[Senate Hearing 109-1074]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1074
OVERSIGHT ON NRC'S REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES AND CAPABILITIES FOR
LONG- AND SHORT-TERM SPENT FUEL STORAGE PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-642 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 7
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 5
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 3
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey, prepared statement..................................... 36
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada, prepared
statement...................................................... 36
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 1
WITNESSES
Bowman, Admiral Frank L. ``Skip'', U.S.N. (Retired); president
and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute.............................. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Gilinsky, Victor, independent energy consultant.................. 26
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 72
Senator Voinovich........................................ 73
Johnson, R. Shane, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office
of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Reyes, Luis A., Executive Director of Operations, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 62
Senator Jeffords......................................... 63
Senator Voinovich........................................ 64
Sproat, Edward F. III, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy.................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 47
Senator Voinovich........................................ 48
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters from:
Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Vermont and Wisconsin, September 7, 2006................... 41-45
Coalition of Northeastern Governors:
Carcieri, Donald L., chairman, Governor of Rhode Island,
August 2, 2006......................................... 39-40
Douglas, James H., Lead Governor for Energy, Governor of
Vermont, August 2, 2006................................ 39-40
Report, Investment Portfolio, Nuclear Waste Fund, Department of
Energy, September 2006......................................... 51-55
Speech, Victor Gilinsky, Tucson, AZ, February 28, 1983........... 74-86
OVERSIGHT ON NRC'S REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES AND CAPABILITIES FOR
LONG- AND SHORT-TERM SPENT FUEL STORAGE PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change,
and Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
Voinovich (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich, Inhofe, Carper, and Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. The meeting will come to order. This
hearing is on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulatory
responsibilities and capabilities for long- and short-term
spent fuel storage programs. We believe that strong oversight
is critical in this area.
At previous oversight hearings, we have focused
specifically on the NRC's new reactor licensing process to
steer the Agency towards making its process more efficient and
timely. The NRC is faced with a huge challenge in having to
process a tidal wave of new reactor license applications that
are expected within the next 2 to 3 years in the magnitude that
has not been seen in the last 25 years or so.
For this reason, we have made strong oversight of the NRC a
top priority for this subcommittee. We need to make sure that
the Commission is taking a balanced approach as a regulator
that ensures the safe operation of the existing fleet of
nuclear plants without stifling the growth of nuclear power.
A long-term commitment to nuclear energy will make the
United States more energy independent and energy efficient.
This Congress and the President demonstrated strong leadership
by enacting the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which encourages
diversity of energy sources, including emission-free sources of
electricity such as nuclear energy.
In order to fully realize the benefits that nuclear power
offers, however, a solution for the problem of disposal of
spent nuclear fuel must be found. Since the enactment of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which requires that a final
disposal facility be operational by 1998--did you hear that? By
1998. Ratepayers across America have paid over $27 billion to
the nuclear waste fund and continue to pay an additional $750
million each year. Yet, here we are, 2006, and the Energy
Department has yet to submit a license application to the NRC.
While I am encouraged by the Administration's bill
introduced by request by Senators Inhofe and Domenici to
provide needed Yucca Mountain reforms, I believe it is even
more critical that the Federal Government commit itself to the
implementation of the existing law. In the meanwhile, the
Administration earlier this year called out the global nuclear
energy partnership for the long-term reduction of waste through
reprocessing. It is referred to as GNEP.
At the same time, the fiscal year 2007 energy and water
appropriations bill includes a provision requiring
establishment of interim waste storage sites around the
country. These provisions require a lot from the NRC in a short
period of time. This committee has worked very hard to give the
NRC the resources and reforms needed so that it can efficiently
review new reactor applications.
But now, I'm afraid that these waste proposals have the
potential to move us backwards and could end the nuclear
renaissance before it even begins. Also, I believe that
pursuing GNEP and interim storage could take the focus away
from Yucca Mountain, delaying or ending that important project.
I question whether DOE can select and submit license
applications for 30 or so interim storage facilities within 300
days of enactment of this legislation, as proposed. I also
question NRC's capability to review these applications in 32
months. Therefore, I would like to focus the subcommittee's
attention today on evaluating these different nuclear waste
provisions and how they will impact the NRC in terms of its
resources and its capability to carry out other vital programs
such as the new reactor licensing program and the operating
reactor inspection and oversight program.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished
witnesses on this policy today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the
State of Ohio
The hearing will come to order. Good morning and thank you all for
coming.
I am pleased to have such a diverse group of witnesses here today
to share with us their perspective on the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's (NRC) regulatory responsibilities and capabilities for
complying with long- and short-term spent fuel storage programs as well
as to get their opinions about our country's nuclear waste options.
Today's hearing continues this committee's strong oversight of the
NRC, as I believe that strong oversight of the NRC is critical to the
welfare of the American public. It is the third NRC oversight hearing
this year, the seventh that I have chaired, and the tenth in a series
that began in 1998 when Senator Inhofe was chairman of this
subcommittee.
The previous oversight hearing held in June focused specifically on
the NRC's new reactor licensing process to steer the Agency towards
making its process more efficient and timely. NRC is faced with a huge
challenge of having to process a tidal wave of new reactor license
applications that are expected within the next 2 to 3 years, in the
magnitude that it has not seen in the last 25 years or so. For this
reason, I have made strong oversight of the NRC a top priority for this
subcommittee. We need to make sure that the Commission is taking a
balanced approach as a regulator that ensures the safe operation of the
existing fleet of nuclear plants without stifling the growth of nuclear
power.
A long-term commitment to nuclear energy will make the United
States more energy independent and energy efficient. This Congress and
the President demonstrated strong leadership by enacting the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, which encourages diversity of energy sources,
including emission-free sources of electricity, such as nuclear energy.
In order to fully realize the benefits that nuclear power offers,
however, a solution for the problem of disposal of spent nuclear fuel
must be found. Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, which requires that a final disposal facility be operational by
1998, rate payers across America have paid over $27 billion into the
Nuclear Waste Fund, and continue to pay an additional $750 million each
year.
Yet, here we are in year 2006, the Energy Department has yet to
submit a license application to the NRC. While I am encouraged by the
Administration's bill introduced by request by Senators Inhofe and
Domenici to provided needed Yucca Mountain reforms, I believe it is
even more critical that the Federal Government commit itself to the
implementation of existing law.
In the meanwhile, the Administration, earlier this year, rolled out
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) for the long-term
reduction of waste through reprocessing. At the same time, the FY 2007
Energy and Water Appropriations bill includes a provision requiring
establishment of interim waste storage sites across the country.
These provisions require a lot from NRC in a short period of time.
This committee has worked very hard to give NRC the resources and
reforms needed so that it can efficiently review new reactor
applications. But now, I am afraid that these waste proposals have the
potential to move us backwards and could end the nuclear renaissance
before it begins. Also, I believe that pursuing GNEP and interim
storage could take the focus away from Yucca Mountain, delaying or
ending that important project. I question whether DOE can select and
submit license applications for 30 or so interim storage facilities
within 300 days of enactment of the legislation as proposed. Also, I
question NRC's capability to review these applications in 32 months.
Therefore, I would like to focus this subcommittee's attention
today on evaluating how these different nuclear waste provisions will
impact the NRC in terms of its resources, and its capability to carry
out other vital programs, such as the new reactor licensing program and
the operating reactor inspection and oversight program.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
on this critical policy issue.
Senator Voinovich. I would now like to call Senator Carper
as my Ranking Member. Senator Jeffords, you can go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Chairman, today we are conducting a
very important hearing. We are trying to get a better sense on
whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be able to adapt
to proposed changes in our nuclear waste storage policies.
This hearing follows our March oversight hearing on the
Yucca Mountain project. My State of Vermont, along with 39
other States, relies on nuclear power for a large portion of
its electricity generation. It is an important part of our
energy mix. Nonetheless, we must be realistic in dealing with
the downsides associated with nuclear power. One of those
downsides is finding a way to manage the waste. Throughout my
time in Congress, I have continued to work for a comprehensive
solution to our nuclear waste problem. Back in 1977, I
introduced a bill in the House calling for a comprehensive
nuclear waste disposal strategy. I maintained then, as I do
now, that finding an effective solution to the waste problem is
critical to the future of nuclear power in this country.
I have consistently supported the central storage solution
for nuclear waste. I continue to believe that it is essential
we find permanent geological storage site if we are to continue
to produce nuclear power. However, I have also made clear my
views that Yucca Mountain will not provide this solution and
the project faces many challenges. I have been very concerned
that the Yucca site would only take part of the waste, leaving
some, if not most, of the spent nuclear fuel sitting on the
banks of rivers, beside our small communities and our large
population centers. While I support the notion of a central
storage site, others have proposed new strategies, including
reprocessing waste, interim storage sites, and additional on-
site storage. Each of these approaches raises serious
challenges and concerns.
Both the Governor of Vermont and the Attorney General of my
State have contacted me in opposition to recent proposals for
new interim storage.
In the context of Yucca Mountain, I have strongly opposed
legislation that would limit the public process, influence
scientific studies, or rework regulations to fit our efforts to
build the project. I have the same view for all legislation
that would manage nuclear waste.
If Congress cuts corners, we will undermine our efforts to
develop a sound, permanent, and comprehensive solution to the
problem of nuclear waste disposal. We will be telling our
constituents that the important issues have been addressed,
when they have only been swept under the rug. Americans need to
know that high-level waste will be stored safely, that we set
the highest and best standards to protect the environment an
human health when we build future storage disposal sites.
We must demand answers about whether change in our nuclear
storage policy is a wise decision, and are we burdening our
regulators. Do we have the resources, both in dollars and
personnel, to handle this task? And we will arrive at a better
solution to the challenges of disposing our Nation's nuclear
waste.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Mr. Chairman, today we are conducting a very important hearing. We
are trying to get a better sense of whether the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission will be able to adapt to proposed changes in our nuclear
waste storage policies. This hearing follows our March oversight
hearing on the Yucca Mountain project.
My State of Vermont, along with 39 other states, relies on nuclear
power for a large portion of its electricity generation. It is an
important part of our energy mix. Nonetheless, we must be realistic in
dealing with the downsides associated with nuclear power. One of those
downsides is finding a way to manage the waste.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have continued to work for a
comprehensive solution to our nuclear waste problem. Back in 1977, I
introduced a bill in the House calling for a comprehensive nuclear
waste disposal strategy. I maintained then, as I do now, that finding
an effective solution to the waste problem is critical to the future of
nuclear power in this country.
I have consistently supported a central storage solution for
nuclear waste. I continue to believe that it is essential that we find
a permanent, geologic storage site if we are to continue to produce
nuclear power.
However, I have also made clear my view that Yucca Mountain will
not provide this solution, and the project faces many challenges. I
have been very concerned that the Yucca site will only take part of the
waste, leaving some, if not most of the spent nuclear fuel sitting
along the banks of rivers, beside our small communities and our large
population centers.
While I support the notion of a central storage site, others have
proposed new strategies, including reprocessing waste, interim storage
sites, and additional on-site storage. Each of those approaches raises
serious challenges and concerns.
Both the Governor of Vermont and the Attorney General of my State
have contacted me in opposition to recent proposals for new interim
storage. In the context of Yucca Mountain, I have strongly opposed
legislation that would limit the public process, influence scientific
studies or rework regulations to fit our efforts to build that project.
I have the same view for all legislation that would manage nuclear
waste.
If Congress cuts corners, we will undermine our efforts to develop
a sound, permanent and comprehensive solution to the problem of nuclear
waste disposal. We will be telling our constituents that important
issues have been addressed, when they have only been swept under the
rug.
Americans need to know that high-level waste will be stored safely,
and that we've set the highest and best standards to protect the
environment and human health when we build future storage and disposal
sites. We must demand answers about whether a change in our nuclear
storage policy is a wise decision.
Are we burdening our regulators? Do we have the resources, both in
dollars and personnel, to handle the task? And will we arrive at a
better solution to the challenges of disposing our nation's nuclear
waste?
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
I would now like to call on Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I've shortened my opening remarks because
many of the things you have said are things I was going to say.
I think, finally, after all the efforts we have made, that
over the past year we've really accomplished a lot in promoting
the nuclear renaissance. It was only 7 months ago that the
chairman at that time, Mr. Diaz, had informed us that he was
expecting 11 combined construction and operating lines, COLs,
license applications by 2009. However, today I am happy to hear
the NRC now anticipates 19. That shows we are moving in the
right direction.
I specifically credit this renewed nuclear renaissance to
key critical nuclear provisions that we in this committee
crafted, such as NRC reform, security, liability insurance,
human capital provisions, combined with other nuclear key
provisions such as risk insurance, production tax credits, and
loan guarantees. We have been doing all these in anticipation
of this surge, not really knowing that this surge would come at
this capacity. I'm very pleased.
Though I am pleased with the ongoing efforts by both NRC
and DOE in implementing these critical nuclear provisions, I
remain extremely concerned about the NRC's capacity, its
ability to address the increased amount of workload required to
review the increased number of COLs, while simultaneously
preparing for Yucca Mountain license applications due from the
DOE in 2008.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you have been instrumental in
assisting the NRC to address and space needs, and I thank you
for that.
I was going to talk about the interim thing. This is one of
the rare times that Senator Jeffords and I agree. I don't think
we should have the 37 interim sites, either. We just don't have
the capacity. But the committee may be forced to use its
resources, energies on that proposal.
The committee is also concerned about the time line
associated with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP.
For instance, my understanding is that the funding for nuclear
programs at universities we eliminated to support GNEP. In
addition, some of the DOE's funding for the nuclear power 2010
program, which is critical to the combined construction and
operating license application process for new nuclear plants,
was reduced to further support GNEP. Also, for the successful
implementation of GNEP our NRC will be required to license fuel
reprocessing plants, as well as fast reactors. This will
further strain NRC's limited resources.
As you know from our committee's earlier hearings on Yucca
Mountain, I strongly support the storage of nuclear waste at
Yucca Mountain. How many more thousands of rock samples do we
need to further reconfirm what is already known about this site
besides engineered and natural barriers and ability to contain
radioactive materials for thousands of years.
We need to open Yucca Mountain as quickly as possible and
quit talking about it, quit the politics. I understand those
from the State of Nevada would be opposing it. That is natural.
I probably would too if this were located in Oklahoma, but it
is not. This is the place that they have determined, with study
after study after study, is adequate to take care of these
needs.
I don't know of any scientific changes that would deter me
from still supporting the Yucca Mountain site since our last
hearing. I have been out there. I have been out there on two
occasions. I have gone over with the individuals who are
responsible for coming up with the permanent disposal site.
I've come to the conclusion that that is the only one that is
out there. I think we need to keep moving on with it, in
particular, with the progress that is being made right now, the
applications.
So, Mr. Chairman, you have your work cut out for you. I
don't think there is any--there used to be a lot of controversy
on the issue of nuclear energy, and you don't hear much of it
any more. It is cheap. It is plentiful. It is abundant. It will
handle the crisis that we are faced with now, the energy
crisis. So I applaud you for your prioritizing this and I want
to join you in your efforts to make this become a reality.
We've done a lot with the NRC in the last few years. They
have cleaned up their opportunity. They've increased their
capacity. They are going to need our help now, I think, Mr.
Chairman.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Today's hearing on the disposal options for commercial nuclear
waste is a continuation of an earlier hearing that the full committee
had on March 1, 2006. I thank the Chairman for having this hearing as
it further reinforces both the committee as well as the subcommittee's
resolve in wanting to find a national disposal solution for one of our
country's most significant and reliable sources of energy.
Over the past year, Congress has accomplished a lot in promoting
the nuclear renaissance. Mr. Chairman, it was only 7 months ago that
the then Chairman of the NRC, Mr. Diaz, had informed us that he was
expecting 11 combined construction and operation license (COLs)
applications by 2009 for new nuclear plants. However, today I am happy
to hear that the NRC now anticipates 19 COLs within the next 3 years.
Mr. Chairman, I specifically credit this renewed nuclear
renaissance to key critical nuclear provisions that we in this
committee crafted such as NRC reforms, security, liability insurance,
and human capital provisions combined with other nuclear key provisions
such as risk insurance, production tax credits, and loan guarantees.
Though I am pleased with the ongoing efforts by both the NRC and
DOE in implementing these critical nuclear provisions, I remain
extremely concerned about the NRC's ability to address the increase
amount of workload required to review the increasing number of COLs
while simultaneously preparing for the Yucca Mountain license
application due from the DOE in 2008. Mr. Chairman, I know that you
have been instrumental in assisting the NRC to address increased
staffing and space needs and I thank you for all of your efforts.
Given NRC's increased workload over the next 3 years in reactor
licensing, I am skeptical about new legislation that will require the
construction of about 37 interim sites to be built around the country
to store nuclear waste. First, I question whether the DOE can select
and submit over 30 license applications to the NRC within 300 days of
enactment of the legislation. Second, the NRC simply cannot review
these applications in 32 months. In addition to interim storage, the
committee is also concerned about the timeline associated with the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). For instance, it is my
understanding that funding for nuclear programs at universities were
eliminated to support GNEP. In addition, some of DOE's funding for the
Nuclear Power 2010 Program which is critical for the Combined
Construction and Operation License (COL) application process for new
nuclear power plants was reduced to further support GNEP. Also, for the
successful implementation of GNEP, the NRC will be required to license
fuel reprocessing plants as well as fast reactors. This will further
strain NRC's limited resources and capabilities.
As you know from our committee's earlier hearing on Yucca Mountain,
I strongly support the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. How
many more thousands of rock samples do we need to further re-confirm
what is already known about this site's engineered and natural barriers
ability to contain radioactive materials for thousands of years? We
need to open Yucca Mountain as quickly as possible. Though I find the
interim storage option intriguing, I am concerned about the impact on
our resources in shifting the debate from long-term storage to interim
storage. I believe that this must be fully debated on the Senate floor
and not attached to an omnibus appropriations bill. Furthermore, I do
support in principle the future need for GNEP as our country will need
a closed nuclear fuel cycle. However, I question the timing of this
elaborate program at the DOE and fear that this program can be a major
distraction from other programs at the DOE that focuses on the
immediate construction and operation of commercial nuclear plants. In a
time of shrinking budgets, I would recommend that the Department
prioritize its budget to be more in line with the immediate energy
needs of our country.
I am not aware of any scientific changes that would deter me from
still supporting the Yucca Mountain site since our last hearing. It is
for this reason that I have introduced S. 2610 to help expedite the
licensing, construction, and operation of Yucca Mountain. I hope that
my fellow colleagues in this committee as well as in the U.S. Senate
will support this critical piece of legislation in helping to send the
clear signal to investors that our country like so many of our
competitors is serious in resolving our national and global energy
needs.
I would like to thank the Chairman again for having this hearing
and look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I think this is the third Nuclear Regulatory Commission
oversight hearing that this subcommittee has held this year,
and you and I and our staffs have worked hard to ensure that
the NRC is effectively fulfilling its oversight mission. As
Chairman Inhofe said, we have about 19 nuclear power reactors
that have been proposed to be built. I welcome that. And we
sought to ensure that the NRC not only has enough funding to do
this additional work, but also has the human capital and the
office space that is needed to enable them to do that work.
In sum, we have sought to ensure that the NRC is prepared
to manage the burgeoning renaissance of nuclear power in this
country.
One of the bigger issues has been alluded to by almost
everyone who has spoken this morning, and it is one of the
issues that stifle the interest to date in new nuclear
powerplants, is how to manage the waste. The Department of
Energy began seriously contemplating options for long-term
storage of nuclear waste in the 1970s. That is before a lot of
people in this room were even born.
In 2002, the Department recommended Yucca Mountain to be
the site to house the Nation's nuclear waste. Since then we
have seen a number of policy and political battles over Yucca
Mountain. In addition, the Department of Energy continues to
alter its plans for the site, and at the same time to propose
alternative methods for managing our nuclear waste.
At this time, I think there are at least four different
proposals that have been offered for addressing nuclear waste.
One of those, of course, is Yucca Mountain. A second is
reprocessing through some kind of Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership. A third would be an interim storage proposal. That
is, I think, part of the energy and water appropriations bill.
And a fourth is just the status quo, to simply leave things as
they are.
We all know it is not the intent of this hearing to argue
the merits of those particular four options. What we are here
to discuss is what impacts these four proposals or options
could have on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and whether or
not the Commission is currently prepared to fulfill their
responsibilities associated with each of these approaches.
That having been said, we look forward to the testimony of
the witnesses and the opportunity to have a dialogue with them.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Our first panel of witnesses are both with the Department
of Energy: Mr. Edward Sproat, who is the Director, Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; Mr. Shane Johnson, who
is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear
Energy.
Mr. Sproat and Mr. Johnson, we really appreciate your
coming here today for this oversight hearing. We are going to
give each one of you 5 minutes to give your opening statement.
Of course, your entire written statement is in the record.
Mr. Sproat, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. SPROAT III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Sproat. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper,
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
appear before you this morning to talk about nuclear waste and,
in particular, Yucca Mountain, which is my area of
responsibility in the Department of Energy.
I have been in my job now for approximately 12 weeks and
have gotten in pretty deep as to what is going on in the
Department with Yucca Mountain, and I am prepared to talk to
you and answer whatever questions you may have this morning
regarding that program.
I would like to take just a couple of minutes to begin to
talk about Senate bill 2589, which was introduced by Senator
Inhofe and Senator Domenici, and on behalf of the President,
the Secretary, and myself, I would like to express our
appreciation for introduction of that bill.
I appeared in the House about 6 or 7 weeks ago and
announced a new schedule for Yucca Mountain which included the
major milestones of submittal of a license application to the
NRC by June 2008 and the best achievable schedule of opening a
repository by March 2017. I received some criticism for that
schedule, as a number of people said, ``well, we don't think
that is realistic.''
I just want to make very clear to this committee that that
is a best achievable schedule. I didn't say it was the most
probable schedule. There is a difference, because there are a
number of issues which are currently outside of the control of
the Department of Energy that need to be addressed in order for
us to meet that best achievable schedule of March 2017. Senate
bill 2589 addresses the vast majority of those issues, which we
feel we need to address to be able to make that best achievable
date.
So if we don't have that legislation or the key elements of
that legislation to help us, we won't be able to meet that
March 2017 date, and I would just like to speak very, very
briefly and very quickly about some of the key issues in there,
because there is a lot of misunderstanding around some of them
in the Senate, in the House, and in the public.
The very first issue is around the funding for Yucca
Mountain and the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund. I think you are
all aware there is a lot of money in that Nuclear Waste Fund
that has been paid for by the ratepayers of this country. What
we are asking for here is that the annual revenues coming into
the Federal Government for the waste fund be counted as
discretionary, and therefore, the Appropriations Committees can
allocate those incoming receipts to Yucca Mountain, appropriate
them for Yucca Mountain without counting against the budget
caps of the Appropriations Committees.
We are not asking for removal of Congressional oversight.
We are not asking for removal of Congressional appropriations.
We are just asking that the annual receipts be reclassified as
discretionary receipts so that the Appropriation Committees in
both Houses are able to allocate those receipts without coming
against their budget caps.
The second issue we have is we are asking for withdrawal of
land on the Nevada Test Site around the Yucca Mountain
repository, itself. What we are asking for there is to give the
Department and the Secretary of Energy the ability to have
permanent control over that land and decide how that land is to
be used. I need to have that ability to exclude other public
uses other than for nuclear waste disposal in order to get a
license from the NRC. We have to show that we have permanent
control of that land to the NRC before we can get an operating
license for Yucca Mountain.
The third issue--and this goes directly at the issue that
Senator Jeffords brought up about do we already have Yucca
Mountain filled up, will it have enough capacity to handle
spent nuclear waste from the country, which is a very
legitimate issue, and it is an issue that directly impacts the
future of nuclear energy in this country.
Currently, in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act there is an
administrative limit placed by the Congress on Yucca Mountain
of 70,000 metric tons. We will have, with the existing fleet of
plants and with the license extensions that those plants have
gotten, we will have basically filled Yucca Mountain with the
existing fleet of plants within the next 3 to 5 years, have
that full 70,000 metric ton limit committed.
In addition, the 10 percent of the 70,000 MTHM that has
been allocated to Defense waste materials, including spent
Naval nuclear fuel, will occupy approximately one-third of the
volume of the respository.
So it is very important. What we are asking for in this
legislation is that that administrative cap of 70,000 metric
tons be lifted and allow us to present a technical case to the
NRC as part of our licensing process as to what the maximum
licensable capacity limit of Yucca Mountain should be, and let
the NRC determine that as part of the licensing process. So we
are asking permission to allow the NRC and the Department of
Energy to make a technical decision as part of the licensing
process for Yucca Mountain as to what that upper limit should
be.
We have already done an environmental impact statement for
Yucca Mountain which considers and analyzes up to 120,000
metric tons to be stored there. So this is an important issue,
as Senator Jeffords has pointed out.
The fourth issue which has generated some interest,
particularly among folks in the western States, is the issue of
water. What we are asking for is the Senate to declare
basically the Yucca Mountain project is in the public interest.
The reason we are doing that, as of right now, the State
Legislature in Nevada has declared this project as not in the
public interest, and therefore the State water engineer in
Nevada is not allowed to give us a water permit.
So without a water permit, it is going to be very hard to
build and operate Yucca Mountain. We are not asking to bypass
the State's rights; what we are asking for is to just have a
hearing and be able to go in front of the State water engineer
and make a technical case as to the water we need for the
period we need it.
The fifth area is on waste confidence, which is a major
issue for a lot of folks. It directly impacts our future
ability to build new nuclear plants. Right now the NRC has a
waste confidence rule that says they believe that there is a
high confidence that the Federal Government will have a place
to put its spent nuclear fuel by the year 2025. We are asking
basically Congress to say we believe also that we will have a
long-term plan and a policy in this country to handle nuclear
waste, and therefore, the NRC no longer has to consider 2025 as
a hard date, and basically to address the issue that way.
The next area is transportation. How do we get the waste to
the Mountain? There has been a lot of misunderstanding around
this, also. All we are trying to do here is to clarify that the
Department of Energy has the right and has the authorization to
transport nuclear waste under the Atomic Energy Act, which we
already do, but that, in cases where there may be a State or a
county or locality that is obstinate in preventing us from
shipping on through a preferred route that has been planned and
agreed upon through the various planning processes with local
involvement, that we are able to use a preemption rule with the
Department of Transportation: that basically we can appeal to
the Department of Transportation to preempt local objections on
a specific route. We are not planning on changing any of the
way we participate or plan these transportation routes with the
public as part of this legislation.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Sproat, your time is up.
Mr. Sproat. Thank you.
In summary, let me just say, Senator, I appreciate the
opportunity to talk about this, and both the President, the
Secretary, and I strongly urge respectfully that the Senate and
the Congress consider this legislation.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF SHANE R. JOHNSON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, Senator
Jeffords, it is my pleasure to be here this morning to discuss
the Department's activities associated with building new
nuclear capacity in the United States. As a new generation of
nuclear powerplants and advanced fuel facilities is designed,
licensed, and constructed in the United States, it is certain
that the Department's joint Government-industry initiatives
will have near-term, mid-term, and long-term implications for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Through our Nuclear Power 2010 program and the nuclear-
related provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Government
and industry are working together to address the regulatory and
financial impediments facing the first purchasers of new
advanced light water reactors. The Department is currently
sponsoring cooperative projects for preparation of Early Site
Permits for three commercial nuclear plant sites. The three ESP
applications are currently in various stages of NRC review, and
licensing decisions are expected by the end of 2007.
We have also established cost-shared demonstration projects
with two power-company-led consortia to obtain construction and
operating licenses (COLs) from the NRC. Both consortia are on
track to submit COL applications to the NRC in late calendar
year 2007. Industry's expectation is that the NRC will issue
the licenses by the end of 2010, making it possible that the
utility decision to build a new plant could be announced as
early as 2008, construction starting in 2010, and a new plant
operational by 2014.
The progress to date in our Nuclear Power 2010 and in
implementing the nuclear provisions of the Energy Policy Act
has already encouraged 12 companies to publicly announce their
intent to apply for licenses for nearly 30 reactors. In
addition to the near-term deployment of new nuclear
powerplants, the Department is addressing the fundamental R&D
issues of next-generation nuclear energy concepts. We are
currently supporting R&D for a prototype high-temperature
reactor capable of producing both electricity and hydrogen.
The expectations for the development, design, and
demonstration of this new facility, called the Next Generation
Nuclear Plant, are also outlined in the Energy Policy Act.
As directed by the Energy Policy Act, the Department has
begun working in earnest with the NRC to jointly develop a
licensing strategy for this new technology.
Finally, we are implementing the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, or GNEP, an initiative announced earlier this year
by the Department as part of the President's Advanced Energy
Initiative. GNEP is a comprehensive strategy to lay the
foundation for expanded use of nuclear energy in the United
States and the world by demonstrating and deploying new
technologies that recycle nuclear fuel, significantly reduce
waste, and advance nuclear nonproliferation objectives.
As part of this initiative, we are pursuing the development
of an integrated spent fuel recycling facility and the
development of a fast reactor capable of consuming those usable
products from spent fuel while producing electricity.
DOE expects to work closely with the NRC in developing the
regulatory framework for licensing these advanced facilities.
As I described in my testimony, the Department has several
ambitious and concurrent initiatives underway which pave the
way for the resurgence of nuclear power in the United States
and around the world. Each of these initiatives carries its own
set of licensing issues and requirements, albeit it on varying
implementation schedules. NRC's ability to fulfill their
licensing role in a timely and effective manner is a critical
requirement for the successful resurgence of nuclear power in
the United States.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the
Yucca Mountain site should have been licensed and operational
since 1998. You are giving us a number of March 2017. That is
almost 20 years later. But we are told that the Department of
Energy 2008 to submit that license application, and how
confident are you that we are going to be able to do that?
Mr. Sproat. I'm very confident we can do that. Let me just
say we are not targeting that date. The date is on or before
Monday, June 30, 2008. I'm very clear with that. We are putting
in place a very specific, very aggressive project management
process and team. We are taking a different approach in doing
the license application than has been done before. I am highly
confident that we will have a high-quality, docketable license
application into the NRC no later than June 30, 2008.
Senator Voinovich. As you know, the Senate Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee unanimously reported
out of committee the spending bill of 2007, which calls for DOE
to approve over 30 interim storage sites in States or regional
compacts that are in close proximity to commercial sites for a
period up to 25 years. Given the Department's track record on
the Yucca Mountain application, do you believe that DOE is
capable of preparing and submitting licensing applications to
the NRC in the 300 days allotted time?
Mr. Sproat. Well, being new to the Department, I can't
speak about past track record. What I can tell you is, based on
the work I have on my plate to get the Yucca Mountain license
application in and to get it licensed, and given the resources
I have to do that and the team I am trying to build to do that,
any additional work for additional interim storage in that time
period would be highly distracting and very difficult to
perform to meet that schedule.
Senator Voinovich. It is very difficult to perform?
Mr. Sproat. Very difficult to perform.
Senator Voinovich. Distracting, yes, but difficult to
perform.
Mr. Sproat. Very difficult to perform to that kind of a
schedule. I have, in fact, earlier in my career been involved
in licensing, and construction of an interim spent fuel storage
facility at a nuclear powerplant, so I know about how long it
takes, how much it costs, and just at a plant that you already
have a site licensed for between the time you decide you are
going to undertake this, do the studies, do the design, do the
licensing, do the construction, you are talking probably in the
neighborhood of 4 to 5 years. If you are doing it away from
reactor, the siting process, the regulatory process, the
environmental impact process will extend that timeframe
significantly.
Senator Voinovich. As Governor, we contemplated siting a
low-level radioactive waste facility, and I understand it is
not an easy process. This is away from where it is now being
stored to some other place, and the whole NIMBY problem and the
rest of it just gets to be very, very difficult.
Mr. Sproat. The actual construction time is relatively
short compared to the amount of time it takes for licensing and
studies and litigation before you can actually start
construction.
Senator Voinovich. In terms of the interim storage
provision, how would DOE fund it? Would the funding come from
the Nuclear Waste Fund or from taxpayers?
Mr. Sproat. I don't believe that is clear in the
legislation, and I don't believe DOE has a position on that
issue at this time.
Senator Voinovich. We've collected, what, $27 billion, and
we are collecting another $750 million every year.
Mr. Sproat. That is correct.
Senator Voinovich. How much is left in that storage fund?
Does anyone know?
Mr. Sproat. We have spent approximately $9 billion over the
life of the program. The current balance is, I believe, around
$17 billion, about $18 billion.
Senator Voinovich. Well, is the money there or has it been
spent and borrowed?
Mr. Sproat. No. I have been assured by my staff we are
holding Government paper in a file drawer that is a laddered
approach, you know, bond approach in terms of that, so we
believe we are holding good Government paper to back up that
investment.
Senator Voinovich. Will it require some appropriations from
Congress to pay for it?
Mr. Sproat. Well, let me try and answer the question. We
are not anticipating appropriations from Congress to pay for
Yucca Mountain. Is your question more about interim storage or
Yucca?
Senator Voinovich. Well, basically, is the money like so
many other trust funds that we have where there are IOUs and
promises to pay but the money has been spent, and when it comes
time to start construction you have to pay back that money. My
question is: where does the money come from? It has not been
put into some special investment fund, has it? Or has it?
Mr. Sproat. We are holding Government investments in our
laddered account that we would intend to draw upon when we need
to draw down.
Senator Voinovich. I'd like to have a memorandum on that
explaining what it is, how much is there, what kind of debt is
there.
Mr. Sproat. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich. Because I have been led to believe that
it will be like so many other trust funds----
Mr. Sproat. I will be glad to----
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. That we have to repay them.
Mr. Sproat. I will be glad to take that question for the
record and give you a very detailed explanation of how those
investments are set up and laddered in that fund.
Senator Voinovich. Good.
[The referenced information follows on page 49.]
Senator Voinovich. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
I would like to come back to the issue of interim storage
in the Nation's spent fuel management program. I believe it is
in the energy and water appropriations bill, the idea of this
interim storage locations across the country. Could both of you
comment on that just briefly, what's good about it, what's bad
about it, problems, attributes.
Mr. Sproat. Let me try and talk about why would we want to
do interim storage, from a Government perspective. I believe
there are two primary reasons. One is to address the issue of
waste confidence, on being able to build new nuclear plants and
extend the licenses of the existing fleet, and the second is to
reduce the Government financial liability associated with DOE's
non-performance on the existing standard contracts, because we
do clearly have liability for non-performance on a number of
contracts.
They are the really two key drivers for interim storage. So
however we set up an interim storage scheme, whether it is one
site, couple sites, multiple sites, we need to make sure that
we are addressing both of those issues: that waste confidence
has been adequately addressed through that scheme and that the
total cost to the U.S. taxpayer as a result of the cost of
setting up that interim storage, getting it licensed, and the
timeframe it is going to take to get it operational compared to
the timeframe it is going to take to get Yucca Mountain
operational, that it is a net win for the taxpayers of the
United States.
Senator Carper. How can we make it a net win for the
taxpayers of Oklahoma, where we are going to put all these--no,
we are not going to do that--or Ohio or Delaware or Vermont?
How can we make it a winner for those folks? I don't think
we've ever convinced the people of Nevada that this is a winner
for them, and if we had done a better job of that we might not
be looking at a 2017 date.
Mr. Sproat. That may be the case, but I certainly wouldn't
put blame on the folks in Nevada as being the primary reason
why this has been taking so long. There are other issues around
the long-term management of the program, the approach it has
taken, that I say probably bear a lot more responsibility than
the folks in Nevada.
Senator Carper. Senator Voinovich, a former Governor,
talked about the low level radioactive waste. I have seen that
movie, too, in Delaware and Pennsylvania as we have tried to
come up with a site just for hospital waste and stuff like
that. How do we make, with respect to interim storage, whether
it is whatever State or States it is going to be in, how do we
make it a winner for those States?
Mr. Sproat. One of the proposals I know----
Senator Carper. Excuse me. I don't envision us having a
competition among the States that they can be the first or
second or third to be the site chosen, but at least we want
them to feel like there's something in it for them.
Mr. Sproat. You are absolutely right, Senator. I think what
you see happening with PFS out in Utah is an example of people
following the rules, doing everything right, but basically the
State has said we don't want that here, and it is still stuck.
There has been some discussion and it has some merit to see who
is out there, if a package of financial incentives combined and
linked to the GNEP initiative could be enough to spur local
interest in being willing to host what we would call in-process
storage; in other words, a place where the fuel would sit. It
is kind of like an inbox to the GNEP process.
Senator Carper. I want to talk about GNEP, but before we do
just a quick question on some of the Indian tribes, Indian
nations and the roles that they are seeking to play in this
regard. Just a quick comment on that.
Mr. Sproat. Well, the only one I am aware of is----
Senator Carper. Utah?
Mr. Sproat [continuing]. in Utah, where PFS is sited, is
proposed to be sited. That is on tribal land, and so the tribe
had decided that the business deal associated with that was
good. Unfortunately, where that stands right now is the
consortium, the PFS consortium, has received a license from the
NRC to go build that facility, but it is conditioned on a
number of issues associated with the ability on the use of the
land from a Federal Government standpoint and the
transportation issues coming in, and there is resistance at the
State level around some of those issues. It is currently being
discussed and it may or may not be in litigation. I'm not sure.
So that is the only specific Indian tribal involvement with
spent nuclear fuel that I am aware of at this point.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Gentlemen, a few words on GNEP. Talk to us about how it
would work and what its status is so that a layman could
understand it.
Mr. Johnson. So that a layman can understand?
Senator Carper. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. GNEP is a comprehensive strategy that
envisions an expansion of nuclear power not only in the United
States but around the globe, and in supporting this expansion
of nuclear power worldwide-GNEP seeks to establish mechanisms
by which we can address the two issues that have plagued
commercial nuclear power since its inception; what do you do
with the nuclear waste and how do you control the nuclear
materials from a nonproliferation objective such that you can
provide the benefits of nuclear power to the globe in a safe
and secure manner.
So the GNEP program envisions both the technology
development activity with developing advanced recycle
technologies that do not result in separated plutonium to
address the nonproliferation concerns associated with that
particular nuclear material, burning those elements of the
spent fuel that have some useful value in advanced reactors to
generate electricity. It also envisions a fuel leasing
framework where fuel supply countries would make available fuel
to countries for their plants, enabling those countries to have
the benefit of nuclear power without that country having to
develop and deploy fuel cycle technology such as enrichment
facilities or spent fuel reprocessing facilities.
So really the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is looking
at bringing the benefit of commercial nuclear power to the
countries of the world so that they have the electricity, safe,
reliable, low cost, but we would cap the numbers of countries
that have enrichment technologies and process, as well as
recycling facilities.
That, in a nutshell, is what the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership is.
Senator Carper. All right.
I understand the wife of Albert Einstein was once asked,
Mr. Chairman, do you understand Einstein's theory of
relativity? She said, ``I understand the words, but not the
sentences.'' I understood most of the words, some of the
sentences. It is obviously one I need to go to school on, but I
think it has potential and promise and I look forward to
learning more. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
Senator Carper. I'm going to run over to the floor, Mr.
Chairman, for a few minutes. I will be right back.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my
questions, I would like to ask consent for two items. First,
the Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, would like to submit a
statement for the record. I assume that will be appropriate.
Second, I would like to submit letters I have received from
the Governor of Vermont and Vermont's Attorney General on
matters that will be discussed in this hearing.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection.
[The referenced documents follow on page 36].
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Sproat, you stated that DOE will
submit a Yucca Mountain license application to NRC in 2017 only
if Congress passes legislation to eliminate impediments. We
have a law, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, that DOE was supposed
to take waste beginning in 1998. In order to keep to the 2017
date, how long do you assume it would take for Congress to act?
Are you giving us until the end of September, the whole next
Congress, or just how long do we have?
Mr. Sproat. I probably wasn't clear in my opening
statement, Senator. Just to be clear, I said that we would be
submitting the license application by June 2008 and the best
achievable date for opening Yucca Mountain, making it actually
start operating, is March 2017, so I just wanted to be clear
about those two dates. It is license application by mid-2008
and best achievable schedule to open would be March 2017.
I don't need this legislation that we gave you in order to
submit that license application. I have all the authority I
need as long as the appropriations are still set by the
Congress to adequately fund the program. I will submit that
license application no later than June 2008.
But I won't be able to get a license from the NRC to
actually build the repository unless some of those key issues
that I spoke about in my opening statement are addressed
through legislation.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. Mr. Sproat, one reason you
give for DOE's interest in legislation is that the Department
wants to assume responsibility for nuclear waste transport.
What are the DOE's plans for implementing a dedicated train
program for rail shipment of nuclear waste for the roughly one-
third of reactors in the United States that do not have rail
access?
Mr. Sproat. Very good question, Senator. The Department of
Energy has a responsibility as part of the Yucca Mountain
program to accept the waste, transport it across the country,
and get it to Yucca Mountain. That is clear. Our preliminary
studies have indicated the preferred way of doing that is via
rail and doing it with dedicated trains. In other words, so we
have a dedicated fuel train. From a security standpoint and a
transportation and logistics standpoint, that makes a lot of
sense.
There are certain plants that have either had rail spurs to
them when they were built which are no longer in service, which
may need to be enhanced, and there are other plants that have
never had rail spurs but have either road access or waterway
access.
One of the areas that has suffered in this program due to
funding shortfalls over the past 3 to 4 or 5 years is
specifically transportation planning. When I came in I set four
strategic objectives for this program. No. 4 was moving forward
intently with the transportation planning process. So, to be
able to answer your specific question or so what are you going
to do with these plants that don't have rail spurs, additional
transportation planning is required before I can really answer
that; however, I would point out all of these plants were built
with very heavy components in them, whether they are reactor
vessels or steam generators or whatever, and they were either
brought in by road, by rail, or by waterway. We would use
probably the similar routes to get the spent fuel out. But
until we do the detailed transportation planning that has been
lacking so far, I can't answer your specific question on a
specific plant basis.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, I want to ask you about the waste produced by
the Administration's proposed nuclear waste reprocessing
program. Do we currently have appropriate storage and
environmental regulations that would manage the type of nuclear
waste produced by a large-scale reprocessing program?
Mr. Johnson. As we envision the program, we would produce
waste products that are consistent with the existing
environmental regulations and laws, so the product that is
engineered would meet the requirements that are on the books
today.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Johnson, some have suggested that
reprocessing would eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain. Does
the Department share that view?
Mr. Johnson. No, sir. Yucca Mountain is required under any
fuel cycle scenario, whether we maintain the current fuel cycle
or we close the fuel cycle through recycling spent fuel and the
use of fast reactors or thermal reactors, but a geologic
repository is required for any scenario.
Mr. Sproat. If I could just add to that, Senator, just to
give you a very specific reason why, as I said in my opening
statement, one-third of the Yucca Mountain capacity, that
70,000 metric ton current capacity, will be taken up by high-
level Defense waste and Naval spent nuclear fuel. That is not
recyclable material and it has to go somewhere and it is
sitting around different places, primarily in Idaho and
Savannah River in Georgia and a few other places. It needs to
go into Yucca Mountain. We need a deep geological repository.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you both for your testimony today.
We are going to have a vote at 11 o'clock, so I am going to
shorten the question period today, but I have several more
questions that I am going to submit for the record and would
appreciate your getting back to me with the answers to those
questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for being here. I
was impressed, Mr. Sproat, with your commitment in terms of the
time line.
Mr. Sproat. We will make it.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Reyes, welcome back. It is nice to
see you.
Mr. Reyes is the Executive Director for operations of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Reyes, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LUIS REYES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Reyes. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is
a pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to discuss our capability to regulate the
storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
Specifically, I plan to address some of the national spent
fuel management strategies embodied in the various legislative
proposals currently under consideration by Congress. I also
plan to discuss some of the implications of the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership.
Since I plan to summarize my testimony, I will ask that my
full statement be entered into the hearing record, including an
update to page No. 6.
Senator Voinovich. You can be assured of that.
Mr. Reyes. It is important to make clear at the outset
that, because of our role in the regulation of spent nuclear
fuel and our potential role in considering an application for a
high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV,
the Commission has not taken a position on most of the
provisions in these legislative proposals; therefore, I would
like to focus on the impact certain of the proposals will have
on the NRC.
We have reviewed the committee's bill, S. 2610, and note
that some provisions in the bill could affect the timing of our
review of a Department of Energy application for an
authorization to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. Specifically,
the committee's bill will require us to reach a final decision
and receipt and possession within 1 year with the possibility
of a 6-month extension. Such a requirement would not allow us
enough time to complete both our safety review and the required
adjudicatory proceeding in one year.
We have also reviewed the language contained in the Senate
appropriations bill and believe that our existing regulatory
infrastructure could accommodate alternative approaches to
storing spent nuclear fuel. We believe that we may be able to
review and license concurrently the large number of new
facilities anticipated in the bill; however, in order to do so
we will need sufficient funding, the receipt of complete, high-
quality license applications, and considerably more time to
review and adjudicate the applications.
The changes to our national spent fuel management strategy
that are being considered in the various bills involve shipping
spent fuel. Provisions in the bills may affect the
transportation roles of the Department of Energy and the
Department of Transportation, but do not appear to affect our
role with respect to certifying casks as specified in the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
The NRC believes that the existing transportation
regulatory infrastructure can accommodate the various
legislative actions being considered; however, as with the
other topics addressed in its testimony, our ability to
complete this work will depend upon sufficient appropriations
and the submittal of complete, high-quality applications.
We have been meeting regularly with the Department of
Energy to keep informed and discern our role in the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership program as it unfolds. If we are to
have licensing responsibilities in both the spent fuel
separations, fuel fabrication facility, according to the
Department schedules, then we must make changes now to ensure
that our regulations and guidance documents provide appropriate
stability and predictability in our regulatory reviews.
To facilitate the technical review and ensure a timely
licensing process for new technologies, we will need to revise
existing regulations or develop new regulations and associated
guidance documents. Also, we will need to begin recruiting for
new employees while developing expertise among existing staff
in separations and advanced reactor technologies.
In conclusion, the Commission understands the importance of
addressing the storage, transportation, and disposal of high-
level radioactive waste in a systematic and integrated manner
that is safe, timely, and efficient. We urge Congress to assure
that sufficient appropriations be made available to adequately
fund regulatory infrastructure activities and increase staffing
prior to the receipt of new license applications.
Provided that we receive sufficient resources, staffing
levels are maintained, and appropriate time is given to the
Agency to conduct its technical reviews and adjudications, we
believe we can reach decisions on the relevant applications in
a timely fashion, assuming high-quality license applications
are received.
Finally, I would like to thank you, Chairman Voinovich and
Senator Carper, for your support and the assistance of your
staff. In addition, I would like to thank Chairman Inhofe and
Senator Jeffords for their assistance.
As this might be our final hearing this year with the
committee, I would like to take the opportunity to wish Senator
Jeffords many years of enjoying his retirement. It has been a
pleasure to work with him and your staff over the years, and we
wish you well.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Reyes.
How many of the COLs--Senator Inhofe referred to 19--do you
think you are going to be getting in the next 2 to 3 years?
Mr. Reyes. We think that all 19 COL applications that
include more than 28 nuclear units are coming in in the years
2007 through 2009, and we are prepared to receive those
applications.
Senator Voinovich. So the applications would be, at this
stage of the game, 19?
Mr. Reyes. Nineteen combined operating licenses for more
than 28 nuclear reactors.
Senator Voinovich. Twenty-eight facilities.
The question that I have is: where are you in terms of
hiring the people that you need to get the job done? And, No.
2, share with us the status of the issue of having the space
for these people to operate.
Mr. Reyes. The Agency has, as you know, a very experienced
staff, and we were at a goal to have a net gain of 200
employees this fiscal year. I am glad to report that we have
exceeded that. We have a net gain of over 200 employees this
year. But we do have to repeat that for the upcoming years. We
do have a very aggressive recruitment schedule already started
for the next year. We are going to a lot of universities.
Senator Voinovich. Next year or the next years?
Mr. Reyes. Correct. Several years. Several years. We are
going to repeat the----
Senator Voinovich. Do you have the specific number of
years?
Mr. Reyes. Yes. For the next 3 years, we are planning on
trying to net more than 200 employees every year for the next 3
years. Now, our recruitment schedule is very aggressive in
terms of universities. In fact, today we happen to have our
recruiting team at Ohio State University. We go for the cream
of the crop.
Senator Voinovich. I will get on the phone and call them.
We've talked with those people about keeping the program open
and have also talked with the University of Cincinnati that we
are going to close down their program, and they have agreed now
that they are going to stay with it. But for the people from
the Department of Energy, the proposal to cut $27 million from
their budget for these programs, that seems to me ridiculous at
this stage of the game and I am hopeful that we can get that
money restored to that. I think I would like you to comment
about that, if you would.
Mr. Reyes. We believe that funding of the university is
critical. Our success this year in recruiting is not as
difficult as we foresee in the future. This announcement that
we discussed about 19 combined operating licenses and decisions
that are being made at the board of directors as we speak that
are not public yet are creating a need for a large workforce,
not only on the utilities who will build and operate
facilities, the license preparation, the construction
organizations that are going to do that, so we see a large
demand in the future and a large competition for the same
resources.
You had asked me about space. The picture with space is not
as good as recruiting. We are filling our campus at White
Flint. We have secure interim space to move some of our
employees off campus. We are converting conference rooms and
training rooms into offices, and we are working to see if we
can get some centralized, permanent location.
If you remember the committee report after Three Mile
Island, it criticized the Agency for having the employees
located in many places and not having good communications. We
want to learn from the past. We do not want our staff spread
out through many facilities through the suburbs of Maryland, so
we are working very hard to have a consolidated location.
Senator Voinovich. You can be assured that I am going to do
everything in my power to make sure you get that space.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Chairman Klein has been quoted as
stating that the Commission can license interim facilities for
the storage of spent fuel from new and existing reactors, but
noted that a Congressional proposal to open such sites in all
States with nuclear powerplants could stretch the Commission's
resources. The question I have is one that I have asked before:
can the NRC practically review over 30 license applications in
32 months? Can you find the needed personnel? Do you have any
idea of how many more, in addition to what we've already talked
about, just to take care of the COL's you'd have to have in
order to do this? Have you looked at that impact it would have?
Mr. Reyes. Yes. Let me give you, if we have 30-some-odd
facilities to store interim storage of spent nuclear fuel away
from reactors, and you assume those 30-some-odd applications
come in at the same time for what would be a 30- to 32-month
review, the total program cost for that scenario is $300
million and over 200 employees. Now, there are other
combinations of the scenario that are not as high, and we will
have to wait and see what kind of facilities are being
proposed. But, in terms of worst case scenario, all away from
reactors, all coming at the same time, you are talking a total
program cost of $300 million and over 200 employees. That would
be a significant----
Senator Voinovich. Is that 200 above the 200----
Mr. Reyes. Correct. This is just for this effort, for the
30-some-odd installations away from reactors to restore the
interim storage of spent fuel waste, spent fuel. So there's no
appropriations. We don't have any budget for those activities,
so that would be a significant impact to all of our other
activities if the situation would remain that way.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the question I have is, what, 90
percent of your budget comes from the industry, itself?
Mr. Reyes. Correct.
Senator Voinovich. Where would the money come from for
this? From that same group of people or--have any of you
thought about that?
Mr. Reyes. I think no, we haven't, because we don't know
the scenario yet, but it will be a big impact. Whoever pays for
it, it is going to be a significant amount of money.
Senator Voinovich. Either for the taxpayers or for the----
Mr. Reyes. Either way, it is a significant amount of money.
Senator Voinovich. We will find out from the next two
witnesses how enthusiastic they are about it.
The next question is the GNEP program. Again, does the NRC
have any existing in-house expertise licensing reprocessing
facilities and fast reactors as is going to be required under
GNEP?
Mr. Reyes. We have a very limited number of employees that
have experience in either fast reactors or reprocessing
technology, so we would have to ramp up not only the number of
employees but train them and acquire that knowledge.
Senator Voinovich. So, again, it would take some more
personnel in order to handle that situation?
Mr. Reyes. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. The estimated cost of that is $13
billion, yes, $13 billion. Where would that money come from?
Mr. Reyes. You mean for the GNEP? I think you are going to
have to ask another group, because we would--the cost we can
give you is the review process that we will have to go through
in reviewing the facilities for GNEP. We don't know yet what
that profile looks like in terms of how many facilities and
what kind, so we do not have an estimate for that.
Senator Voinovich. Okay. That is probably a DOE question.
Mr. Reyes. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to have you folks look at
this thing and come back in writing about specifically the
numbers that you would have to have and talk about the
budgetary process and so forth so we get a full--so that we
comprehend just what we are talking about here.
Mr. Reyes. We will do that.
Senator Voinovich. As an editorial comment, it reminds me
that today the national debt is the highest it has ever been.
In terms of the GDP, it is the highest in terms of GDP in 50
years. The discretionary budget that is available is being
hammered, non-discretionary defense budget. We have all these
ambitious plans coming from these agencies, and the question
is, to put it in the vernacular, where the hell is the money
coming from.
These are things that, if they are worthy, we should also
be very candid about how you are going to be able to handle the
situation, how much is the industry going to be able to
sustain, Department of Energy, what's their budget, and where
are they going to get the money to get to do some of these
things that they are proposing. I think we need to get real and
not go off down some path willy-nilly, not knowing where the
money is going to come from to fund these new proposals and
initiatives.
Thanks for being here today. We appreciate your testimony
and, Mr. Reyes, we look forward to working with you. We have
spent a lot of time with you folks and we continue to do it
because we think that what you are doing is extremely important
to our country's competitiveness. We certainly need more
nuclear power. We need to move away from using natural gas.
Nuclear power also is very friendly in terms of the
environment. Hopefully, with some of the new technology that we
have, we can start to share that with other places around the
world, and we are working on that problem, too. So thanks for
being here today and keep up the good work.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Good morning. I would like to remind
you, if you can keep your remarks to 5 minutes I would
appreciate it.
Our first witness is Admiral Frank ``Skip'' Bowman, who is
president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy
Institute.
Welcome, Admiral.
We will hear from Mr. Victor Gilinsky, who is an
independent energy consultant. I should point out that Mr.
Gilinsky served as an NRC commissioner in the late 1970s and
early 1980s.
I think you've testified before this committee before,
haven't you?
Mr. Gilinsky. A long time ago, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. So we are pleased to have you here
today.
We will begin with Admiral Bowman.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL FRANK L. ``SKIP'' BOWMAN, U.S.N.
(RETIRED); PRESIDENT AND CEO, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE
Admiral Bowman. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify today and express the nuclear industry's
views on legislation to address the management of used fuel.
We applaud this committee and you, personally, for your
leadership in enacting the Energy Policy Act last year, with
the strong incentives in that act to build new nuclear plants
to meet the rising electricity demand in this country.
Just to clear the air and for the record, as of this
morning we have 12 companies pursuing 19 applications for 30
new reactors.
Senator Voinovich. You have 12 companies----
Admiral Bowman. We have 12 companies pursuing 19 COL
applications for 30 reactor plants.
This morning I will focus my oral testimony on the
following key issues: first, the Department of Energy must make
measurable progress in implementing an integrated national
strategy for used fuel management, including development and
operation of the Yucca Mountain repository; second, S. 2610 can
help address challenges facing both the DOE and the NRC on the
Yucca Mountain project; third, I believe Congress must take
additional actions beyond S. 2610 to remove used fuel from
commercial nuclear powerplants quickly.
I would request that my written statement, which addresses
these issues in more detail, be entered into the record.
Senator Voinovich. It will be entered.
Admiral Bowman. Thank you, sir.
We are very encouraged by Mr. Sproat's testimony and his
enthusiasm and the DOE's recently announced schedule to submit
a license application for Yucca Mountain by June 30, 2008, as
well as the, in Mr. Sproat's words, best achievable
construction schedule that could lead to receipt of used fuel
by March 2017. However, we also recognize that factors outside
the Department and outside Mr. Sproat's direct control could
influence its ability to achieve that schedule. Two of those
factors I believe are passage of the Nuclear Fuel Management
Disposal Act, S. 2610, and ensuring NRC's resources do match
upcoming requirements to the questions that you were asking Mr.
Reyes.
The industry strongly supports S. 2610. It should be
enacted, along with the provisions in S. 2589, the parent
legislation which Chairman Inhofe introduced along with
Chairman Domenici, and also additional provisions which I will
discuss today.
Managing the Nation's used fuel is a Federal obligation and
a matter of broad national policy, under the purview of the
American people's elected representatives. Congress should
codify ``waste confidence'' called for in S. 2610 so that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission need not address this broad
policy issue as a matter of routine regulatory technical issues
that could unduly delay the approval and review process for new
plant construction.
Already addressed this morning is the artificial limit of
70,000 metric tons on the amount of nuclear waste materials
that can be accepted at Yucca Mountain. Scientific analysis
that has been done suggests significantly higher capacity
easily could be achieved beyond the legislated limit. Advanced
nuclear fuel cycle technologies could provide significant
additional capacity for disposing of waste products in Yucca
Mountain.
The NRC repository licensing process should also be
restructured as called for in S. 2610. S. 2610 takes into
account the unprecedented scope and duration of environmental
reviews that will be required during the construction and
licensing process for the Yucca Mountain facility. It
appropriately separates those non-nuclear and non-technical
issues related to infrastructure support activities from
repository licensing and operations. This legislation also
recognizes the stringent Federal standards that will apply to
the repository and eliminates unnecessary dual regulation.
We would also encourage Congress to incorporate additional
features into the repository development that will give future
generations the flexibility to make informed decisions, as
members of your committee have already discussed today, based
on operational experience, changing energy economics, and
technological developments. It should be made clear that the
repository is intended to retain the ability to monitor and, if
needed or desired, to retrieve the used fuel resources for at
least 300 years.
DOE should take action as soon as possible to remove used
fuel from the Nation's plants. This is the industry's top
priority, and it is the Federal Government's statutory and
contractual obligation to do so, an obligation in which it is 8
years in arrears. This action should be part of an integrated
Government plan to exercise proper stewardship over used
nuclear fuel.
In order to address legitimate questions about the
Government's used nuclear fuel stewardship, the United States
should have a credible, long-term program to manage nuclear
fuel. This program should integrate a number of essential
components, including the centralized disposal facility at
Yucca Mountain as the bull's eye, but also advance
proliferation-proof fuel processing and fuel fabrication
facilities and advanced reactors designed to extract the
maximum possible energy from used nuclear fuel and to reduce
the radiotoxicity and volume of the waste byproducts.
The third element that should be included is one or two
interim storage facilities. Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate
that no one in industry has ever supported or commented
favorably on any number larger than a few interim storage
facilities. We think the prudent approach, would be to
colocated them with facilities for developing advanced fuel
processing and recycling.
Used nuclear fuel is stored safely today at nuclear
powerplants, either in pool storage or in dry casks. That said,
however, I think that it is absolutely essential to public and
State policymaker confidence that the Federal Government
identify and develop a limited number of sites for centralized
interim storage, ideally linked, as I said, to future
reprocessing facilities, and begin the process of moving used
nuclear fuel to these one or two interim storage facilities
soon. Further delays in Federal receipt and movement of used
fuel and Defense waste products will continue to cost the
taxpayers on the order of $1 billion a year.
The industry believes that the consolidation and storage of
used nuclear fuel on a temporary basis at one or two interim
sites can provide significant benefits in cost, system
integration, synergy with recycling technology development, and
confidence in the Federal waste management program.
We would urge the Congress to evaluate alternative interim
storage proposals, not just the one that has been addressed so
far this morning.
We would recommend the following principles: minimize the
number of interim storage sites to one or two sites to reduce
the cost and maximize the efficiencies of consolidation;
provide host site benefits, as has been discussed; recognize
that, while the nuclear waste fund could be used to pay for
this interim storage, it should not be used to develop the
complementary technologies for advanced reprocessing; and,
finally, NRC must be provided with the necessary resources and
appropriate management focus to accommodate these new
proposals.
As utilities prepare to license and build new nuclear
powerplants, it is essential that appropriate new contracts for
disposal of spent nuclear fuel between these utilities and DOE
be put in place to allow the NRC to adjudicate the combined
operating license applications that we have disucssed. The
previously issued EPA disposal standard of 10,000 years we
believe was appropriately protective of public health and
safety and was consistent with other hazardous material
regulation in the United States. This standard was remanded by
court finding on a pure technicality. Congress should legislate
the appropriate 10,000-year standard.
Sir, I am ready for any of your questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilinsky.
STATEMENT OF VICTOR GILINSKY, INDEPENDENT ENERGY CONSULTANT
Mr. Gilinsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned in
your generous introduction, I have been an independent energy
consultant. I should add to that that for the past few years I
have been a consultant to the State of Nevada on Yucca Mountain
issues.
I would like to address briefly three NRC-related items.
The first is interim storage that you have heard so much about,
the second is the NRC's waste confidence rule, and the third is
the new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP.
First, interim storage. Now, no matter what happens with
Yucca Mountain, whether it goes forward or not, on schedule or
not, we are going to need a lot of spent fuel storage. The
generating companies are preparing themselves by building
facilities at their sites to store spent fuel in dry casks. The
technology is straightforward. The NRC has been licensing these
facilities and they don't appear to strain the Agency very
much.
It would be also good to have regional storage sites, I
believe of the sort the admiral is speaking about. I think we
are in agreement here. First, for overflow capacity, some of
the utilities may be pinched for space, although most of them
have adequate space at their sites. Second, to collect fuel
from the shut-down reactors, the so-called orphans. There are
about a dozen of these, or 10 or 12. And, third, eventually to
collect all the spent fuel under dedicated storage management.
Senator Domenici's bill actually allows for such central
facilities. The idea is a good one.
In the short run, for safety and security it would be a
good idea to move the spent fuel from reactor pools into dry
casks as soon as the fuel cools sufficiently. Senator Reid's
bill addresses this point.
Now, all this would make sense even if you thought Yucca
Mountain was on track, but experience tells us that it isn't.
DOE's projected opening date has slipped 7 years since Congress
voted on the Yucca Mountain resolution 4 years ago, and now we
hear that projected date is an optimistic date, it is
contingent on Congress passing certain legislation.
You probably know that last week the Secretary of the
Interior vetoed the private fuel storage facility in Utah, in
part because he concluded it was not prudent to rely on Yucca
Mountain opening. I think that is pretty significant.
This leads directly to the second item, the NRC's waste
confidence rule. Let me give you a little bit of a different
view on that. The current version of the rule was adopted in
1990. It says the NRC is confident that a geologic repository
will open in 2025. Now, in 1990, when the NRC adopted that
rule, it said it was not pre-judging the Yucca Mountain case
because if Yucca Mountain did not work out there would still be
time for another repository to be built. That was true then; it
is no longer true today with the passage of time.
In effect, what the rule is saying is that the NRC is
confident that Yucca Mountain will be licensed. In other words,
the NRC is pre-judging the case. Nevada appealed to the NRC to
remove that date and just say that they are confident that the
spent fuel will be taken care of adequately. The Commission
refused, even though this would also have benefitted its power
reactor licensees, taken the pressure off them. In any event,
Nevada appealed to the Federal court and the case is being
argued even as we speak here today in the court of appeals. I
suppose we will find out what the Federal courts think about it
pretty soon.
Now, the bills before you would have Congress change the
rule for the NRC. In my view, because such a change involves a
safety judgment, and they are the stewards of nuclear safety, I
believe it is more responsible that the NRC should do this,
itself, through rule-making.
My third item concerns GNEP, the Administration's grand
plan for developing technology to transform the distant future
of nuclear power worldwide. It is not likely to demand much in
the way of NRC resources for quite some time, I think. That may
change, however, if DOE pursues its latest idea, which is to
``fast track the GNEP demonstration plans.'' I think fast
tracking carries a lot of risk here. It is a very chancy thing.
I have to say it gives me pause that I can't think of a single
instance--and perhaps I'm wrong--of DOE developing a major
technology to full scale and then passing it successfully to
industry. At this point, GNEP contains some concepts that might
be useful if they worked, but they are a long way from being
practicable.
I would say, as a final thought, at a minimum DOE should
have to pass NRC safety licensing for any substantial
demonstration facilities in this program. This is going to slow
them down, but it will keep their feet on the ground.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Mr. Bowman, I was very interested that, on behalf of the
industry, you have said that these interim facilities are
something that the industry is supportive of, but that you do
not support 30 of these facilities. I would like you to comment
on two things. One is, Mr. Gilinsky is suggesting that
everything be moved into dry storage, and the cost to the
industry of that and the ratepayers is one thing, but also you
mentioned one or two facilities that would be built to handle
this storage.
I guess the last thing is, is part of all of this trying to
give confidence to the financial markets that the issue of
storage is going to be dealt with in a responsible fashion? I
know that several years ago when we had testimony before this
committee one of the things that was raised about nuclear
facilities was, you know, what are you going to do with the
storage. That came from some folks in the bond market.
Can you kind of tie all this together and give me your
perspective on it, industry's perspective?
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Gilinsky that the storage of
used fuel as we are doing it today at our existing reactor
sites is perfectly technically safe. There is no impact on the
public health and safety and it is absolutely a safe thing for
us to be doing. The problem is the need to maintain the support
of the American people, which we enjoy today to the extent of
some 60 to as high as 80 percent approval ratings.
You can't get 80 percent of Americans to say they like
vanilla ice cream, but we have 80 percent of Americans in some
polls saying that nuclear energy simply must be a part of the
future energy mix in this country. To retain that public
confidence we believe that we need to show that the Government
intends to honor its statutory obligation to take title to and
move this nuclear fuel out of the individual States into a
centralized facility.
While I am encouraged by Mr. Sproat's 2017 optimistic
deadline for opening Yucca Mountain, I believe that we should
have a parallel path as a Plan B, if you want to call it that,
to accommodate used fuel more quickly, if 2017 doesn't work out
for us. We need to show the American people that the Congress
fully supports this industry, as you have done over the past
many years now, including in the Energy Policy Act, through
enactment of legislation that addresses interim storage on a
small scale--one, two, three interim storage sites--and also to
address the waste confidence issue.
I would disagree with Mr. Gilinsky on one point. I believe
that the waste confidence issue is not an issue under the
purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because it is not
a technical question; it is a public policy question and
Congress, the elected officials of the American people, is the
body that determines public policy.
The issue of waste competence arose because one of the many
interveners along the way challenged the issuance of a license
that NRC had given to a utility on the basis that that utility
had not included in its environmental impact statement the
retention of used fuel at that site for the lifetime of the
plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission explained to the court
that that wasn't necessary to include in the EIS, because there
would be this centralized repository.
Since then, to avoid reopening that question of must an EIS
address lifetime storage, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
relied on the promises of Congress and the statutory
obligations of enacted legislation to say with confidence, to
use that word, that there is a long-term storage program for
this country that avoids having to have the environmental
impact statements address keeping that fuel at the sites
forever and ever. So, in my view, waste confidence is a matter
before the Congress and not a matter before the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, welcome. It is good to see both of you. Thank
you for your testimony and responding to our questions.
I would just ask Mr. Gilinsky, first of all, just briefly,
where do you think you and Admiral Bowman agree?
Mr. Gilinsky. Well, it sounds like we agree that there
ought to be a Plan B on addressing what is generally called
interim storage.
Senator Carper. Anywhere else, at least on the issues
before us today?
Mr. Gilinsky. I just shook hands with him, but on the basis
of the testimony I think really that is the essential point,
that there ought to be a parallel approach to surface storage.
Senator Carper. Admiral, where do you think you agree?
Admiral Bowman. Sir, if I could dissect Mr. Gilinsky's
testimony, I agree with virtually everything he said. I
disagreed with the issue of waste confidence, as I just
explained. I do think that is a matter before the Congress.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I forgot to address your third point,
from your earlier question, and that is the issue of why it is
necessary to move fuel from safe storage and spent fuel pools,
which has been the original intent from the beginning of these
plans, into dry storage. You asked about the cost. I don't have
a good figure. I will certainly supply that for the record, but
I will tell you that it is very expensive to do that.
[The referenced document follows on page 71.]
Admiral Bowman. Now, an argument against requiring moving
from the spent fuel pools to dry storage, the other issue that
I would take with Mr. Gilinsky's testimony is that it is
perfectly safe in the spent fuel pools. Scenarios that
hypothesized various terrorist actions, various accidents that
could occur in the spent fuel were analyzed by the National
Academy of Science, with recommendations for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to implement certain requirements,
certain regulations having to do with shifting fuel around
inside the pools, delaying putting the fuel into the pool until
it cools, and those kinds of things. All those actions have
been completed at all 103 nuclear powerplants in operation in
this country.
So in my view it would be an unnecessary expense, it would
require us to handle this used fuel an additional time, and I
think it is unnecessary. That is the second place I would
disagree. But other than that, I agree with Mr. Gilinsky. We
only met, so it is hard to say where all we agree, but
certainly I agree with everything else that he said.
Mr. Gilinsky. Senator, if I could just add a word, I was
trying to retain an air of agreement, but if you are looking
for shades of disagreement or difference, the Admiral mentioned
the National Academy of Science report. Indeed, the fuel is
safe at the sites where it is, but as the National Academy of
Science report says, it is inherently safer and more secure in
dry casks, so it is a better answer. You should not be loading
up these fuel pools excessively because they do rely on active
safety systems. In the dry casks it is basically a passive
system. It is highly protected. It is not in water. I think it
is just a better and safer and more secure approach, and we
ought to shift the fuel as soon as we can into that form, spent
fuel.
Senator Carper. I don't know if it was you, Admiral Bowman,
or another witness who talked about the number of interim
storage facilities we might have, but how do we incentivize
State or local communities or tribes to use their tribal lands
to be willing to receive those materials for an interim period
of time, which I agree could be more than just a couple years?
Mr. Gilinsky, I'm going to ask you to answer that as well,
please.
Admiral Bowman. Senator Carper, that is a wonderful
question, and it also gives me the opportunity to suggest that
the industry believes that these one, two, or three interim
storage sites, these small number of interim storage sites
should be linked to this advanced technology proposal that
underpins the GNEP concept.
Yesterday I heard Assistant Secretary of Energy Dennis
Spurgeon state that, in response to the Department of Energy's
request for expressions of interest, that he had received 14
submittals from various localities around the country on a
voluntary basis that they were, indeed, interested in the
concept of developing this advanced reprocessing technology,
and with it taking on the interim storage that would be a part
of that project. So the kinds of incentives that we are talking
about are those that the Department of Energy is already
proposing and that apparently appeals to a large number of
localities around our country.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks.
Mr. Gilinsky.
Mr. Gilinsky. Well, when we talk about siting waste
facilities, that gets into a lot of complex issues, local
issues, political issues, but I would say this for a surface
facility: the technical issues are much simpler than for a
geologic facility, where there are a lot of uncertainties. In
fact, I actually like the idea of monitored surface storage,
because if there are problems you can fix them. The problems
with deep underground disposal is that you have to be very
sure, because once you've closed it up all errors are
irretrievable, and that is what leads to all the hand-wringing.
There's another aspect of this, which simply lies behind
people's concern and resistance, it is just that they don't
have confidence in the Government. I think one has to think
about perhaps different institutional arrangements than we have
had in the past. They don't have confidence in the agencies
that have worked this problem in the past.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks.
Mr. Chairman, sort of a sidebar here with you, going back
to when you all were trying to figure out where to put the low-
level radioactive waste in Ohio and we were trying to figure
out where to do it in the Delaware Valley, it always seemed to
me that if you, in a broader sense, with respect to high-level
nuclear waste, if you say to a community that we are going to
cut your utility bills in half or your electric bill in half or
we are going to provide rebates on your property taxes for
those of you that are within a certain proximity to this kind
of facility, there are ways that--I don't know if you can make
an offer to folks that they can't refuse, but there are ways
that you can make this pretty attractive to folks aside from
just the investment and the kind of jobs that are created here.
I would hope that if we are to go down, continue to pursue
Yucca, try to identify places to put these interim storage
units, that we are going to couple that with this GNEP and also
continue to maintain storage on site, we need to be smart
enough to find ways to incentivize communities so that not
necessarily they will stand in line like these 18 or so that
have expressed an interest, but there will be a--when the
community leader stands up and says this could be good for our
community, they won't have their heads handed to them.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I would like to be as optimistic
about this as Mr. Bowman is, but I think that, even with low-
level storage facility, the controversy that is involved is a
question of the geography and terrain and the rest of it, and
the NIMBY problem.
I think that two or three of these perhaps maybe makes
sense. To go to 30 of them I think is a problem. You know, Mr.
Bowman, you never did answer the question about the financing
of these facilities. You just talked about the applications for
so many and so on, but is this waste confidence thing going to
impact on the ability for these folks that want to build these
to get the money they need to do it? I mean, they have to
borrow the money from somebody. Is that an issue today do you
think on Wall Street, waste confidence, or not? That is a
surprise to me, because before it seemed to be a big deal, and
now all of the sudden--maybe it is the energy bill and the
incentives that we put in for the first six of them, I think,
but why has that changed, and how much of what we are doing
here is kind of giving them the confidence that if Yucca
doesn't happen we are going to be doing something else?
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir. You are right, when I addressed
the question, I didn't get back to the Wall Street side. I
spoke of the public confidence that would come with sure
knowledge that the U.S. Congress is behind this and that U.S.
Congress intends to ensure that proper used fuel stewardship is
in place. It is the public confidence that I think would spill
over to Wall Street.
With the Wall Street analysts, Mr. Chairman, much more
important and much higher on their minds is the provision in
the Energy Policy Act from last year that provides for
Government-backed guaranteed loans for these projects. I would
point out that it is not just nuclear that was given that
guaranteed loan provision opportunity, it is all clean energy.
So in this regard nuclear was lumped with solar, wind and
geothermal to ensure that project cost and financing could be
done on a basis that was favorable to the industry, most
importantly, favorable to the consumer and saving our
ratepayers enormous sums of money. With guaranteed Government
loans we could highly leverage these plants so that the
financing would take the form of, for instance, 80/20, percent.
Senator Voinovich. It is my understanding that this loan
guarantee is going to apply to all of these? I thought it was
just going to be----
Admiral Bowman. It is to all, yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. All of them?
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir. Now, the industry is paying for
this. The industry pays for the premium for this loan backing
based on an OMB formula that goes to the probability of failure
and the amount that is being indemnified on each project, so
this is not a subsidy. The is something that the industry----
Senator Voinovich. It will reduce the projected cost? I've
got to be more familiar with the financing. The industry is the
backup on it? In other words, if one of these goes belly-up,
the Feds are there, but the industry is backing them up? It is
like a re-insurance?
Admiral Bowman. If one of these went belly-up, the Federal
Government would take custody of the plant and the facilities
and they would be the Federal Government's. The loan guarantee
is that the Federal Government is backing the industry. But
like insurance work, the industry would pay a premium for the
right for the Government to do this. It is just like the
Export/Import Bank loans that are traditional. It is like that,
sir, and it would apply for all these new plants--solar, wind,
nuclear--without limitation. The six-plant limitation applies
to the other two provisions in the Energy Policy Act, the
production tax credit and the so-called risk insurance. That is
a different kind of risk. That is the risk of regulatory
failure.
Mr. Gilinsky. Actually, Senator, most of those plants are
coming from the Southeast where they are regulated, and the
loan guarantees aren't as important as the credits. The loan
guarantees are important for the unregulated plants.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Bowman, you have heard the testimony
of Mr. Reyes about the status of the hiring of people over at
the NRC, and you speak, I'm sure, with folks that are involved
with the NRC. I would like your appraisal of how accurate he
was in terms of bringing on the personnel that they need to get
the job done, and then also comment on the additional people
that Mr. Reyes said that they would need to do the siting of
these facilities that you think we need to have, and, last but
not least, this GNEP thing and what impact would that have on
them at a time when we want to get those COLs moved down the
street as quickly as possible.
Admiral Bowman. Sir, as I recall Mr. Reyes' testimony, he
said that the goal at the NRC was to net 200 personnel per year
for the next 3 years, and I know that they have set that as a
goal and last year they met that goal. I am happy to report
that across the country progress is being made. You and I have
had private conversations about this. As you know, I sit on
three visiting committees at universities as an effort to
encourage----
Senator Voinovich. Yes, thank you very much for your
lobbying to make sure they maintain their programs.
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir. The good news is many of those
university programs now are filled to overflowing, whereas 2
years ago, when you and I first talked about this we were
somewhat worried that it wasn't going to happen that way. I am
happy that you helped us turn around the University of
Cincinnati. I don't know where that logic came from to do away
with their program, but I think that is back on track now and
they don't intend to do away with their nuclear engineering
program.
But I think the NRC's goal is proper. I think they have
looked carefully at the assets required. They are challenging
industry to be sure that we know what we are talking about when
we say 19 applications for 30 plants because, they are going
out and hiring to those kinds of numbers to ensure that they do
have the assets in place. I applaud that effort and I am doing
everything in my power to help universities encourage young
people to go into the sciences and engineering that would help
both industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the question is so you think they
are doing okay, but what about the impact that this would have?
Admiral Bowman. Well, the technologies underlying the GNEP
proposals, would obviously put an additional strain on the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. You asked the right questions.
To my knowledge, from my Naval reactor days and being a co-
regulatory with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the other
103 nuclear powerplants in this country--they are the ones that
are underwater and moving our aircraft carriers around--I don't
think that the NRC has in-house today the talent, the ability
to adjudicate fast reactor technology. I don't think that they
necessarily have in house today people ready to step up and
begin looking at licensing and advanced reprocessing. So surely
it would put a strain in addition to the strain that they are
already going to feel with this resurgence of new nuclear on
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I can't speak directly to the numbers with any authority
because I haven't looked at it.
Senator Voinovich. The GNEP $13 billion, if I heard you
correctly, you indicated that you thought that the spent fuel
fund could be used for that but that the technology cost of
that should not be?
Admiral Bowman. Sir, what I should have said was that I
believe that the law allows and that it would be prudent and
proper that, if we had these two or three interim storage
sites, the cost of developing those interim storage sites,
which we heard in testimony in a different committee yesterday
on the order of $15 million per site. I think that the cost for
developing----
Senator Voinovich. That was $15 million?
Admiral Bowman. Per site. It is nothing more than a
concrete pad. This is not a rocket science kind of project that
would have to be developed. Now, there's a little bit more to
it than that. But $15 million was the approximation that Mr.
Sproat, in fact, provided yesterday, for the construction
aspects. I think we heard Mr. Reyes say that he's looking at
about $10 million per project.
So the industry's position is the cost for developing, for
licensing these interim storage sites could be borne by the
Nuclear Waste Fund, but the cost for developing the
complementary technologies for GNEP, should in no way, shape,
form, or fashion be taken from the Nuclear Waste Fund. That is
not what it was intended to do, whereas interim storage is a
piece of what it was intended by the original Nuclear Waste
Fund.
Senator Voinovich. The GNEP, isn't that being done
someplace else? Aren't they doing that in Europe today? Where
is the technology on that?
Admiral Bowman. Sir, this gets somewhat complicated. I will
go quickly. In France, in Russia, in Japan, in the United
Kingdom reprocessing is taking place today, but it is the type
of reprocessing that this country walked away from years and
years ago because it is the type of reprocessing that produces
as an end product a pure stream of plutonium, and for
proliferation concerns the United States decided to stop that
type of reprocessing, and we've stuck to that for these years.
The type of reprocessing that is envisioned in the long
term that would underlie or undergird the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership idea would be a new kind of reprocessing. The type
I just described is called PUREX. This advanced reprocessing is
called UREX. It would not generate a pure stream of plutonium
as an end product. In fact, it would bind the plutonium to some
of the nasty stuff that is a part of the spent fuel that would
make it more or less proliferation proof. It would not be
something that you and I would want to walk in and put in the
back of our cars and drive off with, for sure. Advanced
reprocessing has been proven at a laboratory scale, petri
dishes, small gram amounts of reprocessed capability, but it
has not been proven at a commercial scale. That is the billions
and billions of dollars of R&D and the long-term, long-time
investment that would be required for this country to go in
that direction.
Now, that said, despite the billions and despite the years
that it might take, the industry believes that that is the
proper thing to do for the proper stewardship of this used
fuel. Advanced reprocessing, not the type that France, England,
Japan and Russia are doing today, would in the final analysis,
reduce dramatically the radiotoxicity and the volume
requirements for repositories and that amount of used product
that has to go into the earth.
Senator Voinovich. So if the Department of Energy is
looking at this issue--again, from the testimony, if you are
looking for these temporary storage facilities, that someone
could be also looking at it in terms of this GNEP thing? In
other words, where would be a good place to do the GNEP and do
that interim storage, but the GNEP would follow later on in
terms of----
Admiral Bowman. Exactly.
Senator Voinovich. Yes.
Admiral Bowman. Sir, I think the word option comes into
play here, and it is to Mr. Gilinsky's point. If we ever do,
get to the point that we put this used fuel into a repository
like Yucca Mountain and close the door and lock it and walk
away, that would be wrong for all the reasons Mr. Gilinsky
said, because if something did go wrong then we wouldn't have
the opportunity to re-enter and make it right, but that is not
what is planned, either at Yucca Mountain or these interim
storage sites. They would certainly give us the opportunity, as
Mr. Gilinsky said, to monitor on a daily basis what's going on,
to allow the fuel to be cooling down, reducing repository
requirements. It has a whole lot of attendant good to it.
Back to the Yucca Mountain project. The original Nuclear
Waste Policy Act in 1982 required by law an unspecified period
of monitoring and retrievability for this repository. To
accommodate that requirement, that law, the final environmental
impact statement at the Department of Energy includes a period
of monitoring and retrievability of 50 to 300 years. It is also
embodied in NRC regulation that at least 50 years of monitoring
be available after the fuel is in the Yucca Mountain
repository.
In my testimony today I encouraged that we look at
extending that period even beyond 300 years. I think that Mr.
Gilinsky is exactly right: there is no reason to finally close
the door. I think my grandkids are going to be smart enough to
make their own decisions based on advances in technology to
decide whether it is economically feasible and proper for the
stewardship of this used fuel to pull it back out and reprocess
it, as an example.
So the industry supports as much flexibility and as much
future option for future generations as we can build and design
into this facility.
Senator Voinovich. It is the commercial stuff from the dry
casks and waste pools that would go out there, and you made it
clear that the military will use up a good bit of this, so we
are talking about increasing the tonnage out there, correct?
Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. The other thing that was brought up is
the issue of expanding the site so that things that are not
consistent with it wouldn't be built. That question came up. I
wondered, would the money from the fund be used to purchase
that property? Wouldn't we have the same problem? Mr. Gilinsky,
you spent some time out in Nevada. How well would that be
received?
Mr. Gilinsky. Well, it wouldn't be well received at all
because the site is a poor one, basically. But the people that
are talking about expanding are talking about using the same
area but just putting more fuel in there.
I wonder if I could add a word about GNEP, just one point?
Senator Voinovich. Sure.
Mr. Gilinsky. GNEP has lots of moving parts and I don't
think we have time to really go through all this, but it is
said over and over again that it reduces the waste, and it does
in a certain respect in that it burns up the plutonium, or
would if the whole thing worked, but one thing which is not
advertised, the way you get GNEP to reduce the amount of
material that goes into a disposal facility is that you leave
the hottest, most radioactive isotopes on the surface. I mean,
that is part of the GNEP plan. Cesium and strontium, which are
the hottest initially, the isotopes you worry about the most,
they are not going to put those in a repository at all because
if you put them in there then you've got the heat load, you are
not reducing the heat load, and therefore you are not reducing
the amount of repository space that you need.
If you are willing to leave the hottest stuff on the
surface, it is kind of unclear why you are going through this
entire exercise. Why not just leave the spent fuel on the
surface?
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Bowman, do you have anything on
that?
Admiral Bowman. Sir, I am not here to defend GNEP
necessarily but, for the record, the DOE's vision and, frankly,
the Administration's vision of GNEP is not exactly as
described. The advanced reprocessing would not only remove the
plutonium, which Mr. Gilinsky said correctly would be burned in
a fast reactor. Remember I said that the plutonium would be
bound to this other stuff, and that other stuff is called
actinides. Actinides are the real driver for the size of the
repository after about 80, 100 years. The heat load from the
fission products such as cesium and strontium that Mr. Gilinsky
spoke of carry the day and drive the size of the repository for
the first 80 years, but then these long, long, long-lived, long
activity, hot actinides are the driver for the size of the
repository out to the hundreds of thousands of years.
The idea in the GNEP program would be to develop the
technology which doesn't exist on a commercial scale today to
pull that actinide out and burn it also, fission it, and
extract energy from it in a fast reactor. By doing so you get
energy and you get rid of that long-lived stuff, you reduce the
radiotoxicity and the volume requirements of the repository.
That is more what is envisioned for the long-term efforts of
this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Mr. Gilinsky. I agree with that, but the fact is they are
planning to leave the fission products, the hottest fission
products on the surface, and those are the ones that for the
first 80 or so years are, in fact, the hottest isotopes.
Senator Voinovich. Well, we will probably be talking about
it some more.
Mr. Gilinsky. Right.
Senator Voinovich. I want to thank you both very much for
being here today. The record will be held open for questions.
Thanks very much.
Mr. Gilinsky. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's capabilities and responsibilities for short-
and long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.
Nearly 52 percent of my State's electricity comes from nuclear
power. Across the Nation, 20 percent of our electricity is from nuclear
powerplants. As we seek ways to use less foreign oil and do more to
protect our environment, nuclear power may become more central to our
energy portfolio.
But when making decisions about nuclear power, we must always put
the health and safety of our citizens first. That is why the question
of disposal of nuclear waste is so difficult. Since 1984, our long-term
option has been Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But with questions about
health standards, falsified data, and the safety of transporting waste
from all over the country, its completion date drifts further into the
future every day.
Senator Domenici has offered an alternative plan: to create interim
storage sites in States with nuclear reactors or at regional facilities
for up to 25 years. While I appreciate the search for a solution, I'm
concerned about this approach, too. Under the Domenici plan, the
Department of Energy would have the authority to override State law. A
State's Governor could recommend the best site and the Department of
Energy could just say ``no.''
There is also the question of the safety of transporting nuclear
waste to interim sites in dozens of States. It is risky enough to have
to move nuclear waste once. To move from these short-term sites to a
long-term one, we'd need to move it twice.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on all of these
challenges. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the
State of Nevada
I want to thank the Chair, the Ranking Member and other members of
the committee and subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony
on the issue of spent nuclear fuel storage and security. This issue is
important to the national security of all Americans.
I am pleased that the committee is discussing different options for
spent nuclear fuel storage. Years of problems with the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository--from new scientific data demonstrating geological
and environmental problems with the site to scientific and technical
missteps and misrepresentations that have been ignored by Department of
Energy (DOE) management for decades--have led many to conclude that
Yucca Mountain is unable to meet basic public health, scientific and
safety requirements and, thus, is an inappropriate site for the long-
term storage of spent nuclear fuel.
Even the Administration knows that Yucca Mountain is a flawed,
dangerous project. This is reflected in the Administration's bill,
which tells us everything the Administration knows is wrong with Yucca
Mountain. They have sent us this legislation to change the rules, break
the law and prevent States from protecting their citizens.
If Yucca Mountain were scientifically sound--if it genuinely was a
safe place to store nuclear waste--the Administration would not need to
gut the laws that regulate hazardous waste handling and transportation,
clean air, water rights, public land laws, and environmental policy. If
Yucca Mountain were scientifically sound, the Administration would not
need to preempt States' rights.
If Yucca Mountain were scientifically sound--if it was genuinely
safe--we would not have the Administration's bill and we would not be
discussing it today.
Let us be honest. The Administration is trying to prevent the
States from protecting themselves and their citizens. It is important
to remember that this proposal does not just affect or preempt Nevada,
but your States as well.
What may be even worse is that Congress is being asked to approve
the gutting of all these laws and authorities for a project without any
details, with no assurance of its safety, no assurance of its
viability, and no assurance of its long-term integrity.
We cannot sacrifice our Nation's national security for this short-
sighted proposal. It is time for us to stop wasting time and money
researching, redesigning and rescheduling Yucca Mountain. After more
than 20 years we know that it will not work. It is time for us to look
at other alternatives for securing our spent nuclear fuel while we
search for a safe and scientific long-term solution.
Many, including some of my esteemed colleagues on this panel, see
nuclear power to be a solution to many of our energy problems. But for
nuclear power to solve these problems, we must scientifically address
its challenges--spent nuclear fuel storage and transportation, the
security and siting of nuclear facilities, and nonproliferation. I
would like to see these problems solved.
But that will never happen until we actually look for and find a
scientific solution, not a political solution, to these challenges.
America has the best minds in the world. I believe that if we truly
focused on solving the problems of spent nuclear fuel, we could.
How are we to secure the waste in the interim? We leave it on-site
in dry cask storage, where it is safely and securely stored now and
where the experts and the nuclear industry have demonstrated that it
will continue to be safely stored for decades.
That is exactly what The Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage
Security Act of 2005, S. 2099, which I introduced last year with
Senators Ensign, Bennett and Hatch, does. This bill is a road map and a
timeline for safely securing our spent nuclear fuel for 1 to 200 years,
giving us time to find a safe, scientific long-term solution to this
national security issue.
A 1979 study by Sandia National Laboratory determined that, if all
the water were to drain from a spent fuel pool, dense-packed spent fuel
would likely heat up to the point where it would burst and then catch
fire, releasing massive quantities of volatile radioactive fission
products into the air. Both the short-term and the long-term
contamination impacts of such an event could be significantly worse
than those from Chernobyl. The report concluded that the consequences
would be so severe and would affect such a large area that all
precautions must be taken to preclude them. This is the type of
serious, avoidable risk against which all the Nation's nuclear sites
can and should be protected to counter terrorist threats.
On March 28, 2005, the Washington Post revealed that a classified
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report concluded that the Government
does not fully understand the risks a terrorist attack could pose to
spent nuclear fuel pools and that it ought to expedite the removal of
the fuel to dry storage casks that are more resilient to attack. The
public version of this same report found that fuel in spent fuel ponds
is an attractive terrorist target and that there are inherent benefits
to placing the fuel in secure, dry casks.
The technology for long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry
storage casks has improved dramatically in the past 20 years. Fourteen
cask designs have been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
which says that spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored using dry cask
storage on-site at nuclear powerplants for 1 to 200 years. Already, dry
casks safely store spent nuclear fuel at 57, more than 50 percent of
sites throughout the country, many of them near communities, water ways
and transportation routes. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
received applications for dry cask storage at 15 additional sites. The
Nuclear Energy Institute projects that 83 of the 104 active reactors
will have dry storage by 2050, which seems like a conservative estimate
based on current numbers, but acknowledges the safety and inevitability
of on-site, dry cask storage.
Compared to water-filled pools, dry storage casks are significantly
less vulnerable to natural and human-induced disasters, including
floods, tornadoes, temperature extremes, sabotage, and missile attacks.
In addition, dry storage casks are not subject to drainage risks,
whether intentional or accidental.
In addition, on-site storage saves money. DOE's last estimate for
Yucca Mountain, a low ball estimate, was $56 billion. Nevada estimates
$100 billion. Dry cask storage at all sites is estimated to cost, at
the low end, $4.5 billion, up to $10.5 billion, tops. It's important to
remember that 54 of those sites are already built, so future costs are
really $2.25 to $5.25 billion.
My bill requires commercial nuclear utilities to safely transfer
spent nuclear fuel from temporary storage in water-filled pools to
secure storage in licensed, on-site dry cask storage facilities. After
transferal, the Secretary of Energy will take title and full
responsibility for the possession, stewardship, maintenance, and
monitoring of all spent fuel thus safely stored. Finally, our bill
establishes a grant program to compensate utilities for expenses
associated with transferring and securing the waste.
These costs will be offset by withdrawals from the utility-funded
Nuclear Waste Fund. Currently, utilities are suing for reimbursement
for these costs, and winning, from a Department of Justice compensation
fund. The only fiscally prudent path is to pay for spent nuclear fuel
storage with the funds raised to pay for it.
Nuclear facilities currently provide 20 percent of our Nation's
electricity, but in light of the events of September 11, they also
present a security risk that we simply must address. There cannot be
any weak links in the chain of security of our Nation's nuclear power
infrastructure. There is absolutely no justification for endangering
the public by densely packing nuclear waste in vulnerable spent fuel
pools when it can be stored safely and securely in dry casks. My bill
guarantees all Americans that our Nation's nuclear waste will be stored
in the safest way possible.
It should be clear to anyone that the proposed Yucca Mountain
project is scientifically unsound and that it cannot meet the
requirements of law. It is not going anywhere. Delay after delay costs
the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars for a project that the
courts have ruled does not meet sufficient safety or public health
standards. I do not believe that Yucca Mountain will ever open, and
Nevada and the country will be safer for our successful efforts to stop
the project.
But we cannot ignore the fact that nuclear power produces spent
nuclear fuel and must vigorously research ways in which to decrease the
toxicity, longevity and volume of these wastes. Until we have developed
safe, scientific ways to do this, we must securely store our waste. The
experts agree that the safest solution is to remove the fuel from the
spent fuel ponds and to store it on-site in dry cask storage.
I urge my colleagues to support The Spent Fuel On-site Storage and
Security Act of 2006, S. 2099. It's the right solution for the American
people.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.013
Statement of Edward F. Sproat III, Director for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss S. 2589 entitled the
``Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act.'' Enactment of this bill
would significantly enhance the Nation's ability to manage and dispose
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. I thank Senator
Inhofe and Senator Domenici for taking up this critical issue and
introducing the legislation.
Over the last 50 years, our country has benefited greatly from
nuclear energy and the power of the atom. We need to ensure a strong
and diversified energy mix to fuel our Nation's economy, and nuclear
power is an important component of that mix. Currently more than 50,000
metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is located at more than 100 above-
ground sites in 39 States, and every year reactors in the United States
produce an additional approximately 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel. In
order to ensure the future viability of our nuclear generating
capacity, we need a safe, permanent, geologic repository for spent
nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain.
Recently the Department announced its plans to submit a License
Application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) by June 30, 2008, and to initiate repository operations in 2017.
This opening date of 2017 is a ``best-achievable schedule'' and is
predicated upon enactment of the pending legislation. This proposed
legislation addresses many of the uncertainties, currently beyond the
control of the Department, that have the potential to significantly
delay the opening date for the repository. I would like to briefly
summarize the bill's provisions for the committee.
First, the most important factor in moving the Yucca Mountain
Project forward is the ability of the Department to have access to the
Nuclear Waste Fund to ensure adequate funding is available to meet the
requirements necessary to construct and operate a repository. By making
a technical budgetary scoring change, the proposed legislation would
correct a structural budget problem by changing the budgetary treatment
of the Nuclear Waste Fund fee, from mandatory receipts to discretionary
offsetting collections equal to annual appropriations from the fund.
Funding for the Program would still have to be requested by the
President and Congressional appropriations from the Fund would still be
required.
Second, to meet NRC licensing requirements it will also be
necessary for Congress to approve the permanent withdrawal of the lands
needed for the operational area of the repository. The bill would
withdraw permanently from public use approximately 147,000 acres of
land in Nye County, Nevada. The Department is confident that the
permanent withdrawal of land would meet the NRC licensing requirement
for the Yucca Mountain repository and would help assure protection of
public health and the environment.
Third, to promote efficient management and disposal of the current
and projected future inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel
located at reactors throughout the United States, the proposed
legislation would eliminate the current statutory 70,000 metric ton cap
on disposal capacity at Yucca Mountain and allow for maximum use of the
mountain's true technical capacity. By eliminating an artificial
statutory limit and allowing the NRC to evaluate the actual capacity at
Yucca Mountain, this provision would help provide for safe isolation of
the Nation's entire commercial spent nuclear fuel inventory from
existing reactors, including life extensions, and may postpone the need
for a second repository elsewhere until the next century.
In addition, the proposed legislation includes a number of
provisions that would promote prompt consideration of issues associated
with the Yucca Mountain repository or would address other matters that
have the potential to cause delays in moving forward with the Yucca
Mountain Project.
First, the proposed legislation contains provisions that would
provide for a more streamlined NRC licensing process by amending the
licensing process in several respects. In particular, the legislation
would make clear that an application for construction authorization
need not include information on surface facilities other than those
facilities necessary for initial operations. The bill would also
establish an expedited 1-year schedule and a simplified, informal
process for the NRC to consider the license amendment for the
Department to receive and possess nuclear materials as well as for
other future license amendment actions. The bill would also direct that
the NRC, consistent with other provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982, need not consider in its environmental review any actions
taken outside of the geologic repository operations area; this will
help focus the licensing process.
Second, the proposed legislation would permit early initiation of
infrastructure and pre-construction activities at the Yucca Mountain
site for utility, communications, and safety upgrades, and the
construction of a rail line to connect the Yucca Mountain site with the
national rail network prior to receipt of an NRC construction
authorization for the repository. Construction of repository surface
and sub-surface nuclear facilities would still require a construction
authorization from the NRC.
Third, the proposed legislation includes additional provisions that
would simplify the regulatory framework for the repository. In
particular, the legislation would designate the Environmental
Protection Agency as the appropriate agency to issue, administer, and
enforce any air quality permits required in connection with the Yucca
Mountain repository. Material owned, transported and stored in NRC-
licensed containers and NRC-licensed materials at Yucca Mountain would
also be exempt from Federal, State, and local environmental
requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The
intent is to ensure that dual regulatory requirements do not apply to
the same waste streams, once they are ready to be shipped to a
repository for disposal. These provisions would simplify the regulatory
framework for the repository without compromising environmental
protection or safety.
Fourth, the proposed legislation would address the use of water
needed to carry out the authorized functions under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982. This legislation would allow the Department to be
treated like a private business in requesting water access, resulting
in non-discriminatory treatment of the Department. The State of Nevada
would still review and administer water allocation to the Department
under this provision.
Fifth, the proposed legislation would address transportation and
ensure the expedited movement of shipments to Yucca Mountain. In this
regard, the legislation would provide the flexibility for the DOE to
regulate the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste to the repository in the same manner that we currently conduct
transportation of nuclear weapons. The Department has been transporting
such nuclear materials safely for many years. In addressing this issue,
we are not proposing to change in any way our route planning activities
with State, Tribal and local authorities or how we work with them on
emergency planning, training, and education. This provision would
reflect our longstanding commitment to transporting nuclear material in
a manner that meets or exceeds NRC and Department of Transportation
requirements for transportation of comparable material. Likewise, it
would permit continuing our longstanding practice of working with
State, Tribal and local governments, transportation service providers,
and other Federal agencies to utilize their resources and expertise to
the maximum extent practicable.
Finally, the proposed legislation would promote the licensing of
new nuclear facilities by addressing the need for a regulatory
determination of waste confidence by the NRC in connection with
proceedings for those new nuclear facilities. This provision directs
the Commission to deem that sufficient capacity will be available to
dispose of spent nuclear fuel in considering whether to permit the
construction and operation of a nuclear reactor or a related facility.
CONCLUSION
Nuclear power has been demonstrated to be a safe, reliable, and
efficient source of power. Enactment of the proposed legislation is
necessary to allow the Yucca Mountain Project to move forward and to
advance the Nation's energy independence, energy security, and national
security objectives. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you
and the Members of this Committee on this legislation to facilitate the
construction and operation of the repository and to ensure the
continued development of safe, clean, and efficient nuclear power in
this country. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time.
______
Responses by Edward F. Sproat III to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Isn't it more cost-effective for taxpayers to have
commercial nuclear waste transferred to one centralized storage
location, as in the case of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, versus
having multiple storage sites?
Response. Yes, in general it is more cost-effective and practical
to design, license, construct, and operate one storage site.
Question 2. In addition to passing S. 2610 (a bill to enhance the
management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste) and S. 2589, the Nuclear Fuel Management and
Disposal Act, what other legislative actions in addition to those
mentioned at the hearing can Congress take to help expedite the
operation date (2017) for Yucca Mountain as you stated in your
testimony?
Response. S. 2589 contains all the provisions of the
Administration's legislative proposal. S. 2610 contains a subset of the
provisions provided by the Administration. To the extent that
legislation is passed that addresses all the provisions of the
Administration's proposal, the Department does not believe any
additional legislative actions would be necessary to facilitate
commencement of operations by 2017. Commencing operations by this date,
however, will be dependent on a number of other factors, such as the
absence of litigation delays.
Question 3. The third panel witnesses talked extensively about
maintaining flexibility in repository development plans. Do you think
that we should take into account repository development plans that
maintain flexibility for future generations, and do you believe this is
important?
Response. Yes, the Department believes flexibility should be
maintained for future generations and is designing the repository to
provide such flexibility. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
specific regulatory requirements for the design of the Yucca Mountain
repository including the need to demonstrate retrievability of waste
materials for a minimum of 50 years. In addition, the Department
currently plans to provide capability to monitor the high-level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in the repository for up to
300 years.
______
Responses by Edward F. Sproat III to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. Mr. Sproat, as discussed during the hearing, please
provide for the record a detailed information on the Nuclear Waste
Fund, explaining what it is, how much was collected, how much was
spent, how much is there, and whether any of it is committed for
purposes other than originally intended for.
Response. Section 302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorizes
the Nuclear Waste Fund in the U.S. Treasury to consist of all receipts,
proceeds, and recoveries collected by the Department from utilities
under contract with the Government for the disposal of their spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The fees paid by
utilities are deposited quarterly into the Nuclear Waste Fund and
invested in U.S. Treasury securities. By the end of 2005, the Nuclear
Waste Fund had received $14.276 billion from fees and $10.572 billion
from interest earnings. The Department has spent $6.576 billion from
the Nuclear Waste Fund, and the balance of the Fund at the end of 2005
was $18.272 billion. The Government is not authorized to use funds from
the Nuclear Waste Fund for any purpose other than as directed in
section 302(d) and in annual appropriations from the Fund.
Question 2. You discussed briefly about the Federal Government's
financial liability associated with DOE's non-performance on the
existing standard contracts. What are the potential financial
implications for the Government from continued delay in meeting the
Federal obligations to deal with used nuclear fuel?
Response. The amount of damages due utilities is currently a matter
of litigation. The Department, however, has estimated that the
Government's liability could be up to $7 billion if the Yucca Mountain
repository commences operations in 2017. For each year that Yucca
Mountain is delayed beyond 2017, the Government's liability will
increase. For example, the Department has estimated that the
Government's liability could be up to $11 billion if the Yucca Mountain
repository does not commence operations until 2020.
Question 3. If the capacity of Yucca Mountain could be expanded as
suggested by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and advanced
technologies could be deployed to recycle much of the material in used
nuclear fuel, is it possible that Yucca Mountain might be the only
repository the United States will ever need?
Response. The Administration's legislative proposal would repeal
the statutory limit of 70,000 MTU on the amount of high-level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel that can be emplaced in the
Yucca Mountain repository prior to the construction of a second
repository. While the Department has not determined the maximum
physical capacity of the Yucca Mountain site, it believes that, at a
minimum, that the site can contain all the spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste expected to be generated by the current fleet
of commercial reactors throughout their life time as well as all
existing Defense waste. If the statutory limit in the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act is repealed, the Yucca Mountain repository will be the only
repository necessary in the foreseeable future, even without
consideration of potential efficiencies resulting from the introduction
of advanced recycling technologies.
Question 4. Uncertainties about when Yucca Mountain will be
licensed to accept fuel have led to considerable interest in interim
storage options. What authority does DOE currently have for interim
storage?
Response. Under Subtitle C of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the
Department has authority to establish a monitored retrievable storage
(MRS) facility, subject to specific conditions that tie the
construction and operation of an MRS to the construction and operation
of the Yucca Mountain Repository. Given those conditions, the
Department has not pursued the development of an MRS facility since
such a facility could not commence operation appreciably before the
Yucca Mountain repository could begin accepting waste.
Prior to the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(NWPA) DOE had authority and continues to have authority, to accept
spent nuclear fuel in certain circumstances. Section 55 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2075), provides that
``DOE is authorized to the extent it deems necessary to effectuate the
provisions of [the Act] to purchase, . . . take, requisition, condemn
or otherwise acquire any special nuclear material or any interest
therein.'' The authority under the AEA may be exercised to further any
of its purposes including international cooperation and nuclear
nonproliferation, support of research and development in nuclear power,
and management of the U.S. nuclear defense programs. 42 U.S.C. 2111,
2112, 2013, 2051(a) and 2152.
Pursuant to this AEA authority, the Department has accepted and
stored spent nuclear fuel returned from countries where the United
States provided the original nuclear fuel assemblies for another
country's use, under bi-lateral agreements. This is often referred to
as foreign reactor fuel. DOE has also used this authority to accept for
research and development purposes small amounts of spent nuclear fuel
such as parts of the Three Mile Island melted reactor core and other
damaged spent nuclear fuel. DOE also accepted and now owns commercial
spent fuel under arrangements made with utilities prior to the
enactment of the NWPA.
With enactment of the NWPA, Congress provided a detailed statutory
scheme for commercial spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal that, by
its specificity, severely limited the Department's commercial spent
nuclear fuel storage and disposal options.
The NWPA did not affect the Department's authority to accept spent
fuel not covered by the Standard Contract arrangement between utilities
and the Department established in 1983 after the enactment of the NWPA.
However, the NWPA limits DOE'S authority under the AEA to accept spent
nuclear fuel from commercial reactors subject to the Standard Contract
to the situations specified in the NWPA and, in very limited
circumstances, to specific research and development activities that
further the goals of the NWPA. 42 U.S.C. 10199.
Question 5. The House passed FY 2007 Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill included $30 million to initiate the process for
selecting and licensing one or more interim storage sites, subject to
Congress providing necessary statutory authority. Has the Department
considered this proposal? Have you considered what legislative
provisions would be necessary to carry out this direction?
Response. In the absence of a statutory provision such as that
proposed by S. 3962, the ``Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act''
the Department would be limited to carrying out this direction in
conformity with Subtitle C of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
______
Response by Edward F. Sproat III to a Question from Senator Voinovich
During the Hearing
Question. My question is: where does the money come from? It has
not been put into some special investment fund, has it? Or has it?
Response. The annual fees paid by utilities are deposited quarterly
into the Nuclear Waste Fund in the U.S. Treasury; funds are invested in
securities issued by the U.S. Treasury. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act
directed that the repository program be a full-cost recovery program.
The receipts and interest of the Fund are intended to pay for all
Program costs for disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
The Nuclear Waste Fund is managed by the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management. Investment strategies are designed and
managed to provide sufficient access to liquid assets for the near term
while maximizing returns on long-term investments. The Nuclear Waste
Fund is invested in Treasury bills for very short-term Program needs,
Treasury notes and bonds for short and intermediate Program needs, and
Treasury zero-coupon bonds for long-term Program requirements. Treasury
Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are also used for intermediate-
term needs.
The Program's investment strategy is designed to protect against
fluctuations in interest rates and program costs. By matching the
values of Program net spending with investment maturities, the effects
of interest rate changes can be minimized. It is anticipated that the
Program will need funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund for more than 100
years, through the end of the repository operations and eventual
closure.
Enclosed for your information is the 2006 investment portfolio
report which is sorted by investment type and maturity date.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.005
Statement of R. Shane Johnson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Chairman Voinovich, Senator Carper, and members of the
subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the
Department's activities associated with building new nuclear capacity
in the United States and expanding the use of nuclear energy around the
world. As the next generation of nuclear powerplants is designed,
licensed, and constructed, it is certain that these activities will
have near- and long-term resource implications for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). I will defer to Mr. Luis Reyes of the NRC
who I understand is testifying before you today to present those
specific impacts. However, I will present the status and projected
progress of our nuclear programs that will likely form the basis of
these resource requirements.
With dozens of new nuclear plants under construction, planned or
under consideration world-wide, many countries around the world are
clearly moving forward with new nuclear plants. In the United States,
we are nearing completion of the initial phase of preparations for a
new generation of nuclear plants. Through the Nuclear Power 2010
program and incentives contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT 2005), Government and industry are working together to address
regulatory and financial impediments that the first purchasers of new
plants face.
In addition, the Department is committed to addressing the
fundamental research and development issues necessary to establish the
viability of next-generation nuclear energy system concepts.
Successfully addressing the fundamental research and development issues
of Generation IV system concepts that excel in safety, sustainability,
cost-effectiveness and proliferation-resistance will allow these
advanced systems to be considered for future commercial development and
deployment by the private sector. Expectations for the development,
demonstration and design, construction and operation of the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant or NGNP, are clearly outlined in EPACT 2005. A
decision on whether to proceed beyond the current R&D phase will be
made in 2011.
Finally, we are implementing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,
or GNEP, an initiative launched by the Department of Energy in February
of this year. GNEP is a comprehensive approach to increase global
energy security. It will seek the expanded use of nuclear power as a
clean energy resource, while reducing the risk of nuclear
proliferation.
NUCLEAR POWER 2010
The Nuclear Power 2010 program, launched in 2002, addresses the
regulatory and financial uncertainties associated with siting and
building new nuclear plants by working in cost-shared cooperation with
industry to identify sites for new nuclear powerplants, by developing
and bringing advanced standardized plant designs to the market, and by
demonstrating untested regulatory processes. Nuclear Power 2010 is
focused on Generation III+ reactor technologies, which are advanced,
light water reactor designs, offering advancements in safety, security,
and economics over the Generation III designs certified by the NRC in
the 1990s.
The Department is currently sponsoring cooperative projects for
preparation of Early Site Permits (ESP) for three commercial sites. The
ESP process includes resolution of site safety, environmental, and
emergency planning issues in advance of a power company's decision to
build a new nuclear plant. The three ESP applications are currently in
various stages of NRC review, and licensing decisions are expected by
the end of 2007.
In fiscal year 2005, the Department established competitively
selected, cost-shared cooperative agreements with two power company-led
consortia to obtain combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COL).
The Department selected Dominion Energy and NuStart, a consortium of
ten electric generating companies, to conduct the licensing
demonstration projects to obtain NRC licenses and operate a total of
two new nuclear powerplants in the U.S. Dominion is preparing an
application for the North Anna site in Virginia, and NuStart is
preparing an application which will use DOE funding to move a COL
forward on either the Bellefonte site in Alabama or the Grand Gulf site
in Mississippi. The two project teams involved in these two licensing
demonstration projects represent power generation companies that
operate more than two-thirds of all the U.S. nuclear powerplants
producing electricity today. Both consortia are on track to submit COL
applications to the NRC in late 2007. Joint efforts will continue to
complete the necessary design certification steps to support two COL
applications. Industry is planning for issuance of the NRC licenses by
the end of 2010. It is possible that a utility decision to build a new
plant could be announced as early as 2008, with construction starting
in 2010, and a new plant operational by 2014.
Already this approach has encouraged power companies from these
consortia to apply for COLs. Several have specifically stated that they
are building on work being done in the Nuclear Power 2010 program as
the basis for their applications. In addition, UniStar, a consortium of
Constellation, AREVA and Bechtel Power, announced plans to pursue new
nuclear plants. In June, NRG Energy, Inc. also announced plans to
pursue construction of two additional reactors at their two-unit South
Texas Project nuclear power station. Earlier last month, the NRC
indicated that it expects 19 new combined COL applications for 27 new
reactors.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Last year, the President proposed and Congress established the
Standby Support provisions of EPACT 2005 (section 638) to encourage the
construction of new advanced nuclear powerplants in the United States
by addressing regulatory and litigation risks to first ``movers'' of
these new plants. Under section 638, the Secretary can enter into
contracts to insure project sponsors against certain delays that are
outside the control of the sponsors and to provide coverage for up to
six reactors, but for no more than three different advanced reactor
designs. The level of coverage is distinguished between the first
``initial two reactors,'' for which the Secretary will pay 100 percent
of covered costs up to $500 million per contract and ``subsequent four
reactors,'' for which the Secretary will pay 50 percent of covered
costs up to $250 million per contract after an initial 180-day delay.
I am pleased to report that last month, prior to the first year
anniversary of EPACT's enactment, the Department issued the final rule
for the Standby Support program.
EPACT 2005 contains other key provisions aimed at providing
incentives to build new nuclear plants. One of these is the creation of
a production tax credit program for new advanced nuclear generation.
EPACT 2005 (section 1306) permits a taxpayer producing electricity at a
qualified advanced nuclear power facility to claim a credit equal to
1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced for 8 years. The
provision also specifies a national megawatt capacity limitation of
6,000 megawatts for which tax credits could be given. The tax credit is
administered by the Department of Treasury, in consultation with the
Department of Energy. The Treasury Department recently published
guidelines for approving these tax credits, allowing us to move ahead
in this process.
Lastly, EPACT 2005 (Title 17) authorizes the Secretary of Energy to
enter into loan guarantees for projects that avoid, reduce, or
sequester air pollutants or emissions of greenhouse gases and that use
new and significantly advanced energy technologies, including advanced
nuclear powerplants. In August 2006, the DOE published Guidelines for
the Loan Guarantee Program in the Federal Register that specify the
process by which DOE will solicit and review project proposals. Also in
August 2006, DOE issued the first of multiple solicitation
announcements inviting interested parties to submit project proposals.
Although the first solicitation does not address nuclear projects,
utilities interested in building new nuclear powerplants will be
eligible for future loan guarantee solicitations, which will help them
lower the cost of borrowing the substantial up-front capital associated
with these major projects. Combined with delay risk insurance, loan
guarantees will reduce uncertainty and thereby reduce costs of
obtaining investment capital for initial sponsors of new nuclear
plants.
NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR PLANT
EPACT 2005 (sections 641 through 645) establishes expectations for
research, development, design, construction, and operation of a
prototype nuclear plant which will provide electricity and/or hydrogen.
These EPACT provisions establish two distinct phases for the
project. In Phase I, to be completed by 2011, DOE is directed to select
the hydrogen production technology, develop initial reactor design
parameters, and, jointly with the NRC, develop a licensing strategy for
the NGNP. Phase I is the research and planning part of the initiative
and it is the phase in which the Department is currently engaged. EPACT
2005 also directs the Department to complete, as part of Phase II, the
design, licensing and construction of the NGNP by 2021.
This year, we will begin working in earnest with the NRC to develop
a licensing strategy for the technology, which pursuant to EPACT 2005
must be submitted to Congress by August 8, 2008. We have allocated $2
million of our Fiscal Year 2007 budget towards this interagency
collaboration. Licensing a prototype reactor by the NRC and obtaining
certification of the nuclear system design will present a significant
challenge and may be very difficult to accomplish in the timeframe
contemplated. In developing a licensing strategy, DOE and NRC will
examine mechanisms that are best suited for making information
available to support a license application and for evaluating that
information. In addition, the strategy will address staffing resources
needed to support the licensing of both NGNP and new commercial
reactors.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
Partnerships between the U.S. Government, industry, and other
nations can help to increase the use of nuclear power throughout the
world. Cooperation and cost-sharing with other countries is also vital
to ensure that other nations use nuclear power safely and securely.
That is the basis of GNEP launched earlier this year by the Department
and included in President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative. This new
initiative is based on a simple principle: energy and security can go
hand in hand.
GNEP is a comprehensive strategy to lay the foundation for expanded
use of nuclear energy in the United States and the world by
demonstrating and deploying new technologies that recycle nuclear fuel,
significantly reduce waste, and help to address proliferation concerns.
In addition to developing separations, fuel fabrication, and
reactor technologies, we also propose to create an approach which
provides fuel and reactors that are appropriately sized for the energy
requirements of countries in need of nuclear energy. We also seek to
encourage the future provision of fuel from fuel cycle nations in a way
that allows new nations to enjoy the benefits of abundant sources of
clean, safe nuclear energy in exchange for their commitment to forgo
enrichment and reprocessing activities, to help address nuclear
proliferation concerns. We have been working with other advanced
nuclear nations to build consensus on productive approaches, incentives
and safeguards. If we expect countries to forgo fuel cycle activities,
they should be assured a reliable access to fuel which could be backed
by designated supplies, governmental entities, and international bodies
such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Along with promoting the benefits of nuclear energy, one of GNEP's
goals is to develop and demonstrate advanced technologies with enhanced
proliferation-resistance that are incorporated into the processing of
spent nuclear fuel and also to reduce the amount of nuclear wastes
requiring permanent geological disposal.
As you know, the Department is pursuing the development and
deployment of integrated spent fuel recycling facilities in the United
States. These are technologies that do not result in a separated
plutonium stream. Specifically, the Department proposes to develop and
deploy the uranium extraction plus (UREX+) technology to separate the
usable materials contained in spent fuel from the waste products. We
also propose to deploy a fast reactor capable of consuming those usable
products from the spent fuel while producing electricity.
Based on international and private sector response to GNEP, we
believe there may be advanced technologies available to recycle used
nuclear fuel ready for deployment in conjunction with those currently
under development by DOE. In light of this information, DOE is
investigating the feasibility of these advanced recycling technologies
by proceeding with commercial demonstrations of these technologies. The
technology, the scale and the pace of the technology demonstrations
will depend in part on industry's response, including the business
aspects of how to bring technology to full scale implementation.
Last month, DOE issued two requests for Expressions of Interest
from domestic and international industry, seeking to investigate the
interest and capacity of industry to deploy an integrated spent fuel
recycling capability consisting of two facilities:
A Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center, capable of
separating the usable components contained in light water spent fuel
from the waste products;
An Advanced Burner Reactor, capable of consuming those
usable products from the spent fuel while generating electricity;
The Department asked industry to provide input on the scale at
which the technologies should be proven. Ultimately, as in the initial
plan reported to the Congress in May, the Department ultimately seeks
the full commercial-scale operations of these advanced technologies. It
is premature, however, to say exactly what form or size the recycling
facility will take until we analyze important feedback recently
received from industry.
The integrated recycling facilities would include process storage
of spent fuel prior to its recycling, on a scale proportionate to the
scale of recycling operations. A third facility, the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Facility, would be designed and directed through the Department's
national laboratories and would be a modern state-of-the-art fuels
laboratory designed to serve the fuels research needs to support GNEP.
We are now in the process of reviewing industry's response to last
month's request for Expressions of Interest. Based on our limited
review thus far, I can tell you that industry has responded positively
and we look forward to working with industry.
In addition, last month the Department issued a Financial
Assistance Funding Opportunities Announcement, seeking applications by
September 7, 2006, from private and/or public entities interested in
hosting GNEP facilities. Specifically, the Department will award grants
later this fall for site evaluation studies. Congress made $20 million
available [PL 109-474, FY 2006 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill], with a maximum of $5 million available per site.
The information generated from these site evaluation studies may be
used in the preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documentation that will evaluate potential environmental impacts from
each proposed GNEP facility.
Except for those facilities specifically identified in section 202
of the Energy Reorganization Act, DOE regulates facilities which it
operates or that are operated by contractors on DOE's behalf. DOE would
expect that any GNEP facilities be designed, constructed, and operated
in a manner suitable for NRC licensing and the application of IAEA
safeguards, thereby facilitating the eventual commercialization of
advanced recycling technologies.
We view GNEP and the Yucca Mountain repository as complementary
endeavors. Under any scenario, the Yucca Mountain repository will be
needed for legacy commercial spent fuel (that is, spent fuel already
generated or generated in the future for which recycling capacity is
not reasonably available), waste material resulting from recycling, and
DOE spent fuel and defense high level waste.
If successful, GNEP will greatly expand the supply of affordable
nuclear power around the world, while enhancing safeguards that help to
enhance proliferation-resistance and assuring the availability of Yucca
Mountain for generations to come.
CONCLUSION
As I describe in my testimony, the Department has numerous
ambitious and concurrent initiatives underway which pave the way for
the resurgence of nuclear power in the United States and the world.
Each of these initiatives carries with it its own set of licensing
issues and requirements, albeit on varying implementation schedules.
NRC's ability to fulfill their licensing role in a timely and effective
manner is a critical requirement for the successful resurgence of
nuclear power in the United States and around the world.
Thank you. This concludes my formal statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have at this time.
__________
Statement of Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director of Operations, U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's (NRC's) capability to regulate long-term and short-term
spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal. Specifically, I plan to
address some of the national spent fuel management strategies that are
being considered in S. 2589, the ``Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal
Act;'' S. 2610, a bill ``to enhance the management and disposal of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and for other
purposes;'' and section 313 of H.R. 5427, the ``Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2007.'' I also plan to discuss some of
the implications of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
It is important to make clear at the outset that, because of the
NRC's role in the regulation of spent nuclear fuel and the potential
application for a high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, the commission has not taken a position on most of
the provisions in these legislative proposals. Therefore, I would like
to focus on the impact the following proposals would have on the NRC.
INTERIM STORAGE
Spent fuel storage and transportation are and can be accomplished
both safely and securely, consistent with the current regulatory
framework, regardless of the number of sites and their locations. The
NRC has stated in its Waste Confidence Decision that, if necessary,
spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without
significant environmental impact in its spent fuel storage pool or at
either on-site or off-site interim storage facilities for at least 30
years beyond the licensed operational life of the reactor. In general,
the Commission concluded that, if stored properly, spent fuel presents
a low risk to the public during normal operation or under potential
credible accident conditions and can be stored safely in either wet or
dry storage systems without significant environmental impact for at
least 100 years.
It is important to note that the threat of sabotage has always been
a factor in the design and licensing of spent fuel storage facilities.
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the NRC issued
Orders to licensees to implement additional security measures, and
undertook a comprehensive reassessment of the security of commercial
nuclear facilities including those for spent fuel storage. Since 9/11,
NRC has issued Orders to licensees to implement additional security
measures. Dry spent fuel storage casks are robust structures, which are
highly resistant to significant damage, and we are confident that
storage of spent fuel in dry casks remains a safe and secure spent fuel
management strategy. Spent fuel pools are strong structures constructed
of very thick steel-reinforced concrete walls with stainless steel
liners located inside protected areas. The NRC's domestic safeguards
program is focused on physically protecting and controlling spent
nuclear fuel against sabotage, theft, and diversion.
The NRC supports efforts to address interim storage issues in a
timely manner. Nuclear power plants need to increase their spent fuel
storage capacity to support plant operations. In order to maintain
operational capability in the spent fuel pool, including full core off-
load capability, spent fuel must periodically be moved to dry cask
storage. There are currently 43 licensed independent spent fuel storage
installations (ISFSIs), and we expect in the next few years that this
number will grow to over 50, as more power plants contend with filled
spent fuel pools. The 43 current sites have successfully loaded and
stored over 800 casks. An exceptional safety record has been achieved
using dry cask storage technology.
Safety and security are the key elements in a comprehensive spent
fuel management strategy. We must also be cognizant of the need for
efficiency and effectiveness in every element of spent fuel handling,
storage, and transport systems. The NRC believes that instituting
canister and infrastructure standards will make storage and
transportation both safer and easier, facilitating interoperability
among handling and loading activities at different reactors and ISFSIs.
Standards will also improve the ease with which these activities can be
licensed. Canister and infrastructure standards should be developed
with input from industry, taking advantage of lessons learned from
previous designs.
The legislative proposal in H.R. 5427, as approved by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, includes new consolidation and preparation
(CAP) facilities as part of a new national spent fuel management
strategy. This proposal would significantly affect the NRC's spent fuel
storage oversight program and resource needs. Specifically, H.R. 5427
calls for a high number of new storage facilities to be reviewed and
licensed by NRC in a very short time span. Currently, the NRC has
neither the monetary resources nor the necessary employee resources to
support the technical review and adjudication of a large number of
concurrent storage license applications as considered in H.R. 5427.
Also, the timeframes in the draft legislation, which must allow for
license preparation by the applicant, environmental and safety reviews
by NRC and completion of associated hearings before the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, are very short and likely not achievable.
The NRC has reviewed the proposed legislation and believes that the
existing regulatory infrastructure could accommodate the alternative
approaches outlined in H.R. 5427. Although the NRC believes that it may
be able to review and license a large number of new facilities
anticipated in H.R. 5427 concurrently, the following items would be
necessary prerequisites for success: sufficient funding; receipt of
complete, high-quality license applications; and considerably more time
to review and adjudicate the applications. NRC believes that
centralized storage or storage at multiple sites in different locations
can be achieved safely, consistent with our regulatory system. One must
approach spent fuel management as an integrated system, balancing the
very small risks associated with storage and transportation components.
The Commission is open to working with our stakeholders in support of a
systematic and integrated approach that is safe, timely, and efficient.
TRANSPORTATION
The NRC believes that the current, well-established transportation
regulatory system is protective of public health and safety. Spent
nuclear fuel has been safely transported in the United States for more
than 30 years. There has never been an accident involving the
transportation of spent fuel resulting in a radiological release or
death or injury from radiation. The National Academy of Sciences
recently completed a 3-year study that concluded that the radiological
risks of spent fuel transportation are low and well understood and that
the existing regulations are adequate to ensure safety.
Any of the changes to a national spent fuel management strategy
that are being considered (such as in S. 2589, S. 2610, and H.R. 5427)
will involve shipping spent fuel. Federal regulation of spent fuel
transportation is shared by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
and the NRC. Generally, NRC does not regulate the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE's) shipments of radioactive material; however, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires DOE to utilize NRC-certified casks
for spent fuel shipments to a repository and to follow NRC's advance
notification requirements. The Commission has reviewed and certified a
number of package designs which could be used to transport spent fuel.
Provisions of S. 2589, S. 2610, and H.R. 5427 may affect the
transportation roles of DOE and DOT, but do not appear to affect the
NRC role to certify casks as specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Section 313(c) of H.R. 5427 calls for licensing of DOE's spent fuel
shipments by NRC and DOT. This means that NRC's physical protection
requirements would be applicable to all of the DOE's shipments of spent
nuclear fuel, and to this extent H.R. 5427 will increase NRC's
responsibilities.
The NRC believes that the existing transportation regulatory
infrastructure can accommodate the various legislative actions being
considered. The transportation aspects of the various options and
facilities do not present new or inherently different technical
challenges. New transportation packages will need to be designed and
certified to address: DOE initiatives on transport, aging, and disposal
canisters; new types of spent fuel; or existing spent fuel that is not
covered by current designs. As with the other topics addressed in this
testimony, the NRC's ability to complete this work will depend upon
sufficient appropriations and the submittal of complete, high quality
applications.
DISPOSAL
The NRC understands the importance of addressing disposal of high-
level radioactive waste in a manner that is both safe and timely. The
NRC has a record of moving responsibly and promptly to meet its
obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. To prepare for
conducting an independent safety review of a Yucca Mountain
application, the Commission continues to conduct pre-license
application activities aimed at providing guidance so that DOE can
provide a high quality application. NRC is confident that we will be
ready to receive an application if submitted in 2008 as is currently
proposed by DOE. We are also confident that we will reach a timely
decision on the application provided that the application is complete
and of high-quality.
The NRC offers the following comments on provisions in the proposed
legislation, S. 2610, that could affect the timing of the NRC's review
of a DOE application for an authorization to receive and possess spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. The
proposed legislation would require the NRC to reach a final decision on
receipt and possession within one year (with the possibility of a 6-
month extension). This proposed requirement does not give the NRC
sufficient time to complete its necessary proceedings. First, the NRC
cannot complete both its safety review and the adjudicatory proceeding
in 1 year. In particular, NRC will need to conduct a hearing. Even
under the informal hearing process proposed in S. 2610, the NRC would
need to adjudicate issues raised by participants that are admitted as
contentious by the licensing board. It is difficult to predict the
amount of time it will take to complete the review and adjudicate
issues in controversy without knowing the scope and number of issues
that will require adjudication as well as the number of parties
involved. Second, the proposed legislation's provision regarding
surface facilities could be read to provide for staged consideration of
surface facilities. In this case, the NRC would review certain
facilities during the construction authorization phase and other
facilities during the later receipt and possession phase. Facilities
that otherwise could have been reviewed in the construction
authorization phase might be shifted to the receipt and possession
phase, increasing the scope of review for that phase despite the
reduced time allowed for that review.
S. 2589 and S. 2610 also contain a provision requiring the NRC, in
deciding whether to permit the construction or operation of a nuclear
reactor or any related facilities, to deem, without further
consideration, that sufficient capacity will be available in a timely
manner to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste. H.R. 5427 contains a similar provision. The NRC does not object
to these provisions of the legislation.
THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
I would like to turn now to another facet of integrated high-level
radioactive waste management, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). The NRC has been meeting regularly with DOE to keep informed of
and discern the NRC's role in the GNEP program as it unfolds. The DOE
recently announced its interest in partnering with private industry in
the development and deployment of a spent fuel separations/fuel
fabrication facility (called the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center
(Center)) and an Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR). The DOE has indicated
that its goals are to have the Center operational in 2018 and the ABR
operational in 2020.
If the Center is considered to be a commercial facility, rather
than a DOE facility, and if the ABR is a commercial facility or a
demonstration reactor of the type described in section 202(2) of the
Energy Reorganization Act, it will require the NRC to be involved in
GNEP much sooner than originally expected. DOE had previously planned
to operate smaller scale demonstration facilities prior to developing
commercial scale facilities. If the NRC is to have licensing
responsibilities, and the Center and ABR are to be completed and ready
for operation according to DOE's schedule, the NRC could receive a
Center application as early as 2009 or 2010. To that end, the NRC must
make changes now to ensure that our regulations and guidance documents
provide appropriate stability and predictability in our regulatory
reviews.
Existing NRC regulations have been tailored over the years to be
efficient for licensing the technologies commonly used in the United
States (e.g., light-water reactors, uranium fuel facilities). Although
these regulations could be used to license both the Center and the ABR,
both reprocessing and advanced burner technologies (such as liquid
metal-cooled reactors) have significantly different safety and
technical considerations than light-water reactors. To facilitate the
technical review and ensure a timely licensing process for these new
technologies, NRC will need to revise existing regulations or develop
new regulations and associated guidance documents.
In preparing to license these facilities and new technologies, NRC
would need to begin recruiting for new employees, while developing
expertise among existing staff in separations and advanced reactor
technologies. This is no small task given the limited number of
qualified individuals in this field and the significant hiring efforts
already being undertaken by the NRC to meet its obligations related to
new reactor applications.
Sufficient funding is needed to support regulatory infrastructure
activities and increased staffing for GNEP. Funding for the NRC to
develop the regulatory infrastructure for the Center and ABR in FY 2007
should be provided from the General Fund, because currently there are
no licensees to support fee-recovery of the funds and because the NRC
cannot be reimbursed for licensing activities that it is required to do
by statute.
CONCLUSION
The NRC fully understands the importance of addressing the storage,
transportation and disposal of high-level radioactive waste in a
systematic and integrated manner that is safe, timely, and efficient.
We would urge the Congress to assure that sufficient appropriations be
made available to adequately fund regulatory infrastructure activities
and increased staffing prior to the receipt of license applications
initiating licensing activities. Provided sufficient resources and
staffing levels are maintained and appropriate time is given to the
Agency to conduct the necessary technical reviews and adjudications, we
believe that we can reach decisions on the relevant applications in a
timely fashion, assuming high-quality license applications are
received.
On behalf of the Commission, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today and look forward to working with you on this legislation.
______
Response by Luis A. Reyes to an Additional Question from Senator Inhofe
Question. Mr. Reyes stated that the NRC is prepared to receive 19
Combined Construction and Operation License (COLs) applications between
2007 and 2009. The projected number of COL applications has increased
from about 12 to 19 in the space of 6 months. As of June, 2006 NRC
staff informed my staff that the NRC planned on reviewing 2 COL
applications, completing one design certification and completing five
Early Site Permits (ESPs) in Fiscal year 2007 (this includes the $40
million expected in the Fiscal year 2007 Appropriation Bill). Given the
already ambitious schedule for Fiscal Year 2007, could you please
provide us with your budget projects for Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal
Year 2009 addressing any additional resources that might be needed to
address the increase in COL applications?
Response. Currently, the nuclear industry has indicated that it
expects to submit at least 20 combined license applications to the NRC
during FY 2008 and FY 2009. Our budget was developed with the
assumption that the first 13 of these applications will arrive in FY
2008. In addition to beginning the review of these 13 COL applications
in FY 2008, the NRC expects to review three early site permit
applications and two standard design certification applications. The
NRC's FY 2007 appropriation, as approved by the House of
Representatives in H.R. 5427, includes $133 million for new reactor
licensing activities. Our preliminary estimate for new reactor
licensing activities in FY 2008 is $230-$250 million. At this time the
FY 2009 resource estimate for new reactor licensing activities is
expected to remain relatively level with the FY 2008 resource estimate,
or increase slightly depending on the timing and the number of new
applications submitted for review.
______
Responses by Luis A. Reyes to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Several pending pieces of legislation include waste
confidence provisions. In your testimony you state that the NRC would
not object if Congress acted to deem that sufficient capacity would
exist in a timely fashion to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, or
other proposed sites. Is it correct that the NRC has made this
determination before in other cases, such as the proposed private fuel
storage facility in Utah?
Response. The NRC made its current waste confidence determination
by rule in 1990, and confirmed the rule in 1999. The determination,
which is codified in 10 CFR 51.23, applies to licensing and license
amendment determinations made with regard to reactors and initial
licensing and license amendment determinations made with regard to
independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs). Therefore, it
has been applied by the NRC to several licensing cases, including, for
example, that for the ISFSI at the Humbolt Bay nuclear power plant. In
the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) case, NRC cited the waste confidence
rule in the final environmental impact statement and elsewhere, in
considering whether spent fuel would remain at the PFS site
indefinitely; in PFS, however, NRC did not need to rely on the waste
confidence rule because utilities' contracts with PFS require them to
take back their spent fuel before the PFS license is terminated.
NRC understands that several pending pieces of legislation would
direct the NRC to deem, without further consideration, that sufficient
capacity will be available in a timely manner to dispose of the spent
fuel and high-level waste from the operation of new reactors and
ISFSIs. As we stated in our response to Senator Bingaman's post-hearing
question from the August 3, 2006, hearing before the Senate Committee
on Energy and National Resources on ``S. 2589, the Nuclear Fuel
Management and Disposal Act,'' such legislation is consistent with the
NRC's current position that it has confidence that spent fuel and high-
level waste produced by nuclear facilities can be both safely disposed
of and safely stored until a permanent geologic repository is
available. Spent fuel is being managed safely today and the NRC has
every expectation that it can be and will be managed safely in the
future with at least the same level of protection. Therefore, given
that Congress has the authority to impose limits on environmental
reviews, and the Commission has confidence in the future safety of
stored spent fuel, the NRC has no objection to such waste confidence
provisions in pending legislation.
Question 2. If Congress acts to set waste confidence, I want to
understand the effect on the Commission. The NRC has invested resources
to make these decisions. If Congress acts to remove this NRC decision
making responsibility, what is effect on NRC resources, personnel, and
Commission's workload?
Response. If waste confidence were to be established by statute,
the effect on the Commission's resources would depend upon whether
there is any further need for the Commission to revisit its 1990 waste
confidence findings. In 1999, the Commission stated that it would
consider undertaking a comprehensive reevaluation of the waste
confidence findings only when the impending repository development and
regulatory activities run their course or if significant and pertinent
unexpected events occur, raising substantial doubt about the continuing
validity of the waste confidence findings. If Congress does not set
waste confidence, this is a decision that the Commission could again
address as it has before in 1984 and 1990. The agency has not budgeted
resources to reevaluate its waste confidence decision. The resources
needed for such an undertaking would likely be equivalent to those
needed for a major rulemaking (approximately four full-time equivalent
employees and $75,000 per year over a 2-year period).
Question 3. If Congress did not set waste confidence, is this a
decision that the Commission could continue to make as it has before?
Response. If waste confidence were to be established by statute,
the effect on the Commission's resources would depend upon whether
there is any further need for the Commission to revisit its 1990 waste
confidence findings. In 1999, the Commission stated that it would
consider undertaking a comprehensive reevaluation of the waste
confidence findings only when the impending repository development and
regulatory activities run their course or if significant and pertinent
unexpected events occur, raising substantial doubt about the continuing
validity of the waste confidence findings. The resources needed for
such an undertaking would likely be equivalent to those needed for a
major rulemaking. If Congress does not set waste confidence, this is a
decision that the Commission could again address as it has before in
1984 and 1990.
Question 4. I want to make certain I understood a point you made in
your testimony. You stated that the NRC has reviewed the interim
storage language in the 2007 Senate Energy and Water Appropriations
bill. You also said that the existing regulatory infrastructure is
sufficient to implement that language should it become law. So the
rules don't need to be modified, but you would still need additional
people, sufficient funds, and time to implement this change if it
became law?
Response. The NRC has the trained staff, regulatory infrastructure,
and guidance to review license applications for spent fuel stored away
from reactors in an independent spent fuel storage installation
(ISFSI). Currently, the NRC's approved budget for fiscal year 2007 does
not provide the monetary resources or the necessary employee resources
to support the technical review and adjudication of a large number of
concurrent storage license applications as considered in H.R. 5427.
Thus, a sudden influx of a large number of new applications for ISFSIs
could not be handled without a supplemental appropriation for
additional staff and resources. Additional time would also be
necessary.
Question 5. Is it also the case that the NRC does not have capacity
to evaluate commercial reprocessing plants and does not have an
approved storage container for reprocessing waste?
Response. Yes, to conduct an efficient and effective licensing
review of commercial reprocessing plants, the NRC would need to hire
additional specialized staff and modify its regulations.
The NRC regulations that would apply to a reprocessing facility are
the same regulations that were used for licensing reactors decades ago.
They would not necessarily address all commercial reprocessing facility
safety issues and, conversely, are likely to contain requirements that
are not applicable to a reprocessing facility. Consequently, licensing
of a commercial reprocessing facility under these regulations would
present significant challenges to the applicant and to the NRC.
The NRC has a limited number of people who have experience in the
licensing of reprocessing facilities, either with the NRC or based on
previous work in industry. In addition, the NRC has recent applicable
licensing experience with technologies that are similar to the types of
recycling processes under consideration for Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP) (e.g., UREX+ or COEX processes). However, we still
need additional expertise in several specialty fields in order to
conduct an efficient review of these advanced technologies. For
example, NRC needs chemical engineers with a detailed knowledge of
reprocessing, actinide chemists, and nuclear engineers. The NRC has
already started looking for this type of experience in making hiring
decisions for open positions and have identified some strong
candidates. In addition, the NRC has knowledge management efforts
underway that will help transfer applicable knowledge from the experts
we do have in these areas to the less experienced staff.
The NRC has not approved any storage containers for reprocessing
waste. The NRC has approved storage containers for spent nuclear fuel
and irradiated materials generated by operating nuclear power plants.
______
Response by Luis A. Reyes to an Additional Question
from Senator Voinovich
Question. In his testimony, Mr. Sproat of DOE stated that he is
highly confident that DOE will have a high-quality, docketable license
application for Yucca Mountain repository submitted to the NRC no later
than June 30, 2008. For the record, can you assure this Committee that
the NRC is equally confident in meeting the statutory deadline for
completing its licensing proceeding for Yucca Mountain?
Response. Provided adequate resources are available, NRC is highly
confident that it can meet its statutory obligations concerning the
length of time it has to review a license application. The licensing
procedure's schedule, however, will rely heavily upon receiving a
complete, high-quality application from DOE. Also, as in any license
application review and associated hearings, unanticipated events could
result in delays. For example, submission of additional information,
changes to the license application, and the number and type of
contentions admitted to the hearings could all impact the review and
hearing schedule. A complete, high-quality application would minimize
the impact of these types of issues on schedule and budget, and we
would make every effort but there is no way to give assurance on how
these issues will affect the ability for NRC to meet its statutory
deadline.
__________
Statement of Admiral Frank L. ``Skip'' Bowman, U.S.N. (Retired),
President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the
subcommittee, I am Admiral Frank L. ``Skip'' Bowman, U.S. Navy
(retired). I serve as president and chief executive officer of the
Nuclear Energy Institute. Thank you for this opportunity to express the
nuclear energy industry's views on legislation to address the
management of used nuclear fuel, and in particular the role of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush affirmed the
Nation's commitment to ``safe, clean nuclear energy'' as part of a
diverse portfolio that will meet America's future electricity needs. A
long-term commitment to nuclear energy will make the United States more
energy independent and ensure the diversity of our energy sources. We
appreciate the leadership of this subcommittee in continued strong
oversight of the NRC and its key role in enacting the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. This legislation encourages diversity of energy sources,
including such emission-free sources of electricity as nuclear energy.
SUMMARY
I will focus my testimony on the following key issues:
First, The Department of Energy (DOE) must make visible
and measurable progress in implementing an integrated national used
nuclear fuel management strategy. The Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
repository is a critical component of any such integrated strategy.
This progress will help ensure that the expanded use of nuclear energy
will play a crucial role in our Nation's strategy for meeting growing
electricity demand.
Second, S. 2610 can play a key role in addressing the
challenges facing the DOE and NRC on the Yucca Mountain project, as
well as help set the stage for new nuclear plants.
Third, Congress must take additional actions (beyond S.
2610) to support the removal of used fuel from commercial nuclear plant
sites as soon as possible, together with steps to accelerate
development of new technological approaches that would substantially
benefit disposition strategies. In formulating this policy, the
Administration and Congress must consider potential impacts on NRC in
terms of resources and capability, and make sure they don't detract
from the Agency's current effort in the new reactor licensing arena.
nuclear energy must play a key role in our nation's energy future
The Nation's energy portfolio must include clean, reliable and
affordable energy sources available today, such as nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy offers several unique advantages. It is the only
expandable base load energy source that does not emit carbon or other
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere during operation. Nuclear energy
safely and reliably provides price stability for electricity customers
as the prices for fossil fuels fluctuate. It also provides exciting new
opportunities in areas such as hydrogen production and plug-in hybrid
automobiles. Although our Nation must continue to employ a mix of fuel
sources for generating electricity, we believe it is important that
nuclear energy maintain at least its current 20 percent contribution to
U.S. electricity production. Maintaining that level of production will
require construction of a significant number of new nuclear plants
beginning in the next decade. There is strong, bipartisan support for a
continuing significant role for nuclear power. More than two thirds of
the public supports keeping nuclear energy as a key component of our
energy portfolio. Many in the environmental community recognize and
endorse the role that nuclear energy can play in controlling greenhouse
gas emissions.
Recently, a new coalition of organizations and individuals has been
formed to educate the public on nuclear energy and participate in
policy discussions on U.S. energy issues. The Clean and Safe Energy
coalition--co-chaired by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore and former
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and New Jersey Governor
Christine Todd Whitman--includes business, environmental, labor, health
and community leaders among its more than 200 members.
PROGRESS MUST BE MADE ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Although the industry shares the frustration of many members of
Congress with the pace of progress on the Yucca Mountain repository
program, we are encouraged by the leadership and management recently
provided to the program by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Deputy
Secretary Clay Sell and new Director of the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management Edward Sproat.
They are leading the transition from a purely scientific program,
focused on site characterization and site approval at Yucca Mountain,
to one that is preparing to enter a rigorous Nuclear Regulatory
Commission licensing process. DOE is also adopting industry best
practices to ensure that it will submit a high-quality application to
the NRC. It plans to include in this application a revised surface
facility design that will handle fuel in standardized multipurpose
canisters. Using multipurpose transportation, aging and disposal (TAD)
canisters in combination with associated surface facilities will reduce
the need to handle used fuel at Yucca Mountain and increase safety. It
is important that DOE complete these efforts, file a high-quality
repository license application in a timely manner and, ultimately,
complete the transition to a design, engineering and construction
project.
The nuclear industry is encouraged by the ambitious schedule
announced by the department on July 19 for submission of the license
application by June 30, 2008, and the ``best-achievable'' construction
schedule that could have the repository begin receipt of used fuel in
March 2017. The industry encourages DOE to submit the application as
soon as possible to facilitate an expeditious NRC review.
Although we welcome the department's determination to meet this
``best-achievable'' schedule, it is important to recognize that it
depends on several factors, most of which are outside the department's
direct control. These include:
congressional appropriations consistent with
administration requests;
an NRC construction authorization decision consistent with
the timelines contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; NRC must be
provided with the necessary resources and appropriate management focus
to meet these timelines, while also considering license applications
for new nuclear plants and potential fuel cycle facilities. We are
confident that this Committee will provide the oversight and direction
to see that this can be accomplished.
the length and outcome of any derivative litigation;
obtaining any necessary Federal or State authorizations or
permits for the repository and the transportation system;
the department's achieving a nuclear culture consistent
with that required of any successful NRC licensee; and, critically,
enactment of the Nuclear Fuel Management Disposal Act.
Failure to take legislative action will seriously jeopardize
progress toward managing the country's used fuel. Delays in some cases
will prevent the repository's operation by 2017.
S. 2610 SUPPORTS NUCLEAR POWER'S FUTURE ROLE IN OUR NATIONAL
ENERGY STRATEGY
The industry strongly supports S. 2610, since it includes those
provisions of the comprehensive legislative proposal submitted by the
Administration that relate to issues within this committee's
jurisdiction. These provisions should be enacted along with many of the
additional provisions in S. 2589, which Chairman Inhofe introduced
along with Chairman Domenici of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. Industry representatives previously have testified in detail
on the provisions of S. 2589, including land withdrawal, changes in the
regulatory process and the budget treatment of the Nuclear Waste Fund.
We also identified the need to address contract provisions related to
used fuel for new nuclear plants.
Waste Confidence Is Affirmed
The Nation must be confident that policies are in place to ensure
the safe, secure storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel byproducts.
This waste confidence determination is reflected in NRC rules requiring
an NRC finding of ``waste confidence'' to support various licensing
actions. However, such an approach creates uncertainty because NRC
regulations and licensing decisions are subject to litigation, and the
issue is one of public policy, not regulatory or technical
determination.
Managing the Nation's used fuel is a firmly established Federal
obligation and, as such, is a matter of broad national policy under the
purview of the elected representatives of our country's people. There
is solid scientific and technical justification to affirm waste
confidence. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed four
decades of international scientific consensus that geologic disposal is
the best method for managing used nuclear fuel. Congress approved a
geologic disposal site at Yucca Mountain in 2002.
In the Energy Policy Act, Congress included provisions that
encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants, demonstrating
public policy confidence in the Nation's ability to manage used reactor
fuel in the future. In addition, the Energy Department has safely
operated a geologic disposal site for transuranic radioactive waste
near Carlsbad, New Mexico, and 34 temporary dry-cask storage facilities
for used nuclear fuel have been licensed at nuclear power plants. The
first such facility has been operating since 1986. Congress should
codify ``waste confidence'' as called for in S. 2589 so that the NRC
need not address this broad public policy matter as a routine
regulatory matter.
Artificial Constraints on Repository Operations Are Eliminated
Currently, there is an artificial limit of 70,000 metric tons (MT)
on the amount of nuclear waste materials that can be accepted at Yucca
Mountain. The Environmental Impact Statement for the project analyzed
emplacement of up to 105,000 MT of commercial nuclear waste products in
the repository. Additional scientific analyses suggest significantly
higher capacity easily could be achieved with changes in the repository
configuration that use only geology that already has been characterized
and do not deviate from existing design parameters. Advanced nuclear
fuel cycle technologies could provide significant additional capacity
for disposing of waste products in Yucca Mountain.
Decisions on licensing and operation of a deep geologic repository
at Yucca Mountain should be based on scientific and engineering
considerations through DOE technical analyses and the NRC licensing
process, not on artificial, political constraints. Given the decades of
study and the billions of dollars invested in Yucca Mountain, it makes
sense that we fully and safely utilize its full potential capacity,
rather than developing multiple repositories when there is no technical
reason to do so. S. 2610 will allow the Nation to do just that by
lifting the artificial 70,000 MT capacity limit.
Clarity and Stability in the Licensing Process Are Enhanced
The NRC repository licensing process should be restructured to
ensure that the proceedings are managed effectively, as called for in
the legislation. First, there must be a reasonable, but finite,
schedule for review of the authority to ``receive and possess'' fuel
that would follow approval of the construction license. This would be
consistent with an established schedule for the initial review of the
construction license application and could avoid dilatory procedural
challenges that would undermine the Government's ability to meet its
contractual obligations and avoid the significant costs of delay.
Second, clarification must be provided as to what activities are
authorized to develop used fuel management infrastructure prior to the
NRC's granting a construction license, including the construction of a
rail line to connect the Yucca Mountain site with the national rail
network. Regulatory authority for the transportation system needs to be
clarified as well.
Third, the hearing process for the authorization to receive and
possess fuel should be simplified to provide for clear and concise
decision making.
This disciplined approach to the licensing process is wholly
consistent with the regulatory approach developed over the past several
years by the NRC to license other nuclear facilities.
Environmental Reviews Are Appropriately Focused
The legislation takes into account the unprecedented scope and
duration of environmental reviews that will accompany the construction
licensing process for the Yucca Mountain facility. It appropriately
separates those non-nuclear issues related to infrastructure support
activities from repository licensing and operations.
The legislation also recognizes the stringent standards that will
apply to the repository with respect to release of radioactive
materials and the nature of the materials involved. These standards
preclude the need to apply additional measures to protect public health
and the environment. In effect, no compelling reason exists for
imposing additional review requirements under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.
Finally, the legislation seeks to avoid the issuance of duplicative
air-quality permits; it provides exclusive jurisdiction on this issue
to the Environmental Protection Agency. It also affirms that the
project is in the public interest and directs that the State of Nevada
consider water permits on that basis.
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS BEYOND S. 2610 ARE NEEDED
In addition to S. 2610's provisions, we encourage Congress to
direct DOE to incorporate features into its repository development
plans that maintain flexibility for future generations to make informed
decisions based on operational experience, changing energy economics
and technological developments. It should be made clear that it is the
intent that the repository design retains the ability to monitor and,
if needed or desired, retrieve the used fuel.
The nuclear energy industry supports enhancements to the Yucca
Mountain repository that would provide greater long-term assurance of
safety and permit DOE to apply innovative technology at the repository
as it is developed. These enhancements include:
extensive monitoring of the used nuclear fuel placed in
the repository and its effects on the surrounding geology for 300 or
more years;
the ability to retrieve used nuclear fuel from the
facility for this extended period; and
periodic future reviews of updates to the repository
license that take into account monitoring results and ensure that the
facility is operating as designed.
DOE already has committed to facilitate the use of these elements
in its repository planning. According to the department's final
Environmental Impact Statement, for a period of 50 to 300 years, the
Federal Government will ``collect, evaluate and report on data'' to
assess the performance of the repository and the ability to retrieve
the used fuel within the facility, if desired. In addition to
monitoring material within the facility, DOE will conduct tests and
analyses to ensure that the repository is constructed and operated
according to strict guidelines. Although DOE is pursuing these
elements, congressional direction on the proposed enhancements would
provide greater certainty on the scientific and regulatory oversight of
long-term repository operation and the condition of the material stored
there.
Doing so would require no modification to the existing Federal
statutory or regulatory framework. The Energy Department could include
these enhancements as part of its ``receive and possess'' application
and the commitment to complete them should be incorporated as a
condition of the NRC license.
This direction will offer greater assurance to the public that
long-term stewardship of used fuel at Yucca Mountain will be carefully
monitored throughout repository operation. It also would allow DOE to
take advantage of future technological innovations to improve the
repository or provide for the potential reuse of the energy that
remains in the fuel.
DOE SHOULD MOVE USED NUCLEAR FUEL FROM REACTOR SITES AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE
Let me now turn to the issue of potential interim storage of used
nuclear fuel prior to, or in parallel with, licensing and operation of
Yucca Mountain. A number of proposals have been put forward in the past
several months on this issue including:
Section 313 of the fiscal 2007 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, as reported by the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, that would establish State or regional
storage sites;
report language included in the House-passed version of
this legislation directing the secretary of energy to develop plans for
interim storage potentially associated with nuclear fuel recycling
facilities;
S. 2099 introduced by Senator Reid and others that would
indefinitely retain used nuclear fuel at reactor sites; and
a Funding Availability Opportunity solicitation from DOE
for localities interested in hosting recycling facilities that would
include interim storage of used nuclear fuel.
The industry's top priority is for the Federal Government to meet
its statutory and contractual obligation to move used fuel away from
operating and decommissioned reactor sites. The Government already is 8
years in arrears in meeting this obligation, and it will be at least
another decade before the repository is completed. That failure is the
subject of more than 60 lawsuits. Three of these suits, representing
only a fraction of the reactor sites, have resulted in settlements or
judgments against the Federal Government totaling $340 million for
costs incurred.
Further delays in Federal receipt and movement of used nuclear fuel
and defense waste products could cost taxpayers more than $1 billion
per year in life-cycle costs for defense waste sites, operating costs
at utilities and Yucca Mountain fixed costs, exclusive of litigation
damages already incurred, according to DOE.
While DOE moves forward to license, construct and operate the Yucca
Mountain repository, the Government must take title to used fuel and
move it to secure Federal facilities as soon as practicable. The
industry believes that consolidation and storage of used nuclear fuel
on an interim basis can provide significant benefits in cost, system
integration, synergy with recycling/reprocessing technology development
and instill public confidence in the Federal waste management program.
CONGRESS SHOULD ENHANCE THE GOVERNMENT'S USED FUEL STEWARDSHIP
In order to fully realize the benefits of nuclear power, and to
address legitimate questions in the Government's used fuel stewardship,
the United States must have a credible, long-term program to manage
used nuclear fuel. This program should integrate a number of essential
components, including:
1. the centralized disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, NV;
2. advanced proliferation-proof, fuel processing and fuel
fabrication facilities and advanced reactors designed to extract the
maximum possible energy from used nuclear fuel, and reduce the
radiotoxicity and volume of the waste by-products requiring permanent
isolation in the repository, and
3. interim storage facilities until the centralized disposal
facility is operational, co-located with the advanced fuel processing
and recycling facilities.
Used nuclear fuel is stored safely today at nuclear plant sites,
either in pool storage or in dry casks.
That said, however, it is absolutely essential to public and State
policymaker confidence that the Federal Government identify and develop
sites for centralized interim storage, ideally linked to future
reprocessing facilities, and begin the process of moving used nuclear
fuel to these interim storage facilities. Further delays in Federal
receipt and movement of used nuclear fuel and defense waste products
could cost taxpayers over $1 billion per year.
The industry believes that consolidation and storage of used
nuclear fuel on a temporary basis can provide significant benefits in
cost, system integration, synergy with recycling/reprocessing
technology development and confidence in the Federal waste management
program.
The nuclear energy industry believes that the best approach would
be for the Federal Government to begin to move fuel to Nevada now,
close to the planned repository.
In addition, we urge Congress to evaluate alternative interim
storage proposals. We recommend the following principles:
Minimize the number of interim storage sites to reduce
costs and maximize efficiencies of consolidation.
Provide host site benefits, ideally linking interim
storage to recycling/reprocessing technology development, as an
incentive for voluntary participation.
Recognize that while the Nuclear Waste fund could be used
to pay for this interim storage, it should not be used to develop the
complementary technology development.
NRC must be provided with the necessary resources and
appropriate management focus.
It appears to us that one or two interim storage sites that provide
benefits desired by the host State and community are the appropriate
approach. We are encouraged that DOE has advised Congress, in its
solicitation for prospective sites for nuclear fuel recycling
facilities, that some interim storage of used nuclear fuel will be
necessary. Several communities have expressed initial interest in
participating in such a project. We believe Congress should work with
DOE, industry and potential host sites to determine the steps needed to
facilitate the movement of used fuel from utility sites and incorporate
appropriate provisions into the proposed legislation.
The industry does not believe that the approach suggested in S.
2099 by any measure meets the Government's statutory obligation to
dispose of used nuclear fuel. In reality, S. 2099 provides no benefit;
it dictates immediate movement of all used fuel at reactor sites into
dry storage a move that could add as much as $800 million a year over 5
years to the cost of producing nuclear energy. In effect, no used fuel
moves off nuclear plant sites.
NEW CONTRACTS FOR DISPOSAL OF SPENT FUEL ARE REQUIRED
As utilities prepare to license and build new nuclear power plants,
it is essential that appropriate new contracts for disposal of spent
nuclear fuel between utilities and DOE be in place, reflecting
developments since these contracts were originally drafted in the
1980s. For example, the 1998 acceptance date in the existing contracts
must be revised in contracts executed for new plants to account for the
future dates of operation of new plants.
CONGRESS SHOULD LEGISLATE AN APPROPRIATE DISPOSAL STANDARD FOR
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
The previously issued EPA disposal standard of 10,000 years was
appropriately protective of public health and safety and was consistent
with other hazardous material regulation in the United States. This
standard was remanded by court finding on a technicality. Congress
should legislate the appropriate 10,000 year standard.
USED NUCLEAR FUEL RECYCLING
Finally, let me address the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
program. The nuclear energy industry strongly supports research and
development of advanced fuel cycle technologies incorporated in the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). In anticipation of a major
expansion of nuclear power in the United States and globally, it is
appropriate to accelerate activities in this program. However,
regardless of the success of AFCI technology, a repository will be
necessary to handle defense wastes and commercial used nuclear fuel and
waste byproducts. This will be the case regardless of any new fuel
cycle ultimately developed.
President Bush has presented a compelling vision for a global
nuclear renaissance through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). This initiative provides an important framework to satisfy U.S.
and world needs for an abundant source of clean, safe nuclear energy
while addressing challenges related to fuel supply, long-term
radioactive waste management and proliferation concerns. As recently
introduced by DOE, it may be possible that currently available
technologies could be used creatively to jump-start the development of
the needed advanced nuclear fuel cycle technologies.
We appreciate the steps that DOE has taken to solicit industry
views on the timing, direction and defining roles of interested parties
in GNEP. The expressions of interest that DOE received last week will
help the department and Congress make more informed decisions on the
best way to proceed with research and development of these
technologies. NEI, in its expression of interest, said it fully
supports the technologies underlying GNEP and encourages the department
to proceed with research, development and deployment of the
consolidated fuel treatment center and the advanced burner reactor.
We recognize that Congress has important questions regarding this
program. In particular, special attention needs to be given to how
facilities would be licensed and the potential impact this could have
on the NRC's resources for major licensing actions on new plants and
Yucca Mountain in parallel time periods.
DOE's near-term focus for GNEP is to determine, by 2008, how to
proceed with demonstration of advanced recycling technologies and other
technological challenges. Consequently, the industry fully supports
increased funding for AFCI in fiscal 2007. However, monies collected
for the Nuclear Waste Fund should not be used, and it must be
recognized that neither AFCI nor GNEP reduces the near-term imperative
to develop the Yucca Mountain repository.
CONCLUSION
We must never lose sight of the Federal Government's statutory
responsibility for civilian used nuclear fuel disposal, as stated by
Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982. The industry fully supports the fundamental need for a
repository so used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of the Nation's
nuclear weapons program are safely and securely managed in a specially
designed, underground facility. World-class science has demonstrated
that Yucca Mountain is an eminently suitable site for such a facility.
A viable used fuel management strategy is necessary to retain long-
term public confidence in operating existing nuclear power plants and
to build new nuclear power plants to meet our Nation's growing
electricity needs and fuel our economic growth. The public confidence
necessary to support construction of new nuclear plants is linked to
successful implementation of an integrated national used fuel policy,
which includes a continued commitment for the long-term disposition of
used nuclear fuel. This requires a commitment from the Administration,
Congress and other stakeholders to ensure that DOE makes an effective
transition from a scientific program to a licensing and construction
program, with the same commitment to safety. New waste management
approaches, including interim storage and nuclear fuel recycling, are
consistent with timely development of Yucca Mountain.
Enactment of S. 2610 is a critical prerequisite to implementing our
national policy for used fuel management.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.006
----------
Statement of Victor Gilinsky, Independent Energy Consultant
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to comment on the bills before you that
deal with spent fuel. I've been involved with nuclear waste issues from
1971 when I was on the staff of the Atomic Energy Commission. I later
served two terms on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--nominated first
by President Ford and later by President Carter. Since then I've been
an independent consultant. In the past few years I have assisted the
State of Nevada on Yucca Mountain issues.
I would like to address briefly three NRC-related items--interim
spent fuel storage, the NRC's Waste Confidence Rule, and the
Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership:
INTERIM STORAGE
No matter what you think about Yucca Mountain's future, it seems
inescapable that we are going to need a lot of spent fuel storage. The
generating companies are preparing themselves by building installations
at their sites to store spent fuel in dry casks. The technology is
straightforward and the licensing of these sites does not appear to
strain the NRC very much.
It would be good to also have regional storage sites for overflow
capacity, to collect the spent fuel from shut down reactors, and
eventually to collect all the spent fuel under a dedicated storage
management. Senator Domenici's bill allows for such central facilities.
In the short run, for safety and security, we should move spent
fuel from reactor pools into dry casks as soon as it cools
sufficiently. Senator Reid's bill addresses this point.
All this would make sense even if you thought Yucca Mountain was on
track. Experience, however, suggests it isn't. DOE's projected opening
date has slipped 7 years since Congress voted on the Yucca Mountain
Resolution four years ago. Last week the Interior Secretary vetoed the
Private Fuel Storage facility in Utah in part because he concluded it
was not prudent to rely on Yucca Mountain opening.
WASTE CONFIDENCE
This lead directly to the second item--the NRC's Waste Confidence
Rule.
The current version of the rule, adopted in 1990, says the NRC is
confident that a geologic repository will open by 2025. The function of
the rule was to protects reactor licensing from challenges based on the
waste issue, although as we approach 2025 that role becomes more
doubtful.
There is a more serious problem. In 1990 the NRC said if Yucca
Mountain failed to get licensed there would be time to find another
site before 2025. Today that claim is no longer tenable. So, in effect,
the rule now says NRC is confident Yucca Mountain will be licensed. In
other words, NRC is prejudging the case.
Nevada petitioned NRC to eliminate the date, assuming it can do so
responsibly. The Commission refused to act, even though a change would
also benefit its power reactor licensees. In any event, Nevada
appealed, and the case is being argued today before the Court of
Appeals.
Some of the bill before you would have Congress make the change for
the NRC. Because any such change implies a safety judgment, I believe
the more responsible course is for the NRC itself to do it through
rulemaking.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
My third item concerns GNEP, the Administration's grand plan for
developing technology to transform the future of nuclear power world-
wide. It is not likely to demand much in the way of NRC resources for a
long time.
That may change, however, if DOE pursues its latest idea to ``fast
track'' the GNEP demonstration plants. DOE acts as if it is sure of
success, but I have to say I don't know of any example of DOE
developing a major technology to full scale and then transferring it
successfully to industry. GNEP contains concepts that might be useful
if they worked, but they are a long way from being practicable.
GNEP reminds me of the AEC's fast breeder program of the 1960s. In
its eagerness to jump to the next stage the Commission neglected basic
technical issues that were vital to nuclear power's success in the
short run. That neglect led to the problems of the 1970s, and was a
significant contributor to the Three Mile Island accident.
The nuclear industry learned from the accident to focus on running
its plants safely and economically. It also learned that useful
technology advances in careful incremental steps. DOE and the national
laboratories haven't learned that lesson and are impatient to jump
ahead to advanced reprocessing and fast breeders. At a minimum, DOE
should have to pass NRC safety licensing for any substantial
demonstration facilities. That will slow them down, but it will also
help to keep DOE's feet on the ground.
______
Response by Victor Gilinsky to an Additional Question from Senator
Inhofe
Question. Would it not be more cost-effective and practical for the
waste to be stored at one location in a retrievable manner for both
reprocessing, reuse and final disposal?
Response. I think it would be cost-effective to store spent fuel in
central locations. In any such calculations we have to take account of
the existing dry cask storage facilities and those that are getting
built. In any case, I support creating some central capacity to provide
overflow capacity for the operating reactor, to collect storage from
the shut down reactors, and eventually to collect the spent fuel under
management that is solely concerned with waste storage. We would have
been well-served if we had built central surface, or near-surface,
spent fuel storage facilities some time ago. I have attached a speech I
gave in 1983 when I was an NRC commissioner making this very point. I
would be grateful if you would include it in the hearing record because
it shows two things: that the problem is not a new one and that in the
past important sectors of the nuclear community adopted ideological
positions that undermined practical solutions to the waste problem. In
the end the ideological goals turned out to be unrealistic.
I mention this last point because it is happening again in the form
of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. I believe in your opening
statement you expressed concern that GNEP would short-change important
practical activities in support of current nuclear power plants. This
brings me to the last part of your question, which mentions collocating
storage with reprocessing, reuse, and final disposal.
Reprocessing and reuse make no economic sense for the foreseeable
future. That is the clear message from the nuclear industry. And of
course putting plutonium into commercial channels poses security risks.
As for final disposal, the only site under consideration is Yucca
Mountain. On the basis of my familiarity with the issues as a
consultant for Nevada it is evident this is a poor site that could not
pass a reasonable siting evaluation. The Energy Department is trying to
muscle its way through despite this, but it remains an iffy
proposition. In sum, at this point these three activities--
reprocessing, reuse, and Yucca Mountain--are dubious propositions and
it doesn't make sense to tie the practical requirement for spent fuel
storage to these three bad ideas.
______
Response by Victor Gilinsky to an Additional Question
from Senator Voinovich
Question. Mr. Gilinsky, it appears from your testimony that you are
advocating having dry cask storage at each nuclear power plant
regardless of the Yucca Mountain's future. I am not sure if I
understand your reasoning for this, especially when you agree with the
other witnesses that spent fuels are safe in the spent fuel pools. Who
pays for these dry casks? Won't the rate payers ultimately have to pay
for them in addition to what they have paid already for Yucca Mountain?
Response. First, nearly all the nuclear operators are already
building dry cask storage facilities on or near their reactor sites.
Even if Yucca Mountain were more or less on schedule, it would take
many years to collect the spent fuel and most of the reactor operators
would have exceeded their spent fuel pool limits.
Dry cask storage is an option after the spent fuel has cooled for
several years. At that point however it has many advantages both in
terms of safety and security, as I think is intuitively obvious. The
basic point is that the dry cask protection is passive and doesn't
depend on hydraulic and electrical systems operating as do spent fuel
pools. A recent National Academy of Science study stated that ``Dry
cask storage has intrinsic security advantages over spent fuel pool
storage . . .''
The point I made in my testimony was that the Federal Government
should encourage operators to move their spent fuel into dry casks as
early as possible rather than do so only when they are out of spent
fuel pool capacity. The industry resists this because of the expense. I
think the safety and security advantages to the public are substantial
enough to warrant the expense, which as you point out will ultimately
be paid by the customer. But then the customer gets the benefit. I
don't see that these safety and security arguments are affected by what
has been spent on Yucca Mountain. How that money was used by the Energy
Department is an important but separate issue.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7642.026