[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATUS OF THE YUCCA
MOUNTAIN PROJECT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
_____________
MARCH 15, 2006
_____________
Serial No. 109-71
_____________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
______________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-589PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
______________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Joe Barton, Texas, Chairman
Ralph M. Hall, Texas John D. Dingell, Michigan
Michael Bilirakis, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California
Fred Upton, Michigan Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Cliff Stearns, Florida Rick Boucher, Virginia
Paul E. Gillmor, Ohio Edolphus Towns, New York
Nathan Deal, Georgia Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ed Whitfield, Kentucky Sherrod Brown, Ohio
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Bart Gordon, Tennessee
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Bobby L. Rush, Illinois
John Shimkus, Illinois Anna G. Eshoo, California
Heather Wilson, New Mexico Bart Stupak, Michigan
John B. Shadegg, Arizona Eliot L. Engel, New York
Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, Mississippi Albert R. Wynn, Maryland
Vice Chairman Gene Green, Texas
Vito Fossella, New York Ted Strickland, Ohio
Roy Blunt, Missouri Diana DeGette, Colorado
Steve Buyer, Indiana Lois Capps, California
George Radanovich, California Mike Doyle, Pennsylvania
Charles F. Bass, New Hampshire Tom Allen, Maine
Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania Jim Davis, Florida
Mary Bono, California Jan Schakowsky, Illinois
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Lee Terry, Nebraska Charles A. Gonzalez, Texas
Mike Ferguson, New Jersey Jay Inslee, Washington
Mike Rogers, Michigan Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho Mike Ross, Arkansas
Sue Myrick, North Carolina
John Sullivan, Oklahoma
Tim Murphy, Pennsylvania
Michael C. Burgess, Texas
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Bud Albright, Staff Director
David Cavicke, General Counsel
Reid P. F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
_____
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
Ralph M. Hall, Texas, Chairman
Michael Bilirakis, Florida Rick Boucher, Virginia
Ed Whitfield, Kentucky Ranking Member
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Mike Ross, Arkansas
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Henry A. Waxman, California
John Shimkus, Illinois Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Heather Wilson, New Mexico Eliot L. Engel, New York
John B. Shadegg, Arizona Albert R. Wynn, Maryland
Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, Mississippi Gene Green, Texas
Vito Fossella, New York Ted Strickland, Ohio
George Radanovich, California Lois Capps, California
Mary Bono, California Mike Doyle, Pennsylvania
Greg Walden, Oregon Tom Allen, Maine
Mike Rogers, Michigan Jim Davis, Florida
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
John Sullivan, Oklahoma Charles A. Gonzalez, Texas
Tim Murphy, Pennsylvania John D. Dingell, Michigan
Michael C. Burgess, Texas (Ex Officio)
Joe Barton, Texas
(Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
_________
Page
Testimony of:
Sell, Hon. Clay, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy.... 15
Additional material submitted for the record:
Sell, Hon. Clay, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy,
response for the record....................................... 33
STATUS OF THE YUCCA
MOUNTAIN PROJECT
_________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in Room
2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall (chairman)
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Hall, Shimkus, Otter, Sullivan,
Burgess, Barton (ex officio), Boucher, Markey, Engel, Capps, Allen, and
Dingell (ex officio).
Staff present: Annie Caputo, Professional Staff Member; Sue Sheridan,
Minority Senior Counsel; Bruce Harris, Minority Professional Staff
Member; and Peter Kielty, Legislative Clerk.
Mr. Hall. It looks like everybody is here. All right, Mr. Boucher.
All right, the subcommittee will come to order, and I would like to
welcome Deputy Secretary Clay Sell to this committee. Without objection
the subcommittee will proceed pursuant to Committee Rule 4E, which allows
members the opportunity to defer opening statements for extra questioning
time, if they would like. We would like that, and I am sure that the
witness would like that. The Chair recognizes himself for an opening
statement. First, I want to thank Ranking Member Rick Boucher, Chairman
Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, and the full committee for their help in
setting up this hearing.
Yucca Mountain is a very necessary solution for how to dispose of our
Nation's nuclear waste. We can't allow this program to falter. We owe
it to our children and to our grandchildren to live up to the commitment
to build a safe and secure repository. Anything short of that, I think,
shrinks our responsibility to future generations and forces them to cope
with our failure and threatens the viability of nuclear energy to meet
their energy needs. There are those who wouldn't object to that
happening, that failure taking place, and we just absolutely have got
to see that it does not take place.
It is also an issue of fairness, making sure that our constituents
get what they pay for. Right now utility rate payers are paying into
the Nuclear Waste Fund to build a repository for spent fuel disposal.
However, taxpayers are beginning to shoulder the burden for DOE's
failure in accepting spent fuel for disposal. Of the more than 60
lawsuits against DOE for this delay, DOE has settled two and lost one.
So far the cost to the taxpayer is around $141 million over the last
two years. These numbers are only going to increase as more of these
lawsuits are resolved, potentially costing taxpayers as much as a half
a billion dollars each year for waste that should already be stored in
Yucca Mountain. This means that rate payers are paying for a service
they haven't received and taxpayers are footing the bill for the delay.
Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to examine the problems
facing Yucca Mountain. The Administration may propose legislation to
solve some of these challenges, and I encourage my colleagues to use
this hearing to gain a better understanding of the issue before us in
preparation for possible legislative action.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ralph Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Ralph Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality
The Subcommittee will come to order. I would like to welcome
Deputy Secretary Clay Sell to this Committee. Without objection,
the Subcommittee will proceed pursuant to Committee Rule 4(e), which
allows Members the opportunity to defer opening statements for extra
questioning time.
The Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. First, I
want to thank Ranking Member Rick Boucher, and Chairman Barton and
Ranking Member Dingell of the Full Committee for their help is setting
up this hearing.
Yucca Mountain is a necessary solution for how to dispose of our
nation's nuclear waste. We can't allow this program to falter. We
owe it to our children and grandchildren to live up to the commitment
to build a safe and secure repository. Anything short of that shirks
our responsibility to future generations, forces them to cope with our
failure, and threatens the viability of nuclear energy to meet their
energy needs.
It is also an issue of fairness: making sure that our constituents
get what they pay for. Right now, utility ratepayers are paying into
the Nuclear Waste Fund to build a repository for spent fuel disposal.
However, taxpayers are beginning to shoulder the burden for DOE's delay
in accepting spent fuel for disposal. Of the more than 60 lawsuits
against DOE for this delay, DOE has settled two and lost one. So far,
the cost to the taxpayer is $141 million over the last two years.
These numbers are only going to increase as more of these lawsuits are
resolved, potentially costing taxpayers as much as a half a billion
dollars each year for waste that should be stored in Yucca Mountain by
now. This means that ratepayers are paying for a service they haven't
gotten, and taxpayers are footing the bill for the delay.
Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to examine the problems
facing Yucca Mountain. The Administration may propose legislation to
solve some of these challenges, and I encourage my colleagues to use
this hearing to gain a better understanding of the issue before us in
preparation for possible legislative action. I remind all Members of
the opportunity to ask questions for the record following the hearing.
I have asked the committee staff to quickly pull together those
questions that come in. Deputy Secretary Sell, I ask you to please
respond to those questions as soon as you can. I look forward to
working with you, and listening to your testimony today.
Mr. Hall. I remind all members of the opportunity to ask questions
for the record following the hearing, and without objection they will be
allowed and authorized, and I thank the witness. He has agreed that he
will honor those as we submit them to him, and I have asked the
committee staff to quickly pull together these questions that come in.
Deputy Secretary Sell, I am going to ask you to please respond to these
questions as soon as you can in a reasonable length of time. I thank
you and I look forward to working with you, and I certainly look forward
to hearing your testimony today. And the time it took to prepare it,
the years that you have made yourself available, the vast experience you
have behind us that you are giving to your Nation, I thank you for it and
I think everybody ought to really appreciate it. At this time I would
recognize Mr. Boucher for an opening statement.
Mr. Boucher. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
thank you also for convening today's hearing on the problems of the Yucca
Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Program.
Given the Administration's recent budget request, which includes both
funding for Yucca Mountain and for a new proposed program entitled the
"Global Nuclear Energy Partnership," I think a status report to this
committee from DOE is clearly in order at this time. I strongly support
the Yucca Mountain Repository Program, and I am concerned about a number
of matters that are affecting the now long delayed opening of this facility.
Let me just review a little bit of that history. In 2002, Yucca Mountain
was certified as the site for the Nation's repository for spent nuclear
fuel; however, there currently is not a projected date on which the
facility's operations will commence. The Nuclear Waste Act set an
original date of 1998 for opening of the repository, and by missing
that date, the Department of Energy was found to be in breach of its
obligation to open at that time. More recently, the Department has
indicated that it hoped to file a license application for Yucca Mountain
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by December of 2004, and then to
begin accepting waste at the site in 2010. The target for filing the
license application was missed and the Department no longer believes the
date 2010 for opening the repository is realistic.
Now, I understand that the delay in filing for the license can be
attributed to a number of legitimate concerns, such as a court invalidation
of the Environmental Protection Agency standard for radiological protection,
a standard which is currently being revised. And in addition, the
Department is undertaking a review of the design of the repository.
Despite the legitimacies of this delay, I am concerned that the Department
is at this point unable to provide an estimate of when the license may be
filed and of when the repository will be open. Perhaps Mr. Sell can
advise us with regard to the Department's current thinking on these
matters.
In addition, the longstanding issue of funding for the Yucca Mountain
Project continues to be of concern. While the balance in the Nuclear
Waste Fund is currently $19 billion, annual appropriations for the Yucca
Mountain work are only a small fraction of the amount that rate payers
are contributing to the fund on an annual basis. This year, for
example, the Administration has proposed a total of $544 million for the
Nuclear Waste Disposal Program, but only $156 million of that amount
derives from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The balance of it actually comes
from the Department of Defense. Congressional budget rules place the
Nuclear Waste Fund on budget, and expenditures are subject to annual
appropriations, which themselves are governed in a general way by the
category allocations that come from the Budget Resolution. As a result
of that structure, spending requests for Yucca Mountain have to compete
with funding requests for other Department of Energy programs, and that
obviously provides difficulty when appropriations are being considered
by the Appropriations Committee.
Over the past number years, legislative proposals to take the Yucca
Mountain fund, that Nuclear Waste Fund, off budget have been debated by
this committee, but have come to no resolution, largely because of
opposition coming from other committees in the Congress, the Budget
Committee and the Appropriations Committee. And so we remain in a
circumstance where we have to compete with other DOE programs to get
annual expenditures from a fund that is funded by rate payers of the
utilities.
I very much look forward to Mr. Sell's testimony today. Hopefully,
he will give us projected dates for filing the license application
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and also perhaps a projected
date under which this repository can at long last be opened. I also
look forward to hearing more from him about the Administration's
proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and I want to echo concerns
that were voiced by a number of members of this committee during the
hearing with Secretary Bodman last week about the effect that the new
GNEP Program may have on the Yucca Mountain Program. While I
understand that the Administration has touted its new proposal as
being complimentary to the Yucca Mountain Repository Program, it
remains unclear if the Department has the financial and personnel
resources to carry forward both programs simultaneously. And I think
that we have to be very careful about authorizing the origination of a
new massive program such as GNEP at a time when the Yucca Mountain
Program itself has undergone delay after delay and is certainly at the
present time not sailing along very smoothly.
So, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of ground to be covered with
regard to Yucca Mountain, and I think this hearing is, in fact, very
timely and I want to commend you for organizing it and thank Mr. Sell
for being our witness this morning. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Hall. Excuse me. Would you pardon me a minute? I didn't note
that Mr. Dingell is here. Mr. Dingell, we recognize you at this time,
the Ranking Member.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, you are most gracious. I thank you and
I commend you for holding this hearing to examine the status of the
Department of Energy's program to develop a repository for the disposal
of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This program has been
underway since Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
It has collected something like $25 billion from the ratepayers and it
is pivotal to our country's ability to depend on nuclear energy now and
in the future. As a matter of fact, this program has been around
almost as long, Mr. Chairman, as you and I have, and it means that it
is probably within, perhaps, 10 years or 15 years of retirement age.
I would also like to welcome Deputy Secretary Clay Sell, welcome, whom
I hope will be able to enlighten us on the current state of the program.
I would observe that many of the problems at Yucca Mountain, missed
deadlines, litigation resulting for program delays, difficulties with
the Environmental Protection Agency's radiation standards, and funding
issues, predate you and your tenure and that of Secretary Bodman at DOE.
While you and the Secretary are to be commended for tackling these
problems, I must say that several recent events, on the watch of this
Administration, cause me serious concern.
First, I am concerned that DOE currently cannot even provide
Congress with an updated estimate of either the date on which it plans
to file an application for a license with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the date on which we might expect that the repository
will open. I hope your testimony will lead to some answers to those
questions. I understand that DOE has undertaken a broad internal
review of its Yucca Mountain Program. While this recalibration may
improve the program in the long term, I would observe, as my old
daddy used to, the perfect often is the enemy of the good, and
continued delays can undermine the public and congressional
confidence.
Second, as I have stated in the past, I am concerned about the
adequacy of the program funding and the possibility that the Nuclear
Waste Fund is subject to abuse. I had hoped that the Department would
send up location in time for the Congress to consider it during this
abbreviated legislative session, which I am told will consume
approximately 60 working days. But I would observe that I have hopes,
but I would observe that I lack optimism on this matter.
I would like to go on record once again with my concern that
Yucca Mountain receive adequate annual appropriations, and my support
for the legislation to prevent pillaging, both of the $19 billion in
past rate payer contributions in the corpus of the Nuclear Waste Fund
and future contributions. I would observe that this has been seen by
both the Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, our dear
friends on the Budget Committee and the Appropriation Committee, as a
wonderful place for money to be taken from to be applied to other
purposes.
Finally, I reiterate the concerns I voiced to Secretary Bodman
last week at the full committee budget hearing about Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership, with which, I understand, you are deeply involved.
In my tenure in this committee, I have seen a number of ambitious and
costly energy programs undertaken with great hopes. A few of these
have succeeded, but many have failed. I hope this program proves to
be useful. I remain concerned, however, that it may prove to be
simply a distraction for the Department that prevents it from
fulfilling its responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 and the recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005. I would
observe that seeing the legislative language and having hearings on
this would be immensely useful in understanding what it is that is
going on at the Department.
It is always tempting, I have observed, to undertake shiny new
programs, rich in the theoretical promise, but we do have only one
Department of Energy. I would be much more comfortable if this new
initiative entailed a Yucca Mountain license application having been
filed with NRC and legislation to protect the Nuclear Waste Fund had
been enacted, and settlements have been reached with utilities to
staunch the bleeding from legal damages for program delay. And I
would observe that this program is hemorrhaging money because of
litigation, because the money has been diverted and because the
government has not been able to address these problems.
As it is, there are multiple outstanding questions about when
the Yucca Mountain Program will go forward, whether ratepayers
will ever see the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of their
responsibility to pay into the waste fund, and whether or not the
fund can be protected from raids by the Committee on Budget and the
Committee on Appropriations. The last week, which probably
requires--rather, this last task, which probably requires
legislation, is unlikely to succeed without significant and
unwavering support from the Administration, including the Office
of Management and Budget, which has yet to send a bill up to aid
the Congress in its efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your patience with me,
I want to thank my colleagues for their patience with me, and I
want to observe that I look forward to hearing from you, Mr.
Secretary, the answers to the questions that I have raised here,
and I hope that we will be enabled by this meeting, and others
like it elsewhere and here, to make some progress on addressing
the problems that we are talking about today. Mr. Chairman, I
thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John D. Dingell follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John D. Dingell, A Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to examine
the status of the Department of Energy's (DOE) program to develop
a repository for the disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. This program has been underway since Congress enacted the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; it has collected something like
$25 billion from ratepayers; and it is pivotal to our country's
ability to depend on nuclear energy now and in the future.
I would like to welcome Deputy Secretary Clay Sell, whom I hope
will be able to enlighten the Subcommittee on the current state of
the program. Certainly many of Yucca Mountain's problems � missed
deadlines, litigation resulting from program delays, difficulties
with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) radiation
standards, and funding issues � predate your and Secretary
Bodman's tenure at DOE. While you and the Secretary are to be
commended for tackling these problems, I must say that several
recent events on your watch cause me grave concern.
First, I am concerned that DOE currently cannot even provide
Congress with an updated estimate of either the date on which it
plans to file an application for a license with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the date on which we might expect
the repository to open. I understand DOE has undertaken a broad
internal review of its Yucca Mountain program. While this
recalibration may improve the program in the long term, the
perfect often is the enemy of the good and continued delays can
undermine public and Congressional confidence.
Second, as I have stated in the past, I am concerned about the
adequacy of program funding and the possibility that the Nuclear
Waste Fund is subject to abuse. I had hoped that the Department
would send up legislation in time for Congress to consider it
during this abbreviated legislative session, and I remain hopeful
if not optimistic. I would like to go on record, once again, with
my concern that Yucca Mountain receive adequate annual appropriations,
and my support for legislation to prevent pillaging of both the
$19 billion in past ratepayer contributions in the "corpus" of the
Nuclear Waste Fund and future contributions.
Finally, I reiterate the concerns I voiced to Secretary Bodman
at last week's full Committee budget hearing about the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership, with which I understand our witness has been
deeply involved. In my tenure on this Committee, I have seen a
number of very ambitious and costly energy programs undertaken with
high hopes. A few of these have succeeded, but many have failed.
I hope this program proves useful. I remain concerned, however,
that it may prove a distraction for the Department that prevents it
from fulfilling its responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 and the recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005.
It is always tempting to undertake shiny new programs, rich with
theoretical promise, but we only have one Department of Energy.
I would be much more comfortable with this new initiative, if a
Yucca Mountain license application had been filed with the NRC,
legislation to protect the Waste Fund had been enacted, and
settlements had been reached with utilities to staunch the bleeding
from legal damages for program delays.
As it is, there are multiple outstanding questions about when
the Yucca Mountain project will go forward, whether ratepayers
will ever see the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of their
responsibility to pay into the Waste Fund, and whether or not the
Fund can be protected from raids by the Committee on the Budget
and the Committee on Appropriations. This last task, which
probably requires legislation, is unlikely to succeed without
significant and unwavering support from the Administration, which
has yet to send up a bill to aid Congress in its efforts.
With that, I thank my colleagues and look forward to the
Deputy Secretary's testimony.
Mr. Hall. I thank the long-time, venerable Chairman of this
committee. The Chair recognizes Governor Otter of Idaho for an
opening statement.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to yield
my opening statement for question and answer time later on.
Thank you.
Mr. Hall. Fine. The Chair recognizes the good doctor
from Texas.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will do
likewise, other than that I want to say welcome to the Deputy
Secretary and I appreciate everything you have done with the
Administration. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. Now, if we have that same response from
Mr. Markey, I would be surprised, but we will offer Mr. Markey
the opportunity to say a few words. Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste dump proposal is in a shambles, and it is a shambles
created both by the law under which this program operates and the
willful mismanagement of this program by the Department.
In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to
limit the Nation's search for a permanent geological nuclear
waste repository to Yucca Mountain, Nevada. That decision was
not based on science, it was based on politics, on the fact that
the congressional delegations from the other States previously
under consideration were able to use their political muscle to
pass the nuclear queen of spades on over to the State of Nevada,
as chosen by this committee; a politician. It is inevitably a
fool's errand when real scientists are asked to validate
scientific decisions made by politicians for reasons of
political expediency. And that is the cause of the entire
mess right from the beginning, that this committee selected
Nevada, not scientists.
And so after 20 years of studies, we still don't know
whether the site is safe, let alone whether we can safely
transport all of the waste from the reactor sites across our
roadways and railways to the mountain. What we do know is that
if Yucca Mountain opens, we will have to move almost 80,000 tons
of waste to the site. That would require about 53,000 truck
shipments and 10,000 rail shipments over about 25 years through
cities and counties where nearly 250 million people live;
Sacramento, California, Buffalo, Denver, Chicago, and of course
Nevada.
Before he was elected the first time, President Bush wrote:
"I believe sound science, not politics, must prevail when it comes
to the designation of any high-level nuclear waste repository."
And he went on to write: "As President, I would not sign
legislation that would send nuclear waste to any proposed site
unless it has been deemed scientifically safe." Once elected,
however, President Bush did not follow his pledge. It is clear
that unsound science is prevailing at Yucca Mountain and in the
Bush White House. Consider some of the scientific problems that
have come to light. The court threw out EPA's first radiation
protection standards because they were not strong enough to protect
the public from radiation exposure and they failed to follow the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences.
EPA responded to this court decision by issuing proposed new
standards for the Yucca Mountain site which are wholly inadequate,
do not meet the law's requirements, and do not protect the public
health and safety. In fact, EPA is proposing the least protective
public health radiation standard in the whole world. And numerous
scientific and quality assurance programs, transportation problems,
corrosion of casks, effectiveness of materials, and many other
issues caused DOE to suspend work on the surface facilities and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a stop order on the
containers. And DOE has been forced to acknowledge that documents
and models about water infiltration at Yucca have been falsified.
So what is the Administration's response to these failings?
Apparently the Administration is going to try to rewrite the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to cook the books in order to legitimize
the selection of Yucca Mountain, even though it can't pass muster
based on the scientific and technical standards in current law.
At the same time, the Administration is coming in with a
pie-in-the-sky Global Nuclear Energy Partnership that it claims
will provide us with a new technological magic bullet that will
make all of Yucca Mountain's failings fade away. This GNEP
Program is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that will bust the
budget, undermine our Nation's nuclear nonproliferation policies,
and not provide us with a realistic solution to the nuclear
waste problem.
It is time for Congress and the Administration to recognize
the Yucca Mountain Project is not going to work and that we need
to go back to the drawing board to come up with better
alternatives to deal with the Nation's nuclear waste problems;
that we do not sacrifice sound science for political expediency.
This Administration is destroying our nuclear nonproliferation
policy. We know it is willing, on this past six-years record, to
compromise environmental standards in their vain effort to bury
all the nuclear waste in the United States in this site in Nevada,
but unfortunately, we will still be here 20 years from now.
This is my 30th year in Congress, so I intend on spending my
50th year in a hearing on this very same subject, and I think
that the chances of that coming to pass are very high given the
record of this Administration. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Otter. [Presiding] The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair would recognize the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Capps.
Ms. Capps. Thank you to my colleague from Idaho. And,
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the witness, Secretary Sell, here today.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary and others, Yucca Mountain
continues to pose a threat to public health and safety. This
subcommittee must take seriously its commitment to oversight
and address the serious concerns raised by the Yucca Mountain
Project. First and foremost, we must ensure that both public
health and the environment are protected by establishing
appropriate radiation standards. EPA's first attempt at doing
so failed to comply with the National Academy of Sciences'
recommendations, and the D.C. circuit subsequently struck down
the so-called standards. Sadly, EPA's current standard
proposal, which is still not finalized, also falls short. One
nuclear expert has warned that the standards would not adequately
protect the public from cancer risks.
Technical and logistical problems continue to plague the
project as well. The Department of Energy halted all work on
the site in January, as we know, because of quality assurance
problems, and further concerns about potential terrorist acts on
the transportation of nuclear waste continue to reduce confidence
in the Yucca Mountain Project. Last month, NAS called on the
Department to analyze this potential threat. As you know,
California and my constituents bear a disproportionate share of
the risks since the project is less than 20 miles from out
State's border. Even leaving aside potential terrorist attacks,
moving any nuclear waste through California across our roads and
waterways should give us all pause.
I have a nuclear plant in my district. Contained within the
reams of DOE documents on Yucca Mountain are the plans to load
barges of nuclear waste from Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
in my district. The barges would steam down through the Santa
Barbara Channel, on the way to Ventura County, where the waste
would be off-loaded and transported by truck to Nevada. I am
deeply concerned about planning for such a scenario because I
don't believe it has been very thorough. Let me cite just one
example. The dry-cask storage containers that will carry this
waste are tested to withstand submersion in water. I haven't
found any tests, submersion tests, for these casks at anything
like the depths of the Santa Barbara Channel where the barges
would travel. So what happens if there is an accident there
and a number of these concrete containers find themselves at
the bottom of the channel, a channel which, by the way, is
prone to earthquakes, as is Diablo Canyon? Will they be able
to withstand the depths? Can we retrieve them? And how safe
would the channel and the surrounding area be? This scenario
could be played out in different forms in congressional
districts across this country, only maybe it is an accident
in a town or on the side of a mountain.
I don't believe we should be subjecting communities across
the country to the dangers Yucca Mountain presents. I have
little faith in the scientific studies behind this project, that
they are sound, and not much more faith that it can be carried
out safely and effectively. So I propose that we do this the
right way, with strong science, thorough planning, and adequate
public input. And so I thank you for holding the hearing and
the witness for being here today. I yield back.
Mr. Otter. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Shimkus of
Illinois.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will wait
for my questions.
Mr. Otter. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman for convening
this important hearing on the status of the Yucca Mountain
Project. Like many members in Congress, my beliefs regarding
the use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository site has
evolved over the years. Although I have supported the use of
Yucca Mountain in the past, I now have serious reservations
about the viability of this project and I hereby withdraw my
support.
Nearly 20 years have passed since Congress first selected
this site for the long-term geological disposal of the Nation's
radioactive waste, and the planning for actually utilizing this
site has been fraught, as my colleagues have mentioned, with
problems and has lacked full transparency. We have been told
that the DOE still has no projected date to commence operations
at Yucca. The repository is being redesigned again and before
work can start, a new license will need to be obtained from the
NRC. And from that point, the NRC could take another three
years to decide whether to authorize construction at Yucca
Mountain. A once firm date of 2010 for Yucca Mountain to
accept nuclear waste has long since been abandoned. Before
construction even begins, DOE must upgrade roads, improve the
electric supply, communications and the transportation around
Yucca Mountain; so even more delays.
This begs the question, what exactly is taking so long and
where is all the money going? Six and one half billion dollars
have already been spent from the Nuclear Waste Fund on the Yucca
Mountain Program, with very little to show from it. Further,
while DOE has conservatively estimated it will take about
$58 billion more to complete the project, that figure is met
by widespread doubt in every sector. Additionally, the longer
DOE fails to accept spent fuel, the higher the costs will be
relating to settling lawsuits from utilizes who counted on DOE
fulfilling their commitment to accept the spent fuel. Since
missing the original January 31st, 1998 deadline, DOE has been
served with over 60 lawsuits and has already paid out $141
million to settle some of them. In this time of scarce
resources, the government cannot afford to lose any money
such as this.
I look forward to hearing from the Deputy Secretary about
how he envisions the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
and how that will be integrated with the Yucca Mountain Project,
as well as the latest legislation the Administration is working
on to facilitate the licensing, construction, and operation of
Yucca Mountain. In short, it is a mess. I can no longer
support this kind of mess. Our effort to safely dispose of
nuclear waste must have a clear plan with responsible
stewardship of the taxpayers money, and I again welcome the
secretary to our subcommittee, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Otter. The gentleman yields back. There is no other
members of the committee here, so members of the committee, I
would like to introduce you to Mr. Clay Sell. Since February
2004, Mr. Sell has served as the Special Assistant to the
President for Legislative Affairs, specializing in coordinating
and promoting the President's legislative agenda in the United
States Senate, with a primary focus on policy area of the energy
and natural resources budget and appropriations. Previously,
Mr. Sell had served on the Bush-Cheney transition as part of
the energy policy team. And from 1995 to 1999, he served on
the staff of Congressman Mack Thornberry, our colleague from
Texas, functioning the last two years as the congressman's
Administrative Assistant. Mr. Sell, welcome to the committee.
Mr. Sell was sworn in as the Deputy Secretary on March 21st,
2005. We welcome you to the committee and await your remarks.
Mr. Sell.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLAY SELL, DEPUTY SECRETARY, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Sell. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it
is a pleasure to be here today to provide an update on the
Department--
Mr. Boucher. Mr. Sell, could you move your microphone
just a bit closer? That would help.
Mr. Sell. Closer or further?
Mr. Boucher. Yes, a little closer to you would help.
Mr. Sell. Is that better?
Mr. Boucher. That is much better. Thank you.
Mr. Sell. It is a pleasure to be here today to provide
an update on the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Project.
If I may, I would like to submit my written statement for the
record and provide a few summary remarks.
Mr. Otter. Without objection and hearing none, so ordered.
Mr. Sell. The President has stated a policy goal of
promoting a great expansion of nuclear power here in the
United States and around the world. The reasons for this
are obvious. The Department of Energy projects that total
world energy demand will double by 2050. In focusing
specifically on electricity, projections indicate an increase
of over 75 percent in global energy consumption in the next
two decades. Nuclear power is the only mature technology of
significant--to provide large amounts of completely emissions
-free base-load power to meet this need; thus, a significant
expansion of nuclear power will allow us to meet both our
energy and environmental goals.
I believe the United States is on the verge of a nuclear
renaissance, in many respects, due to the provisions enacted
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. And on that note, I would
like to thank and acknowledge the work of the members of
this committee for your efforts in crafting and passing
this important piece of legislation. As a result of that,
I believe new plants will be built; however, we need many
new plants and the only way to ensure a significant amount
of new plant construction in this country is to finally
resolve the issue of spent fuel. To do so, we must license
and operate the Yucca Mountain site as soon as possible.
In my remaining remarks, I would like to focus on four
main points. First, the importance of Yucca Mountain as a
matter of national policy; second, an explanation of how we
have redirected the program; third, the recent proposed
Environmental Protection Agency radiation protection
standards; and fourth, the Administration's forthcoming
Yucca Mountain legislation.
First, on the importance of the Yucca Mountain. Today's
spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste is being temporarily
stored at 122 sites in 39 States across our Nation. As the
members of this subcommittee know, the U.S. Government is
obligated by law to consolidate and dispose of the 50,000
metric tons of spent fuel already generated, as well as the
2,000 additional tons being generated annually. As of late,
there has been some speculation over whether or not we still
need Yucca Mountain, in light of the waste minimization
benefits of the Administration's recycling proposal that
was included in the recently announced Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership. The simple fact is this: Yucca Mountain is
needed under any cycle scenario. As successful as the new
recycling technologies may be under GNEP, there will always
be a waste byproduct that needs disposal. This Administration
is committed to the success of the Yucca Mountain Project and
we will not waver from that position.
As part of that commitment, last year we announced a
redirection of the project to focus on safety, simplicity,
and reliability. This included adopting a predominantly
clean canistered approach to spent fuel handling operations.
Under this approach, a single canister would be used to
transport, age, and dispose of the waste without ever
needing to reopen the spent fuel package. We also announced
that in order to better organize and focus our scientific
work, Sandia National Laboratory was chosen to act as the
lead laboratory on the project. Also, last year the EPA
proposed a revised radiation protection standard. The
revised standard retains the existing 10,000 year
individual protection standard at 15 millirems per year;
it retains that and it supplements it with an additional
one million year standard applicable at the time of peak
dose. The proposed standard, even one million years from
today, keeps the exposure limit at what residents of
Denver, Colorado already receive as a result of high
levels of naturally occurring background radiation.
These changes and programmatic redirections have
resulted in schedule changes. Later this summer the
Department expects to have a new design for the surface
facilities at Yucca, as well as a schedule for submission
of the license application to the NRC that supports this
approach.
To compliment our new project direction, the
President's 2007 Budget stated that the Administration
would send to Congress proposed legislation to facilitate
the licensing, construction and operation of the repository
at Yucca Mountain. The proposal is currently undergoing
final review, but we expect to address the permanent
withdrawal of land around Yucca Mountain, as well as needed
funding reform, in the legislation. This potential
legislation, coupled with the waste minimization benefits
of recycling spent fuel, could postpone, indefinitely, the
need for the United States to begin a second repository
siting and development effort. As this committee is
well aware, there are more than two dozen States where we
would look to site a second repository.
In conclusion, there is an undeniable need for Yucca
Mountain. To meet this need, the Department is taking
steps today to ensure that we develop and construct the
safest, simplest repository that we possibly can, based
on sound science and quality work. But we must also have
the help and support of the Congress and of this committee
to remove funding uncertainties and other constraints that
have hindered consistent progress. On this, we look
forward to working closely with this committee on the
forthcoming legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This
concludes my opening statement. I look forward to taking
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Clay Sell follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is a
pleasure to be here today to provide an update on the
Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Project.
For more than 50 years, our Nation has benefited
greatly from nuclear energy and the power of the atom, but
we have been left with a legacy marked by the generation
and accumulation of more than 50,000 metric tons of
commercial and defense generated spent nuclear fuel and
high level waste. Today, I will address the following
topics in my opening statement:
First, the importance of Yucca Mountain for the Nation
Second, an explanation of the clean-canistered approach
Third, the selection of Sandia National Laboratories as
the Project's lead laboratory
Fourth, a discussion of the proposed Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Radiation Protection Standards
Fifth, the development of a baseline and schedule for
the Project
Sixth, an update on potential Yucca Mountain legislation
The Importance of Yucca Mountain to the Nation
There has been a lot of speculation whether or not we
still need Yucca Mountain in light of the announcement of
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) or the
possibility of longer term on-site storage of waste at
reactor sites.
The clear answer is, yes, we still need Yucca Mountain.
In fact, we need Yucca Mountain today more than ever. This
Administration and the Department of Energy are committed to
aggressively moving forward with Yucca Mountain.
Yucca Mountain is consistent with the global consensus
that the best and safest long-term option for dealing with
high-level waste is geologic isolation. The National
Academy of Sciences has spoken on this topic and has
endorsed geologic disposal since 1957.
Yucca Mountain is the key to reducing our dependence
on foreign and fossil sources of energy, as nuclear power
is the only technology that is mature and capable enough
today to handle a significant increase in base load and
is also reliable, clean, safe, and emissions-free.
Nuclear power offers this country a tremendous resource
and a means towards energy security�if we are able to
deal with the waste issue.
Today spent nuclear fuel and high level waste is
being temporarily stored at 122 sites in 39 States across
our Nation. In 2002, Congress approved President
George W. Bush's recommendation for development of
Yucca Mountain. That recommendation was based on more
than 20 years of scientific research indicating that
Yucca Mountain provides a safer and more secure location
for the Nation's nuclear waste than the current temporary
surface storage facilities, many of which are located
near lakes, rivers, and waterways.
Yucca Mountain is needed even if the technologies of
GNEP exceed its initial expectations, and Yucca will be
needed under any fuel cycle scenario. As successful as
we may be with GNEP, there will always be a waste
bi-product that needs disposal as part of the recycling
activities.
Moreover, we need Yucca Mountain as soon as possible
so we can start fulfilling our obligation to consolidate
and dispose of the 50,000 metric tons of spent fuel
already generated, as well as the 2,000 additional tons
being generated annually. Simply put, we must move
forward with Yucca Mountain.
The Clean-Canistered Approach
In mid-2005 Secretary Bodman directed a thorough
review of the Department's overall approach to design,
licensing, and operation of the Project to determine if
there were better ways to run the repository.
Late last year the Department announced a redirection
to a predominantly clean-canistered approach on spent
fuel operations. Under this new approach, a single
canister would be used to transport, age, and dispose
of the waste without ever needing to re-open the spent
fuel package. We believe that this approach will be a
simpler, safer, and more reliable operation.
The clean-canistered approach will significantly
reduce the risks of radiation exposure and contamination
from spent fuel handling operations at the repository.
With this plan, the spent nuclear fuel primarily will be
packaged for disposal by the utilities that generated
the waste. This approach offers the advantage of having
those who know most about the waste - the generators -
be responsible for placement in canisters and packaging.
We would thus take advantage of commercial reactor sites
with existing capability and skills. The Department
will not need to build new equipment and train operators
for a capability that already exists in the private
sector. We are working with industry to develop the
specifications for a canister that can contain commercial
spent nuclear fuel after it is discharged from the
reactors and cooled. In addition to requiring fewer,
cleaner, and simpler surface facilities, the new facility
approach should be easier to design, license, build,
and operate.
While this approach will have significant short-term
and long-term benefits, it will require additional time
to redevelop and revise portions of the license application.
Later this summer the Department expects to have a new
conceptual design for the surface facilities at Yucca
Mountain that support this approach.
Sandia Lead Laboratory
The Department also announced that Sandia National
Laboratory will act as the lead laboratory to coordinate
and organize all scientific work on the Project. Since
this Project represents one of the major scientific and
technical challenges of our time, we want to ensure that
we take full advantage of the great resources in our
national laboratories. Additionally, to ensure that we
keep a critical eye on our work, we are continuing efforts
to instill a "trust but verify" culture. Part of this effort
will lead to the formation of a University-based consortium
to independently review key aspects of the Project to ensure
objectivity and impartiality.
Proposed EPA Radiation Protection Standards
On August 22, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed a revised "Public Health and Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain" in
response to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit which vacated portions
of the existing EPA standards. Specifically, EPA proposed
a radiological exposure limit for the time of peak dose
to the general public during one million years following
the disposal of radiological material at the Yucca
Mountain site.
The proposed rule retains the existing 10,000-year
individual protection standard of 15 mRem/year to the
reasonably maximally exposed individual, and supplements
it with an additional standard applicable at the time of
peak dose. This proposed rule includes two compliance
periods and recognizes the limitations of bounding
analyses, the greater uncertainties at the time of peak
risk, and the increased uncertainty in calculated results
as time and uncertainties increase. Retaining the
existing 15 mRem/year standard for the initial 10,000-year
period ensures that the repository design will include
all prudent steps, including the use of engineered and
natural barriers, to minimize offsite doses during the
first 10,000 years after disposal. These natural barriers,
and to some extent the engineered barriers, will continue
to operate throughout the million-year period, keeping
exposure levels low. In fact, this level of exposure
reflects a risk that society already lives with today -
the maximum peak dose at Yucca Mountain would be no
greater than the level currently received by residents
of Denver, Colorado due to the city's higher levels of
naturally occurring background radiation.
Development of a Baseline and Schedule
Although the Yucca Mountain Program had intended to
submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) in December 2004, a number of issues
arose that prevented this, including development of
the amended draft EPA radiation protection standards
as discussed earlier, redesign of the surface facilities
to handle primarily canistered waste, and other matters
that need to be addressed before we are ready to submit
a license application. We believe that submission of
our license application should not be driven by
artificial dates. We are committed to developing a
realistic schedule that will result in the submission
of a strong license application to the NRC. We expect
to receive and review our new design this spring and,
after its approval by the Secretary, incorporate it
into our baseline. Later this summer, we anticipate
we will publish our schedule for submittal of the
license application to the NRC.
Proposed Yucca Mountain Legislation
To complement the current approach and assure
confidence in moving forward with Yucca Mountain, the
President's 2007 Budget stated that the Administration
will send to Congress proposed legislation that would
facilitate the licensing, construction and operation of
a repository at Yucca Mountain.
The proposal is still in the interagency review
process. We can expect it to address the permanent
withdrawal of land around Yucca Mountain as well as
needed funding reform. This potential legislation,
coupled with the potential of GNEP for waste
minimization, could postpone indefinitely the need
for the U.S. to begin a second repository siting and
development effort. As the committee may recall,
there are more than two-dozen States where we would
look to site a second repository.
Enactment of this important proposal will help
demonstrate that the Nation can dispose of nuclear
materials in a safe, reliable, and efficient manner,
and will help advance the Nation's energy security,
and national security objectives.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is a clear National need for
Yucca Mountain, even if we could reduce our National
electricity consumption by 20% and were able to shut
down every commercial reactor and nuclear project in
the country today. We are taking steps to ensure
that we develop and construct the safest, simplest
repository that we possibly can, based on sound
science and quality work. I believe that our license
application will provide the necessary assurances that
we can operate Yucca Mountain in compliance with the
performance requirements of the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We will
also demonstrate that our approach to operations will
be carefully planned, logical, and methodical.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Sell, for that opening
statement, and the chair would recognize himself for
the first five minutes to begin the question and
answer period. Mr. Sell, I am sure other members of
the committee who are not here would want to submit
questions to you and I would ask you now that if they
do submit those questions to you, that you would
respond, for the record, to those questions in writing.
They are going to write little notes to you, little
love notes, probably, but probably not.
Mr. Sell. I will respond whether they are love
notes or otherwise.
Mr. Otter. Thank you. Because Yucca Mountain has
been designated as the location of the Nation's permanent
repository and because of the preparations that have
already been made, is there any chance that the Department
would support legislation authorizing the Department to
establish an interim storage facility very close to
Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Sell. Mr. Chairman, the Administration and this
Department has an open mind as it relates to interim
storage. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which
governs our activities today, it is our view that we do
not have authority, as it stands now, to proceed with
interim storage, but we certainly have an open mind as
to that possibility, if it be the will of Congress.
Mr. Otter. So in other words, if I understand you
right, in order to keep the contracts that the Department
of Energy and the Department of Defense have made with at
least the State of Idaho, and some scheduling programs
that they have already made with other sites, that if
the legislation were advanced to Congress to establish
an interim storage site close to Yucca Mountain, in
proximity to Yucca Mountain, that the Administration
would not oppose that.
Mr. Sell. We would certainly look forward to working
with the Congress, and I think it is certainly possible
that we would support that.
Mr. Otter. Is sometime later this summer the closest
we can get to a potential revealing of a date and new
standards for Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Sell. In short, Mr. Chairman, yes, because we
want to be quite sure that when Secretary Bodman and I
put forward a revised schedule, it is one that we are
confident we will be successful with and it is one
that we are confident will ultimately result in the
granting of a license by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. We are revising the program with the
goal of absolute success in mind, and we would ask
the indulgence of the committee to allow us to take
this next few months to finalize the schedule that we
would then like to come brief the committee on.
Mr. Otter. In order so that we don't have a replay
of what happened with the first standards, is the
Department of Energy now working with the EPA to establish
the new standards so it is not challengeable in the courts?
Mr. Sell. Well, the requirement to set the standard is
one that goes to the EPA and not to the Department of
Energy. We will be the licensee that will be required to
meet that standard. The standard that is now out for
comment is one that we think is--it is one that we believe
we can license the facility to and we would look forward
to proceeding with the license application under that
standard.
Mr. Otter. Thank you. The Yucca Mountain Program
recently assumed ownership of a large cell at the Idaho
National Lab. Do you know how the Department of Energy
intends to employ and use that?
Mr. Sell. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think
I understand the question.
Mr. Otter. The cell that the Department of Energy
recently assumed ownership over at the Idaho National
Laboratory, I was wondering if you could advise myself
and the committee on what intent, what future intent
does the Department of Energy have for the use of that
building?
Mr. Sell. This is a new building that could
potentially be used for the consolidation of material.
Mr. Otter. It could?
Mr. Sell. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Otter. It could? Is that your intent?
Mr. Sell. This is a facility, if I understand
the facility correctly that you are talking about,
this is one that has previously been used for the
storage of material. If my memory serves me correctly,
there was a previous decision made to consolidate
material elsewhere and remove material out of that
facility. I believe last year the Congress directed
through the Appropriations Bill that we reconsider the
use of that facility for the consolidation of material,
and that a review is going as we speak, a review which
has not resulted in any conclusions.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Sell, and my time is up.
The chair would recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Boucher. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and, Mr. Sell, thank you for appearing today and for your
testimony. I have just several brief questions for you.
You have indicated in your testimony that the Department
of Energy will apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
for the Yucca license, you believe, sometime this summer.
Can you project a date for us? Can you project a month
when you think that application will be filed?
Mr. Sell. If I may clarify?
Mr. Boucher. Yes, please do.
Mr. Sell. Congressman Boucher, this summer we expect
to provide the Congress and this committee a revised
schedule as to when we would make the application to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So this summer we
will have a better idea on what the schedule is, but
the license application will not be made this summer.
Mr. Boucher. Do you think it will be made this year?
Mr. Sell. Once again, we are seriously reviewing
what we think is possible and what we think we can be
successful with and what our requirements are to meet
that. That review is not complete and I would not
want to prejudge the determination that we will make
as to the appropriate time to make the license
application.
Mr. Boucher. When this summer will you be in a
position to give us this further briefing?
Mr. Sell. I believe we are projecting that to be
in the June, July time frame.
Mr. Boucher. June, July time frame. So, Mr.
Chairman, perhaps we could have a subsequent hearing in
that time frame, in order to receive some indication
from the Department of Energy about when the license
will be applied for, and perhaps at that point be able
to project a date when you actually could have this
repository open.
Mr. Sell. I would look forward to the opportunity
to testify at a future hearing on that.
Mr. Boucher. Okay. You have also indicated that
the Administration may be formulating legislation that
could be submitted to the Congress that would help move
the Yucca Program forward. Can you give us any
indication of when that legislation might be submitted?
Mr. Sell. I believe when Secretary Bodman testified
last week, he indicated that that legislation would be
forthcoming within a month, and that is still our belief.
Mr. Boucher. When that legislation is received here,
will it address funding reform? If it is going to
address funding reform, are you going to propose to
take the Nuclear Waste Fund off budget? And assuming
that you are, which is what we have been trying to do
for a number of years here, will your proposal to take
it off budget differ in material respects from the
legislation we have considered here in the past?
Mr. Sell. We are looking at a number of options
that would provide greater funding certainty, which
has been a chronic problem for this program. At a
minimum, what we intend to propose would be consistent
with the legislative proposals we have made in the
last two years, which would effectively make the annual
receipt to the Nuclear Waste Fund directly available to
the program. I appreciate that there are strong views
from this committee that the entirety of the waste fund
should be taken off budget, and we are looking at that,
but I can't say with any confidence that that is a
proposal we will be able to make and that we will be
able to include. But certainly we want to provide as
much funding certainty as possible, and we would look
forward to working with the committee on the
appropriate way to do that.
Mr. Boucher. Well, let me say I am one of those who
has strong views on that matter and I would encourage
you, as you are formulating this proposal, not only to
take the fund off budget prospectively so that annual
contributions made by rate payers would immediately be
made available to the Yucca Program in that year, but
that you also protect the approximately $19 billion
which is deposited in the Nuclear Waste Fund today,
which, in the absence of some statutory guarantee
that it will be made available, it may never be
appropriated for that purpose. So I hope you will
take care of the $19 billion that the rate payers
have already put into this program, as well as what
they will contribute to it in the future, and I
don't expect you to comment on that, but that is
advice.
Mr. Sell. Well, if I may comment?
Mr. Boucher. And please do, yes, if you care to.
Mr. Sell. I certainly share with you the firm
commitment that the contributions that the rate payers
have made, the roughly $18 billion, be used exclusively
for the Yucca Mountain Project, and that the money be
set aside in a way that we can have confidence that
that will occur, and that as much funding certainty
be provided as possible so that we can eliminate that
variable which has affected our ability to make
consistent progress on the project.
Mr. Boucher. Well, thank you. That is encouraging
to hear and I hope your legislative proposal reflects
that intention. You were recently quoted as saying that
the one mil per kilowatt hour fee that rate payers are
paying currently into the Nuclear Waste Fund may not be
sufficient, which suggests that the Department of
Energy may be considering an increase in that one mil
per kilowatt hour fee. Are you considering such an
increase? Do you think one will be forthcoming? If
so, when and how much will it be?
Mr. Sell. Each year, under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, the Secretary of Energy must make a determination
as to whether the mil fee is appropriate. The Secretary
reviewed material this year and he made the determination
that the fee as it is presently being collected is in
fact appropriate and sufficient, but we will continue to
make that determination, as we are required to do,
annually in the coming years.
Mr. Boucher. And so you are not currently anticipating
an increase?
Mr. Sell. To directly answer your question, we are not
anticipating or proposing an increase.
Mr. Boucher. Okay. Mr. Chairman, may I have your
indulgence for one additional question? Perhaps--
Mr. Hall. The chair will give you another minute.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
get your sense of how you could go forward simultaneously
with a vigorous Yucca Mountain Program and also be
launching what is also a very large additional waste
program, and that is the so-called GNEP. Do you think
you have the resources, both from a financial and a
personnel standpoint, to do both together?
Mr. Sell. We are confident in that as we proceed on
these two initiatives, that we will either have or we
will go get the management personnel and technical resources
to effectively manage these two programs, and we are also
seeking from the Congress the financial resources to pursue
these two programs. I think, to put it in the right context,
we believe that the world and this country needs a dramatic
expansion of nuclear power, and that means something from a
waste management standpoint. And if we only keep nuclear
electricity generation at 20 percent for the balance of the
century, we will have to build the equivalent of nine Yucca
Mountains, if we stay with the current disposal strategy.
So it is our view that we should begin now to work in
partnership with other advanced fuel cycle States to
develop the technologies that would allow us to optimize,
over the decades to come, the use of Yucca Mountain. We
have to have it now, because we want to hopefully just
build one.
Mr. Boucher. Well, I understand the purpose, Mr. Sell,
and I will say to you that I am a little bit skeptical that
you are going to be in a position to go forward
simultaneously with a vigorous Yucca Program and this one
at the same time. That is a debate we will have another
day, I am sure, but I wanted to get your sense about
whether you thought you actually could do both together,
given the resource limitations that I know you face.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence and thank you,
Mr. Sell.
Mr. Sell. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank my colleague, Dr. Burgess, for allowing me to
jump ahead of him, also. I think I am going to owe him
in the future, but it is great to be here. I think the
Yucca Mountain debate as far as--is that a suitable
location is sound public policy, which we voted on the
floor. My question is how expeditiously can we move,
and a lot of our frustration here is that, you know, we
want to move. We want to open this thing and we need to
get this nuclear waste out from the numerous locations
we have it around the country. And the other is, if we
don't expand nuclear power in this country, we are going
to expand coal generating facilities. Now that is okay
by me. I am from coal regions in Illinois, but I think
my environmental friends would have a beef with that.
So this is a valid issue and you are going to have
members who are very strongly in support of Yucca
Mountain, very supportive, but we have got to move.
We have to go to see some progress, and that is our
frustration.
A couple questions. Secretary Bodman stated just
last week here before us that the Administration would
propose legislation to address Yucca Mountain within a
month. If Congress does not act on your legislative
proposal this year, what specific activities would be
impacted?
Mr. Sell. Well, certainly, from a funding certainty
standpoint, over the last several years the Administration
has consistently received a funding level below what we
have requested. And so each year that passes where that
is the case, the program is affected. Other than that
issue, I don't know that there would be a direct affect
in this year if the Congress failed to enact legislation,
but we certainly want to be in a position to make progress
on this program as quickly as possible. We know that
legislation is required to do that and we would look
forward to working with the Congress to get that passed
as quickly as possible.
Mr. Shimkus. So you would say that the schedule for
the commencement of the repository operations could be
affected if we don't move on legislation?
Mr. Sell. Absolutely.
Mr. Shimkus. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires
the submission of a project decision schedule to be
updated as appropriate. In light of the many changes to
the program in the last few years, when does DOE plan to
submit a revised project decision schedule?
Mr. Sell. We intend to brief the committee on a
revised schedule in June or July of this year.
Mr. Shimkus. Last week, Secretary Bodman also said
that DOE has begun its evaluation of the need for a
second repository, an evaluation that DOE is required
to present to Congress beginning in 2007. If the
Department has to begin looking at a second repository,
which sites would you consider?
Mr. Sell. I can't answer that in any way other
than to expect that the Department would start with
the numerous sites in the 22 States that we had
previously reviewed, many of those on the east coast
and throughout the mountain west.
Mr. Shimkus. And if and when you all decide to
move in that direction, I am assuming you will provide
the committee with a list of the possible sites?
Mr. Sell. I am sure we will do that.
Mr. Shimkus. It might provide some more support
for Yucca Mountain once we start evaluating other
locations around the country. Just a wild guess on
my part. To what extent would a required report on
the need for a second repository be shaped by the
progress on GNEP?
Mr. Sell. Well, it would be shaped by whether the
Nuclear Waste--you know, it has been 19 years since
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was amended in any way,
and we are going to seek amendments in this legislative
proposal which could affect the decision to seek the
second repository. And if that is the case, then that
may affect the schedule. Otherwise we will proceed
with that analysis for a report in the 2007 to 2010
time frame.
Mr. Shimkus. I mean, this is a really important
debate because if we don't revise the legislative
schedule, the stored spent fuel, if we do allow
reprocessing of that cask, how much would we through
the reprocessing diminish? So you know, you take a
cask, you have got the current level, and now we
reprocess. How much is left? What percentage?
Mr. Sell. Well, the key thing--do you mean how
much would recycling--
Mr. Shimkus. Right. It is a historic debate
because, obviously, we reprocess and we are going
to have--the debate will be more storage available.
Mr. Sell. The thing that drives the capacity
of a geologic repository is the heat load and the
radiotoxicity. And through recycling, and that is
a combination of separating material and then
burning it down in fast spectrum reactors, we can
reduce the heat load and radiotoxicity by two
orders of magnitude. So it is our judgment that
if we can successfully demonstrate and then deploy
recycling technologies, we would have sufficient
capacity within the physical constraints of Yucca
Mountain for the disposal of all nuclear waste for
the balance of this century.
Mr. Shimkus. How much more are we likely to
know in the prospects for success in this technology
development by the time the report is issued?
Mr. Sell. It is the hope of this Administration,
the expectation, to do a significant amount of work
to understand better the technologies so that we can
make a judgment before the end of this term as to
whether we should proceed forward to continue to
demonstrate these technologies. The technologies we
know we can do. The UREX-plus separations process
we have demonstrated in the laboratory. Fast
reactors, we have built many, or several, in this
country, and many have been built around the world.
The key challenge is qualifying fuel for burn-down
in a fast reactor. That is the key R and D
challenge and we need to determine whether we can
do that on an economic cost scale that would prove
to be commercially attractive. That is a
significant challenge, but it is one we are going
to proceed expeditiously with, with the help and
support of this Congress, so that we can make a
determination, a better determination as to how
to proceed by the end of 2008.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And my last question
is, can you briefly talk about the reclassification
of fees and the offsetting collections for the
repository program and how this could help
accelerate the opening of the repository?
Mr. Sell. The reclassification of fees would
allow us to take the roughly $750 million which
today goes into the Nuclear Waste Fund and has to
be appropriated out, it would allow that $750
million to go directly to the project. And so
that amount, coupled with the contribution from
the Defense Nuclear Waste Fund, would provide much
greater funding certainty to the program in the
critical next few years.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. The chair recognizes
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for
your courtesy. Mr. Sell, last week Secretary
Bodman testified that the Administration plans to
send up a bill to the Congress proposing changes
in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. When
will that be done?
Mr. Sell. As Secretary Bodman said last week,
we hope to have the legislation up within a month.
Mr. Dingell. Hope? Hope?
Mr. Sell. Well, Mr. Dingell, I will go beyond
hope, I will even say I expect to have it up
within--
Mr. Dingell. By what date?
Mr. Sell. If it was completely within my control,
Mr. Dingell, I would be confident giving you an exact
date, but because we are working through the
interagency process, I can only tell you what my
expectation is.
Mr. Dingell. Approximately, what are your
expectations, please?
Mr. Sell. My expectation is, we can have the
legislation up within a month.
Mr. Dingell. Okay. Now, does the Administration
want the Congress to pass legislation on Yucca
Mountain this year?
Mr. Sell. Yes, we do.
Mr. Dingell. All right. Is that legislation
before the Congress in proper legislative and
finished form?
Mr. Sell. It is not before the Congress today.
Mr. Dingell. When will that happen?
Mr. Sell. Well, we will submit it to the
Congress and then we would hope to work with the
Congress in finding an appropriate co-sponsor.
Mr. Dingell. Is there a date that you can give
me on this?
Mr. Sell. Mr. Dingell, unfortunately, I cannot
give you a better date than what I have previously
said.
Mr. Dingell. Now, I find myself confronting a
curious conundrum here. Does the Administration
expect the Congress to consider legislation before
DOE provides the information coming out of the
internal program review, or are we going to wait
until we complete the program review? It appears
to be sensible to have all the facts before we
proceed to legislate. What is the answer to
that question?
Mr. Sell. I believe that we think and we would
propose to work those issues in parallel with the
Congress; that we would submit legislation for your
consideration at the same time--
Mr. Dingell. Does it occur to you that we
ought to have the program review completed before
the legislation is considered by the Congress so
we can know what we are doing?
Mr. Sell. I think it is helpful, but I do not
think it is necessary that the complete
information--
Mr. Dingell. Well, that leaves us in a
position where we may legislate one way and your
internal review will either tell us we should have
done it differently or will require careful cooking
of the review. I find neither of these appetizing
prospects.
Mr. Sell. It is our desire to put our proposal
and as much information that would allow the
Congress to comprehensively consider that proposal.
We would like to put as much information as possible
before the Congress and work with the Congress to
amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Mr. Dingell. It is a good lawyer's answer. Now,
will the legislation be sent up here before the
estimates have been filed with NRC by DOE, or will
that indicate when you expect to be able to open
Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Sell. We expect to have the legislation up
within a month. We do not expect to have revised
program plan finalized and before the Congress until
June and July, and we hope those are the next two
dates coming and we hope to work with you to get the
legislation passed as quickly thereafter as possible.
Mr. Dingell. I find myself afflicted with a
concern that we will thereupon be compelled to
function with an information void against a target
which is perhaps moving and possibly even moving the
wrong direction. What do you say about that?
Mr. Sell. Mr. Dingell, the frustration that I
know this committee feels is one that I enjoin and
it is one that the Secretary feels strongly. We feel
frustrated. We are frustrated by the performance of
this Department.
Mr. Dingell. I want you to understand, first of
all, I have limited time, but second of all, I want
you to understand that I share your frustration and
these remarks are not necessarily critical, but they
are necessary to understand what is going on. Now
having said that, Mr. Paul Golan testifying before
the Congress today on Yucca Mountain refers to a
clean canistered approach to spent fuel operations.
He says that work on the pending license application
for Yucca Mountain will include the following
approach: a single canister would be used to
transport, age, and dispose of waste without ever
needing to reopen the spent fuel package again.
Now, I find that this, together with the
Administration's package with regard to the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, this is going to
be, according to what the Administration says, this
is going to have the potential to reduce the amount of
high-level waste that is stored in a nuclear bomb.
Your testimony at page seven alludes to this concept.
Now, Mr. Sell, there seems to be some incongruence
between these two statements. On the one hand, we
have you and Mr. Golan pushing for a design that
minimizes contact with high-level waste and saying
that the spent fuel canister need never been reopened.
On the other hand, with the GNEP, we have the DOE and
you suggesting that reprocessing under GNEP will
indicate a loss of waste going into Yucca Mountain.
How do we rhyme those two statements?
Mr. Sell. A significant amount of the spent fuel
that this country has generated over the last 50 years
will not be a candidate for recycling under any
scenario.
Mr. Dingell. So you are going to just recycle
new waste, is that it?
Mr. Sell. Well, once waste has been about 15 years
old, it presents a more challenging prospect to
recycle that than newer waste.
Mr. Dingell. Understand, this is not criticism.
I am just asking information. Now, quickly, can you
tell us where you and when you, under GNEP, at the DOE
will have the waste reprocessed? Will it be done at
the utility sites, at Yucca Mountain, or at some
other place?
Mr. Sell. Well, if we can prove out the
technologies, and we need to, that is a significant
engineering challenge. If we can demonstrate those
technologies, and then if it makes sense for us to
commercialize those technologies, an appropriate
process would occur to determine the appropriate
site for those recycling facilities.
Mr. Dingell. So this is not at this time known?
Mr. Sell. It is not known.
Mr. Dingell. All right. Mr. Chairman, you
have been most gracious. Thank you and thank you,
Mr. Sell.
Mr. Hall. The Chair recognizes Dr. Burgess, the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And,
Mr. Deputy Secretary, thank you and I appreciate
your indulgence. I know it has been a long
afternoon. But continuing on the line that the
gentleman from Michigan was just pursuing, with the
transportation, aging and disposal canisters, that
is a new approach?
Mr. Sell. It is an old idea but a new approach.
Mr. Burgess. And has this redirection using those
transportation, aging, and disposal canisters, has
that had an effect on the timing of the cost of the
license, the review of ground construction, and
operations?
Mr. Sell. That has an impact on it as well as
the activity related to the radiation standard, the
funding issues, and quite frankly, the other issues
that have come up as it relates to the quality
assurance of the work in the program over the last
year. All of those matters, coupled with the review
of the program that the Secretary directed, have
affected and will affect our schedule for the
license application.
Mr. Burgess. And how will it affect it? Will
it delay it?
Mr. Sell. You know, previously, just a few years
ago, the Department had indicated that a license
application would be made in December of 2004. That
did not occur. And we are working to make a license
application to the NRC that will be successful as
quickly as possible. If one only wanted to make a
license application, we could do that very quickly,
but we want to make sure that when we make it, we
have a high degree of confidence that we will in
fact be successful.
Mr. Burgess. Yes. I would point out, we are
going the long way to December of 2004 at this point.
Last year, in preparation for the certification, the
licensing support network, several e-mails from the
United States Geological Survey employees indicated
that proper quality assurance procedures had not
been followed for their research on water filtration
into the repository. Currently, is there action
being taken to verify or recreate this data and
the models that they worked on?
Mr. Sell. There is. We intend to recreate the
work. That is one of the things that we have asked
Sandia National Lab to do. I would note that in
our substantial review of the work, we did not find
any of the substantive conclusions incorrect. In
fact, they are consistent with many other studies
as it relates to water infiltration. We did
identify problems with the quality assurance methods
that were used. And because we want to ensure that
we proceed in the most responsible way possible, we
are going to redo those models and resubmit those as
part of our license application.
Mr. Burgess. Now, if I understand the concept
correctly, the recycling program and Yucca Mountain
are proceeding along parallel tracks, but they are
interdependent in that you already have spent nuclear
fuel that will basically take up the space that is
available at Yucca Mountain, and without the
reprocessing program, another Yucca Mountain would
be necessary fairly quickly, is that correct?
Mr. Sell. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act put a
70,000 metric ton limit on Yucca Mountain, and it
is our projection that by roughly 2010 or 2012, the
Yucca Mountain, as specified under the act, will be
fully subscribed. That is one of the issues that
we may seek to address in the legislation. And we
also believe that if we can, over the coming
decades, commercialize the recycling technologies,
that would allow us to greatly optimize the use of
that one Yucca Mountain so that it would serve and
perhaps permanently defer a decision on a second
repository.
Mr. Burgess. Is, now, a country like France
that utilizes a good deal more nuclear power than
the United States, do they reprocess their spent
fuel?
Mr. Sell. France reprocesses as well as the
United Kingdom, Japan, Russia, China, most of the
other great nuclear economies all have commercial
reprocessing activities.
Mr. Burgess. Is that technology developed in
France or was it developed in this country?
Mr. Sell. All of the reprocessing technology
that is used around the globe today is based on
the PUREX method which was developed here in the
United States as part of our weapons program to
produce and separate plutonium.
Mr. Burgess. Is there an economy to be found
by going for off-the-shelf technology that is
already utilized in other countries that is working,
or is there a downside to pursuing that?
Mr. Sell. In our judgment, Mr. Burgess, the
commercial reprocessing technologies that are used
around the globe today are not preferable because
they separate pure civilian plutonium, which
represents a significant proliferation risk. And
so what the President has proposed is that we work
to develop the next generation of recycling
technologies that will be much more proliferation
resistant than the types of reprocessing
technologies that are used around the globe
today. And that is one of the reasons we want to
work in partnership with the other nuclear
economies, to benefit from the advances that they
have made, but also to work with them in phasing
out the existing PUREX-based reprocessing
technologies which, in our judgment, present a
significant proliferation threat.
Mr. Burgess. Is the discussion with India,
would that be for the proliferation resistant
reprocessing?
Mr. Sell. The announcement that was made
with India, they have made a commitment. They
never signed the Nonproliferation Treaty. They
have made a commitment to put a great number of
their nuclear facilities under safeguards, which
is a considerable improvement. And in return, we
have made a commitment to change the Atomic
Energy Act so that we can engage in nuclear
cooperation, including fuel cells with India and
to strengthen the strategic relationship and
quite frankly, the economic relationship between
our two countries. As it exists today, the
agreement between the United States and India does
not relate specifically to recycling or
reprocessing.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, you have been very
indulgence. I will yield back my time.
Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman. The Chair
recognizes the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, Joe Barton, for as much time as he wants
to consume.
Chairman Barton. Well, I will take five minutes,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Secretary, for being here. First, I want to make
sure that my opening statement is put in the
record.
Mr. Hall. Without objection, sir.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton
follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
Thank you Mr. Hall and Mr. Boucher for having
this hearing on the status of Yucca Mountain. As
you know, I feel very strongly about this issue
and remain committed to carrying out our nation's
nuclear waste policy and building a repository at
Yucca Mountain.
Our nation has invested 23 years and $9.0
billion into a repository to solve our nuclear
waste problem. The amazing part is, as time
passes, this project gets further and further
behind. Yucca Mountain was supposed to open in
1998, isn't open yet, and won't open by 2010.
With DOE amassing more liability costs with each
passing year, it's time we get an explanation as
to where DOE's priorities are.
The license application is four years overdue
and DOE has no projection of when it will be
submitted. DOE also has no projection of when
the repository will open. DOE has been working
since last August on a legislative proposal to
resolve the repository's outstanding issues, but
hasn't produced it yet. In the meantime, DOE has
been focused on developing their GNEP proposal
that represents a fundamental shift in nuclear
waste policy, without any warning to Congress.
In 2007, payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund
will be approximately $750 million. The Nuclear
Waste Fund will earn over a billion dollars in
interest, and the balance in the Fund will be
nearly $20 billion. Yet in the Administration's
budget for FY'07, only $156 million will be used
for the repository program. However, that same
budget also proposes $250 million for the new
GNEP proposal with funding requests expected to
top $700 million for FY'08 and �09. Let me be
clear - I oppose tapping the Nuclear Waste Fund
for GNEP activities.
I encourage DOE and the administration to
keep a strong focus on Yucca Mountain. If
Congress needs to take further action to get the
Yucca Mountain project set once and for all, I
and many bipartisan Members of this Committee are
ready to work with you. Personally, I'm willing
to tolerate this pursuit of the GNEP dream, but
not at the expense of a nuclear waste repository.
CEOs and boards are watching, waiting for a
signal that the executive and legislative branches
will do their part. Until we send that signal, we
may not see any new plants built. I know you
share that goal, so let's give confidence that the
waste issue is solved.
Chairman Barton. Okay. Mr. Deputy Secretary,
I think you know that the last several years the
government has paid about $140 million or $141
million dollars in settlement claims because of the
Department of Energy's inability to dispose of the
existing commercial spent fuel. Do you have an
idea or an estimate of what will be paid over the
next five years for these claims?
Mr. Sell. As far as damages claims as a result
of not taking the waste, I do not have an exact
estimate, but I would like to provide the best
information I have for the record.
Chairman Barton. Well, we would like to have
that estimate and we would also like to have the
Department's proposal on how to reimburse the
Judgment Fund, and we would also like to know
where these costs are reflected in the
President's Budget.
Mr. Sell. Mr. Chairman, under the existing
law or operations of the Judgment Fund, payments
out of the Judgment Fund are not reimbursed by
the Department of Energy. The Judgment Fund is
handled separately from our budget and I believe
that is the way it will continue to be handled.
Chairman Barton. Who is responsible for the
Judgment Fund if not the Department? Where is
the money coming from?
Mr. Sell. Ultimately, the money comes from
the taxpayers.
Chairman Barton. No, I mean, but what agency?
Mr. Sell. I believe, Mr. Chairman, the Judgment
Fund is administered by the Department of Justice.
Chairman Barton. So there is no Department of
Energy role in requesting funds for that fund?
Mr. Sell. That is correct.
Chairman Barton. Okay. I am going to be
sending, in the very near future, a written
request to you and Secretary Bodman to prepare a
life cycle estimate for comparing our existing
waste policy based on Yucca Mountain and this new
GNEP reprocessing approach. I am skeptical of
GNEP, but I at least think we ought to compare
apples and apples when we look at the cost. Do you
have a comment on that or do you just want to wait
until you get my letter?
Mr. Sell. Well, I will look forward to your
letter, but if I may, I would like to make a
comment. This is something that we looked
seriously at and it affected our thinking as we
were seeking to develop the policy and make a
judgment as to whether this was something that
was worth pursuing. We think it is absolutely
worth pursuing particularly for the potential
nonproliferation benefits that it can yield.
But even on a cost basis, we found that if the
cost of uranium fuel is fully loaded with the
ultimate cost of disposal, we think, you know,
uranium fuel costs less than $100 per kilogram,
but we think the disposal cost is at least $600
per kilogram, and we expect the commodity cost
of uranium to increase substantially as the
demand for it increases with an expansion of
nuclear power. So in a world with many more
nuclear power plants than we have today, we
think that the cost of our once through policy,
with disposal costs loaded in, is no less than
what the cost of a recycling program would be.
We think they are very comparable from a cost
standpoint and we look forward to elaborating
on that in our response to your letter.
Chairman Barton. Okay. Somebody may have
asked this, but when do you expect to present
to this committee and to the Congress a
legislative proposal on Yucca Mountain, on
funding and maintaining that program?
Mr. Sell. As Secretary Bodman indicated
last week, we hope to have that legislation to
the Congress within a month.
Chairman Barton. Within a month, okay.
Well, we always are glad to see you and we look
forward to working with you on a lot of these
issues. And with that, I am going to yield
back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing.
Mr. Hall. I thank Chairman Barton for
yielding back. And one of the benefits of
being Chairman is that all the questions that
I want to ask have been answered pretty well.
But the purpose, of course, of the hearing is
to gain an understanding of the current
situation and connections to the GNEP proposal,
reasons for further delays, and issues that
might require legislation, and I think you have
covered those pretty well. You have adequately
told us of the importance of Yucca Mountain,
and I think everybody realizes that pretty well.
The benefits of GNEP for the Yucca Mountain
Project is something we might want to discuss
for just a moment or so. And if GNEP is
successful, will there be a need for Yucca
Mountain? I think that almost speaks for itself
because, physically, Yucca Mountain's capacity
is limited by heat generation from nuclear waste.
If their capacity is limited by that, then spent
fuel can be reprocessed to reduce waste volume
and remove the heat-generating elements, then
Yucca Mountain's capacity might increase
significantly, I am told, and I think that is
basically in your testimony.
Another question I have heard asked is, it
is not my question, but I have heard it, is
GNEP is evidence that the Administration is
backing away from its commitment to Yucca
Mountain, and it seems to me that it is certainly
not backing away from it, that it is lending R&D
to it to make it more adequate and maybe to
prevent having additional Yucca Mountains. Do
you want to enlarge on that in any way? In
other words, it is not a slow clear give to
those that oppose Yucca Mountain. We don't
want to ever go down that road. We have got
to finish it, we have got to complete it, and
if you have any remarks to make about what
GNEP will do for Yucca Mountain, I would like
to hear that and that will be the only question
I have.
Mr. Sell. You have said it and I will briefly
elaborate on it. We regard, really, GNEP as an
opportunity to develop the recycling technologies
that will allow us to optimize, from a waste
management standpoint, it will allow us to
optimize the use of the Yucca Mountain geologic
repository for decades to come and perhaps even
beyond the century. But those technologies
themselves will take decades to get to
commercialization, and we need to have success
on Yucca Mountain much, much quicker than that
so that we can start moving fuel there and
quite frankly, earn the confidence from the
American people, the taxpayers, and the nuclear
industry, that we can meet our obligations to
take fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
So Yucca Mountain remains the top and quite
frankly, kind of the greatest remaining
uncertainty as it relates to nuclear power in
the United States, and we intend to work over
the course of the next three years to resolve
that uncertainty.
Mr. Hall. Thank you for your testimony and
thank you for your time and thank you for your
service. All right, with that, we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the subcommittee
was adjourned.]
Response for the Record by the Hon. Clay Sell,
Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy
QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HALL
Legislative Proposal
Q1. Secretary Bodman stated on March 9th that
the Administration would propose legislation to
address Yucca Mountain "within a month." According
to press reports, Secretary Bodman made a statement
on March 28th that he is "...hopeful we will get it
out by the end of April..." When will the
Administration propose legislation to the Congress?
A1. The Administration's legislative proposal,
the "Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act" was
submitted to Congress on April 5, 2006.
Q2. If Congress does not act on your legislative
proposal this year, what specific activities would
be impacted? How would the schedule for commencement
of repository operations be affected?
A2. The program activities identified in the
President's FY 2007 budget are not contingent on the
passage of legislation. The opening of the
repository will be dependent on a number of factors,
including when the license application is submitted,
how long it takes to receive construction
authorization and a license amendment to receive and
possess waste on site, the level of funding available,
and other factors including many that are outside the
control of the Department. The legislative proposal
contains a number of provisions, to facilitate the
licensing, construction and operation of a repository
at Yucca Mountain. In particular, land withdrawal
is a regulatory prerequisite for issuance of a license.
Q3. Legislation has been proposed that would give
DOE the authority to take title to commercial spent
fuel at utility sites and store it there indefinitely.
What is the Administration's position?
A3. I understand that Senators Reid and Ensign
have proposed legislation to authorize DOE to take
title to spent nuclear fuel at utility sites as a
way to reduce the Government's liability for its
delay in disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
resulting money damages in that litigation. However,
because the Government would accept liability and
responsibility for commercial reactor waste on
privately owned sites regulated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), taking title to all
spent fuel at all 72 reactor sites in the Nation
within five years would be substantially more
costly to the Government than paying out delay
damages. For example, removing all five-year
cooled fuel from spent fuel pools could cost as
much as $6 billion over the next five years, would
expose nuclear plant workers to needless radiation
exposure and would provide no increase in safety.
Moreover, the proposed legislation would further
postpone the day when the Department begins to
fulfill its responsibilities to take and dispose of
commercial spent fuel currently located at reactor
sites around the country.
Q4. What issues are being considered in the
Administration's Yucca Mountain legislative
proposal?
A. Will it have provisions related to the
GNEP program?
B. Why would legislation be necessary to
address these issues?
A4. The Department's legislative proposal,
the "Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act"
was submitted to Congress on April 5, 2006. It
does not contain provisions related to the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative.
Capacity of Yucca Mountain
Q5. Yucca Mountain's current capacity is
limited by law to 70,000 metric tons.
A. Based on technical factors, what is the
physical capacity of Yucca to accommodate spent
fuel?
B. Is this physical capacity adequate to
directly dispose of all the spent fuel from the
existing fleet of nuclear plants?
C. Is this physical capacity adequate to
directly dispose of spent fuel from any new
nuclear plants that might be built?
A5. The environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Yucca Mountain repository evaluated the
cumulative effects of disposing of approximately
120,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste at Yucca Mountain site. The physical
capacity of Yucca Mountain has not been fully
assessed; however the Department believes the
capacity may be significantly greater than the
amount analyzed in the EIS. As such, the physical
capacity of Yucca Mountain is adequate to dispose
of all the waste that currently exists, and would
be sufficient for the disposal of all the spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste that is expected
to be generated in the future from the existing
fleet of nuclear plants. The ability of Yucca
Mountain to dispose of spent fuel from new plants
will be dependent on the number of new nuclear
plants developed in the future and the results of
further site characterization activities in other
potential emplacement areas within Yucca Mountain.
Q6. To what extent will the required report on
the need for a second repository be shaped by
progress on GNEP? How much more are we likely to
know on the prospects for success in this technology
development by the time the report is issued?
A6. As required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
the Department of Energy is to submit a report on
the need for a second repository between January
2007, and January 2010. The Department is currently
in the planning phase for the development of that
report. The report will address the technical
progress of GNEP technology development at the time
of its issuance. Given the timetable for determining
the feasibility of the GNEP technologies, it is
unlikely that the report could assume the commercial
deployment of those technologies in the near term.
On the other hand, removal of the 70,000 metric ton
limitation would have a major effect on the need for
a second repository in the near term.
Q7. Please list the amounts and types of defense
waste and spent fuel planned for disposal in Yucca
Mountain. Please list all other defense waste and
spent fuel that requires disposal in a geologic
repository that exceeds the current allocation for
Yucca Mountain.
A7. The repository is being designed to
accommodate 7,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel
produced from the Department of Energy weapons
production and Department of Navy research and test
reactors, and naval nuclear propulsion programs and
vitrified defense high-level waste from the
reprocessing of spent fuel.
The Department's total inventory is approximately
13,000 metric tons heavy metal, comprised of around
2,500 metric tons heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel,
including 65 metric tons of naval spent fuel and
approximately 10,500 metric tons of DOE high-level
waste.
The Department's ability to dispose of its high-level
radioactive waste currently is constrained by the
provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that
imposes a 70,000 metric ton limit and requires the
tonnage of the high-level radioactive waste to be
based not on the actual volume of waste but rather
on the volume of the spent fuel from which it was
generated.
License Application
Q8. What impact will the GNEP program have on
the content and filing date of Yucca Mountain
license application?
A8. The GNEP initiative is a separate activity
within the Department and is not expected to have
any impact on the initial Yucca Mountain license
application. If the advanced technologies that are
being consider under the GNEP program are proven
feasible and deployed, DOE will take appropriate
action to revisit the license granted by NRC to
accommodate the waste generated by GNEP.
Q9. In the past year, a decision was made to
redirect the approach taken to handling fuel at
the repository to a "clean" approach utilizing a
single canister for transportation, aging, and
disposal (TAD). Please explain this new approach.
What impact has this redirection had on the timing
and cost of license review, program construction,
and operations? How does it differ from the
Department's previous failed attempt to use
Multi-purpose Canisters?
A9. The new clean-canistered approach is
cleaner, simpler, and safer. Workers at the Yucca
Mountain site will be handling primarily
canistered waste, not individual fuel assemblies
as previously planned. These canisters will
provide workers with another contamination
barrier. For example, when routine maintenance
is required in the canistered operating
facilities, workers will not have to deal with
radiological contamination as they would with
individual fuel assembly handling operations.
The Department anticipates that it will be able
to announce a schedule for submission of the
license application this summer after we have
considered what changes will be needed in the
license application to take the canistered
approach into account. This re-direction was
not the cause of the delays. Additional time
for the development of the license application
is needed to address a number of issues,
including the expected issuance of the
Environmental Protection Agency standards,
actions to improve the quality assurance of the
Program, and to ensure the license application
is developed to the degree required for
docketing by the NRC. The cost of re-directing
the program to the canister approach has been
minimal as compared to the cost savings that
can result in simplier operations over the
40 years of operations at the repository.
The opening of the repository will be dependent
on when the license application is submitted,
how long it takes to receive construction
authorization and then a license amendment to
receive and possess, the level of funding
available, and a number of other factors.
We believe the new approach represents a
technically simpler and safer operation. A
similar initiative in the mid-1990s, referred
to as the multi-purpose canisters (MPC)
approach, was discontinued as a result of
budget reductions.
Q10. Last year, the NRC denied certification
of the Licensing Support Network. What steps
are being taken to address this situation?
When will the Network be ready for certification?
A10. After NRC rejected the certification of
the LSN in August 2004, the Department took
several actions. First, a large archive of
emails from inactive and external users was
reviewed, and relevant documents were added to
the LSN collection. Second, we reviewed
documents that had been designated as
privileged to ensure their proper classification
and we removed a large number from the
privileged category. Third, we continued our
processes to collect and identify relevant
documents that are required to be produced in
the LSN in anticipation of a new certification.
The LSN is currently being kept up to date
through monthly submittals of relevant documents.
The date for the LSN recertification has not
been finalized, however, NRC regulations
require the Department to certify the LSN at
least six months prior to submittal of the
license application.
Q11. Last year, in preparation for
certification of the Licensing Support Network,
several emails from USGS employees indicating
that proper Quality Assurance procedures had not
been followed for their research on water
infiltration into the repository. What actions
are being taken to verify or recreate the data
and models that they worked on? When will that
work be completed? What is being done to
improve quality assurance procedures and ensure
adherence to those procedures?
A11. The U.S. Geological Survey emails,
while not directly involving data collection
and technical work, have caused the Department
to review the work contained in two reports,
Simulation of Net Infiltration for Present-Day
and Potential Future Climates and Analysis of
Infiltration Uncertainty, which currently support
the Total System Performance Assessment for the
license application.
The Department has conducted an evaluation of the
potential technical impacts resulting from
questions raised by the emails. The Evaluation of
Technical Impact on the Yucca Mountain Project
Technical Basis Resulting From Issues Raised by
E-mails of Former Project Participants report
concluded that, while the emails do not suggest a
misrepresentation by certain individuals of the
underlying science, they appear to imply
circumvention and/or misrepresentation of
compliance with Yucca Mountain Project quality
assurance requirements. Consequently, we have
implemented remedial actions to address both
potential technical and quality assurance issues
associated with the supporting data, implementing
software, and process models called into question.
The Department has tasked Sandia National
Laboratories to review the existing infiltration
model and to prepare a new model. After Sandia
completes these tasks, its work will be independently
checked by experts outside the Department. We have
been very clear that it is vital to properly carry
out this work, and we will take the time necessary
to do so.
Q12. Please update the Committee on the efforts
by the EPA and the NRC to issue an updated
radiation standard for the repository.
A. Is DOE confident that Yucca Mountain can
meet the revised standard?
B. How will the ultimate resolution of the
radiation standard impact the licensing
process and the repository's design, cost,
and schedule?
A12. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed rule applies a sensible technical
approach and is appropriately tempered by
reasonable policy judgments such as the inclusion
of a reasonable expectation test. The proposed
EPA standard beyond 10,000 years is equal to, or
lower than radiation doses that are routinely
experienced by millions of people today based on
where they live or what they do. If the revised
standard proposed by EPA is codified as proposed
the Department is confident that the Yucca
Mountain repository can meet the proposed revised
standard. Of course, demonstrating regulatory
compliance with a standard hundreds of thousands
of years in the future will be a first of a kind
exercise for both NRC and DOE and is likely to
require the expenditure of considerable time and
resources by both entities.
The Department expects to have a schedule for
submission of the license application later this
summer after we have had a chance to review and
incorporate proposed design changes for the
clean-canistered approach to fuel handling
facilities. This schedule will reflect the
estimated time needed to address a number of
issues, including for example, incorporating the
final EPA standard. While the revision of the
EPA standard has had an impact on the schedule
for submitting the license application, the
Department does not expect that the revised
standard will necessitate design changes or the
incurrence of any significant additional costs
other than those associated with dealing with
contentions on the post 10,000 year period in
the licensing proceeding.
Q13. How is DOE preparing to address the
rigors of the NRC license review process? What
licensing expertise does DOE currently have
within the OCRWM?
A13. As the Department continues to develop the
repository design, safety analysis, and license
application, it is also developing plans for
defense of the application in Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board hearings and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) reviews. This planning includes
identification of our expert witnesses and
preparation of information that may be needed to
respond to contentions raised by other parties to
the licensing proceedings. Prior to submitting
the license application, the Department plans to
have in place procedures and processes to respond
to NRC's requests for additional information once
the license application is submitted. Since the
NRC staff anticipates only an 18 month review
period prior to the hearings, the Department needs
to be able to respond to Requests for Additional
Information rapidly and comprehensively. A
thorough legal and regulatory review process,
combined with timely interactions with the NRC
during the pre-application period, will help the
Program develop a license application that the NRC
can docket, review and adjudicate in the three
year period required by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act.
The Department currently has staff, both
Federal employees and contractors with
experience in the licensing of nuclear
facilities before the NRC. In addition,
DOE has retained the services of an
experienced law firm with extensive
experience in nuclear facilities licensing
and NRC regulation.
Management
Q14. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the
submission of Project Decision Schedule to be
updated as appropriate. In light of the many
changes to the program in the last few years, when
does DOE plan to submit a revised Project Decision
Schedule?
A14. We are working on an update of the Project
Decision Schedule and plan to complete it in FY 2007.
Q15. Last week, Secretary Bodman said that DOE
has begun its evaluation of the need for a second
repository, an evaluation that DOE is required to
present to Congress beginning in 2007. If the
Department has to begin looking at a second
repository, which sites will you consider? Please
provide a list of those candidate sites for the
record.
A15. The Department will develop a report between
2007 and 2010 on the need for a second repository,
as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Potential identification of sites is premature until
the report on the need for a second repository is
submitted to the Congress and a decision is made
whether to proceed with a second repository program.
However, it is reasonable to assume that the
Department would initially look at the 21 states
considered for the first or second repository during
the early 1980s. These states include: Connecticut,
Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington and Wisconsin.
Q16. When does the current contract for the
repository program expire? What are the Department's
plans for re-competing that contract?
A16. The base period for the contract with
Bechtel SAIC expired April 1, 2006. The contract
includes options for up to five one-year extensions.
The Department exercised the first one-year option
(through March 31, 2007) and is considering exercising
the second one-year option (April 1, 2007, through
March 31, 2008) to ensure completion of critical
in-process work related to the license application
submittal. The acquisition strategy for work beyond
March 31, 2008, is being evaluated by the Department
to determine the best path forward, including
competition.
Q17. In the last two years, the Federal
Government paid $141 million in claims or settlements
resulting from DOE's inability to dispose of
commercial spent fuel. How much do you estimate
will be paid over the next five years? Since these
costs are being paid from the Judgment Fund, will DOE
be required to reimburse that Fund? Where are these
costs reflected in the President's Budget?
A17. The amount of damages due utilities from the
Government is currently a matter in litigation.
However, the Department has estimated that the
Government's liability for delaying the acceptance of
spent fuel from 1998 to 2010 is between $2 billion to
$3 billion. For each year that the Yucca Mountain is
delayed beyond 2010, the Government's liability could
be up to $500 million per year in costs that the
commercial utilities will incur for the construction
and maintenance of storage on their sites. As the
Department cannot predict when these costs will be
paid either for a court judgment or for a settlement,
the Department cannot quantify what portion of this
liability will be paid over the next five years.
Funds paid to utilities to settle litigation against
the Government for the Department's delay came from
the Government's Judgment Fund at the Department of
the Treasury, which has a permanent indefinite
appropriation and which, under current law, the
Department of Energy is not required to reimburse.
Q18. DOE has suggested that their liability for
failing to accept commercial spent fuel beginning
in 1998 may cost $500 million per year. Private
Fuel Storage was recently licensed to build an
independent spent fuel storage facility in Utah
and estimates that they could serve DOE's needs
for about $60 million per year. Is DOE exploring
this possibility? If not, why not?
A18. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) directs
the Department to develop a permanent geologic
repository for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain.
Because PFS is a privately funded facility operated
by the private sector outside the scope of the NWPA,
the statute prohibits DOE from providing direct
funding to that entity. Additionally, the facility
does not address the Nation's need to permanently
dispose of radioactive waste.
Q19. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, new
nuclear plants must sign standard contracts with
DOE for the disposal of spent fuel before they
can receive a license from the NRC. Under what
circumstances and conditions would DOE be able
to sign Standard Contracts for the disposal of
spent fuel from new reactors, considering the
liability the Department faces for failure to
execute their liability under the existing
generation of contracts?
A19. The Department is prepared to begin
discussions with interested utilities to develop
the terms and conditions of a new contract for
the disposal of spent nuclear fuel from new
commercial nuclear power reactors. The Department
is confident that it will be able to
successfully complete these activities to support
the licensing of new nuclear power plants. The
Department expects any new contract would take
into account that acceptance of spent fuel would
be dependent on removal of the 70,000 metric ton
limitation or construction of a second repository.
Q20. I understand that Secretary Bodman has
publicly stated concern about whether the existing
mil per kilowatt-hour that utilities pay to fund
Yucca Mountain may NOT be adequate to cover the
costs of building the repository. What is the
basis for that statement? When will DOE planning
to update its Total System Life Cycle Cost Estimate?
A20. While the project is still in the design
phase and annual spending does not exceed the net
income into the fund (fees plus interest), an
increase to the mil levy on the production of
electricity from nuclear power does not seem
warranted or justified. The Nuclear Waste Fund
currently has approximately an $18 billion corpus
which continues to grow every year. In FY 2006,
the Fund took in $736 million in the mil levy fee
as well as $849 million in investment income (for
a total of $1.585 billion) while only $148.5
million was appropriated from the Fund by Congress
for use at Yucca Mountain. This means that there
was over $1.4 billion generated for the Fund in
FY 2005 but not spent.
The program is planning to develop new cost
estimates once the Department selects new
designs for surface facilities that
incorporate the clean-canistered approach
and that are approved by the Energy Systems
Acquisition Advisory Board. Decisions on
the designs are expected this summer.
Q21. Administration witnesses have consistently
testified that it is important to move forward with
the Yucca Mountain project regardless of the
outcome of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). One of the reasons relates to defense
waste.
A. Under current schedules, when will defense
waste and spent fuel be ready for shipment to the
repository?
B. If the repository is not built, how
will this waste be handled?
A21. (A) Each Department of Energy site
(Hanford, Savannah River, and Idaho National
Laboratory), which expects to ship spent fuel or
high-level waste to the repository, will place the
waste into disposable canisters. These canisters
are designed to be transported to the repository
and accommodate disposal in waste packages at
Yucca Mountain. Currently Savannah River has
high-level waste that has been vitrified, but
Hanford and Idaho have not yet vitrified their
high-level waste. Current plans developed by
the Office of Environmental Management for each
site are summarized in the table below.
SITE��� ��� ���� Date of Capability to�� ������ Date of Capability to
������� ������� �� Ship HLW Canisters��� �����Ship SNF Canisters
Savannah River� ����������� 2012������� ������� ������� ������� 2015
Hanford Site��� ������ 2020��� ������� ������� ������� 2018
Idaho National Lab����� �� 2022������� ������� ������� ������� 2015
If a repository were not built, the waste would
continue to be stored at the current sites.
Q22. The Department has previously submitted a
legislative proposal to reclassify the fees paid
into the Nuclear Waste Fund to make those
offsetting collections that could only be used
for the repository program. If Congress enacted
such a reclassification proposal, how much
would this accelerate the date for opening the
repository?
A22. The budget requirements to construct and
operate the repository are estimated to be between
$1 billion and $2 billion annually through
operations. The Yucca Mountain project is
currently funded, on average, at the $500 million
level, of which, on average, is approximately
$200 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Without
funding reform to encourage full appropriation of
the funds generated by the mil levy fee, the
Department will not have sufficient funds to
construct the repository and related infrastructure
in a timely manner and operation of the repository
at expected levels will be delayed many years.
Q23. $544 million was requested to fund the
Yucca Mountain program for FY'07. How much of
that funding will be spent within the State of
Nevada?
A23. Approximately $343 million would be spent
in the State of Nevada. This would include funds
for State and local government oversight activities,
payments equal to taxes, University of Nevada
research, our management and operating and other
project contractors, and Federal salaries for staff
located in Nevada.
Q24. Please list all circumstances under which
DOE has authority to conduct interim storage of
nuclear waste and spent fuel.
A24. DOE has authority under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2075), to
accept spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in certain
circumstances. Pursuant to this AEA authority, the
Department has accepted and stored U.S. supplied
foreign research reactor fuel at various DOE sites.
DOE has also used this authority to accept for
research and development purposes small amounts of
SNF such as parts of the Three Mile Island melted
reactor core and other damaged SNF. DOE also has
accepted commercial SNF under contracts that
pre-dated enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (NWPA). Enactment of the NWPA did
not affect the Department's authority to accept
and store SNF not covered by the Standard
Contract mandated by the NWPA. However, in
enacting the NWPA, Congress did provide a detailed
statutory scheme for commercial SNF storage and
disposal that, by its specificity, severely limited
the Department's commercial SNF storage and
disposal options and, in effect, prevents the
Department from currently undertaking interim
storage of commercial SNF to meet the NWPA-imposed
disposal contract obligations. Section 135 of the
Act authorized the Department to enter into
contracts to assist or provide temporary storage
of small amounts of SNF until a repository was
available. This authority expired in 1990.
Section 141 of the Act authorizes the Department
to site, construct and operate a Monitored
Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility, but restricts
DOE's ability to pursue this option by linking any
activity under this section to almost unattainable
milestones. 42 U.S.C. 10155-10157. For example,
before the MRS can be constructed, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission must have issued a
construction authorization license for the main
repository; until the main repository starts
accepting SNF, the quantity of spent fuel stored
at the MRS site cannot exceed 10,000 MTUs; after
the main repository starts accepting SNF, the
total quantity of SNF at the MRS site cannot exceed
15,000 MTUs at any one time, and the MRS cannot be
located in Nevada.
Repository Operations
Q25. The Yucca Mountain EIS includes an assumption
that the repository will remain open with the
ability to monitor waste performance and retrieve it
if appropriate for at least 50 and as many as 300
years. What are your current assumptions with respect
to this aspect of repository operations?
A25. The Yucca Mountain environmental impact
statement (EIS) assumption was based on two
considerations. First, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
regulations require that the repository must be able
to retrieve spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
for a period of 50 years following initial emplacement.
Second, the Department desired to ensure that the
repository could be physically maintained and monitored
to allow future policymakers to decide when to
permanently close the repository. At the time the
EIS was prepared, the Department believed that up to
300 years was a conservative timeframe.
Considerations such as the costs and technical
feasibility of maintaining the underground emplacement
drifts for 300 years, and the need to protect the
open repository from adversaries, have caused the
Department to revise this assumption. Currently,
the Department intends that the repository be capable
of remaining open for up to 50 years following
completion of emplacement of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste. This will simplify the ability
to provide drift stability, reduce the timeframe to
protect the spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
while the repository is open, allow the repository
to meet thermal limits for emplacement, and reduce
the cost of maintaining the facility in an open
condition.
Q26. Please describe the improvements to site
infrastructure that you plan to accomplish with the
FY 2007 request.
A. Why must this work be done now?
B. Can all of these site infrastructure
activities be undertaken in advance of receiving a
license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
begin construction of the repository?
C. Do you have any communication from
the NRC stating that position?
A26. In order to assure the safety of the workers
and visiting members of the public at the Yucca
Mountain site, the Administration plans to make
needed safety-related replacements or improvements
to the existing infrastructure. Among other things,
the Department would be replacing or making
improvements to the fire detection, alarm, rail,
and ventilation systems, and underground fire
fighting capability in the tunnel. These
safety-related activities would also involve the
construction of three new temporary buildings to
replace existing trailers, temporary work shops,
and tents.
These safety-related activities would also include
removal of the muck pile (the tailings from the
excavation of the tunnel) from its current
location in order address safety the storm water
flooding of the temporary buildings that have
been constructed on the muck pile. The muck pile
would be used as fill material to support other
infrastructure activities such as road construction
or repair and pad foundation construction.
The National Environmental Policy Act review for
these proposed activities has not been completed,
and we have not commenced our formal consultations
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding
these proposed activities.
Q27. Please describe the improvements to
transportation infrastructure that you plan to
accomplish with the FY 2007 request. Why must this
work be done in 2007, considering that the
repository is not likely to open before 2012?
A27. Most of the assets required for safe and
secure transportation have long procurement lead
times. The design, testing, certification and
fabrication of new casks are expected to take five
years. In addition, construction of a 300 mile
long rail access to the repository will be both
expensive and time consuming. The long lead times
and high cost of developing the transportation
infrastructure are prime reasons for beginning
development early and spreading the costs over
multiple years. Approximately half of the
$68 million requested for transportation
development in FY 2007 is targeted for final
design and construction of the rail line to
the repository. The other funds are targeted
for procuring long lead assets (casks and rail
cars) as well as developing the communications,
security, routing and emergency preparedness
support needed for safe and secure shipments.
Q28. Are existing laws and regulations
governing the transport of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level waste adequate to ensure public
health and safety during DOE's extensive
shipping campaign to Yucca Mountain? How many
nuclear waste locations will not be accessible
by rail in the timeframe that DOE expects to
begin transport to Yucca Mountain? What
options exist for those sites NOT accessible
by rail?
A28. The Federal government and nuclear
industry have been shipping nuclear material,
nuclear waste, and spent nuclear fuel since
the early 1950s. In that time, over 3,000
shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been
conducted without any harmful release of
radioactive material. That safety record is
largely due to the stringency of current
laws and regulations. In February of this
year, the National Academy of Sciences issued
a draft report titled, "Going the Distance?
The Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and
High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United
States" and stated that "Current international
standards and U.S. regulations are adequate
to ensure package containment effectiveness
over a wide range of transport conditions."
The legislation proposed by the Administration
is not intended to replace this framework or
to change the Department's long standing
practice of working with States, Indian tribes
and local governments utilizing their
expertise to ensure safe and secure
transportation and of providing them financial
and other assistance, as appropriate. Rather
the legislation clarifies DOE can use its
authority under the Atomic Energy Act to ensure
a single comprehensive framework and identifies
the mechanism for dealing with requirements that
conflict with this framework. Of the 72
commercial sites from which DOE will ship spent
nuclear fuel, 24 do not have direct rail access.
There are several options for shipping rail
sized casks from these sites, including moving
the large rail casks on special "heavy-haul"
transporters to nearby rail yards and
transferring them to a train for the rest of
the journey, or shipping truck sized casks on
flatbed trailers in standard legal weight, or
permitted overweight, configurations. Another
option would be to load the rail cask onto a
barge at sites with navigable water access and
use the waterway to ship the load to a nearby
railhead. Studies of inter-modal shipment
options from sites without rail access to a
railhead are being supported by the Department
in collaboration with state regional groups.
Q29. Is DOE confident that repository
performance is understood in an adequate
level of detail to satisfy the rigorous
scrutiny of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
review? Is OCRWM undertaking any additional
scientific work to increase understanding of
natural or engineered barriers, or radionuclide
transport? If so, please describe this work,
its current funding level and future
projections.
A29. Yes, DOE is confident that after over
20 years of testing and analysis, the repository
performance is understood to an adequate level
of detail for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to make a determination that a
construction authorization can be granted for a
repository at Yucca Mountain. When the
President recommended Yucca Mountain for
development as a repository in 2002, the NRC had
issued its notice of sufficiency on November 13,
2001, stating that there would be sufficient
information available at the time of a potential
license application such that development of an
acceptable license application would be
achievable. The NRC had reviewed the responses
DOE provided to questions on Key Technical Issues
and concluded that the responses, and additional
information that would be in the license
application, would meet the requirements for the
licensing process.
Additional work is underway to increase our
understanding of how the natural and engineered
barriers perform, and how radionuclides might be
transported. Both DOE and NRC understand that
additional confidence in our estimates of
performance will be gained over time as we
construct, operate and monitor the repository.
NRC requires that DOE have in place a
Performance Confirmation (PC) Program to
continually evaluate the technical basis for
our performance projections. DOE has issued a
Performance Confirmation plan and begun the
process of migrating long term testing and
monitoring activities that started during site
characterization into the PC Program. DOE
will continue to collect and analyze scientific
data related to performance of the engineered
and natural barriers from now until closure of
the repository.
In FY 2006 funding for postclosure performance
activities is approximately $79 million, this
includes funding for Performance Confirmation,
as well as funding to extend our current
estimates of performance from the 10,000 years
in the current NRC regulation to the 1 million
years that EPA has proposed in the revision to
its standard, to analyze changes resulting from
recent design changes, and to support the
University of Nevada, and Nye (NV) and Inyo (CA)
counties in conducting independent scientific
analyses. We plan to continue scientific
activities in future years in order to refine
our understanding, provide added confidence in
our models, and incorporate new information as
appropriate. Funding requirements are expected
to remain about the same until a construction
authorization is issued, and then decrease to
about $30 to $50 million per year.
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
Q30. What is the importance of the Yucca
Mountain project to the future of nuclear power?
A. What are the benefits of GNEP
for the Yucca Mountain project?
B. If GNEP is successful will there
still be a need for Yucca Mountain?
C. Isn't GNEP evidence that the
Administration is backing away from its
commitment to Yucca Mountain?
A30. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
technologies, when demonstrated, could have a
significant positive impact on the Yucca
Mountain repository including the reduction of
waste volume, radiotoxicity, and heat load.
Successful commercial deployment of GNEP spent
fuel recycling technologies, however, is many
years, even decades in the future. DOE does
not intend to delay fulfilling its obligation
to begin consolidating and disposing of the
approximately 50,000 metric tons of commercial
spent fuel already generated, as well as the
approximately 2,000 metric tons being generated
each year. DOE plans to proceed with licensing,
constructing and operating the Yucca Mountain
repository as planned. If GNEP technologies
are successfully deployed commercially, DOE
will take the necessary steps to make the
repository accommodate the changes in the
waste stream.
While the potential waste minimization benefits
of GNEP on Yucca Mountain could be positive,
any changes to the operation of the Yucca
Mountain repository would occur only after
GNEP technologies have been adequately
demonstrated. Today, there will be no changes
in the license application under development,
and we will proceed with our current plan for
the existing waste inventory as well as the
waste being generated.
The Administration is not backing way from its
commitment to Yucca Mountain. On the contrary,
the Government has the obligation to take and
dispose of the Nation's waste, and our mission
is to provide permanent geologic disposal under
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The GNEP
initiative is a separate activity within the
Department and, as such, does not detract from
the Department's commitment to build a
repository at Yucca Mountain. A repository
will be needed under any fuel cycle scenario.
Q31. What is the projected cost of
the GNEP program over its lifetime?
A31. The Department's preliminary,
order-of-magnitude estimate of costs for the
GNEP initiative range from $20 billion to
$40 billion. This includes the cost of Nuclear
Power 2010 and Yucca Mountain over the next
ten years as well as the cost of demonstrating
integrated recycling technologies. The
preliminary, order-of-magnitude costs
associated with the demonstration of technologies
would be substantially less, and have previously
been estimated to range from $3 billion to
$6 billion over the next ten years to bring
those technologies to the point of initial
operations. In 2008, the Department will have
more refined estimates of the cost and schedule
to complete the full 20-year demonstration effort.
Q32. Your testimony before Senate
Appropriations states, "we will be looking for
a sizable portion of GNEP costs to be shared by
our partners and industry starting in 2008".
What aspects does the Administration envision
the industry funding and how much funding would
the industry be expected contribute?
A32. Industry and international partners have
significant experience and capabilities that
would support various aspects of the GNEP
initiative. While specific funding levels have
not been set among possible participants, it is
anticipated that cooperating on the development
of these advanced recycle technologies would
enable the U.S. to leverage its investment with
fuel cycle partners, increasing the U.S.
investment several fold.
Q33. What are the GNEP funding requirements
for FY 2008 and succeeding years? Does the
Administration believe that this funding profile
can be accommodated within the existing DOE budget?
If so, what offsetting reductions in DOE activities
is the Administration considering?��Considering
that both GNEP and the Yucca Mountain programs
will require dramatic funding increases in
roughly similar timeframes, how can DOE
accommodate those competing requirements
within its budget?
A33. The Department is currently developing
more detailed cost estimates and work scopes for
the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program. The
more detailed cost estimates will be used to
identify the funding requirements for its
implementation.
DOE expects to request sufficient funding to
support GNEP and, in particular, the timely
evaluation of the technical feasibility of
various technologies taking into account
competing priorities and budgets. While no
decisions have been made at this stage
concerning whether there would be offsetting
reductions in other programs, the Department
is committed to seeking full and adequate
funding for Yucca Mountain programs and has no
intention to divert funds from Yucca Mountain
programs to GNEP. In particular, the Department
believes the Nuclear Waste Fund should be used
for its intended purpose and provide the basis
for appropriations at levels that will result
in beginning operation of the repository at
Yucca Mountain as soon as possible.
Q34. According to DOE's Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership proposal, the United States�would
provide nuclear fuel services to other countries
including the return of spent fuel for reprocessing.
Where will the ultimate waste product be disposed?
A34. We do not envision accepting spent fuel
pursuant to the GNEP initiative until there is
sufficient advanced recycling capability available
in the U.S. At that time, we would have to
consider the conditions under which the U.S.
could reprocess another country's spent fuel.
Q35. Deputy Secretary Sell testified that up
to 90% of existing commercial used fuel could be
recycled. What is the basis for this estimate?
A35. The Department's technical experts are
confident that a very large percentage of existing
or future U.S. inventories of commercial spent
nuclear fuel may be suitable for recycling if the
GNEP technologies ultimately prove to be successful.
Some of the inventory of commercial spent fuel is
known at this time to be not suitable for recycle
using the separations technology under development
by the Department. This inventory includes the
Three Mile Island damaged fuel, the graphite fuel
from Fort St. Vrain, and other non-oxide-based
fuels.
QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN
Q1. Mr. Sell, in your written testimony you
highlight the Department's intention to move
towards a clean canister approach.
A. Why is it necessary to repackage spent
fuel that is already in NRC licensed canisters?
What is wrong with the existing canisters?
B. Do you intend for this approach to be
applied to decommissioned plants?
C. If yes, how do you anticipate
decommissioned plants transferring spent fuel to
new canisters if their facilities are completely
closed and in some cases destroyed, except for
the existing spent fuel storage containers?
How is it logistically possible to make these
transfers?
D. Do you anticipate that ratepayers will
pay the cost of these transfers to new canisters,
even at decommissioned plants?
E. Will you commit to making the movement
of fuel from decommissioned plants a priority,
if not first priority, in any scenario where
Yucca Mountain becomes operational?
A1. The Department is moving to implement a
clean-canistered approach to spent fuel acceptance
at the Yucca Mountain repository. Currently, we
are developing the performance specifications for
this canister. These specifications will include
materials and features that are necessary to
provide for the long-term isolation of the waste
in the repository. The Department understands
that the current generation of dual-purpose
canisters, which were licensed by the NRC for
storage and transportation of spent fuel, do not
incorporate the features required for long-term
waste isolation. As such, spent fuel stored in
dual-purpose canisters would have to be repackaged
prior to disposal.
The other issues raised by part B through E of
your question are currently the subject of ongoing
litigation against the Government, and I cannot
comment further at this time.
Q2. Eight members of the New England Delegation
sent a letter to Secretary Bodman, dated December 8,
2005, asking him to address what we feel is the
Department's failure to live up to its obligation to
remove spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned plants
in New England. The Secretary's response, dated
March 7, 2006, did not even contain the words
"New England" in it. It certainly gave no specifics
about the Department's plans to remove spent fuel
from the region.
A. Mr. Sell, please describe, in detail, the
Department's plan to fulfill its obligation to
remove spent nuclear fuel from New England.
B. Mr. Sell, please provide all pertinent data
the Department has on its plans to remove spent fuel
from decommissioned plants in New England, including
the data and any and all memos and records of
discussion that led to the formulation of Secretary
Bodman's March 7, 2006 response to the New England
Delegation letter of December 8, 2005.
A2. The Department remains committed to develop
the Yucca Mountain repository as expeditiously as
possible to allow for the receipt of commercial spent
nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors.
The specific issue of priority acceptance of spent
fuel from decomissioned reactors raised by your
question is currently the subject of ongoing
litigation against the Government, and I cannot
comment further at this time.