testimony addresses why these specific drafts
won't work. So, with these four minutes, I present for your
consideration a durable reset of how we can manage and dispose
of nuclear waste and how you can and should take the lead.
Our solution can be summed up simply: Give EPA and the
States power under our bedrock environmental statutes so that
the States can set the terms for how much and on what
conditions they could host disposal sites.
How would reapportioning the power change things? I urge
you to look at the root of why we are stuck in half of a
century of rancor. Radioactive waste is stranded because the
Atomic Energy ACT treats it as a privileged pollutant. The act
pre-empts EPA and State regulatory authority, exempting
radioactivity from hazardous waste law, sizeable portions of
the Clean Water Act, and several others.
By disconnecting radioactivity from the normal patterns of
environmental law, we ignore the vital role States play in
addressing environmental contaminates, protecting their
citizens, and generally regulating what happens within their
borders. We can open a path forward that respects each State
rather than offering up the latest one for sacrifice. With the
protection of the environmental statutes, a State can say no or
yes and on what terms and not necessarily be subject to hosting
the entire burden.
Such a new regime would allow for a thorough technical
review without the fear that negative findings will be
dispensed with as soon as it is expedient, as happened
repeatedly with the Yucca process. Deep scientific review could
be at the forefront, this time joined with institutional
structures that would allow for public acceptance of solutions.
Our government is at its strongest when each player's role
is respected. State consent and public acceptance of potential
repository sites will never be willingly granted--and we have
50 years of evidence for that, including from New Mexico, and I
am hearing Texas right now--unless and until power on how,
when, and where the waste will be disposed of is shared rather
than decided by Federal fiat.
I am sorry I can't give you a guarantee that eliminating
these exemptions will magically solve the puzzle, but I can
guarantee that trying to force open a storage or disposal site
over the objections of a State, whether it is Utah, New Mexico,
Texas, or Nevada will only lead to more of the same, and then
the waste won't move.
We have seen these bills before, but each has been a mirror
of the last. NRDC is not saying no but how to get to yes and
how to do so in a way that could work in our democracy. Strong
environmental laws have a proven track record. Giving States
that regulatory authority will give them the ability to consent
on scientific and political terms that they can live with. It
is time to regulate nuclear waste the same way as every other
pollutant with EPA and the delegated States taking the lead
under our foundational environmental statutes.
Thank you again for having me here, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fettus follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Fettus.
We now recognize Mr. Barrett for five minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF LAKE BARRETT
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and distinguished members of the committee. It is an
honor to appear before you today on the importance and urgency
of moving forward to remove spent nuclear fuel from shutdown
reactor sites as soon as possible while providing our
grandchildren with a permanent disposal solution.
I speak to you today from the perspective of a former
Department of Energy civil service executive who spent nearly
two decades trying to implement the laws of the United States
in this area. I retired from DOE in the 2002 after completing
the statutory Yucca Mountain site recommendation process. This
process included Nevada's disapproval of the Yucca Mountain
site and subsequent bipartisan congressional override votes of
307 here in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
The need for Federal performance to remove spent fuel from
reactor sites is growing faster as more power reactors shut
down, leaving fuel stranded at dozens of sites across the
country. Meanwhile, the lawful DOE program created to solve
this problem is stuck in limbo accomplishing nothing now
because Nevada delegation has skillfully politically stopped
program funding.
To address these issues, the country needs to keep its
primary focus on a realistic geologic repository program and
add integrated consolidated interim storage as an important
supplement for a more timely removal of spent fuel from
shutdown reactors.
In my view, H.R. 2699 moves in that direction as it
contains the necessary elements of both the repository and
interim storage facility. Specifically, I urge congressional
action to complete the almost finished Yucca Mountain licensing
proceeding. Yucca Mountain is the most studied piece of ground
on the planet with separate teams of DOE and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission staff scientists concluding that all million-year
safety requirements are met. Although Nevada disagrees, it is
time, before impartial judges, for a safety decision.
Regardless of Yucca Mountain progress or not, the Federal
Government should engage Nevada to discuss various empowerment
and partnership options that further respect Nevada's host
State status. It is time we break the repeating win-lose, lose-
win cycle that has frustrated both Nevada and the Nation for
decades. Both sides have much to gain and both sides have much
to lose.
I personally believe a win-win scenario can be mutually
developed to conserve the needs of both. I am confident that
the Yucca Mountain repository will succeed on its scientific
and regulatory merits. It is possible, however, that it may
fail or be endlessly delayed by political obstructionism. And
even if Yucca Mountain does go forward under current law,
another repository will be needed. Thus, an alternative
repository program should be promptly started.
An integrated consolidated interim storage facility should
be added to the Nation's spent fuel management program because
it would provide a bridge from the many dozens of temporary
fuel storage locations across the country to an eventual
ultimate geologic repository site in a more timely manner.
However, there are significant siting challenges for an
interim storage facility based on experience because, despite
local community support, host State level leadership has
generally stopped these efforts. A major reason for the
blockage was that any interim storage facility without a
companion realistic geologic disposal program would just become
another indefinite storage facility. It is for this reason that
I believe the existence of a meaningful repository program will
be a necessity to enable the development of a consensus
consolidated interim storage facility anywhere in this country.
Speaking as a grandparent and as an engineer, it is simply
irresponsible to saddle our children, grandchildren, and future
generations with spent fuel sitting in thousands of canisters
in dozens of stranded storage sites scattered across this
country on our rivers, lakes, and seashores, with seemingly
endless financial liabilities and no place to go. It is time we
act to remove spent fuel from the coast of Maine to the coast
of California and from our Great Lakes and river systems in
between. It is time to step up and take responsibility for
decisions we made six decades ago to produce nuclear fuel and
three decades ago to develop a geologic repository for an
ultimate safe disposition of that fuel.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrett follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
We have concluded witness opening statements. We will now
move to member questions. Each Member will have five minutes to
ask questions of our witnesses.
Looking at the number of colleagues here, I am reminded
that we are to have votes around 11:30. And those votes are
going to run for hours. So I would ask that our witnesses offer
succinct answers to these questions, and I encourage my
colleagues to offer, again, succinct questions. So we will be
really tough with the gavel today because, in fairness, I want
everyone to get their questions in. We will have, then, about
45 to 50 minutes, and we will not return. So thank you.
We will now move to questions. I will begin with that
process.
As I mentioned, this is a complex and difficult challenge,
but I also believe that we have a responsibility to acknowledge
that this waste exists and needs to be dealt with.
I would ask everyone on the panel, what is the one thing
that can--that Congress can do that will result in the most
progress in addressing our waste challenge?
Ms. Korsnick, why don't we begin with you?
Ms. Korsnick. Well, I think the best thing we can do is to
move forward with the licensing process with Yucca. I think
that is the linchpin. It started. It is the law. The process is
underway. We need to complete it.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Halstead.
Mr. Halstead. The most important thing is to extend consent
to the State of Nevada regarding Yucca Mountain, as is proposed
in the legislation that has been put in by Nevada's delegation.
And I would tell you the opposite. The worst way to making
progress is H.R. 2699.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Keyser.
Mr. Keyser. I would echo Ms. Korsnick and say to go ahead
and have the hearings--I would echo Ms. Korsnick and say that
speaking up and considering the licensing of the DOE
application for Yucca Mountain.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Fettus.
Mr. Fettus. To get progress started, remove the
environmental exemptions in the Atomic Energy Act.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Complete Yucca Mountain licensing and use
strong carrots and sticks to force the State of Nevada and the
Federal Government to negotiate a win-win solution.
Mr. Tonko. And, Ms. Korsnick, as more reactors go through
decommissioning, how will that exercise increase the urgency to
resolve this standoff?
Ms. Korsnick. Well, obviously, we have more waste that
needs to be disposed of. So it only challenges it further.
When we talk about nuclear of the future, and there are
wonderful opportunities for nuclear of the future, one of the
first questions that we get is what about the waste. So the
inability to have this solution really is an Albatross around
the neck of the nuclear industry.
Mr. Tonko. OK. I will ask everyone on the panel, and
perhaps this time begin with Mr. Barrett, what role should
consolidated interim storage play?
Mr. Barrett. I believe it should supply a supporting role
to the ultimate disposition of a geologic repository, a very
important supportive role.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Fettus.
Mr. Fettus. We don't object to the concept. We do object to
trying to push it forward without a reset that gives the
cooperative federalism of our environmental laws control so
States can actually consent or not consent.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Keyser.
Mr. Keyser. Yes. I mean, we believe that there ought to be
consent in the process, but it needs to happen. But we need a
national repository as a backdrop. You can't have temporary
facilities without them knowing they are going to be temporary
facilities.
Mr. Tonko. Right.
And, Mr. Halstead, please.
Mr. Halstead. It is necessary, because there is not going
to be a repository for at least 20 and possibly 25 years,
whether it is Yucca Mountain or something else. But it is
important that there be an integrated approach so that the fuel
that is packaged at the reactors can be accepted at the interim
storage facilities and then eventually at a repository.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, finally, Ms. Korsnick, please.
Ms. Korsnick. Yes. We agree that interim storage is an
important step in the overall process to getting to long-term
repository.
Mr. Tonko. And would interim storage, if opened ahead of a
permanent repository, help limit taxpayers' liability through
the judgment fund? Anyone?
Yes, Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Yes, it could, if it is part of the integrated
Federal system.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Anyone else want----
Mr. Fettus. I don't think it will because I don't think you
are going to have an integrated Federal system. I think you are
going to have a de facto parking lot.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Ms. Korsnick. It doesn't meet the Federal obligation of
receiving fuel, so I don't believe that it has a significant
impact on the judgment fund.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Mr. Halstead.
Mr. Halstead. The single major problem facing the program
is not Yucca Mountain, not DOE, but the unresolved issue of how
to manage the Nuclear Waste Fund, whether to reinstate the fee,
and then how to deal with the way the Congress handles this in
annual appropriations, and eventually what happens with the
corpus.
So one thing I think that Mr. Shimkus and I agree on, I
don't agree with his answer, but it is certainly the right
question.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
With that, I will recognize Mr. Shimkus, the subcommittee
ranking member, for five minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Korsnick, you note ratepayers contribute what amounts
to a $41 billion balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund. And so,
when Congress chooses not to spend money on the nuclear waste
program, it is basically keeping ratepayer money for other
purposes.
Would that be fair?
Ms. Korsnick. No.
Mr. Shimkus. While Congress is not spending ratepayer money
on the program they paid for, it is spending taxpayers money
for its failure to move forward. Is it correct that these
taxpayers funded liability payments are not appropriated by
Congress but automatically paid out of the judgment fund?
Ms. Korsnick. That is correct.
Mr. Shimkus. And the Congress doesn't really see that their
constituents had been paying $800 million a year for failure to
move forward, correct?
Ms. Korsnick. That is correct.
Mr. Shimkus. Would you agree it is only going to get worse
with each day of delay in appropriating funds to complete the
licensing process?
Ms. Korsnick. That is correct. It only gets worse.
Mr. Shimkus. That is why we need funding reform, and that
is part of this debate.
Mr. Barrett, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we gave
Nevada the tools, which really means the money, they need to
oppose the Yucca licensing process at the NRC. And I think that
is instructive. And part of this whole process, the money that
Nevada is using to dispute the science that I had directed in
the opening statement came from ratepayers.
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir, it did. Nevada received about $200
million to the State of Nevada in the university system to
follow the Yucca Mountain project, which they have done.
Mr. Shimkus. We also paid for all the scientific review and
analysis that I showed, and for those who came late, those
boxes over there, and that review, the white binders, are the
NRC analysis. We have also put money forward to do that. Is
that correct, Mr. Barrett?
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. What do we say to ratepayers if we just walk
away from the Yucca Mountain licensing review and allow
unadjudicated contentions to stand by default?
Mr. Barrett. It is embarrassing.
Mr. Shimkus. It is embarrassing.
Is that fair to the ratepayers?
Mr. Barrett. In my view, no.
Mr. Shimkus. So, I want to--for the folks here and for my
colleagues, this is where we are at. We are acting under a law
that is the current law of the land. We did the science, $10
billion over 30 years. We gave Nevada the money to contest
that. The last part of this process is to go before judges who
are scientists to address the contentions that Nevada has that
says that those boxes of science and that review by the NRC is
not adequate enough.
For us to move forward and for--and, really, NRC too who
prides themselves on science, we ought to an adjudicate the
science, don't you agree, Ms. Korsnick?
Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. For Nevada to get their day in
court, that is the part of the process that we are in right
now. Let's take it through the licensing process and let the
judges hear it.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Keyser.
Mr. Keyser. Yes. Absolutely. We think it ought to move
through the licensing process and have a fair review. And if
that review turns up something we don't understand, we can
reevaluate at that time. But a hearing is, I think, just in
this case.
Mr. Shimkus. And Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. So, Mr. Barrett, let me turn to you.
What if Nevada is right? What if they say--what if they go
before these judges who are scientists, and when they lay out
their contentions, and these judges who are scientists say it
is not safe, per the current law of the land, the law, what
happens?
Mr. Barrett. If the judges say they would reject the
license application and it would stop there and it is back
here, we would have to basically say this site will not go
forward, and we will have to find another alternative.
Mr. Shimkus. So, let me go through.
What do you mean by another alternative?
Mr. Barrett. We would have to find another repository site
somewhere of this country. I would note that there was a DOE
second repository program in mid-1980s that was politically
terminated. It identified suitable geologic regions in 36
States across this country. Something would have to go back
with that, consent or not, and decide what to do, or possibly a
different approach as Mr. Fettus talked about.
Mr. Shimkus. So, in the original--or our Founding Fathers
of this whole debate, they threw out a wide net. And
basically--to have a long-term geological repository, which is
the scientific consensus for long-term nuclear waste, we have
to start the process all over. And every State would have the
opportunity to maybe welcome a nuclear waste long-term
repository.
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
I ask that our witnesses--our press corps has indicated
they can barely hear some of the answers. So, if you could all
just move in closer, please, to the mike.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Peters for five
minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to ask a question of Mr. Fettus. You addressed
political things. You didn't actually discuss any of the
technical issues.
Mr. Halstead posited that the defect in Yucca was that,
even though we could talk about what you could engineer to hold
nuclear waste, the geological setting was not adequate.
Does NRDC have an opinion on the whether the geologies at
Yucca or in general is--
Mr. Fettus. We do. We do. We think it is fraught with a
series of significant technical questions. We think it is more
leaky than was originally thought in the 1980s when it was
chosen for, as Mr. Halstead said, political reasons. We also
think there are significant questions whether it could ever
survive the licensing process in any meaningful fashion.
Mr. Peters. OK. Do you have an opinion--does NRDC have an
opinion about places in the United States where, from a
geological perspective, it would be appropriate to permanently
dispose of nuclear waste?
Mr. Fettus. You know, yes, in that we think that the
process that Mr. Barrett just referenced, the U.S. Geological
Survey process from the mid-1980s that did look at 36 States it
came up with, and Mr. Barrett can correct me if I am wrong,
dozens of locations that could potentially be suitable.
My point and why I spent the time on the institutional
process--and I don't really see it as politics; I see it as the
institutional framework for how to go forward--is you won't get
to that scientific review, a meaningful deep review of what is
a suitable site, until you reapportion the power consistent
with our environmental laws.
Mr. Peters. To me, that is obviously wrong. That is
obviously wrong. I don't know if you can cite me any State that
want to begin this.
Mr. Fettus. Yes, I can. Who is asking for this? Which
State?
MThis is why it won't work.
OK. At the end of the Obama administration--and I really
appreciate the question--at the end of the Obama
administration, they wanted to look at the viability of deep
borehole disposal in South Dakota. South Dakota--red State
South Dakota--they drew up the barriers so fast, so hard. And I
would encourage you to go talk to DOE about what happened. It
did not go well.
The reason why it did not go well was because any time the
Energy Department Starts to look for it, a State thinks it
could be entirely on the hook for everything. And until you
change that, until consistent with environmental law, States
have the ability to set the terms by which they could accept
some portion, we will not get forward progress. You will have
what happened with Nevada. We even have----
Mr. Peters. But what you are saying is--we know Nevada
doesn't want it. South Dakota didn't want it either. Tennessee
didn't want it.
Mr. Fettus. We don't know what will happen, honestly, if
you actually reset the process where people are not on the hook
for everything. And that is the key point.
Mr. Peters. So what would be the terms with which you would
approach South Dakota and say, ``We are not going to give you
everything; we are going to give you half of it''?
Mr. Fettus. They wouldn't be approached like that, because,
basically, you would have an entire reset where--we have right
now a licensed consolidated interim storage facility in this
country. You know that, right? In Utah. It exists. It is built,
and it is licensed.
It will never accept a gram of waste, because Senator Orrin
Hatch led the entire congressional delegation to put a
wilderness around it in a circle to ensure waste will never be
shipped there.
Mr. Peters. Let me just suggest, what I am inferring is
that there is not a lot of enthusiasm among the States to
accept any amount of undefined--any undefined or defined amount
of nuclear waste. There just isn't. You know, I have experience
in local politics. No one even wants a house next to their
house. I mean, to me, it is--you know, when you talk about
federalism, the magic of federalism is the supremacy clause and
the ability of the Federal Government to say: You know what? I
have to--I can't--I have to look at all you squabblers, and I
have to say, from a technical perspective, that this is a safer
place to put this waste in this geology, per this engineering,
per this licensing process, than say next to 80--you know, 8
million people on the coast, on a military base, that is a
better--that this risk is lower.
I mean, I think, from a practical standpoint, I don't know
where you get the idea that some State is going to come, you
know, give you a high five for putting nuclear waste there. It
is just not going to happen.
And it is up to this committee and the Federal Government
to say: From a technical perspective, from a safety
perspective, it is not going to be in these dangerous places;
it is going to be in safer place.
That is why I support all three of these bills, and I think
we got to move forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, full committee ranking
member for five minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all the
witnesses. We have got a couple of hearings going on today, so
I am bouncing back and forth.
Mr. Barrett, during a hearing before this subcommittee in
May of 2015, Washington State Assistant Attorney General Andy
Fitz testified that the Federal Government's inaction on the
Yucca Mountain license application was harming DOE's
obligations to clean up defense high-level waste at the Hanford
site, which is right across the river from my district.
Could you speak to the importance of completing the
licensing process as it relates to sites like Hanford?
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
The Federal repository, which Yucca Mountain is the site on
the table right now, would take care of the commercial fuel but
would also take care of all our defense high-level waste of
which the primary source is at Hanford. So it would a solution
for that.
Mr. Walden. And you know a bit about that the Hanford site,
right?
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. And the leaking tanks?
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. Yes. They were designed to last, what, 40
years, 20 years?
Mr. Barrett. Long ago.
Mr. Walden. Yes. Like World War II.
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. We have kind of exceeded their lifespan.
Mr. Barrett. Well, precautions are taken to keep them safe.
But, yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. Sure.
And the clean-up will take how long.
Mr. Barrett. Long time.
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Like a century.
Mr. Barrett. A long time, sir.
Mr. Walden. Yes. And, meanwhile, it sits there along the
banks of the Columbia River. We have got leaks. We have got
tunnels that are collapsing on top of old railcars that are
somewhat radioactive. I mean, they are doing their best, but
they are going to reprocess, and then where does that go?
Mr. Barrett. It needs to go to a geological repository
somewhere, like a Yucca Mountain facility.
And, yes, this generation has a responsibility for what we
did 60, 70 years ago.
Mr. Walden. That is exactly right.
So, Ms. Korsnick and Mr. Barrett, H.R. 2699, the McNerney-
Shimkus legislation provides accelerated interim storage that
is integrated into a permanent storage program. It is
authorized up to 50 million per year through general
appropriations until the operation repository commences.
Do you think that is enough to initiate an interim program
and an appropriate source of funding?
Ms. Korsnick. I mean, I think it is a good start. The
reality is we just need to get on with it, you know, get
started. And there is plenty of money that has been set aside
for this. And we need to move forward.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir. I think it is a good start as well.
I think it needs to be complimented with a banging of the heads
together between the Federal Government and Nevada to
compliment that with using the principles of the blue ribbon
commission of empowerment to work the needs out for both.
Mr. Walden. I think I know a couple of my colleagues are
more than willing to bang some heads together.
H.R. 3136, Ms. Matsui's bill, would allow appropriations
for interim storage of the Nuclear Waste Fund for up to 25
percent of the interest on the fund, or upwards of $300 million
a year. It seems to me that diverting funds from the waste fund
for interim storage that is not linked to Yucca risks
increasing the financial burden on ratepayers to pay for a
permanent repository.
Is that a fair concern? Ms. Korsnick and Mr. Barrett?
Ms. Korsnick. I think, you know, it is. But I guess I would
qualify that. There has been so much money set aside. I mean,
$41 billion, really, and 1.5 million in interest every year. It
is almost hard to imagine that you can't build interim and a
long-term repository for that amount of money.
Mr. Walden. But hasn't the $41 billion basically already
been spent by the Congress in some other--no. OK.
Yes. Right.
Mr. Barrett.
Under a CBO issue we ran into----
Mr. Barrett. I believe interim storage, you know, can be
done. And I think it would not be a major issue as far as the
funds that are set aside.
Accessing those funds that are set aside is more of a
challenge that you have.
Mr. Walden. That is the issue.
So, I guess the point is Mr. Shimkus and others, but
especially John, has really led the effort in Congress after
Congress. And we reached a bipartisan agreement in the last
Congress. We got 340 votes on the House floor to resolve this
issue for the ratepayers, the taxpayers, and for the
environment. And for the life of me, I can't understand--oh,
that's right. The Constitution still gives Nevada two Senators
every election.
We have got to solve this for the safety and security of
the country, for the environment, for the ratepayers. This is
nuts. And I think a lot of us on this committee understand
that. Some of us have nuclear facilities right on fault lines,
like in California and around, that we need to find a solution
here.
And so, I just--I thank our witnesses for participating
today. I remain fully committed, Mr. Chairman, to work with you
or whoever or try and push this issue forward and get the
solution we promised ratepayers many years ago.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Soto, for five minutes, please.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I guess my first question for the panel is, is there any
other alternative to storing it in a place like Yucca Mountain?
For instance, further deep into the Earth's core or through
other methods? Or is there pretty much the only one that is
known to us right now. It would be great to start from left to
right.
Ms. Korsnick. Well, I think one of the biggest things to do
is just look at the rest of the nuclear community in the other
countries that have nuclear. And long-term repository is the
solution of choice. Finland is probably the best example. They
have licensed and are constructing a deep geological
repository. But, you know, there are other countries, Sweden,
Switzerland, France, others that are making notable progress.
So I think if you look at the broad nuclear community, deep
geologic repository is the solution of choice.
Mr. Soto. Mr. Halstead, do you think there is an
alternative?
Mr. Halstead. Well, first, I want to say the countries
where success is occurring, as Ms. Korsnick said, are the very
countries that have given up the approach we are using with
Yucca Mountain. And, in fact, particularly, in Germany and
France and the U.K., they started with forced siting, and it
didn't work. So the first thing for finding a repository site,
you have to have both good science, but you have to have the
consent of the affected community.
Rather than talk more about repositories, I think there is
some really interesting positive early results from the work on
deep borehole disposal, and that is a whole another topic we
could get into, but----
Mr. Soto. How deep----
Mr. Halstead [continuing]. Well, certainly, you are talking
in some places about going beyond 2,000 meters. Pretty deep. It
depends where the formation that you are seeking lies. But this
is a very positive alternative. It also is a particularly
attractive alternative for the waste that is at Hanford, some
of which DOE now wants to reclassify as being less than high-
level waste.
Now, there are pros and cons of that approach. But
depending on how that decision works, there are certain types
of waste at Hanford that might be a really good test for the
deep borehole disposal approach.
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
Mr. Keyser, is there a possibility of--is this what is
really holding back some of the new nuclear facilities from
going up? Because a lot of us want to get to renewable and
clean energy by 2050 and believe that nuclear would be a part
of that.
How much is this holding back that really becoming a
reality?
Mr. Keyser. I think it is the biggest force of communities,
opposition to nuclear power, because they are going to be stuck
with waste sitting on their sites at some point, 1982 is when
this promise was made that this fuel would move off, 1998, it
was supposed to be moved off. So we are almost 40 years past
when Congress made a program, 20 years past when the stuff was
supposed to be gone.
So it is now hard to talk to communities about developing
new nuclear when the promises haven't been upkept in the past.
We know they are safe. We know they are efficient. But we have
to get to the point where we move that fuel to a national
repository. Folks know they are not going to be stuck with that
fuel. We can redevelop not just the new jobs in the energy
implications of new nuclear facilities, which they are--
fortunately, a couple reactors under construction now where we
have thousands of members building them, but also redevelopment
of those existing sites, whether they are for new nuclear or
some other source of clean generation or sit in proximity to
our Nation's grid making very efficient places for
redevelopment, which could bring jobs back to those communities
that were hurt so badly by the decommissioning of these nuclear
plants.
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
Mr. Barrett, we have a facility, Crystal River, that is
closed now, two other facilities that are aging but could
potentially be rehabbed.
What is the impact of a long-term--of having a closed
reactor like Crystal River with rods just sitting there right
now to the long-term environmental protection of Florida?
Mr. Barrett. For safety purposes, the utilities will
maintain those safe under NRC control. So there is no short-
term safety issue with the fuel being stored there from our
view.
I think in the long term, that is not where fuel needs to
be, sitting on the seacoast right there at Crystal River and
anywhere else. So I think that needs to be moved. It was never
the agreement that we had. Those communities never consented to
being a long-term storage. And those materials need to move
somewhere that we need to have soon.
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
And just one quick question. Mr. Fettus, can you--are these
able to be recycled one day, you think, if we had the proper
technology?
Mr. Fettus. No.
Mr. Soto. OK.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Johnson, for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keyser, thank you for taking time today to testify at
this important hearing and for your past work with the Ohio
Valley Regional Development Commission. My staff and I have
great relationships with John Hemmings and the OVRDC staff and
enjoy working with them on economic development opportunities
in southern Ohio. OVRDC's work along with the ARC, the
Appalachian Regional Commission, and the other development
districts are so vitally important to ensuring eastern and
southeastern Ohio receives the support it needs to be an
economic player in our State and in our region.
So we are happy to have you here today representing the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. So tell me,
what role do IBEW workers play within the nuclear industry?
Mr. Keyser. We are the largest union in the nuclear
industry. We represent most of the workers in nuclear
generation, so these plants are loaded with our members. Not
only there but at the old enrichment facilities, at weapons
grade facilities, at all these facilities I have heard named
today. We have IBEW members onsite doing core work, whether it
is in the operations or just the electrical construction or
capital improvements or decommissioning of sites. So it is a
huge workforce, about 15,000 members in generation alone.
And it is important to us to keep those jobs. So they,
nuclear, out of all the utilities, employs more people per
megawatt hour. So they are larger employers. These jobs pay
dramatically higher wages because of the skill sets than do
most jobs comparable in their communities. They are the anchors
of these communities. As you know from the Portsmouth site and
the workers there, without those wages in that community, where
would the Portsmouth and Chillicothe and Jackson, Ohio----
Mr. Johnson. Sure.
And you sort of answered this a little bit, because I was
going to ask you, these jobs are really good-paying jobs, are
stable jobs. Explain that a little--they are stable because
they are so long term, right? I mean, you are there for a long
time once you are going an operation.
Mr. Keyser. Right. They are stable. And in the utility
space, in general, those jobs have the lowest turnover. So they
are not as reflective as the marketplace. If the market takes a
dip, you don't get rid of your generation workers, right? It
doesn't happen. So they are immune to those sorts of downturns.
And in many places in our economy, during the Great
Recession, without the utility bases in some of these
communities, especially in rural areas, they would have been
completely decimated with no opportunity for recovery. So they
are good solid long-term jobs. These folks invest heavily
either through our construction apprenticeships or through
trainings in conjunction with our utility partners. And these
are long-term careers. They aren't just jobs.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
All right. Now, I know your members are eager to get to
work in expanding the country's nuclear power sector.
From your perspective, this is kind of some out-of-the-box
thinking. What are the main barriers preventing the expansion
of nuclear power?
Mr. Keyser. I think it is public perception. And I think a
lot of it comes with this argument that we are having today on
the disposal of spent fuel. And since we are focused on that, I
think that is maybe the number one reason currently is the
handling of fuels. And we know that it is safe. We know that
our workers are in these facilities constantly.
As I said in my opening statement, the high watermark for
industrial safety is at these nuclear facilities. We have very
few occupational injuries in general. I don't know of a single
death that has ever occurred from radiation exposure from one
of our workers in these facilities.
So a very high skilled, very heavily regulated industry,
very safe jobs.
Mr. Johnson. OK. And you touched on this a little bit in a
previous answer, and you just alluded to it here as well. So do
you think the proposed legislation we are discussing today
would help advance the nuclear industry and benefit your
members? Do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Keyser. Yes, absolutely I do.
You know, I think an interim facility is okay. And it maybe
should happen to go ahead and start moving fuel. But it can't
happen, and nobody is going to opt into it voluntarily without
the backdrop of a permanent facility going to come online where
people can move this stuff.
So, if we are asking people to bid on interim facilities at
multiple locations where they have no guarantee that that fuel
is not going to be then moved away from them and into a
national repository, why would they bid on that any more than
Nevada would bid on Yucca Mountain?
So we do have--to Congressman Peters' point, we do have an
obligation here as a Nation to handle these fuels and put them
in the safest place possible and move those and keep this--keep
the nuclear industry, which is, you know, around-the-clock
base-load power generation, especially as we move to more
renewables. We have to have nuclear as a major part the
generation mix.
Mr. Johnson. OK. I am going to give you four seconds back,
Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
I am told they may call votes within five minutes, so we
are going to ask everyone to keep their questioning to three
minutes.
We now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for calling this hearing and considering my
proposal, the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act.
Now, I think you know, my situation, I have a
decommissioned plant in Sacramento, SMUD. And we would really
like to ensure that we can remove forward on this. And, you
know, this repository program is still stalled, and we have
this potential for consolidated interim storage. And it is
critically important this now if we want to be serious about
getting something done.
And I want to be clear: My bill is not intended to act as a
substitute for existing law; rather, it is an addition so that
we can make some progress here. And I think that is really very
important. Until we really get to the Yucca, or whatever we are
talking about, we have got to make some progress here.
Mr. Barrett, I know you have said before that it would be
wise to reengage in good-faith discussions with the State of
Nevada in an effort come to some sort of solution that is
agreeable to all parties. But a process like this requires time
and patience on all sides.
When you say, ``reengage to come up with a win-win,'' what
do you have in mind? What would be the omnis, and how do we go
about it?
Mr. Barrett. Well, I believe if the Federal Government
engages with Nevada following the principles of the blue ribbon
commission of empowerment, we can reach an agreement that would
advance where we are picking up some of the points that Mr.
Fettus said as part of an agreement between those two parties.
So I believe a win-win can be done.
Ms. Matsui. Well, the problem is, though, is that this new
relationship we are talking about with Nevada, I mean, I am
just looking at this.
Mr. Halstead, can you give me some sense of how long you
believe the licensing process at NRC could take and whether
there are steps that the State of Nevada will take to further
delay construction of a repository or an issuance of a
necessary license to DOE to actually possess and begin moving
used fuel to the site?
Mr. Halstead. Well, one of the questions that DOE needs to
answer is exactly what licensing would cost if restarted. I
think it is foolish both to force a licensing restart or
appropriate funds until you know the answer. Now, we have
estimated it, based on DOE, NRC, our own knowledge, at about $2
billion over 4 to 5 years.
And let me correct what Mr. Shimkus says. We are actually
spending Nevada's money on this. Since 2010, we have spent
about $26 million in State money. Last Federal money we got was
in 2009. The State--I have told the legislature: Don't expect
any Federal money.
And the legislature has said: Tell us how much money you
need.
This is how serious the opposition is.
So when we say 4 to 5 years and 2 billion, that might be a
low number because there are so many parties to the licensing
proceeding. And, remember, the Timbisha Shoshone Indian Tribe
and the Native Community Action Council, two Native American
groups, they have not weighed in yet.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I know I have gone beyond my time, but I
just want to say that I don't believe it is fair for my
constituents to have to wait through this process either.
So I yield back my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long,
for three minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barrett, Congress is no doubt to blame for the failure
to fund the licensing process. But it seems that there has been
a huge gap between the Department of Energy and the State of
Nevada and that they are operating using two different sets of
facts and don't trust each other, which is leading, of course,
to further delays.
In your testimony, you recommend the Department of Energy
should increase engagement with Nevada to move this forward. In
your heart of hearts, could or would that really work to move
this process along?
Mr. Barrett. I think it would be better if it was another
agency or some other Federal organization. I tried to use the
word Federal Government to engage with Nevada, because I think
there is an awful lot of old baggage with the Department of
Energy, and we could have a better engagement with a different
type of organization.
But the law is the law, and it is the DOE at the time. But
I believe there are many better arrangements.
Mr. Long. I will take that as a no.
In order to build trust between the Department of Energy
and the State of Nevada, would one step be to complete the
safety license process for Yucca so every stakeholder will be
on the same page about the operational safety and feasibility
of the Yucca project?
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Long. I will take that as a yes.
And there would be time to work out an agreement between
the licensing and the operating permit, correct?
Mr. Barrett. That would be my goal.
Mr. Long. Switching gears here, Mr. Barrett.
One of the best ways to reduce carbon emissions is to
research and develop innovative technologies that improve our
current methods of electricity generation. There are excited
developments in the nuclear industry with small-scale reactors
that are being built as we speak.
Does the lack of progress we have made on long-term nuclear
waste disposal policy hinder or discourage innovation in this
field of a new type of nuclear reactors?
Mr. Barrett. Unfortunately, yes.
Mr. Long. OK. I am an auctioneer. I did my three minutes in
two. I hope everyone appreciates that.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Michigan,
Congresswoman Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I love the gentleman from Missouri.
We have established the fact that all of us are really
worried about what is happening. The waste is just currently
sitting at active and decommissioned nuclear plants across the
country. Michigan is one of them. So I want to focus my
questions on stored nuclear fuel in the Great Lakes region and
the dangers it presents. And if you don't know the answer, just
tell me, because we are quick on time.
Does anyone on this panel know how many tons of stored
nuclear fuel exists in temporary storage locations across the
shores of the Great Lake regions?
Mr. Fettus. I think it is 10,000 metric tons in Michigan
and a bunch more in Canada.
Mrs. Dingell. 60,000, yes.
Mr. Fettus. OK.
Mrs. Dingell. So it is about 70. I am sorry. It is 50,000
in Canada.
So, in total, there are over 60,000 tons of highly
radioactive spent nuclear fuel surrounding the Great Lakes.
That is almost as much as all the spent nuclear fuel in the
United States, which is nearly 70,000 tons.
Should we prioritize the removal of spent nuclear fuel away
from the Great Lakes?
Any of you want to answer that?
Mr. Barrett. Yes.
Mr. Halstead. I think the first thing you want to do is
move it from wet storage to dry storage, regardless of where it
is. That is a really big concern at the lakeside plants.
Mr. Fettus. Agreed.
Mrs. Dingell. What would happen if we were to have a leak
into the Great Lakes?
Ms. Korsnick. I guess if I could just address that in
general.
I mean, where it is stored right now, it is stored very
safely. This fuel is not liquid. It is not like it leaks. These
are metal rods that are put in stainless steel casks that are
stored on concrete pads. So it is not like it can sort of
spring a leak, if you will. They are seismically designed and
designed for a variety of hazards.
The NRC has very close scrutiny over any of this used fuel
that is stored. It is stored very safely at all the sites
today.
Mrs. Dingell. Do other of you agree with that?
Do you think we should be storing nuclear waste in the
Great Lakes? 20 percent of our fresh water?
Mr. Barrett. I agree it is being stored safely, but it
doesn't belong there for hundreds of years.
Mr. Fettus. I think we are trying to chart a way forward
that can actually work and move it and faster than the road we
are on now.
Mrs. Dingell. Anybody else want to comment?
Mr. Keyser. I would just agree that it shouldn't be stored
there forever, but it is stored safely. We have workers in
those facilities and around those facilities. They feel safe
moving it. We have never had an accident. We have never had
major radiation exposure to any of our members, so--but, again,
these----
Mrs. Dingell. We always say that until it happens.
Mr. Keyser. Right. These aren't designed to last forever,
so, yes, they need to be moved.
Mrs. Dingell. I yield back my time. I am not as good as the
gentleman from Missouri, but----
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Congressman Flores for three minutes,
please.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and leadership for
holding today's hearing.
Thank you for the witnesses being here today.
I want to talk about the cost of starting over. The country
lost a substantial amount of time that was very valuable and
billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, of
hardworking taxpayer money after the previous administration
shut this program down.
Now opponents say that Yucca Mountain will be too time-
consuming or costly to resume the licensing process.
Ms. Korsnick, do you believe it would be cheaper and
quicker to complete the Yucca licensing process or to start
over with a consent-based licensing process?
Ms. Korsnick. I think it would be cheaper to go forward
with the Yucca Mountain process.
Mr. Flores. OK. I am also concerned that if we don't solve
the storage problem, we won't be able to deploy the new
technologies that Mr. Long was talking about that are zero-
based emissions technologies.
Would you also agree, Ms. Korsnick?
Mr. Barrett, based on your experience and observations at
the Department, would you expect it to be significantly more
effective for the taxpayers and quicker to move forward with
the review of the Yucca license or starting over?
Mr. Barrett. Yes, I do.
Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Barrett, where would the funds come
from to start a second repository process?
Mr. Barrett. I believe they could come from the Nuclear
Waste Fund. The original program did. I believe the Yucca
Mountain should go forward, and we should supplement that with
another search, maybe along the lines of Mr. Fettus', but we
need to move forward.
Mr. Flores. Ms. Korsnick, in that case, what would the--you
know, we have got a shrinking nuclear fleet, unfortunately.
What would the cost be if we had a new fee structure, a new
revenue structure on top of the existing structure?
Ms. Korsnick. Yes. So that is a significant challenge. The
current plans are very stressed, as you know in the
marketplace. And so to restart a nuclear waste fee on top of
the challenges that they are facing today is very significant.
Mr. Flores. OK. It would make it less economic. It would
probably make it less attractive to invest in the new
technologies we need to have a zero emissions economy, right?
Ms. Korsnick. That is correct.
Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Barrett, what would the cost be for
site characterization and related design work in starting the
whole NRCC process over?
Mr. Barrett. Approximately $10 billion or so.
Mr. Flores. OK.
All right. I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney, for three minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman. And I want to
thank my colleague Mr. Shimkus for hard, persistent work on
this very difficult subject.
Ms. Korsnick, would you briefly discuss again or reiterate
again the need for permanent and interim storage to be
considered part and parcel for a solution?
Ms. Korsnick. Yes. So the long-term answer is the long-term
geologic repository. And, you know, I would also just remind
the committee that we are talking about these sites that you
are putting the current fuel in. There is still 95 percent good
energy in these used fuels. It is really better characterized
as future nuclear fuel. So you want to put it someplace where
you can get it back, because in the future you are going to
want it back.
Mr. McNerney. So it is recyclable in your opinion.
Ms. Korsnick. That is correct.
You are going to want to use fuel that is in there in a
different type of reactor.
And so the current place that we want to have it is a long-
term repository as has been mentioned here a few times. Nobody
wants to sign up for interim storage if they don't appreciate
that there is a long-term repository.
But the interim repository can consolidate the fuel into
fewer locations on its way to the long-term repository.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Barrett, communities clearly need to be involved in the
process. But as you have pointed out, I think just about every
State that has had a location considered has blocked progress
on that.
So what kind of framework could we use that would work in
terms of getting enough buy in in the State to move forward?
Mr. Barrett. I think if both sides--the Federal side and
the individual States engage with the principles of the blue
ribbon commission of empowerment and working together, you can
work out arrangements that can meet the needs of both, safety
wise, clearly, but also economically. In the development of the
State, things can be worked out if they can get together and
get away from the emotion that has dragged us down in the past.
Mr. McNerney. I mean, I understand that Sweden has a pretty
widely accepted nuclear waste repository program. Is that
right?
Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir, it does. But there is a big
difference between Sweden and Finland and others is they have
no State level of government. If we had no State level of
government here, we would have had this solved decades ago. But
we have a thing called States in the United States of America.
Mr. Fettus. I firmly agree with that.
Mr. McNerney. I would like to ask Mr. Fettus, if I have
time.
Your proposal of using RCRA and amending the Atomic Energy
Act so radioactive materials comply with environmental laws
would open up a whole can of legal issues.
Mr. Fettus. I think that can of legal issues is already
open. I am trying to put a cap on it.
Mr. McNerney. I mean, I think that is a debatable whether
it would make it worse or better then.
Mr. Fettus. Look at the website in New Mexico, Congressman.
To the extent that there is any acceptance, it is the State
RCRA authority.
Mr. McNerney. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for three
minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here. This is very important
subject, obviously for us in the State of Georgia. Guess which
State is the only State that has two nuclear reactors under
construction right now. It is the State of Georgia. Not only is
it--not only is that important, but it is also important
because it means that Georgians will be able to pull more
energy from a stable and a clean source, such as nuclear power.
And, you know, I get confused and frustrated sometimes why
there is so much misinformation out there about nuclear power.
It is clean energy. And, yes, we do need to address the issue
of the depositories and repositories and what we do with the
waste. But, you know, we have got that solution in hand. We are
just not taking advantage of it.
I want to start with you, Ms. Korsnick, and ask you, how
often is nuclear waste actually transported across the country?
Ms. Korsnick. It is actually transported fairly regularly.
There has been probably 1,300 used fuel shipments across the
United States over the last few decades, all done very safely.
Mr. Carter. Can you give me some ideas of the precautions
that are taken? I suspect that they are numerous.
Ms. Korsnick. Yes. If you just imagine the package to begin
with, so the fueler of these long metal rods, and they are
placed in a cask. The cask for every 1 ton of fuel that you
have, there is probably 5 to 7 tons of cask, if you will, that
are protectively wrapped around, if you will, this fuel. These
casks are designed and licensed by the Federal Government.
There have been all kinds of different postulated accidents of
which they are all designed against. So it is all done very
safely.
Mr. Carter. It is done safely, and it is done quite often.
So it is not as if this would be something that is new to us if
we were to a place like Yucca Mountain to use as a permanent
site, if you will.
Ms. Korsnick. That is correct.
Mr. Carter. It appears to me that several of these bills
address only the interim side and not the long-term issue that
is out there.
How important is it--I know it is important that we
obviously concentrate and focus on the interim side, but how
important is it that we also look at a long-term solution?
Ms. Korsnick. Well, it is critical. As we mentioned, you
know, earlier, if you don't have the long-term repository, when
you sign up for the interim repository, you might feel like you
are signing up for the long-term repository. And so it really
negates the idea of having a consolidated interim storage until
people have a view that there is a long-term answer.
Mr. Carter. Right.
And just one last thing. And that is, Mr. Keyser, you
mentioned about the jobs. And those are very important. Let me
tell you, the construction of the plant too, the jobs that are
being supported by that are just enormous.
Mr. Keyser. Yes. Absolutely. We have over 4,000 building
trades members, not just IBEW on that site every day. So
massive project. And not only that, but the advanced
manufacturing of some of the components of the IBEW----
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes very patient gentleman from North
Carolina--South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for three minutes.
Mr. Duncan. I was going to correct you, Mr. Chairman, but
South Carolina.
Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. I sat patiently,
as you said.
Let me just make a few points because a lot of questions
have been asked. But the high water mark of Yucca Mountain is
when the law was passed by the United States Congress for a
long-term repository. Construction started, but it started the
downhill spiral of folks saying no, even though we did a lot of
study of a lot of different sites around the country and
ultimately landed on Yucca Mountain as the ideal repository for
long-term storage for nuclear waste.
And I hear a lot of talk about an interim storage site.
Well, I can tell you, nobody wants to be the interim storage
site, I think Ms. Korsnick said it best, because they don't
believe and trust the Federal Government will ever get to a
long-term repository.
Ratepayers in this country were sold a bill of goods.
Nuclear waste sits at commercial sites at 121 different
locations around the country, on the shores of Lake Erie and
Ohio and south on the shores of Lake Keowee in South Carolina,
on the shores of the Savannah River in Georgia. And we know
that nuclear waste, and we have had leaks in Illinois, six
different sites in Illinois.
So the American people and the States don't trust Federal
Government to ever get to this point. Yucca Mountain was
chosen. I have been there. I stood on top of that mountain, and
I said: If we can't put nuclear waste here, we will never put
it anywhere else, because we won't pick another site. There
will be too much politics involved.
Back when the law was passed, and I use the word ``law''
because it is the law of the land to put the nuclear waste from
commercial reactors and defense waste at Yucca Mountain. I say
that the taxpayer, the ratepayers were sold a bill of goods. I
used a number earlier. I misspoke. South Carolina ratepayers
have paid $3 billion for the operation and construction of
Yucca Mountain. That is $3 billion of not taxpayer money; that
is ratepayers and their utility bills, pennies at a time. But
South Carolinians have paid $3 billion for this.
We have got nothing for it. And I say that no one wants to
trust the Federal Government with regard to doing what they say
they are going to do. They brought a bunch plutonium to the
Savannah River site and said: We are going to push for MOX,
mixed oxide fuel, and we are going to convert that plutonium
from the nonproliferation agreements into useable fuel. Guess
what, folks? MOX is mothballed.
And that plutonium still sits on a concrete pad in a metal
building at Savannah River site because we are not going to
convert it to MOX. That is another example where the Federal
Government has lied to the American people. That plutonium can
go to Yucca Mountain as well.
I think Ms. Korsnick said: We need to be able to access
that. As technology gets there, we can reprocess this fuel and
reuse it. Absolutely. Yucca Mountain has ingress and egress. So
we can take the waste and we can remove the waste to use it.
Folks, it is the law of the land. This is time to move
forward. And let's let the ratepayers of South Carolina and
other States get what they are paying for, what they have paid
for.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for your leadership on this. I know we
have a vote.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
I thank all of our witnesses for joining us today for your
input, which is very critical to a very, very critical issue.
I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they
have 10 business days by which to submit additional questions
for the record to be answered by our witnesses. I would ask
each witness to respond promptly to any such questions that you
may receive.
I also have here a series of documents approved by both
sides. I request unanimous consent to enter these documents
into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Tonko. And, with that, at this time the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
The Energy and Commerce Committee has an enduring and
strong bipartisan record supporting nuclear energy. Nuclear is
a critical component of our nation's energy system. It also has
been vital to our national security, powering the nuclear navy
and providing for our common defense.
Not only is nuclear power an affordable and reliable energy
source, it's also emissions-free. Any serious efforts to reduce
emissions from energy production to address the effects of
climate change must include the continued use and expansion of
nuclear power. And there is great potential--if we get the
policies right--to benefit from nuclear energy far into the
future.
Over the past few years we've moved legislation to lay the
groundwork for advanced nuclear and to ensure more efficient
regulation of the existing reactor fleet.
We've explored policies that will ensure a nuclear
infrastructure for tomorrow--ranging from advanced small
modular reactors like those under development by Oregon-based
NuScale, currently in NRC licensing, to advanced fuel systems
for the next generation of reactors.
Yet, as we look forward, we have responsibility to ensure
we implement the existing policies that address the issue of
long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel, and the defense legacy
waste that the federal government has a responsibility for
cleaning up.
This is no small matter. 35 years ago, Congress enacted the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act into law. This law was the culmination
of decades of experience by the federal government to develop a
policy to permanently dispose of high-level radioactive waste
and commercial spent nuclear fuel.
Some of the material was created during the Manhattan
Project and through the Cold War at the Hanford site, a vital
national security facility located on the Columbia River about
40 miles north of my district. Today, this nuclear material
sits on a vibrant waterway waiting to be processed and
transported to the Yucca Mountain repository in the Nevada
desert.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also established a fee tied to
the generation of nuclear energy to finance the costs of a
multi-generational disposal program. Along with 33 other
states, Oregon ratepayers fulfilled their financial obligations
under the law and paid the Department of Energy over $160
million to dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel.
I've noted in the past how the Trojan nuclear power plant,
located in northwest Oregon, stopped producing electricity in
1993, with the expectation that DOE would begin to remove the
spent fuel in 1998, as was required by law. That never happened
and since the plant's decommissioning activities were completed
in 2007, only spent nuclear fuel remains stranded at the site,
hampering any redevelopment efforts surrounding it.
This example is repeated across the nation, with states and
communities waiting for DOE to fulfill its obligations and
dispose of the spent fuel.
As we all know, the Federal Government has been prevented
from completing the licensing process for a permanent
repository. The costs to the American taxpayer to pay for the
federal government's delay in opening the Yucca Mountain
repository have more than doubled to $35 billion since 2009 and
that figure continues to escalate rapidly as time goes on.
Meanwhile, the federal government is paying out nearly a
billion dollars a year from the judgement fund for its failure
to dispose of the waste.
Against this backdrop, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
moving forward on examining legislative reforms that can help
to restart this process.
The Energy and Commerce Committee should continue to lead
the effort to ensure the Federal government meets is moral and
fiduciary responsibility to clean up its defense waste and
ensure the permanent, safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
We made important strides in the last Congress to reform
the fundamental statute to help to accelerate this complicated
process. My friend and the Republican Leader of this
subcommittee, John Shimkus, led the work in the House to pass
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act by a vote of 340-72.
Unfortunately, that effort fell short in the Senate.
But we know from the last Congress, and from the strong
bipartisan support both on this Committee and in the House of
that legislation, how a thoughtful and deliberate legislative
process produces good policy.
I'm pleased to see this past work has informed the current
work, particularly in HR 2699, led by Mr. McNerney, which
follows closely the H.R. 3053 from the last Congress.
This bill provides for accelerating interim storage of
waste without undermining the important system for permanent
disposal established in the underlying law. This represents the
best path forward for getting the nation to a licensing
decision, which is necessary for public confidence in our
nuclear waste program, no matter the outcome of that decision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for taking the lead on this
important issue.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Doris O. Matsui
Thank you. Chairman Pallone.
Finding a solution to managing the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel has been a top priority of mine for years . . .
particularly as my district's utility, the Sacramento Municipal
Utility District, is one of the many across the country forced
to play host to this dangerous radioactive material long after
they committed to do so.
I think we all agree that this stalemate is unsustainable.
The best and most pragmatic path forward involves a
consolidated interim storage program that will engage with
affected states and local governments through a consent-based
process.
That is why I have introduced the STORE Nuclear Fuel Act .
. . which puts forward a plan that has historically garnered
broad support.
The Federal Government has reneged on its promise to our
constituents . . . a consolidated interim storage approach will
allow the over 120 communities across the country to redevelop
nuclear reactor sites that for many have been decommissioned
for years.
I believe this is one of the greatest energy challenges of
our time. We cannot afford to play politics any longer. I am
grateful to the Committee for bringing my bill up for
discussion today.
Thank you and I yield back.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]