[Senate Hearing 110-1231]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1231
EXAMINATION OF THE LICENSING PROCESS FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 31, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-581 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 31, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham., U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 9
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho....... 11
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 23
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 24
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 122
WITNESSES
Demint, Hon. James, U.S Senator From The State of South Carolina. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Ensign, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From The State of Nevada......... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From The State of Nevada.......... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Sproat, Edward F., III, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy.................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Responses to additional questions from:
Boxer.................................................... 29
Inhofe................................................... 35
Clinton.................................................. 35
Meyers, Robert J., Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Responses to additional questions from:
Boxer.................................................... 45
Cardin................................................... 47
Inhofe................................................... 47
Clinton.................................................. 48
Weber, Michael, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission................. 50
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Responses to additional questions from:
Boxer.................................................... 53
Inhofe................................................... 59
Clinton.................................................. 61
Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, State of Nevada........ 88
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 91
Kerr, James Y., III, President, National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners, North Carolina Utilities
Commission..................................................... 93
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin....... 98
Responses to additional questions from:
Boxer.................................................... 98
Inhofe................................................... 99
Cook, Ken, President, Environmental Working Group................ 100
Prepared statement........................................... 102
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Judging the Safety
of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV.......................... 125
Map of States Previously Considered for Respository Development.. 145
Statements:
Nelson, Keven L., Health Physics Society......................... 146
Burk, Richard J., Jr., Health Physics Society.................... 148
Obama Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois....... 150
Gibbins, Jim, Nevada Governor.................................... 153
Cook, Kenneth, President, Environmental Working Group (Corrected
Copy).......................................................... 154
Makhijani, Arjun, President, Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research......................................... 166
EXAMINATION OF THE LICENSING PROCESS FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the full committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Craig, Isakson,
Clinton, Barrasso.
Senator Boxer. The hearing will come to order. We are
awaiting the arrival of three very special witnesses, three
Senators, but so much is going on this morning. I think what we
will do is we will start with opening statements, Senator
Inhofe, if that is OK with you, and then we will move to the
witnesses.
Senator Inhofe. Let me ask if it would be acceptable to you
if we heard from Senator DeMint before we do opening
statements. If we start opening statements, and we end up with,
say, eight people here, it could be about an hour and a half.
Senator Boxer. OK. This is what we are going to do. We are
going to the Chairman and the Ranking, and then we will go to
Senator DeMint, and then we will return. All right?
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Senator Boxer. So if we just have 5 minutes each.
Senator Inhofe. OK. That is good.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Today's hearing is part of the oversight
responsibility of the Environment and Public Works Committee
over nuclear power and nuclear waste issues. My serious
concerns about Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository
date back many years because my home State of California will
be severely impacted if it is built and put into operation.
If the Yucca project is constructed, there will thousands
of shipments of high level nuclear waste transported throughout
California, subjecting our citizens to potential exposure to
the most dangerous contaminants known to human kind. Many
scientists predict that Yucca Mountain will leak radiation into
the groundwater, which poses a real threat to drinking water in
California.
This leaking nuclear waste even has the potential to
contaminate surface waters, creating uncontrolled exposure in
my State.
My concerns extend beyond California to the whole Nation,
and obviously to the people oFNevada. Billions of taxpayer
dollars could be wasted on a proposal that is fatally flawed
because it will put millions of people at risk. If Yucca
Mountain becomes operational, radioactive waste will be
transported there from across the Nation. The people of an
estimated 44 States, including California, will have to guard
against a serious terrorist threat as nuclear waste travels
throughout our communities. Nuclear waste will be traveling
past schools, homes, hospitals and businesses.
This oversight hearing is critically important as we seek
information about this controversial proposal, and is part of
what will be a continuing process. I really look forward to
hearing from the bipartisan Nevada delegation and all of our
other witnesses during today's hearing.
I also want to mention that Senator Clinton is the one who
approached and asked that we have this hearing today. I want to
thank her very much, and I have welcomed all Senators who wish
to have statements placed in the record to do so in the 2-weeks
following this hearing.
With that, I would turn it over to Senator Inhofe for his
opening statement, then we will hear from Senator DeMint and
then we will go back and forth.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the
State of California
Today's hearing is part of the oversight responsibility of
the Environment and Public Works Committee over nuclear power
and nuclear waste issues.
My serious concerns about Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste
repository date back many years because my State of California
will be severely impacted if it is built and put into
operation.
If the Yucca project is constructed, there will be
thousands of shipments of high level nuclear waste transported
through California, subjecting our citizens to potential
exposure to the most dangerous contaminants known to humankind.
Many scientists predict that Yucca Mountain will leak
radiation into the groundwater, which poses a real threat to
drinking water in California. This leaking nuclear waste even
has the potential to contaminate surface waters, creating
uncontrolled exposure in my state.
My concerns extend beyond California to the whole nation
and obviously to the people of Nevada.
Billions of taxpayer dollars could be wasted on a proposal
that is fatally flawed because it will put millions of people
at risk.
If Yucca Mountain becomes operational, radioactive waste
will be transported there from across the Nation. The people of
an estimated 44 states, including California, will have to
guard against a serious terrorist threat as nuclear waste
travels through our communities. Nuclear waste will be
traveling past schools, homes, hospitals and businesses.
This oversight hearing is critically important as we seek
information about this controversial proposal, and is part of
what will be a continuing process.
I look forward to hearing from the bipartisan Nevada
delegation, and all our other witnesses, during today's
hearing.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am glad we are
having this. The last time we had it was when I chaired this
Committee, and there are a lot of questions that need to be
asked.
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to
provide for the development of repositories for disposing of
high level nuclear waste in commercial spent fuel. The process
was designed to be a rigorous and thoughtful one.
Now, time has gone by. We are now up to the point where we
have spent over 25 years and $6 billion on this lengthy and
thorough bipartisan process to prepared DOE to file a license
application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, asking for
authorization to build a repository.
Yet, there are those who would like to abandon Yucca
Mountain and start over without the NRC ever considering the
project. We are to the point now where we could rapidly get to
the NRC looking at this. I believe it is significant that we do
it.
Now, my question would be how do you justify this to our
taxpayers? Electricity ratepayers pay for the cost of their
repository, but taxpayers pay the cost of DOE's delay. DOE
estimates that approximately $7 billion in liability costs will
be paid to the utilities if DOE begins accepting spent fuel in
2017. For each year of delay beyond 2017, it is at least
another $500 million a year, not to mention the cost to DOE of
delaying the cleanup of DOE sites, which is about another $500
million per year.
This liability is paid by the U.S. taxpayers by way of the
Federal Government's Judgment Fund. How do we justify wasting
$1 billion a year while ignoring binding contracts signed with
the utilities and refusing to proceed with a process mandated
in law in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?
To me, the toughest question is, if not Yucca Mountain,
then where are we going to build a repository? Before Congress
directed the DOE to focus its efforts on the Yucca Mountain
site, over 37 States--37 States--had been considered as
potential hosts for a repository. I have a map here that
highlights all those States that have been considered to have
geologic formations worth evaluating for the repository.
However, they went through the process and determined in their
estimation that Yucca was the best place.
Now, to me, I think that we need to get on with this
process. We have been talking about his now for certainly for
the 12 years that I have been serving on this Committee, and
much, much longer than that. I think the time is right to go
ahead and continue with it. As difficult as it is politically
for a lot of people, I think it has to be done.
The bottom line is this, we are not going to resolve the
problems we have without nuclear and we are not going to have
nuclear until such time as we are able to determine where the
repository is.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for holding this hearing today.
It's been just over a year since this Committee last held a
hearing on Yucca Mountain, under my leadership, and I'm glad to
once again ask tough questions about this very important
project. Nuclear energy must play a growing part of our
nation's energy future, both for the sake of national security
and environmental progress. However, I am concerned that the
resurgence of the nuclear industry may be hindered if there
isn't sufficient progress toward development of a repository
for spent fuel.
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to
provide for the development of repositories for disposing of
high-level nuclear waste and commercial spent fuel. The process
was designed to be a rigorous and thoughtful one whereby our
government would research locations, select a site, and license
a repository with each relevant Federal agency playing its
respective role. The DOE is charged with development and
operation of the repository. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
will assess the safety of the proposed facility and regulate
its operation, if approved. The EPA is responsible for
developing the radiation standard by which the repository's
safety will be evaluated. I must observe that the EPA committed
in a hearing in March of last year that the radiation standard
would be finalized by the end of 2006. However, it is still not
final and there is no clear indication when it will become
final.
DOE's filing of a license application with the NRC next
year will be the culmination of over 25 years of research. Ward
Sproat has shown exemplary leadership in preparing the
organization to take that step and working to instill the
discipline that the NRC requires of its licensees.
So far, we have spent over 25 years and $6 billion on this
lengthy, thorough, bipartisan process to prepare DOE to file a
license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
asking for authorization to build the repository. Yet there are
those who would like to abandon Yucca Mountain and start over
without the NRC ever even considering the project. I think that
view raises some very tough questions.
My first question is: Why should DOE abandon the Yucca
Mountain site before the NRC has even evaluated it? DOE has
spent 25 years and $6 billion dollars studying the site and
developing the license application. The NRC has developed
detailed regulations to guide the process of intensively and
accurately assessing whether Yucca Mountain can be developed as
a safe repository, a process that will take at least 3 years.
First, NRC technical staff and independent experts will
scrutinize the application. Then, panels of judges will
adjudicate contentions. Essentially, every element of the
application will be put on trial twice. Then, if the repository
gets built, DOE will have to go through a second process before
it can begin operations and receive any nuclear waste. How
would you explain to ratepayers that the Federal Government
threw away $6 billion dollars without even bothering to find
out if Yucca Mountain can withstand the level of scrutiny
required by the NRC?
My next question is: How do you justify this to our
taxpayers? Electricity ratepayers pay for the cost of the
repository, but taxpayers pay the costs of DOE's delay. DOE
estimates that approximately $7 billion dollars in liability
costs will be paid to the utilities if DOE begins accepting
spent fuel in 2017. For each year of delay beyond 2017, it's at
least another $500 million per year, not to mention the costs
to DOE of delaying clean-up of DOE sites which is about another
$500 million per year. This liability is paid by the U. S.
taxpayer by way of the Federal Government's judgment fund. How
do you justify wasting a billion dollars a year while ignoring
binding contracts signed with the utilities and refusing to
proceed with the process mandated in law in the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act?
To me, the toughest question is: If not Yucca Mountain,
then where are we going to build a repository? Before the
Congress directed the DOE to focus its efforts on the Yucca
Mountain site, over 37 states had been considered as potential
hosts for a repository. I have a map here that highlights all
those states that have been considered to have geologic
formations worth evaluating for repository development. I
encourage everyone to take a good look at this map and think
about what it means to abandon the Yucca Mountain site and look
for a new one. THAT is a tough question.
I am not prepared to embrace any new long-term storage
concept or any alternative repository sites unless and until
the Yucca Mountain facility is given a fair, thorough, and
transparent review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am
not in favor of devoting the time and expense of the rate-
payers, the government, or this body in pursuing sites in 37
states without first learning whether a safe repository can be
built at Yucca Mountain. The prospect of such an effort should
give every Member, especially those from these states, great
pause.
It's time to proceed with the next step in the rigorous and
thoughtful process provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
I ask unanimous consent that the following submissions be
placed in the record: a statement by Senator Obama; a statement
by Nevada Governor Gibbons; the corrected testimony of Kenneth
Cook, who is on one of our panels; and at the request of
Senator Reid, a statement of Dr. Arjun Makhijani.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced documents can be found on pages 150-195]
Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Yes?
Senator Inhofe. I ask unanimous consent that the statement
of Ronda Hornbeck, who is the County Commission Chairman of
Lincoln County, Nevada be placed in the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced document follows:]
Statement of Ronda Hornbeck, County Commission Chairman,
Lincoln County, NV
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to this
Committee for the record. As one of ten units of local
government designated by the Secretary of Energy as
``affected'' by the Yucca Mountain repository system, Lincoln
County has a profound interest in the progress of the Yucca
Mountain project. The County is situated immediately downwind
from the Yucca Mountain site and is concerned about exposure to
radionuclides resulting from atmospheric pathways. In addition,
Lincoln County is one of only three Nevada counties directly
impacted by the proposed Caliente Rail Corridor. Since the
early 1980's Lincoln County has sought to understand and
minimize the potential adverse local impacts of the repository
system while also seeking to understand and maximize any
beneficial local economic affects which the project may
produce.
As part of Lincoln County's ongoing efforts to protect our
citizens, I wish to call to the Committee's attention an issue
that is important to many of the counties in Nevada that will
be directly or indirectly affected by the Yucca Mountain
project. In a petition for rulemaking filed with the NRC last
March, Lincoln County, Nevada has asked the NRC to redress the
issue. However, for the past 6 months the NRC has essentially
sat on Lincoln County's petition, taking no action.
As presently written, the NRC's regulations may be
interpreted to require that county governments must be
represented by attorneys in the NRC's licensing proceedings.
(In contrast, business entities including partnerships and
corporations may be represented by an attorney or a ``duly
authorized member or officer.'')\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\(10 C.F.R. 2.314(b). In the pre-licensing proceedings now
underway before the NRC in the Yucca Mountain matter, the Pre-License
Application President Officer Board has stated, in an Order dated
December 2, 2005, that a majority of the Board believes that the
regulation does require county governments to be represented by
attorneys. However, the Board deferred a ruling on this issue until a
later date when the issue might be of ``greater practical significance
to the conduct of the proceeding.' NRC Docket No. PAPO-00, ASLBP No.
04-829-01-PAPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This issue is of potentially great consequence to rural
counties in Nevada that will be substantially affected by the
proposed project but who cannot afford to pay for an attorney
possessing the requisite experience and expertise to
participate in the NRC licensing proceedings at a level that
will be sufficient to adequately protect the county's
interests.
The example of Lincoln County, Nevada, is particularly
instructive. Located in the eastern portion of the state,
downwind of Yucca Mountain, it covers 10,637 square miles and
is home to approximately 4,100 people, about 17 percent of whom
are below the poverty line and whose annual average per capita
income is approximately $17,000. The town of Rachel, located in
the western portion of the county, sits about 65 miles
northeast of Yucca Mountain--closer to the site than the city
of Las Vegas. Moreover, the DOE's preferred rail method for
transporting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain involves off-
loading nearly all nuclear waste from around the country in
Caliente, Nevada--which is Lincoln County's only incorporated
city--and then shipping the waste from Caliente by rail to
Yucca Mountain along a corridor that will run for 90 miles
within the county.
Although Lincoln County likely will be the gateway for
high-level nuclear waste entering Nevada and destined for Yucca
Mountain, and will likely be affected by repository operations,
it does not have the financial resources to pay experienced
counsel to participate in the complex and lengthy licensing
proceedings on a regular basis.
By way of comparison, DOE itself has retained special
outside counsel to assist it in preparing for the licensing
proceedings and to represent it in those proceedings when they
commence. According to press reports, the DOE paid its first
law firm, Winston & Strawn, approximately $16.5 million and may
pay its current law firm, Hunton & Williams, as much as $45
million, in these matters.\2\ The State of Nevada has been able
to retain sophisticated and experienced outside counsel to
mount a vigorous legal challenge to Yucca Mountain by raising
many millions of dollars through standard and supplemental
funding mechanisms that are not available to Lincoln County and
other affected units of local governments (``AULGs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Las Vegas Review-Journal, Feb. 5, 2002 (page 1A) and March
25, 2004 (page 4B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation faced by Lincoln County and other rural AULGs
is dramatically different. Although these counties and their
citizens are as vitally interested in Yucca Mountain as the
State of Nevada, Lincoln County's total annual operating budget
from general revenues is $3 million. Its authority to levy
sales and real property taxes is essentially tapped out.
Ninety-eight percent of its land base is managed by the Federal
Government, leaving a very narrow opportunity to expand its
economic base. In order to participate in the NRC licensing
proceedings, Lincoln County and similarly situated AULGs are
entirely depended on DOE grants from the Nuclear Waste Fund
established by Congress as part of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act. But such funding is uncertain, has varied from year to
year--and may only be used by AULGs to hire attorneys if, in
connection with each year's authorization, Congress includes
specific language authorizing the use of such funds for legal
counsel. This fund is not only an unreliable basis on which to
plan for participation in the NRC licensing proceedings;
historical funding levels have been completely inadequate to
permit Lincoln County to retain counsel to participate on a
regular basis in the licensing proceedings.
In light of these considerations, on March 23, 2007,
Lincoln County filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the NRC,
asking the NRC to amend its regulations to allow AULGs to be
represented in the NRC licensing proceedings by attorneys or
other duly authorized representatives. A copy of Lincoln
County's petition is attached as Exhibit A hereto. To date,
however the NRC has taken no official action on that petition.
It is completely inexcusable that the NRC has chosen to simply
sit on Lincoln County's petition for more than 6 months. If the
NRC were to initiate a public comment period tomorrow on
Lincoln County's petition, it almost certainly would take at
least a year from then before any rulemaking proceeding would
be completed. Yet with the DOE moving apace to file its license
application, AULGs must know soon whether or not they will be
able to represent themselves through non-attorneys if they are
to be able to prepare appropriately for the licensing hearings.
The Federal Government having failed to ensure adequate funding
for legal representation by AULGs, it should not further
penalize those governments and their citizens by effectively
preventing them from participating meaningfully as parties in
the NRC licensing proceedings--or by simply deep-sixing Lincoln
County's administrative petition that would provide them with
some relief.
Senator DeMint, we will stop our talk up here at the
platform and we will hear from you for five minutes, and then
we will go back side to side here.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES DEMINT, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would ask that
my complete statement be put in the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator DeMint. If I could talk informally, I don't come in
front of you today as an expert on nuclear energy or storage,
but as someone who is from a State that has been very much
involved with the treatment of nuclear waste, primarily from
weapons grade plutonium, but also a State that has 55 percent
of its electricity generated by nuclear power.
I am very interested in the combination of a clean
environment and low cost energy so that we will have a strong
economy. I would like to point out that South Carolina has been
receiving nuclear waste from all over the Country for many,
many years, millions of miles traveled without ever an incident
that would threaten the public in any way. I believe the
industry has demonstrated that they can move nuclear waste
around very safely.
My main point today really comes to the basic point that if
we are going to have low cost energy in a clean environment,
that we need to produce more of our electricity with nuclear
power. I would like to just reference a chart here. If we go
back to 1980, Europe was using about twice as much coal as the
United States, but we made different decisions at that time
about nuclear power.
We decided to cutoff the building of new nuclear plants.
Europe decided to build more. While they reduced the use of
coal by over 30 percent, we increased ours by over 60 percent,
and as all of us know, one of the biggest problems we have with
carbons in the air come from coal-fired electricity generation.
If I could just show the second chart here to make the
point. The red lines are the building of nuclear facilities in
the United States. The blue lines are for Europe. You can see
that coincides with the decline in the use of coal. The fact
is, our use of coal has gone up, as well as natural gas,
putting pressure on the cost of natural gas for industry and
residential use so the United States has used more carbons to
generate its electricity, while Europe, countries like France
now have well over 70 percent of their electricity generated by
nuclear power plants.
My main point is this: If we are going to have low cost
energy and if we are going to have a clean environment, we have
to stop burning coal and have more nuclear power. But nuclear
power is going nowhere unless we have a predictable storage
facility. South Carolina for years has been taking waste from
all over the Country. There are a lot of new technologies on
how to encapsulate it and classify it so that it can be shipped
and stored safely, but not above ground.
This needs to be moved as well as our nuclear facilities in
South Carolina have onsite storage, which long-term is very
dangerous.
So if we are going to move ahead with new licenses, and
there are at least four new licenses already applied for in
South Carolina, the development and the opening of new nuclear
facilities in this Country are going to completely stall unless
we move ahead with Yucca Mountain.
As has already been referenced, we have been working on
Yucca for almost 30 years. We have spent around $10 billion.
States like South Carolina have had a tax added to their energy
costs.
South Carolina has contributed about $1 billion toward
Yucca, and we have been waiting for years with promises from
the Federal Government that the waste that we are storing in
South Carolina will eventually be moved to Yucca.
I guess if I could just leave this Committee with one
point, if we do not open Yucca as planned in 2012, we will
stall all development of nuclear generation and we will pollute
our environment and put our Country at a competitive
disadvantage as far as the cost of energy. It makes no sense
for us to talk about taxing the emissions of carbon, cap and
trade and all the things that we are talking about, when within
our grasp is nuclear power, which has demonstrated safety and
efficiency in a clean environment. And all we need is to go
through 30 years of research and development.
If not Yucca, where? We have determined that this is the
safest site in the Country. I am not going to argue the
research. Others will do that today. I know my colleague will
argue a different point of view, but I would just hope this
Committee realizes if we don't go with Yucca, not only are $10
billion down the drain, 30 years of research and development,
and we are stuck with coal-fired electricity generation and we
are going to fall behind the rest of the world.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator DeMint follows:]
Statement of Hon. James DeMint, U.S. Senator from the
State of South Carolina
Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, fellow senators. Thank you
for the opportunity to be here today and participate in one of
the most important discussions we can have about the future of
our Nation.
We are facing many issues regarding our environment, our
nation's energy infrastructure, and the demands of our society.
How these interests are balanced will be crucial to our quality
of life, security, and competitiveness in a global marketplace.
Unfortunately, I believe many of the issues we are
confronting didn't need to happen. Thirty years ago due in part
to fear, in part to a lack of information, politicians enacted
policies that placed numerous road blocks in front of the
nuclear energy industry. As a result, we haven't seen a new
construction license issued since the late 1970's and energy
companies switched from pursuing clean non-polluting nuclear
energy and were forced to rely more and more on coal. Now,
politicians condemn the energy industry for pursuing a path
they were forced to follow.
Yet, at the same time Europe embraced nuclear energy even
more. Today, Europeans have almost twice as many nuclear
reactors than the United States. And they slashed dependence on
coal by more than 30 percent--while we increased our use of
coal by more than 60 percent.
While the United States abandoned already built facilities
to recycle nuclear waste, the Europeans took American
technology, improved it, and have proven the ability to control
the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Now, European countries are
proposing even more nuclear reactors in order to meet their
pollution reduction commitments under their Kyoto agreements.
Before bad policy decisions shut down much of the nuclear
industry in the United States, my State of South Carolina
embraced nuclear energy, and today more than half of the energy
produced in my State comes from nuclear. South Carolinians are
responsible stewards of our environment and have sought to
protect the mountains, marshes, and beaches that are our
treasures and the life blood of my state's economy.
However, in addition to the civilian nuclear industry, for
more than 50 years South Carolina has performed a vital
national security mission for our country. Along with states
like California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,
and Washington, the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South
Carolina helped produce and maintain the nuclear weapons
stockpile that helped us win the cold war. Some of these sites
have closed and others will eventually close. Interestingly
enough, some members of this committee--who oppose Yucca
Mountain--have written letters to the Department of Energy
demanding that nuclear waste be removed from their State and
sent somewhere else.
Unlike other facilities, the Savannah River Site has
expanded to meet our nation's energy and defense needs. South
Carolinians are proud to continue to serve the Nation, and
recently the Department of Energy announced it would start
consolidating plutonium from other sites to South Carolina.
South Carolinians recognize there are national security and
energy needs and it is the responsibility of all Americans to
do what they can, which brings us to Yucca Mountain.
As a member of the EPW Committee last Congress, I
participated in hearings and reviewed many of the issues
regarding Yucca. My colleagues have some legitimate concerns,
and they need to be dealt with accordingly--just like the
Savannah River Site. And concerns can be addressed if met with
a willingness to talk.
But millions of Americans that use nuclear energy have
concerns as well. They have paid billions of dollars into the
Nuclear Waste Fund and billions of those dollars have been
spent to exhaustively study Yucca Mountain. Nuclear waste
continues to fill the storage pools at nuclear stations, and
energy companies continue to submit applications for new onsite
waste storage.
What I find perplexing is that people argue the
environmental standards are not strict enough to justify
opening Yucca. However, if Yucca cannot meet these standards,
then no other location where nuclear waste currently resides
can qualify either.
For instance, we have heard concerns that EPA's standard of
350 milirems of radiation per year is too high and could
potentially endanger Nevada residents. Well the Dirksen Senate
building could expose staffers to higher level than the EPA
standard for Yucca, but we don't see calls to shut down this
building.
We hear concerns about contaminating groundwater in the
desert. However, if the Savannah River Site, the Hanford Site,
and other DOE locations were to store waste as the Majority
Leader has proposed, then how do these sites which sit adjacent
to major rivers pose less risk to Americans than a mountain
located in an arid desert.
The truth is that opposition is based on politics, not on
sound science. Thirty years ago the government made bad policy
decisions with significant consequences. I fear we are
repeating history.
We are debating Yucca Mountain, despite the fact that every
branch of the Federal Government has spoken on the need to move
forward. Now this committee is investigating the merits of
Yucca before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received a
license application or finalized the process.
As our nation continues to grow and our economy expands, we
will need more energy. If we want to have energy security then
we can't rely on renewable energy alone. Every source of energy
has its' place in our energy portfolio, but we cannot escape
the fact that nuclear energy must be a significant part of
confronting our energy challenges.
Without Yucca, a nuclear renaissance will not occur, and
without nuclear energy we will never see significant
improvements to our environment. We should not set our nation
back even further like the misguided policies of 30 years ago.
I applaud President Bush and the administration of every
President since Carter for their strong support of Yucca
Mountain. The energy needs of our nation will continue to
require strong leadership from our Presidents for years to
come.
Unfortunately, it appears politics is pushing a conclusion
that will perpetuate bad policies, harm our economy, and
ultimately damage our environment even more.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Just to reiterate my testimony, we have to make sure it is
safe and we don't put millions of people at risk, and that is
the purpose of this hearing.
Senator Clinton, and then followed by Senator Craig.
Senator Clinton. Madam Chairman, do you want to go to
Senator Ensign?
Senator Boxer. I think we are going to wait for Senator
Reid. He is going to be here shortly.
Senator, please proceed.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. We can take two more, and when Senator Reid
comes, we will do both of them.
Yes.
Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Boxer
for holding this hearing. I think it is particularly timely
because we are nearing a critical stage of the process, which
is the June 2008 date when the Department of Energy plans to
submit a license application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
So I think it is important that we use this hearing to get
the Administration on record in response to some important
unanswered questions about how this process will work. I want
to start by stating what the available scientific evidence
makes clear. Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent
fuel from our Nation's nuclear reactors.
First off, Yucca Mountain is located in an area of
considerable seismic activity. There are 32 known active faults
at or near Yucca Mountain. There have been more than 600
seismic events registering above 2.5 on the Richter scale
within a 50 mile radius of Yucca Mountain in the last 30 years.
In 1992, an earthquake registering 5.6 on the Richter scale
occurred just eight miles away. And just last month, it was
reported that the Department of Energy had to alter plans at
the site after rock samples unexpectedly revealed a fault line
underneath the proposed location of the concrete pad where
waste would cool before going into the repository.
Looking forward, scientists have predicted that an
earthquake registering six or more on the Richter scale is
likely to occur in the next 10,000 years, given that Nevada is
the third most earthquake-prone State in the Country after
California and Alaska.
An even greater potential risk at the site is its history
of volcanic activity. As an MIT geologist testified to this
Committee last year, ``Though the likelihood of an explosive
volcano erupting directly beneath the repository is remote, the
outcome would be devastating, spewing radioactive material
directly into the atmosphere.''
In addition, the rock at the site has proven to be more
porous than the Department of Energy once thought, raising
major concerns about contamination of scarce groundwater less
than 100 miles from Las Vegas. In recent years, scientists
discovered that radiation from nuclear tests done in the 1950's
had migrated downward with rainwater to more than 600 feet
below ground, rates far faster than predicted by the Department
of Energy.
This poses the threat of corrosion of the containers in
which the waste would be stored, as well as the potential for
much more rapid spread of contamination in groundwater.
Because of these many flaws in the geology of the site, the
DOE has turned to what it calls engineered controls to try to
contain the waste. In other words, the containers that the
waste would be stored in are to be trusted to resist rusting
for hundreds of thousands of years under intense heat and the
presence of humidity.
Given these problems, it is not surprising that the
Administration has been so opaque about the licensing process.
As the testimony of Nevada's Attorney General makes clear, the
licensing process puts the cart before the horse. EPA has yet
to finalize the radiation standards that DOD must prove it will
be able to meet in order to license the repository. And the NRC
has stated they will accept the application even if EPA's
standards are not in place when it is filed.
Madam Chairman, does this make any sense at all? Is this
site and this process really the best we can do? I know that
some believe that Yucca Mountain is a referendum on the future
of nuclear power, or that the waste accumulating across the
Country is imperative enough to override the clear problems
with the site. I strongly disagree. That is why I voted against
the resolution overriding Nevada's veto of Yucca Mountain in
July 2002, and that is why I remain opposed today.
We do need to find a long-term storage solution for our
Nation's nuclear waste, but Yucca Mountain is not the answer.
It is time to step back and take a deep breath. The 25 years
since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed seems like a long
time ago, but this is a decision that future generations will
live with for hundreds of thousands of years, longer than any
of us can imagine.
So we need to get it right. It is time to move on from
Yucca Mountain. I believe we should start over and assemble our
best scientific minds to identify alternatives. In the
meantime, we need to make sure we are storing waste safely and
securely at the reactor sites where it is located today, and we
need to do better thinking about the massive challenge of
transporting waste safely and securely from reactor sites to a
permanent repository.
What we should not do is to push an incomplete application
for a flawed site through a rushed and incoherent process. But
unfortunately, it is clear from the written testimony submitted
by our witnesses representing the Administration that is
precisely the course of action that this Administration intends
to pursue. I think we can do better, and I hope that we will
get the chance to do that.
Madam Chairman, again thank you for holding this critical
hearing.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you very much for your
leadership on this.
We will go to Senator Craig. If at that time, Senator Reid
hasn't come, Senator Ensign we will call right on you and then
we will go back to the members.
Yes, Senator Craig.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for this
important hearing. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is here
this morning because of her recent statements and her long-time
opposition to Yucca Mountain.
It is clearly a very fundamental and an important debate
for our Country to have. I happen to come from a State that is
very pro-nuclear. We have a great heritage of having designed
and operated the first commercial reactor, and we have designed
52 since that time. But also with that positive legacy, we also
have what I call a neutral legacy. We have from West Valley,
New York, a place the Senator knows well, waste, some 26 metric
tons that we took at her insistence.
From Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, we have 81 tons of
high level nuclear waste that we took because of DOE's
relationship and because we needed a safe place to store it.
Now, the dirty little secret about that waste is it is
scheduled to be handled in a permanent repository by 2035. So
let me suggest this, if that permanent repository or permanent
destination of handling waste is not determined, where must
that waste go? Because the law says it leaves Idaho. Do we
return it to West Valley, New York? Do we return it to Three
Mile Island,
Pennsylvania where it can be stored safely on a more
permanent basis? Does New Hampshire's waste, Iowa's waste,
South Carolina's waste, that currently fuels its reactors, stay
there indefinitely? Those are fundamental issues that we have
to talk about as we find a permanent repository for our high
level waste.
The citizens of New York have paid $721 billion to find
that, and they have currently stored in the State of New York
3,060 metric tons of high level nuclear waste. That is a legacy
that a responsible Senator must deal with. In California, the
story is the same: $764 billion spent by the ratepayers, and
2,420 metric tons of waste.
It is so easy to be against. It is so fundamentally
important that we act in a responsible manner.
And that is, of course, what our Country and the Congress
has attempted to do for a good many years. So where is the
legacy and where is the responsibility? From 1995 to 2006,
nuclear power avoided over 8,000 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide going into the atmosphere, reflective of the testimony
of the Senator from South Carolina. The U.S. emits 6,000
million metric tons per year of carbon, 25 percent of the
world's emissions into the atmosphere.
Nevada does not want a coal plant. Idaho does not a coal
plant. Kansas doesn't want a coal plant. My suggestion is as we
tumble through this, for political purposes and I would hope
for valid scientific reasons, that we get it right, but we
cannot have it both ways. Capping emissions of carbon dioxide
while opposing Yucca Mountain and new nuclear just doesn't make
a lot of sense.
Decide. Are you more anti-nuclear or more pro-carbon cap? I
call it a choose it or lose it theory, because I don't think
you can hold both positions and hold them fundamentally
honestly in a political world, let alone a scientific world.
I will offer an amendment to any cap and trade proposal
that we require that new nuclear be a part of a cap and trade
possibility. No nuclear, no cap. Choose it or lose it. That is
a fundamental debate that this Country must have. Nuclear must
remain at least 20 percent of America's energy portfolio into
the foreseeable future. And if we don't, we either become a
less productive Nation or we become a dirtier Nation based on
current technology. That is a position this Committee doesn't
hold, nor is it a position this Committee ought to advocate. We
have a responsibility here beyond politics and it is very good
science. It is a transparent licensing process, and it is
something that should be allowed to move forward to a point of
final decision as to the reasonable and responsible destination
of our high level waste.
Thank you very much for holding this hearing, Madam
Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
I just want to make the point that this hearing is an
oversight hearing on Yucca. It has nothing to do with whether
you are pro-nuclear or you are anti-nuclear. It is are you pro-
safety, are you concerned about that. And that is the question
here. It isn't whether we are pro-nuclear or anti--nuclear. It
has nothing to do with that. It is where you put the waste in a
way that doesn't----
Senator Craig. I appreciate that. I also recognize that is
a matter of interpretation.
Senator Boxer. If I might finish? Since I called this
hearing, I will tell you what this hearing is about. It is
about whether Yucca Mountain is safe.
With that, I am going to call on either Senator Ensign or
Senator Reid, whomever would like to go first.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate you
calling what I consider to be this I think very important
hearing. It is interesting listening to some of the testimony
this morning. I think actually, Madam Chair, that you have to
put this in the broader context of nuclear power, of the
science and the politics because it all does play a role, and
it has played a role up to this point.
Senator Craig, a lot of what he was talking about he even
said that the waste can be shipped back and stored safely. I
think that is an important point to make, that the science has
told us that the storage of nuclear waste is safe for at least
100 years in dry casks. Nobody disagrees with that. And so the
rush to build Yucca Mountain as a ``permanent repository'' seem
illogical to me.
There are still so many questions left to answer. Some
people think it is good science and others have really
questioned the science. There have been tremendous cost
overruns in Yucca Mountain because of the changes in the
science.
The latest estimate is that it is going to cost somewhere
around $60 billion to build Yucca Mountain. Nobody believes
that estimate is accurate. The actual cost will probably be
closer to $100 billion and the dirty little secret here is that
you need at least one other Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain
itself is not adequate enough to handle our Nation's nuclear
waste.
In my opinion, Yucca Mountain is dead. Yucca Mountain is
never going to be completed. So what we need as a Country to
look for the alternative to Yucca. The good thing is we do have
the time. We have 100 years of onsite dry cask storage. Senator
Reid and I believe we have a solution. We have introduced a
bill for the Federal Government to take title to that waste. We
take responsibility for that waste. It relieves some of the
liability of the nuclear power companies, and then we decide
then as a country what is the best thing to with the waste.
I personally believe that recycling of the waste is the
right thing to do. Other countries are doing that right now.
Some people object to the type of technology they use, but the
bottom line is they are doing it and they are doing it very
successfully. France has recycled 98 percent of their waste. In
Great Britain, they use two different types of technology, but
similar applications, and Japan is using France's technology.
These recycling process have led to a significant decrease in
the volume of the waste is tremendously decreased. You don't
need the size or the cost of Yucca Mountain if you go with the
recycling of the nuclear waste.
The bottom line is even if you don't like reprocessing the
science associated with it is much more sound that associated
with Yucca Mount. We as a Nation ought to invest in
reprocessing technologies. It does not matter to me if you
invest in transmutation or something similar, as long as the
money isn't being wasted as it is now on Yucca Mountain. The
politics of Yucca Mountain, the science of Yucca Mountain is
questionable at best. I think that we are pouring money really
down a large rat hole in the State of Nevada and we should be
putting that money toward good use instead.
Everybody that I have heard that are proponents of Yucca
Mountain say that the ratepayers have already paid in these
billions of dollars. However, the ratepayers will never pay in
enough money to build Yucca Mountain. It will be the taxpayers
who will have to foot the bill on top of what the ratepayers
have already paid. In addition, there is the fact that I
mentioned earlier, you need a second Yucca Mountain.
So Yucca it is absolutely I think the wrong direction for
us to go. It is because of the myriad of problems with Yucca,
why I think that we need to be aggressively pursuing the idea
of either reprocessing or some other kind of recycling
technology. I could walk through all of the problems in more
detail, however, Senator Clinton, I think you went through some
of the very obvious problems that we have seen.
The fact that the Administration is going forward with this
licensing application next year I believe is irresponsible.
That is not the direction we need to go in. So I, by the way,
support nuclear power. I believe it is an important part of the
whole climate change debate, that we need to have more nuclear
power in the world, and especially in the United States if we
want to have less carbon going into the atmosphere.
The question is just what do we do with the waste. That is
just the biggest problem, because as far as safety is concerned
at the power plants, nuclear power is probably the safest power
that there is, bar none. There have been fewer accidents. There
has never been a death in the United States from nuclear power.
We do it safely. It is a question of the waste.
We have out there today the technology exists to handle the
problem of nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is not that answer and
we ought to proceed on a different course. We ought to be open
minded, instead of just blindly going along. Currently, we are
hearing some of the biggest proponents lately starting to
change their minds. Some in the nuclear power industry
themselves are changing their minds about Yucca Mountain. This
Senate ought to take a serious look at what is being talked
about out there in the technological community.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Ensign follows:]
Statement of Hon. John Ensign, U.S. Senator from the
State of Nevada
I want to thank the Chair, the Ranking, and other members
of the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony on
storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. I firmly believe that
a storage site at Yucca Mountain should not be built and will
not be built.
At the outset, I want to be clear that I am not against
nuclear power. I believe that it presents this nation with a
viable clean air energy alternative that can help our nation
meet its growing needs and reduce our dependence on foreign
oil. In fact, nuclear energy currently provides 20 percent of
America's electricity. What I am against is building a $60 to
$100 billion repository that is scientifically unsound and
wastes payers rate and eventually taxpayers dollars. Nuclear
power is an important investment, but one that cannot be made
idly. With nuclear power generation comes waste, and this
nation must be responsible and manage the waste in the safest
manner possible.
The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is not
a responsible solution. Not a shovel has turned to begin
building the actual repository intended to hold tons of
hazardous, highly radioactive nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is
already 20 years behind schedule, with its new opening date
estimated in 2017 or beyond. It is time to face reality: the
repository will never be built because of the numerous and
insurmountable scientific, safety, and technical problems with
the site. In addition, nearly three decades of poor management
and oversight have demonstrated that the vast body of
scientific and technical work done by the Department of Energy
(DOE) and its contractors is still incomplete or moot, due to
faulty science and constantly changing designs for the
repository, none of which have been proven to meet scientific
standards. In spite of all of this, aware of the flaws and
failures, DOE is still pushing forward to file its license
application in June of 2008.
Yucca has experienced one set back after another. Some of
these setbacks can be credited to the hard work of the Nevada
delegation and others who have fought to cut the budget of
Yucca Mountain. Others have been the result of sheer
incompetence.
EPA's radiation protection standards have been rejected
and criticized because the standards are wholly inadequate, do
not meet the law's requirements, and do not protect the public
health and safety.
The Yucca Mountain Project has suffered nearly three
decades of scientific and quality assurance problems with
transportation plans, corrosion of casks, the effectiveness of
materials, etc., causing DOE to suspend work on the surface
facilities and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a
stop work order on the containers.
DOE revealed that documents and models about water
infiltration into the groundwater at Yucca Mountain had been
falsified, costing the taxpayer million of dollars and
jeopardizing the citizens of Nevada.
New evidence placed the location of the Bow Ridge
earthquake fault line directly beneath where DOE had designed
the cooling pads for thousands of tons of highly radioactive
spent fuel forcing last minute redesign.]
Given the numerous problems and failures at Yucca Mountain,
both policymakers and industry are recognizing the reality--
Yucca Mountain is not a safe, sound waste solution. In fact,
just recently, the Heritage Foundation, an advocate for Yucca,
stated that ``We need to move beyond a Yucca-only approach to
spent fuel.'' And, earlier this month Frank Bowman, the
President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the
policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies
industry, made some very candid comments when asked about the
Yucca Mountain project in an interview. He stated that, ``a
couple of years ago, we began thinking, shouldn't we take Yucca
Mountain and move it off the critical path. Is there another
approach that we've been missing, because we have been so
Yucca-centric?'' These are provocative, realistic statements
coming from those who have been avidly pro-Yucca in the past.
Now we have the opportunity to face reality and move
forward with sensible solutions, responsibly managing our
nation's nuclear waste. It can be done. Fortunately, scientists
agree. Not only do we have the technology to implement safe,
onsite dry cask storage, but also the technology is there to
reprocess our waste, which must be part of any long-term waste
solution.
On-site dry cask storage is a viable, safe, and secure
alternative that is readily available and will allow science
and industry the time to catch up. Dry casks are being safely
used at 34 sites throughout the country. NEI projects that 83
of the 103 active reactors will have dry storage by 2050. That
is why Senator Reid and I have introduced the Federal
Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act of 2007, which
would amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to require
commercial nuclear power plant operators to transfer spent
nuclear fuel into dry casks at independent spent-fuel storage
facilities located onsite with the nuclear reactors. These
spent-fuel storage facilities would be licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and operated by the Department of Energy,
who will also have the ownership title of the waste. DOE was
scheduled to begin taking title to spent nuclear fuel in 1998,
but because of the myriad of technical, scientific, legal, and
political problems surrounding the proposed Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository, this has not happened. Taking title
to spent nuclear fuel fulfills the Federal Government's
obligation and commitment to retake control over nuclear
materials. This proposed onsite storage will cost only a
fraction of the proposed Yucca dump, the pursuit of which has
already wasted billions of taxpayers' dollars. It is a
responsible solution and it is available now.
Storing the waste onsite will allow the necessary time to
develop a viable reprocessing program using advanced fuel-cycle
technologies. I have long believed that we need to invest and
develop these technologies as they are the critical components
to long-term waste management. Today's reprocessing technology
makes it possible to recycle and use the byproducts, which
retain enormous amounts of energy, to generate new, affordable,
and clean fuel. Consensus is leaning toward using reprocessing
technologies that have the potential to transform the waste,
make it less hazardous over a shorter amount of time, and also
reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal. In fact, France
has proven itself a model of success. Using current technology,
France is on target to reprocess 98 percent of its fuel,
providing close to 10 percent of its power needs, and has done
so without incident for years.
Many of the technologies being researched today would
develop processes that do not produce pure plutonium, removing
the concern of proliferation. If there is a positive side to
the insurmountable problems facing Yucca Mountain it is that it
has given impetus to the nuclear industry and other supporters
of enhanced nuclear power opportunities to be open to other
ideas for waste disposal. If we give industry the confidence
and security that the market exists to reprocess and convert
spent nuclear fuel, I am confident that the technology, both
with respect to reactors and reprocessing, will develop to
match our power and security needs.
We can meet the energy needs of this nation if we begin to
develop our domestic resources. Nuclear energy is one of those
resources and it can have tremendous long-term benefits to this
Nation. However, in order to harness its power we must manage
the waste in the most safe, secure, and scientifically sound
manner possible. Yucca Mountain is not that solution. It is
time to move past Yucca Mountain. The project is expensive. Now
is not the time to squander money, resources, and time on a
project doomed to fail. Rather, now is the time to pursue real
solutions. One of the solutions
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator Ensign.
Senator Reid, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. Madam Chair, thank you very much for holding
this hearing. During my entire career in the Congress, this has
been an issue. As I come here today and look at the Chair of
this Committee, I can remember on one occasion that I needed
one more vote, and you got me that vote on this issue.
I see Senator Clinton. President Clinton was the first to
speak out against this, and more than speaking out, his actions
spoke much louder than his words. So my mind is flooded with
memories of the battles that we have had and, in my opinion,
some of the real soldiers.
Today in Nevada, we are celebrating our birthday. It is
Nevada Day, October 31. Every Halloween is Nevada's birthday.
We were born in 1864 during the Civil War. The motto on our
flag says ``battle born.'' And the State of Nevada has been
fighting a very lonely fight for these 20 plus years to protect
the lives of its citizens from radiation exposure, to protect
our land and water from misuse and contamination, and to expose
a Government bureaucracy that has been rife with corruption,
flawed science, and quality assurance failures as it relates to
Yucca Mountain.
Madam Chairman, Yucca Mountain is no longer a Nevada issue.
It is an issue that affects everybody in this Country. We are
not going to wake up one morning and see that waste at Yucca
Mountain. It has to come through the railways of this Country,
the highways of this Country, past our homes, our schools, our
playgrounds, our churches, our businesses.
Since 9/11, let's be realistic about this. Are these evil
people knowledgeable enough to know and find out when 70,000
tons of this stuff is being shipped across the Country? Do you
think they could find one truck or train to derail, to take the
truck? Of course, they could.
This is a fight that has been rigged from the beginning.
After passing comprehensive and thoughtful legislation in 1982,
the year I came to Congress to tackle this difficult issue, led
by Congressman Mo Udall, Congress then changed the rules of the
game, and Yucca was chosen as the only site to be closely
researched. The powerful Senate delegation of a brand new
Senator named Reid, and one that had been there shortly longer
than me, Chic Hecht, wasn't very powerful, to be very honest
with you, and they ran over us.
It was a political decision. It was counter to the spirit
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, science, safety and security.
This same rigged process allowed the State of Nevada to veto
the decision, but also allowed Congress to override it,
essentially an empty promise. The Government Accountability
Office has reported exhaustively on quality assurance failures
with the research done at the site; science that has been
manipulated; secret meetings have been held without public
oversight or participation; and the time line designs are ever-
changing without any repercussions from the Department of
Energy.
We have uncovered e-mails of scientists who work for the
Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey saying, we
have never done any studies, but we are going to say we have.
That is in effect what they have done. Not in effect what they
have done, it is what they did.
EPA has no plans to release its radiation standard before
the Department of Energy files its license application, an
environmental standard upon which the success of the entire
license application rests.
Now that the license application process is upon us, and we
are ready for what many believe will be the final battle
against the dump, Nevadans are again left shaking their heads
in dismay as they see the decks are again stacked against them.
The time line to review the application has been
unrealistically compressed to 3 years, even though the NRC took
8 years to license the proposed interim storage facility in
Utah, which is a little facility on an Indian reservation and
not really surrounded by many people.
The license support network that the Department of Energy
has recently certified is filled with thousands, most people
say millions, of unnecessary documents to make searching for
the relevant information like finding literally the needle in
the haystack. The Department of Energy's performance assessment
computer model, which is the basis for the license application,
and purportedly will prove that the department can meet all
environmental standards required by law,
can't be reviewed by any other entity. How do you like
that? The only one that can read it that is the Department of
Energy itself.
Essentially, this computer model is the license
application, but the DOE will not let anyone access it, not the
State of Nevada, not even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I
would like someone here to explain to me how the Department of
Energy can write a computer modeling program that can prove it
can meet an EPA radiation standard that doesn't exist. I don't
care how many servers or processors the Department of Energy
uses in its complicated computer assessment of Yucca Mountain,
you can't prove that you can meet a standard that hasn't been
written, unless of course the Department of Energy has told EPA
how to write it.
That is an interesting assumption, isn't it? A little
backward is how it would have to be described. We are talking
about the most dangerous substance known on the face of the
earth.
Instead of seriously studying whether or not the proposed
site at Yucca Mountain is safe to store this waste, the
Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency
under this Bush Administration are cooking up their own set of
books to write a radiation standard that can be met by Yucca
Mountain.
Many of you will remember EPA already published an earlier
version of the radiation standard six years ago. In that
standard, EPA went too far to accommodate the Department of
Energy's desire to build a waste dump at Yucca Mountain and
deliberately violated congressional instructions. This rule was
thrown out by the courts. The EPA wrote a proposed draft in
2005, two years ago. They haven't finalized it. Where is it? It
is obvious to me that the EPA is having trouble writing a final
radiation standard that can meet current law without
disqualifying Yucca Mountain as a suitable site to dump nuclear
waste. The EPA knows that if they fudge the exposure numbers,
they will end up back in court.
Instead of sticking to the commitment that Yucca Mountain
would proceed only if it would actually protect public health,
EPA has cast sound science aside in favor of politics in a
myopic pursuit of this mysterious Yucca Mountain. And now they
are delaying publishing a final radiation standard because they
know the Department of Energy cannot meet the standards
required by law. They also know that if they delay long enough
that the State of Nevada will run out of time to take the issue
back to the courts. Again, it is a rigged process.
How are we going to secure the waste in the interim?
Senator Ensign has laid it out very clearly. We leave it where
it is in dry cask storage containers. It is safe. It is secure.
Isn't it more secure there than hauling it, picking it up,
hauling it in trains and trucks, sometimes more than 3,000
miles? Scientists all agree that it is safe leaving it where it
is, safe for 100 years, then maybe we can figure out something
to do with it, and I am sure we can.
Senators Ensign and Bennett joined me in introducing the
Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act earlier
this year. This bill is a road map and a time line for safely
securing our spent nuclear fuel for up to 100 years, giving us
time to find a safe, scientific, long-term solution to this
national security issue.
The people of Nevada, as well as the rest of this country,
deserve answers to their many questions about the safety of a
proposed nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain. Those of you who have
nuclear power generated in your States, talk to the owners of
those projects and see how they feel about this. You will find
that half of them are sick of Yucca Mountain and want out of
it. They want nothing more to do with it. That is not hearsay.
We are only 8 months away from the Department of Energy's
deadline to submit the license application by the NRC. I have
told everyone here what an unfair process it is. I like to talk
about when Government works well. When Senator Ensign and I fly
into Reno, Nevada, you will see a lake we now call it the
Sparks Marina Park. It is a beautiful facility. They are
building condos and apartments, they have a walking park around
it. It is beautiful. It was a Superfund site, and now it is one
of the most beautiful places for recreation in the State of
Nevada. That is government at its best.
Yucca Mountain is the exact opposite. It is government at
its worst.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
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 for the opportunity to present
testimony on this important issue to the State of Nevada. As
some of you may know, today is Nevada Day, the day on which
Nevada became a State in 1864. Many of you may know that the
motto on Nevada's State flag says ``Battle Born,'' a saying
that is just as appropriate now, as it was back then. And now
the State of Nevada is in a battle of its own, to protect the
lives of its citizens from radiation exposure, to protect their
land and water from misuse and contamination, and to expose a
government bureaucracy that has been rife with corruption,
flawed science and quality assurance failures.
And so, Nevada continues to fight a battle that was rigged
from the beginning. After passing comprehensive and thoughtful
legislation in 1982 to tackle this difficult issue, Congress
then changed the rules of the game and Yucca was chosen as the
only site to be closely researched. This was a political
decision that was counter to the spirit of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act--science, safety, and security clearly did not drive
this decision. This same rigged process allowed the State of
Nevada to veto the decision, but also allowed Congress to
override it--essentially an empty promise.
GAO has reported exhaustively on quality assurance failures
with the research done at the site--science has been
manipulated, secret meetings have been held without public
oversight or participation, and the timeline and designs are
ever-changing without any repercussions for the Department of
Energy. And don't forget that EPA has no plans to release its
radiation standard before the Department of Energy files its
license application, an environmental standard upon which the
success of the entire license application rests.
Now that the license application process is upon us and we
ready for what many believe will be the final battle against
this dump, Nevadans are again left shaking their heads in
dismay as they see that the decks are again stacked against
them. The timeline to review the application has been
unrealistically compressed to 3 years, even though the NRC took
8 years to license the proposed interim storage facility in
Utah. The License Support Network that the Department of Energy
has recently certified is filled with thousands--maybe
millions--of superfluous documents to make searching for the
relevant information like finding a needle in a haystack. The
Department of Energy's Performance Assessment computer model,
which is the basis for the license application and purportedly
will prove that the Department can meet all the environmental
standards required by law, can't be reviewed by any other
entity except itself.
Think about that. Essentially, this computer model is the
license application. But DOE will not let anybody access it--
not the State of Nevada, and not even the NRC.
I'd like someone here to explain to me how the Department
of Energy can write a computer modeling program that can prove
it can meet an EPA radiation standard that doesn't exist. I
don't care how many servers or processors that the Department
of Energy uses in its complicated computer assessment of the
Yucca Mountain site, you can't prove that you can meet a
standard that has yet to be written--unless of course, the
Department of Energy has told EPA how to write it. Interesting
assumption, isn't it? A little backward is how I would describe
it. We are talking about the most dangerous substance known on
the face of the earth. And instead of seriously studying
whether or not the proposed site at Yucca Mountain is safe to
store this waste, the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency are cooking up their own set of
books to write a radiation standard that can be met at Yucca
Mountain.
As many of my colleagues will remember, EPA already
published an earlier version of the radiation standard in 2001.
And in that standard, EPA went too far to accommodate the
Department of Energy's desire to build a waste dump at Yucca
Mountain and deliberately violated congressional instructions
in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Thankfully this rule was thrown
out by the courts.
The EPA wrote a newly proposed draft in 2005--2 years ago--
which has yet to be finalized. Where is it? It is obvious to me
that the EPA is having trouble writing a final radiation
standard that can meet current law without disqualifying Yucca
Mountain as a suitable site to dump nuclear waste. And EPA
knows if they fudge the exposure numbers they will end up back
in court.
Instead of sticking to the commitment that Yucca Mountain
would proceed only if it would actually protect public health,
EPA has cast sound science aside in favor of politics in the
myopic pursuit of Yucca Mountain. And now they are delaying
publishing a final radiation standard because they know the
Department of Energy cannot meet the requirements required by
law. And they also know that if they delay long enough that the
State of Nevada will run out of time to take this issue back
into the courts. Again, this is a rigged process.
How are we to secure the waste in the interim? We leave it
onsite in dry cask storage, where it is already safely and
securely stored at most nuclear plant sites and where the
experts and the nuclear industry have demonstrated that it will
continue to be safely stored for decades.
Senators Ensign and Bennett joined me in introducing the
Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act earlier
this year. This bill is a road map and a timeline for safely
securing our spent nuclear fuel for one to two hundred years,
giving us time to find a safe, scientific long-term solution to
this national security issue.
Thank you again Chairman Boxer for holding this important
hearing. The people of Nevada, as well was the rest of the
United States, deserve answers to their many questions about
the safety of a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.
We are only 8 months away from the Department of Energy's
deadline to submit the license application for review by the
NRC. I am anxious for this final battle to be over so that we
can move on to resolving the underlying problem of what to do
with our country's nuclear waste.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Reid. Either way is fine.
I want to thank both of you so much. You obviously have
very deeply felt feelings. I don't have any questions for you
except to say personally I have been with you for a very long
time on this,
and I think that you have been proven right every step of
the way.
I don't know if any colleagues have questions of our
witnesses.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I have a question of both of our witnesses.
First of all, our leader.
Senator Reid. Never ask a question unless you know what the
answer is going to be.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I think I probably do.
I was in the House. I think Senator Craig was in the House.
Senator Boxer was in the House.
You were I think over in the Senate when we took up this
legislation 25 years or so ago and in a sense just sort of
jammed it down Nevada's throat. I reflect back on that any
number of times, and I was saying to Senator Clinton, when I
was Governor of Delaware, one of the hardest siting decisions
we ever made was where do you put a prison. In a State like
mine, we are a fairly densely populated State, and nobody ever
wanted a prison in their neighborhood. We found that other
States where frankly they regard a prison as economic
development and good jobs.
I wish when we did this 20 years ago or however many years
ago, we were smart enough to figure out how to incentivize a
community or find a State who saw this as an opportunity, an
economic development opportunity. I said to Senator Clinton,
half kidding but half serious, we should have been smart enough
to say, you know, for a State that will accept a repository for
nuclear waste for the next 1,000 or 10,000 years, whatever, you
will get free electricity or make some kind of deal that they
couldn't say no to.
Do you recall? Was that ever part of the discussion? I just
don't recall.
Senator Reid. It was never part of the deal. I would also
say this, Senator Carper, when you know in the gambling jargon
you have a bad hand, you should start over again. They have
been unwilling to do that. Mo Udall's plan was a good plan. It
was fair. We would have three separate site characterizations;
three different geologic formations, and they would actually
characterize those, and find out which one was the best of the
three to do this. That was just thrown away.
Yucca Mountain has been bastardized. It was set up to have
the geological formation protect the people from nuclear waste.
They learned a long time ago that won't work. So now what they
are doing is building a sleeve in this big hole to have the
sleeve protect it. I mean, it is absolutely without any
scientific foundation.
Now, with the passage of time, as Senator Ensign said, the
nuclear power generators are now understanding what a bad deal
this is. It will never happen. I repeat again, 9/11, what did
it teach us? It taught us a number of things, that evil people
will go to extremes to do terribly bad things to us. This is an
invitation to them, to haul this stuff across America's
railways and highways.
Senator Ensign. Just briefly, I think it probably would
have been smart politics to say to us, OK,
we want to study these States. If any of the States
actually wants to be part of that study, we are going to put
some incentives out there and have them say yea or nay. Nevada
would have said nay back then. I mean, our citizens have been
against this project from the very beginning.
So I think that would have been a little fairer process,
but the bottom line is, even if that process had gone forward,
Yucca Mountain has definitely proved that it is too costly, and
that really isn't the best solution anyway. A deep geologic
repository is not the best solution for nuclear waste.
In France, they predicted that this waste after they
reprocessed it, and then classified it, they predicted that it
would get warmer over time. In reality it has actually gotten
cooler. And so the bottom line is, they have been doing it long
enough where they have proven it safe. We in this country have
100 years to decide if we want to go and turn waste into glass
as France did because dry cask storage is good enough to push
this decision off into the future. Dry cask storage is very
safe.
Senator Reid. Senator Carper, if I could just say one
additional thing here. There were no incentives offered, and I
agree with Senator Ensign, in fact if there had been. But part
of it is the way this matter has been handled by some of these
people down in the bowels of the bureaucracy. Sweden does have
an incentivized program, and some say that is working fine in
Sweden, but as I said, it is 25 years ago that we started this,
and Sweden is way ahead of us.
Senator Carper. Madam Chair, if I could just wrap it up by
simply saying, Senator Reid and Senator Ensign think it is
unlikely that Yucca Mountain will ever be open for business as
usual,
if you will. They may well be right. As Senator Ensign
said, even if it were open, eventually there will have to be
another Yucca Mountain. He may well be right there as well.
I just hope we are smart enough the next time we try to
site one of these facilities, if we decide not to try to do all
the siting onsite where nuclear power plants currently exist,
if we try to do it, that we try to figure out what communities,
what States would frankly welcome the investment--billions of
dollars investment, billions of dollars worth of construction
jobs.
Frankly, good-paying jobs going on for as far as the eye
can see. And I think the potential for dramatically reduced
costs of electricity. That has got to get somebody's attention,
and I hope we are smart enough to figure out how to do that.
Senator Reid. Senator, the problem with that now, though,
is the 9/11 problem. Hauling it, that is the problem.
Senator Carper. Madam Chair, I would just say this, I don't
know who our next President is going to be, but whoever she
turns out to be----
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Whoever turns out to be our next President,
I hope our next President will launch, I will call it a 21st
century Manhattan Project where we actually go out there, put
together the best smartest people we can fine, to figure out
what to do with this waste, so we won't have to worry about it
for 10,000 years. We may not even have to worry about it for
100,000 years. I just think the Nation that was smart enough to
develop, to invent the airplane, to invent cars, automobiles,
the Nation that was smart enough to invent the television and
the internet, smart enough to put a man on the moon 10 years
after we said we were going to, we have to be smart enough to
figure this one out, too, and we just need to do it.
Senator Craig. Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Yes, Senator.
Senator Craig. Just a brief comment to both the Nevada
Senators. They and I and others have debated this issue a long
time, and while obviously it is a highly emotional issue for
the State of Nevada. Both of them, Madam Chair, have been
gentlemen in the debate. We have tried to deal with the issues
and the science and the reality, and I thank them for that.
Senator Ensign mentioned recycling. I think all of us are
looking at that most seriously today as a necessary step in the
process of a nuclear renaissance for our Country, because
certainly we want it to be a cleaner place. We want abundant
energy, and right now the technology that offers that is
nuclear.
Senator Boxer. Senator, we are not making statements.
Senator Craig. OK.
Senator Boxer. If you have a question, please direct it. If
not, we have to get through our opening statements. Other
people have to have a chance.
Senator Craig. I appreciate your tolerance, as you have
done with Senator Carper.
Senator Boxer. Senator Carper, that is going to be his 5
minutes.
Senator Craig. Oh, excuse me then.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Craig. One brief question, without vitrification or
classification and recycling, our scientists are still telling
us we will need some permanent repository for the last of the
high level, although we have reduced its volume tremendously.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
Senator Ensign. Well, first of all that is so far down the
line, and what needs to be done can be studied over the next
100 years while the waste is being stored. First of all, other
countries are so far ahead of us. The bottom line is we are a
long way away of even needing to make that decision, but I
think it absolutely needs to be studied. When we get to that
study, something like what Senator Carper talked about with the
incentives, might not be a bad thing to look at. But scientists
are telling us that there needs to be some kind of a storage
area, but I think we have quite a bit of time to study that.
Senator Craig. Thank you both.
Madam Chairman, thank you.
Senator Boxer. Sure.
Senator Reid, did you have an answer to the question? All
right.
We thank our colleagues so much for your time. Thank you
very much.
We will continue now with our opening statements. The next
one would be Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
look forward to becoming more informed today and educated
toward the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository
and the concerns that we are hearing about.
As a newcomer to this forum, it seems from the submitted
testimony that the issue of a long-term nuclear waste storage
has been discussed for some three decades. My fundamental
concern is for the continuation of a fair, objective and
informed process, a process that respects the advice of our
best scientists, a process that allows a fair hearing of those
most closely impacted, and finally a process that demonstrates
accountability to both our taxpayers and our ratepayers' hard-
earned money.
As policymakers, we do owe it to our constituents this
careful review. This is true whether those constituents live
near a nuclear facility with temporary onsite storage, or
whether they live near a transportation corridor between a
nuclear facility and a permanent repository, or if they live
near a permanent waste repository. Oversight of this process is
appropriate, as the environmental and domestic security stakes
are high.
With that background, I feel compelled to point out a more
immediately pressing observation, and that is as a member of
both the Senate Energy and the Senate Environment Committees, I
am increasingly struck by the policies that are presently being
debated. I ask myself, are the policies properly harmonized
between affordable secure domestic energy sources and
preservation of our natural resources?
I note that we debate aggressive carbon limitations while
simultaneously we struggle to adequately deal with the long-
term storage of nuclear waste, as nuclear power is an energy
source that doesn't emit carbon. I note as we discuss energy
policy, we often limit, rather than expand, domestic
exploration, production, generation and development
opportunities. Quoting from a recent Energy Information
Administration report assessing one of the cap and trade bills
that was introduced earlier this year, it states, ``New nuclear
plants are a key technology the power sector is projected to
rely on to reduce greenhouse emissions.'' This Energy
Information. Administration report projects that an estimated
145 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity will be added by 2030.
My point in these discussions regarding energy and the
environment is that we need to explore and properly plan for
all energy sources because we as a Nation are going to need all
of the energy sources. We need investment in technology for
renewable sources, technology for cleaner fossil fuel uses, and
yes, technology and a predictable regulatory framework for
nuclear energy and its accompanying waste.
I ask myself from where will we get the energy that we need
tomorrow? Currently, fossil fuels and nuclear energy account
for approximately 93 percent of our energy consumption. We will
not be able to change that statistic overnight. In the
meantime, it is our obligation to carefully and cautiously
execute a national policy on long-term storage of nuclear
waste. We should not saddle future generations with a strategy
left unexecuted. A major component of that is a long-term,
well-developed strategy to deal with our existing and our
future nuclear waste in an environmentally and domestically
secure fashion.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding these hearings.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Isakson?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I want to first of all associate myself with the remarks of
Senator Carper with regard to this Country's need to establish
a Manhattan-like project in terms of dealing with the storage
of spent nuclear fuel. It is absolutely exactly the right
approach we should have. I think the question is not whether or
no we should expand our nuclear energy, but how we are going to
be able to expand it and meet the demands of storage in the
future. So I associate myself with that remark.
As far as the question of we have 100 years before we have
to worry, whether or not that is true,
given both the geo-political issues that we have with
fossil fuels, as well as the carbon issues that we debate in
the Senate, there is no question that the immediacy of dealing
with safe nuclear spent fuel storage is absolutely now today.
I look forward to listening to the testimony of the experts
that will testify today on Yucca Mountain and will study it
closely.
I will also follow up at the suggestion of Senator Reid, I
will talk to our nuclear producers in Georgia and get their
opinions with regard to Yucca. But it is absolutely critical
that this Committee move forward and encourage the safe
licensing and safe storage of spent nuclear fuel as quickly as
we can because expansion of nuclear energy in the power sector
alone will be the single largest component, as Senator Barrasso
has said, to reducing carbon in the atmosphere and dealing with
the geo-political issues of the importation of oil from the
Middle East, both of which are serious political problems and
serious health problems for us in this Country today.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you for your always
thoughtful comments.
We are going to invite our second panel to come forward,
Hon. Edward Sproat, III, and Robert J. Meyers and Michael
Weber.
I am going to hand Senator Carper the gavel and ask if he
will complete our hearing today. We
should get through this at 12:30 p.m. so we all have these
other----
Senator Carper. I would be happy to do it.
Senator Boxer. Thanks. All right, I am going to hand you
the gavel and I am going to take my halo with me today.
Senator Carper.
[Presiding] I don't get the halo?
Senator Boxer. No.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. What is the old country and western song,
She got the gold mine and I got the shaft? I get the gavel, you
keep the halo. It is not right.
Senator Boxer. Let's discuss how you might get this halo.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I have my work cut out for me.
Senator Craig. Chairman Carper, she got the gold mine and
you got Yucca.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Same thing.
Senator Carper. All right. Let's go to our witnesses.
I frankly don't have the----
Senator Boxer. Here is the list.
Senator Carper. OK. Thank you.
I want to give our witnesses a good introduction.
Welcome, panel two. First of all, the Director of the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for the U.S.
Department of Energy, Edward Sproat. Welcome, Mr. Sproat.
Our second witness is Robert Meyers, Principal Deputy
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Meyers, it is
nice to see you again. Welcome.
Our third witness on this panel is Michael Weber, who is
the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mr.
Weber,
welcome. We are delighted that you are here.
Your entire testimony will be made part of the record. We
will ask you to try to sum up in about five minutes and then we
will turn to questions.
Welcome. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. SPROAT, III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Mr. Sproat. Thank you, Senator, and good morning fellow
Senators. It is an honor to be here this morning to talk about
where we stand with moving forward with Yucca Mountain.
I am here representing not only the President and the
Secretary of Energy, but the 2,700
professional engineers and scientists that work for our
national laboratories that have been working on Yucca Mountain
for 30 years. I would like to address several of the points I
have heard in the opening statements this morning and talk
about specific issues that were raised, and maybe help clear up
a few misconceptions regarding some of the points that were
brought up.
I heard several times this morning about flaws in the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I cannot, and I
am not here to defend how the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was
developed. It was developed and passed when I was in my early
30's. So all I know is, my responsibility today for the
Department of Energy is to follow and execute the plan that the
Congress laid out for moving forward with disposal of the
Nation's high level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
Now, that process, which has been going on now for 30 years
since we did our first explorations at the Yucca Mountain site
in Nevada, has been moving, has spent a lot of money, a lot of
professionals, a lot of the best scientists in this Country
have been working on it. I believe we have gotten to the point
where that science and that technology is ready to be
integrated and presented in an open and transparent process in
front of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so that their
technical experts can determine whether or not the Yucca
Mountain site can be licensed. That is what we are intending to
do.
Now, there was some indication this morning that some
people think we are rushing to get this done. Let me just say
that this program is 30 years old. The license application is 6
years behind the schedule that the Congress told the Department
of Energy that it wanted to follow in submitting the license
application. We are now at the point where that science is
ready. I have been very clear with my team and with the entire
group of scientists and engineers that not only do we want to
get this license application pulled together, because now is
the time to do it, but because the quality and the safety of
Yucca Mountain and the science behind it is absolutely
critical.
So I have been very clear in the message I have been
sending to the organization that they not only have to get it
done with some schedule discipline, which quite frankly the
management of this program hasn't had in the past, but with the
quality and safety that is required of a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission licensee. The people have responded to that message
extremely well.
The second issue I would like to bring up is that I have
heard a number of times that we really shouldn't proceed with
Yucca Mountain. Let's leave it where it is for the next 100
years or so and then figure out where it goes from there. Let
me just say that if you are not in favor of moving forward with
this, then you are clearly in favor of leaving it where it is
indefinitely. This generation is the beneficiary of nuclear
power. It is the generation that is generating the nuclear
waste. It is the generation that has the responsibility to
determine what to do with the nuclear waste and to move forward
with it in a safe, responsible manner.
Now, right now, high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear
fuel is at 121 different sites in 31
States. In the State of California, there are nine sites
with 2,400 metric tons of uranium, spent nuclear fuel, and
there are 23.1 million people living within 75 miles of those
sites.
The third issue I heard talked about was transportation. I
think most people aren't aware that since 1964, there have been
over 2,800 truck shipments and over 500 rail shipments of
commercial spent nuclear fuel in this Country safely and
without an accident. And also, the National Academy of Sciences
last year issued a report that determined that the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel can be done safely by rail
and by truck with no fundamental technical barriers.
The last issue that we heard about this morning was
terrorism, and the opportunities for terrorism that
transportation provides. All I would say is, if you are
concerned about terrorism, what makes an easier target: 121
sites where the waste is stationary and everybody knows where
it is, or waste that is moving with an armed guard and the only
people who know where it is are the people who are guarding it?
So I would ask that question in response to the question of
concern about terrorism.
Let me just conclude by saying that nuclear power needs to
be a part of our national strategic energy mix. What to do with
the waste is a part of that question and is an enabler of
helping to make sure nuclear power is a part of the energy mix.
It has to be an essential piece of our climate change strategy.
The game plan and the law of the Country that has been passed
by the Congress, approved by the executive branch, and upheld
by the judiciary branch of this Government, says the next step
in the process is to license Yucca Mountain, and that is what
we are intending to do.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sproat follows:]
Statement of Edward F. Sproat, III Director, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Madam Chairman, Senator Inhofe and Members of the
Committee, I am Edward F. Sproat, III, Director of the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management (OCRWM). I would like to thank the Committee
for the opportunity to discuss the status of the Department's
efforts to submit a license application to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) for authorization to construct a
repository for the permanent disposal of the Nation's spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.
Since my confirmation by the Senate in May of 2006, I have
focused on developing a high-quality and docketable license
application and submitting that application to the NRC in a
timely manner. I set as one of my strategic objectives the
submittal of that application no later than June 30, 2008 and
we are currently on schedule to accomplish that objective.
Today I would like to discuss the regulatory framework for the
licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository and to provide a
status of our commitment to submit that license application by
June 30, 2008.
the framework for licensing the yucca mountain repository
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (the NWPA)
established a process and schedule for the siting, construction
and operation of a national repository for spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste. On February 15, 2002, the
President submitted his recommendation to Congress recommending
Yucca Mountain as the site for the development of a repository
in accordance with the NWPA, and on April 8, 2002 Congress
passed House Joint Resolution 87 approving the Yucca Mountain
site as the location for the Nation's repository. This Joint
Resolution was signed into law by the President on July 23,
2002.
Under section 114(b) of the NWPA, 42 U.S.C. 10134 the
Department must now prepare and submit a license application to
the NRC. The NRC will evaluate DOE's license application in
accordance with the regulations developed pursuant to the NWPA
and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, including 10 C.F.R. Part 63
(Disposal of High-Level Waste in a Geologic Repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada). As part of the licensing process, DOE will
be required to demonstrate that the proposed repository meets
the regulatory radiation protection standards which have been
established and adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and incorporated by the NRC into 10 C.F.R. Part 63
pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which required EPA
to set site-specific standards to protect public health and
safety from releases of radioactive material stored or disposed
of in the repository at the Yucca Mountain site.
Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, EPA promulgated
public health and safety standards for radioactive materials to
be disposed of in the Yucca Mountain repository. 40 C.F.R. 197
(2001)(Public Health and Radiation Protection Standards for
Yucca Mountain, NV); 10 C.F.R. Part 63 (2004). In 2004, in
response to legal challenges, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit remanded the portions of those
standards that addressed the period of time for which
compliance must be demonstrated. In 2005, EPA proposed new
standards to address the court's decision. Under the existing
standards, estimated repository performance will be compared to
a mean annual dose of 15 millirem for the first 10,000 years
after closure. Under the proposed standards, estimated
repository performance would be compared to a median annual
dose of 350 millirem for the post-10,000 year period. The
Department expects that EPA will issue its revised final
radiation exposure standard in the near future and that NRC
will subsequently adopt those regulations. While NRC will need
to have adopted its corresponding final regulations before it
can issue the construction authorization, DOE does not need the
final radiation protection standard to develop or submit its
license application.
Finally, under the NWPA the NRC retains National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities with respect
to issuance of a license. However, the NWPA provides that any
environmental impact statement that DOE prepares ``. . . shall
to the extent practicable, be adopted by the Commission in
connection with the issuance by the Commission of a
construction authorization and license for such repository.''
To the extent NRC adopts DOE's environmental impact statement,
under the NWPA that adoption shall be deemed to also satisfy
the responsibilities of the Commission under NEPA.
current status of license application
The Department is currently preparing its license
application as required by the NWPA and plans to submit the
application to NRC not later than June 30, 2008. Approximately
5 years will have elapsed between when the site recommendation
was approved and submittal of the application. In working
toward a submittal by June 30, 2008, DOE has not put schedule
ahead of quality. Quality and timeliness are not mutually
exclusive and our license application will be the product of a
disciplined approach. Our application must be sufficient to
withstand a thorough and rigorous adjudication by the NRC, with
scrutiny by NRC's technical experts and with full opportunity
for challenges by the State of Nevada and other interveners.
The license application will integrate the results of over 20
years of scientific and engineering work which is now ready to
be scrutinized by the NRC's technical experts and the public.
When the EPA standard is final, NRC can finalize its
corresponding regulation. NRC will then be able to examine the
results of our analyses and determine, as part of NRC's
decision as to whether the materials can be disposed of without
unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public.
Therefore, NRC cannot reach its licensing decision on the
safety of the facility until EPA standards and NRC regulations
become final. I am confident that the analyses contained in our
application will be sufficiently robust for NRC to be able to
make that determination.
The Department has also prepared a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye
County, Nevada (Final EIS) which was issued in 2002. On October
12, 2007, the Department published a Notice of Availability of
a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and
High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County,
Nevada (Draft Repository SEIS) which DOE also expects will be
completed and submitted to NRC not later than June 30, 2008.
This Draft Repository SEIS evaluates the potential
environmental impacts of constructing and operating the Yucca
Mountain repository under the repository design and operational
plans that have been developed since the Final EIS was issued
in 2002.
On October 19, 2007, the Department certified its document
collection for the NRC's Licensing Support Network (LSN). The
LSN is a web-based information system that makes electronically
available documentary materials related to the Department's
license application. As of today, DOE has made approximately
3.5 million documents, estimated to exceed 30 million pages,
electronically available to the public on the LSN. These
documents include scientific, engineering, and other documents
related to DOE's license application. The Department will
update its certification at the time of license application
submittal as is required by NRC regulations, and we will
continue to supplement the document production throughout the
discovery phase of the NRC licensing proceeding.
In conclusion, I appreciate this opportunity to review the
process to license the Yucca Mountain repository as defined in
the NWPA and to provide an update on the progress we are
making. Since the site was approved by Congress in 2002, the
Department will have taken over 6 years to reach the next
step--to file a license application with the NRC. I came to the
Department to fulfill the congressional mandate to follow
through with the application to the NRC and I plan to meet my
commitment to submit the application to the NRC within the next
8 months.
Responses by Edward F. Sproat, III, to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1a. In its 2002 Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Yucca Mountain, the Department ofEnergy (DOE)
concedes that groundwater beneath the repository surfaces in
California at Franklin Lake Playa, and that 69,500 people could
be exposed to contaminated groundwater 37 miles down-gradient
in California. Does the DOE have any plan for remediation of
contaminated areas in California?
Response. The Department ofEnergy's (DOE) 2002 Yucca
Mountain Final Environmental Impact Statement does not concede
that 69,500 people could be exposed to contaminated groundwater
in California. Rather, the Final Environmental Impact Statement
states that ``[natural discharge of groundwater from beneath
Yucca Mountain probably occurs farther south at Franklin Lake
Playa and spring discharge in Death Valley is a possibility.''
(FEIS, p. 5-22)
The Environmental Protection Agency has established a
groundwater protection standard with respect to potential
releases from the Yucca Mountain repository
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will decide if
there is a reasonable expectation that the standard will be met
at the 12-mile boundary from the repository in the direction of
groundwater flow. If the standard is met at the 12-mile
boundary, it will also be met 37 miles down-gradient in
California and thus there will be no environmental damage to
remediate nor need for a remediation plan. If the standard is
not met at the 12-mile boundary, NRC will not authorize
construction of the Yucca Mountain repository.
Question 1b. Does the DOE consider these impacts
permissible?
Response. The Department has recently issued a Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geolosic
Repository for the Disposal ofSpent Nuclear Fuel and Hizh-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain. Nevada County, Nevada
(Repository SEIS). The information on which that draft
Repository SEIS is based indicates that the groundwater
protection standard will be met at the 12-mile boundary from
the repository. Accordingly, DOEbelieves it is reasonable to
expect there will be no impermissible impacts on groundwater 37
miles down-gradient in California.
Question 2a. What are the potential risks that groundwater
in Death Valley National Park will be contaminated by seepage
from the repository?
Response. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a groundwater protection standard with respect to
potential releases from the Yucca Mountain repository and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will decide if there is a
reasonable expectation that the standard will be met at the 12-
mile boundary from the repository in the direction of
groundwater flow. If the standard is met at the 12-mile
boundary, it will also be met at Death Valley. If the standard
is not met at the 12-mile boundary, NRC will not authorize
construction of the Yucca Mountain repository.
Question 2b. Will DOEaddress this issue in its license
application?
Response. The Department's license application seeking
authorization to construct the repository will address the
groundwater protection standard in the context of the 12-mile-
boundary from the repository. The Department believes that
examination of this issue at the point identified by the EPA
provides reasonable assurance concerning the protection of
groundwater at Death Valley.
Question 3. Is DOEconsidering the potential risks to the
integrity of the repository from future drilling into the Lower
Carbonate Aquifer for water to support population growth in Las
Vegas? If so, please describe the risks and how DOEwill address
them.
Response. No. Future drilling in the Lower Carbonate
Aquifer would not compromise the integrity of the repository.
Any drilling would be well away from the repository footprint
and would not intersect the drifts containing waste.
Question 4a. My home State ofCalifornia is particularly
concerned about the route waste will take on its way to Yucca
Mountain. Does the DOEplan to release alternative truck
shipping routes before submission of the license application?
Response. The Department has issued a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for
the Disposal ofSpent Nuclear Fuel and Hieh-Level Radioactive
Waste at Yucca Mountain. NNevada County, Nevada (Repository
SEIS) which provides a discussion of representative routes
nationally, and the public has been invited to comment on that
document. In addition, the Department ofEnergy (DOE) has been
engaged in development of criteria and methodologies for route
selection with representatives from States and Tribes through
whose jurisdictions shipments may be transported. This process
will culminate in the selection of routes 3-5 years prior to
the first shipment. DOE is
also committed to providing technical assistance and funds
for training related to these shipments for local public safety
officials along shipping routes. DOEnotes that currently
individuals and States do not have the opportunity to address
the shipment plans or routes for any other category of
hazardous material shipped by rail in this country each year.
Question 4b. Has the department assessed the radiation
exposure to workers and the public along the transportation
corridors?
Response. Yes. The Department published its initial studies
of the impacts associated with operating a national
transportation system to ship spent nuclear fuel and high----
level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain in the Yucca Mountain
Final
Environmental Impact Statement that DOE issued in 2002.
This document was recently updated in the Draft Supplemental
EnvironmentalImpact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal ofSpentNuclear Fuel andHigh-Level Radioactive Waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS). The draft
Repository SEIS was issued in October 2007 for public review
and comment.
Question 5. . Please furnish copies of all correspondence
between DOEand EPAor NRC concerning the proposed EPA Yucca
Mountain radiation standard rule.
Response. While no timeframe for this request has been
specified, the Department assumes this document request relates
to those documents generated after the ruling of the United
States Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit
issued on July 9, 2004, in Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v.
EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Case No. 01-1258, and relating
to the proposed rule issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on August 22,2005. Attached are the Department's
formal comments submitted to EPA on November 21,2005, on the
proposed rule including print and electronic attachments that
were submitted to the EPA(see Exhibit 1: Formal comments
including a copy of any hard copy enclosures and a copy of the
disk that accompanied the comments.). The Department is
currently conducting a search for all responsive documents
generated from July 9,2004, through the present. After the
Department has completed its review, we anticipate providing
the non-privileged responsive documents which have been
identified as a result of this search to the Committee.
Question 6. Please send copies of all documents related to
any meetings, conversations, or correspondence between DOEand
either NRC or EPA concerning the proposed EPA Yucca Mountain
radiation standard rule.
Response. While no timeframe for this request has been
specified, the Department assumes this document request relates
to those documents generated after the ruling of the United
States Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit
issued on July 9,2004, in Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 01-1258, and relating
to the proposed rule issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency on August 22,2005. The Department is currently
conducting a search for all responsive documents generated from
July 9,2004, through the present. After the Department has
completed its review, we anticipate providing the non-
privileged responsive documents which have been identified as a
result of this search to the Committee.
Question 7a. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act the EPA is
supposed to set the standards for licensing. Will DOEwait for
those standards before it files its application, and if not,
how can it proceed without them?
Response. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
responsible for establishing the radiation protection standards
for Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
then required to implement EPA standards by incorporating them
into its licensing requirements. NRC's licensing requirements
already incorporate the EPA standards for the period up to
10,000 years after closure of the repository. The current
EPArulemaking only addresses establishment sofa peak dose
standard for the period more than 10,000 years after closure of
the repository. The Department of Energy (DOE) believes
issuance of the EPA final rule will necessitate few, if any
changes, to its license application since DOE already has
incorporated the modeling assumptions that EPA set forth in the
proposed rule. While NRC cannot determine whether to grant
construction authorization until the peak dose standard is
incorporated into its regulations, the DOE is not precluded
from submitting its license application nor is the NRC
prohibited from initiating its review.
Question 7b. Has DOE seen the final rule as it now stands?
Response. The Department has reviewed and commented on
drafts of the final rule as part of the interagency review
process.
Question 8. On what basis could DOEsubmit a license
application in the absence sofa final EPAradiation standard?
Response. As noted in the answer to Q8a, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licensing regulations are complete except
for the incorporation sofa peak dose standard for the period
more than 10,000 years after the closure of the repository. The
Department is preparing its license application on the basis of
those existing regulations plus the modeling assumptions
concerning the period more than 10,000 years after the closure
of the repository set forth in the Environmental Protection
Agency proposal.
Question 9. DOE is preparing a ``Vulnerability Assessment''
that, in the words of its author, will document known
vulnerabilities in the safety analysis in the NRC license
application. Will DOEprovide the NRC, Nevada, and other
interested stakeholders with a copy of this document when it
submits its application? (Note: NRC regulations (10 C.F.R.
63.10) require that the application be complete in all material
respects and make it unlawful for an applicant to withhold
significant safety information).
Response. The ``Vulnerablility Assessment'' refers to a
review of certain technical documents and not the draft license
application. Documents relating to this assessment have already
been placed on the Licensing Support Network.
Question 10a. There is no legal requirement to file your
application on or before June 30,2008. The staff has been told
that your scientists working on the application have been told
they will be ``all out sofa' if the June 30,2008 project
deadline is missed. What is the significance of that date?
Response. he June 30,2008, goal for submission of the
license application has been used as a management tool to focus
the Program on an important near-term objective. All project
employees and contractors have consistently been told that they
are expected to develop a quality license application with
schedule discipline.
Question 10b. What are the consequences of missing that
date?
Response. Any delay in submittal of the license application
essentially results in a day-for day delay in all subsequent
activities including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
docketing and review of the license application; issuance of
the construction authorization; construction of the repository
facilities; and initiation of facility operations and receipt
of waste at the repository.
Question 11. Is DOEputting safety first with respect to its
work to file a license application for construction for the
Yucca Mountain by June 30, 2008? If so, how do you explain the
fact that your scientists are being told that meeting schedules
is more important that [sic] scientific defensibility or
technical credibility?
Response. Meeting management timelines and producing high-
quality products are not mutually exclusive objectives.
Department of Energy senior management has consistently
communicated to personnel working on the project that safety
and quality are not to be sacrificed for any reason, including
the schedule. In finalizing the license application, the
Department is following a disciplined approach and will not
accept anything less than high-quality work.
Question 12. Does DOEhave any intentions fallowing the NRC,
the State ofNevada, or the public to access its Total System
Performance Assessment?
Response. DOEexpects to complete the Total System
Performance Assessment report early next year, at which time
DOE will place it on the Licensing Support Network through
which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the State ofNevada and
the public will have access to it.
Question 13a. Has DOE loaded all documents on which it will
base its license application in the Licensing Support Network
(LSN)?
Response. No. The Department is not required to have loaded
all documents on which it will base its license application in
the Licensing Support Network (LSN) at this time. In accordance
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, the
Department will continue to add documents to its LSN collection
as the documents are completed.
Question 13b. Does DOE expect to have more information to
include in the LSN once EPA publishes its final radiation
standard?
Response. The Department does not anticipate needing to add
more documents to the LSN as the result of the issuance of the
final Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. However,
if publication of the EPA standard results in the production of
additional documentary material, the Department will place such
material on the LSN.
Question 13c. How many documents has DOE included in the
LSN?
Response. The Department has made electronically available
over 3.5 million documents, estimated to exceed 30 million
pages, including scientific, engineering, and other documents.
Question 14a. Recently, you have said construction will
more likely be complete somewhere around the year 2022. What is
the ``most likely'' date of completion?
Response. The Department is still evaluating the impact of
the final fiscal year and fiscal year appropriations. It is
likely but not yet certain that the Department will not be able
to meet the ``best-achievable schedule'' of2017 for opening the
repository. As a result of the expected delays due to
limitations on funding and other factors, the Department's
current most likely opening date for the repository is 2020.
Question 14b. Based on this schedule, when would DOE begin
to accept nuclear waste and transport it to Yucca?
Response. Based on the above schedule, the Department would
begin to accept nuclear waste around 2020.
Question 14c. How long would this waste be left onsite at
Yucca Mountain prior to underground emplacement?
Response. The main waste streams received at the repository
are DOEhigh-level radioactive waste (HLW) and Department
ofEnergy spent nuclear fuel (DOE SNF), Naval SNF, and
commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF). The Department currently
anticipates that DOE HLW, DOE SNF and Naval SNF would normally
be onsite from one to 8 weeks before emplacement.
Based on current planning, the CSNF would be transported to
the repository for cooling and achieving the appropriate
thermal load for the repository. Depending on the time since it
was discharged from the reactor and burn up of the CSNF, some
of the individual canisters would be emplaced in the near term
while a limited number of individual canisters could be on an
aging pad for up to thirty years.
Question 15. When the DOE submits its license application
for construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain, will that
act constitute a final agency action?
Response. The submission of the license application will
not constitute a ``final agency action.'' Rather, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations provide for a lengthy
licensing proceeding during which NRCwill conduct a thorough
and rigorous review of the application. NRC's final decision on
whether to issue a construction authorization will be a ``final
agency action'' that will be ripe for judicial review.
Question 16. Do you foresee any of this opposition on Yucca
Mountain diminishing in the coming years based on any
additional science or progress on the facility in that
location?
Response. DOEexpects to submit its license application (LA)
for authorization to construct the repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by
June 30, 2008. Upon acceptance of the LA, the NRC will begin
formal proceedings that will afford the public and the
scientific community the opportunity to witness a full and
complete airing of the technical issues associated with the
Yucca Mountain repository. In these proceedings, the Department
ofEnergy, the State ofNevada, and other interested parties will
present their positions in a fair and open forum. The
Department expects that public understanding of the science
will advance through this process.
Question 17a. The late Edward McGaffigan, a former Nuclear
Regulatory Commissioner, told reporters earlier this year that
the flawed thinking of the Department ofEnergy is that
opposition is eventually going to back down, but that it was
his belief that Yucca Mountain is unlikely ever to open, and
that we must begin looking at alternatives to Yucca. Mr.
McGaffigan was the longest serving commissioner in NRChistory,
appointed by both Presidents Clinton and Bush, and had received
the Distinguished Service Award in 2006. Do you agree with his
assessment that it's time to end the work at Yucca and pursue
alternatives?
Response. The Department believes the Yucca Mountain
repository is necessary for any future scenario and is
committed to fulfilling its statutory obligations to obtain a
license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to construct
and operate the repository.
Question 17b. What is the rationale for your response?
Response. The Department believes that a geologic
repository constructed at the Yucca
Mountain site will meet or exceed all applicable licensing
requirements and is essential for the disposal of commercial,
Naval and DOEspent nuclear fuel, as well as defense high-level
radioactive waste.
Question 18. How does the cost of alternative, secure spent
fuel storage options, such as hardened onsite interim storage,
compare with the future expenditures on Yucca Mountain over the
next 20 years?
Response. The Department has not developed cost estimates
for the development of hardened onsite storage facilities at
each of the 121 sites that currently store spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste destined for geologic
disposal. The Department has developed detailed estimates of
the cost to construct and begin operations at the Yucca
Mountain repository. Expending these funds will result in the
development of a single remote, hardened facility that can
receive and dispose of the spent nuclear fuel from all of the
sites currently storing these materials. Leaving spent nuclear
fuel onsite only defers but does not eliminate the need for a
permanent repository and would clearly be more expensive than
proceeding now with the Yucca Mountain Repository.
Question 19. What technical issues remain unresolved in
determining whether Yucca Mountain is capable of safely storing
spent nuclear fuel for thousands of years?
Response. The Department believes that a sufficient
technical basis exists for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
determine that a repository at Yucca Mountain can safely store
spent nuclear fuel for hundreds of thousands of years.
Question 20a. Is additional scientific research being
conducted to ensure that nuclear waste can be stored in Yucca
Mountain without polluting aquifers and exposing nearby
residents to toxic radiation and increasing their cancer risks?
Response. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has
mandated that the Department conduct a performance confirmation
program for the next 100 years to verify assessments of
repository performance. Results of that activity will be
reported on a regular basis to the NRCand the public. In
addition to the Department of Energy's own investigations,
cooperative agreements are in place with Nye County, Nevada,
Inyo County, California, and the Nevada System ofHigher
Education to provide independent research and review. As
funding allows, the Department will also continue to support
additional independent scientific investigations that can give
greater understanding of the system and how its components
interact over time.
Question 20b. If so, what efforts will be made to ensure
that the results of this research are disclosed to the public?
Response. The Department intends to continue to publish its
scientific work in both the government publications format,
available in selected locations accessible by the public such
as the library of the University ofNevada at Las Vegas, and it
will also continue to encourage its participants to present and
publish their scientific work to specialist and general
audiences through professional and scientific forums and
publications.
Question 21. If the political and technical issues
associated with the Yucca Mountain project cannot be resolved,
how can the search for a new site be implemented to avoid the
pitfalls that have plagued the Yucca project and ensure a site
selection based on sound science?
Response. The Department believes the Yucca Mountain
Program will be successful and the Yucca Mountain repository
will open around 2020. However, if the current 70,000 metric
ton of heavy metal administrative limit on the capacity ofYucca
Mountain is not lifted by Congress, the siting process for a
second repository in another State will need to be undertaken
based on the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The
Department believes the best way to avoid the technical and
political issues associated with siting a repository are to
lift the 70,000 metric ton limit on the capacity of the Yucca
Mountain repository.
Question 22. What is your view on using regional
repositories instead of one repository for the entire country?
Response. The efforts to site and license regional
repositories would offer substantial political and economic
challenges. While the Department has not performed any cost
estimates for this approach, the Department believes that the
cost of siting, investigating, licensing, constructing and
operating numerous sites would be substantially higher than the
cost of proceeding with the licensing and development of a
single geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. The Department
believes that it would be most appropriate to proceed under the
existing legislative and regulatory framework which has been
established for the Yucca Mountain site and that there would be
significant delay associated with development of a new
legislative and regulatory framework that would be needed for
the development of regional repositories in lieu ofYucca
Mountain.
Question 23a. What studies or analyses have been conducted
on the safety of transporting spent nuclear fuel or radioactive
waste?
Response. A detailed study of the impacts associated with
transporting spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive
waste to Yucca Mountain was published in the Yucca Mountain
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that the Department
of Energy (DOE) issued in 2002. This document was recently
updated in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal ofSpent
Nuclear Fuel andHigh-level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS) and the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the
Construction andOperation of a Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Rail
Alignment EIS). The draft Repository SEIS and draft Rail
Alignment EIS were issued in October 2007 for public review and
comment.
In addition, the National Academy ofSciences conducted a
lengthy review of the safety of these shipments. The results of
that study were published in the book: Going the Distance, The
Safe Transport ofSpent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive
Waste in The United States''. The study concluded that ``[t]he
committee could identify no fundamental technical barriers to
the safe transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste in the United States.'' Furthermore, the
committee stated that ``[transport by highway and by rail is,
from a technical viewpoint, a low-radiological-risk activity
with manageable safety, health and environmental consequences
when conducted with strict adherence to existing regulations.''
Question 23b. Has an analysis been done on whether it is
preferable to transport these substances by rail, truck, or
some other means of transportation?
Response. Yes, a detailed analysis of the shipping options
was conducted as part of the Yucca Mountain FEIS that DOE
issued in 2002. During the comment period on the draft FEIS,
numerous respondents (including the State ofNevada) advocated
for use of rail as the primary mode of transport. Based on the
analyses in the draft FEIS and the stakeholder comments,
DOEannounced its decision to use mostly rail as the mode of
transport in a Record ofDecision issued in April 2004. The
decision to use dedicated trains (trains that would transport
only spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste and no other
cargo) as the usual rail service was made as a matter of
operational policy in 2006. In its study of the safety of these
shipments, the National Academy ofSciences strongly endorsed
DOE's decision to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste to the repository by mostly rail using
dedicated trains.
Question 24. According the National Academy ofSciences, the
peak risks with regard to Yucca Mountain might occur hundreds
of thousands of years in the future. Is it possible, given
current technology, to build a repository that can maintain its
structural integrity for hundreds and thousands of years?
Response. The National Academy ofSciences has long
advocated geologic disposal precisely because a repository in
rock, such as Yucca Mountain, can be expected to perform its
function for up to a million years into the future. The designs
and performance analyses included in the license application
will allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine
whether the combination of physical and engineered barriers
creates an expectation that the Yucca Mountain repository can
safely isolate waste for a million years.
------
Responses by Edward F. Sprout III to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. In Mr. Cook's written testimony, he
characterizes shipments of spent fuel and nuclear waste as
``extremely dangerous.'' Would you please summarize the
industry's safety record and the precautions that will be taken
to ensure that these materials will be safely transported?
Response. Government and industry have approximately four
decades of successful spent fuel shipping experience,
conducting more than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel
without any harmful release of radioactive material. This is
the best safety record of any class of hazardous material that
is transported. The study of spent fuel transportation safety
conducted by the National Academy ofSciences (Going the
Distance, The Safe Transport ofSpent Nuclear Fuel andHigh-Level
Radioactive Waste in The UnitedStates) found that there were
``. . . no fundamental technical barriers to the safe transport
of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste in the United
States.'' Furthermore, the National Academy's study found that
the current regulatory framework is sufficient to ensure future
shipments can be conducted with manageable safety, health and
environmental consequences. The shipments will be made with
very robust casks certified by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. In addition, the shipments will have armed escorts,
and the Department has chosen to use dedicated trains as the
usual mode of transport. This will enhance the safety, security
and efficiency of transportation operations.
Question 2. In her testimony as Nevada's Attorney General,
Ms. Masto indicates that the license application will be
incomplete when it is filed. Please explain why this
characterization is inaccurate and include examples of design
aspects that are unnecessary for the NRC's consideration of the
construction authorization application.
Response. The license application when filed will be
complete pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR63.21. Examples
of design aspects that are unnecessary for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's consideration of the construction
authorization include, but are not limited to the following:
design of structures non-important to safety such as
administration and maintenance facilities, warehouses, etc.
detailed design aspects such as rebar patterns and rebar corner
details, individual wiring connection drawings, spool sheets,
finishing details, etc.
------
Responses by Edward F. Sprout III to Additional Questions
from Senator Clinton
Question 1a. It is a well-established fact that the site
selection process was intended to select the most appropriate
geological repository.
In a May 21 letter, USGS Yucca Project branch chiefKenneth
Skipper wrote to Andrew Orrell, senior program manager for the
DOE lead laboratory, that preliminary data from a recent
drilling phase indicate that the location of the Bow Ridge
fault in the northern Midway Valley ``may be farther east than
projected from previous work in the area.'' As a result, in
June, Yucca engineers changed where they planned to build the
concrete pads for cooling thousands of tons of highly
radioactive spent fuel before the canisters are entombed in the
mountain, which lies 100 miles northwest ofLas Vegas.
It is clear that the DOEdoes not have a clear picture of
the site's exact geological makeup, and that several other
problems remain, including the dump's proximity to the water
table and engineers' failure to forecast what will happen at
the site, geologically or meteorologically, in the future.
Based on these emerging geological and scientific data, how
can DOE continue to advocate their selection ofYucca Mountain
as a valid geologic repository?
Response. The existence of the BowRidge Fault has been
known for decades and does not in any way affect the safety of
the repository. One of the reasons for the Department's
drilling activity this past summer was to validate the surface
projection of the BowRidge fault. New information regarding the
Bow Ridge fault required a slight location change of the
surface facility aging pads; this change was made as part of
our conservative approach to this project. As new scientific
information about the site becomes available, the Department
will evaluate the impact on our estimates of performance and
report results to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The
Department continues to believe that a sufficient technical
basis exists for the NRCto determine that a repository at Yucca
Mountain can safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste. The Department will provide its
technical basis for NRC review in the license application next
year.
Question 1b. Not including the engineered barriers, please
provide a detailed report on what the best and worse case
scenarios are for the geologic containment offered by the Yucca
Mountain site. This report should include a review of
groundwater migration, potential impact of changing
environmental and meteorological patterns, and damage to the
site from geological disturbances (e.g. volcanism and seismic
events).
Response. The legal framework under which the Yucca
Mountain repository will be licensed requires a determination
of how the total repository system of engineered and natural
barriers would function over time. The performance of the
repository system under the conditions specified in this
question will be evaluated in the license application, which
will be available to the Committee.
Question 2a. DOE has acknowledged that it must pass so-
called ``fix Yucca'' legislation in order to receive nuclear
waste to store at Yucca Mountain. This legislation would
provide DOEwith a land withdrawal for Yucca, and exempt the
repository from environmental laws such as RCRA, among other
things. Without passage of such legislation, can DOEeven begin
construction of the proposed repository?
Response. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires
licensees to have ownership and control of the land for a
nuclear facility. Accordingly, the Department believes it must
satisfy this requirement through land withdrawal legislation
before it can begin operation of the repository. In addition,
adequate and sustained funding well above current and historic
levels will be required if the repository is to be built and
operated. The proposed legislation would enable the needed
levels of funding and provide the necessary land withdrawal.
Other elements of the proposed legislation would facilitate
construction and operation of the repository. The standards of
isolation and environmental protection offered by Yucca
Mountain are significantly more protective then standards of
protection offered by near-surface disposal sites for hazardous
waste regulation by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
This provision of the proposed legislation would simplify the
regulatory framework and eliminate lengthy largely duplicative
reviews without compromising environmental protection or
safety.
Question 2b. Can DOEactually begin transporting and storing
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain without this legislation?
Response. As stated in the previous answer, the Department
must have ownership and control of the land before it can begin
operations.
Question 2c. Please explain why the DOEwould need to exempt
nuclear waste in its possession for the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act in order to store it at Yucca.
Response. The Department believes application of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to disposal at the Yucca
Mountain repository would be duplicative and unnecessary.
Specifically, NRChas a much more stringent regulatory regime
for certifying transportation casks and for licensing the
repository.
Question 3a. In the absence sofa NRCconstruction
authorization for the repository, could DOE begin construction
sofa rail spur to Yucca Mountain in Nevada?
Response. Yes. Construction of the rail spur would not be
subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing. The
Department will pursue all necessary permits and authorizations
for construction sofa rail line in Nevada.
Question 3b. When does DOEplan to begin construction of the
rail line in Nevada? The current schedule calls for
construction to begin after rail bed geotechnica!
characterization and preliminary design work is completed in
2011.
Question 3c. How do the communities near potential rail
routes feel about constructing a rail line to Yucca Mountain so
close to them?
Response. The Department ofEnergy (DOE) will only be
constructing one rail spur, and that will be in Nevada.
Although some individuals oppose the siting of the rail spur,
communities in rural Nevada have strongly advocated for rail
alignments that pass as close as possible to their communities.
In particular, the towns ofGoldfield and Caliente have strongly
advocated for alignments that pass as close to their
communities as possible. The draft Nevada Rail Corridor
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and draft Rail
Alignment Environmental Impact Statement are currently
available for public comment and provide an opportunity for
additional comments on this matter.
Question 3d. Didn't the Walker River Paiute Tribe tell DOE
that it couldn't build the rail line to Yucca over the Tribe's
reservation?
Response. Yes, the Walker River Paiute Tribe has informed
the Department that it objects to the transportation of nuclear
material through its Reservation. DOEhas identified the Mina
corridor which crosses through the Reservation as nonpreferred
because the Tribe has withdrawn its support for the EIS
process.
Question 3e. What options, such as cross-country truck
transportation, does DOEhave left and how much will it cost
taxpayers?
Response. The DOE Record ofDecision on mode of transport
for Nuclear Waste Policy Act shipments of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste was issued in April 2004.
DOEselected the ``mostly rail'' mode of transport both
nationally and in the State ofNevada. There will need to be
some truck shipments of spent fuel from reactor sites that
either do not have rail access or do not have the crane
capacities to handle large rail casks. DOEexpects that these
truck shipments will make up less than 10 percent of the waste
shipped. The National Academy of Sciences and stakeholders such
as the State ofNevada have strongly advocated for use of rail
as the primary mode of transport nationally and in Nevada.
Using rail casks maximizes the amount of fuel moved in each
cask, and reduces the overall number of shipments from over
53,000 legal weight trucks, to less than 3,200 trains. The
costs for a mostly truck shipping scenario have not been
calculated because of the preponderance of support for rail
shipments, and the Record ofDecision to use mostly rail as the
mode of transport. Taxpayers will only pay the costs of
transporting defense program waste, not civilian nuclear fuel.
Question 3f. In addition, would the use of the Caliente
option result in the rail shipments through downtown Las Vegas
on the Union Pacific mainline to Caliente?
Response. The routes for truck and rail shipments have not
been finalized, but standard rail routing practices maximize
the use ofClass 1 Railroads, minimize the number of exchanges
between railroads, and minimize the time and distance in
transit. Using these rules, a portion of the shipments,
including those coming from California, could travel through
downtown Las Vegas on routes used by other hazardous materials
currently shipped by rail.
Question 3g. Would DOEcontinue to pursue the Caliente
option if construction costs, now estimated to be $2-3 billion,
continue to escalate?
Response. The decision to use the mostly rail mode of
transport nationally and in Nevada was not driven by cost. The
decision was based on the impacts analyzed in the Yucca
Mountain Final Environmental Impact Statement, and by
stakeholder input-notably including both the State of Nevada
and the National Academy of Sciences. Potential changes in cost
estimates as the railroad design is refined are not expected to
affect the decision to ship by mostly rail in Nevada, or the
selection of the Caliente corridor for construction of the
railroad.
Question 3h. What would DOEdo if the Caliente rail line
cannot be built?
Response. There is no reason to believe the Caliente rail
line cannot be constructed successfully. If foreseen
circumstances were to prevent construction of a rail line along
the Caliente corridor, DOE would consider other alternatives.
Question 4a. What effect will the proposed Transportation,
Aging, and Disposal canister have on (a) the Total System
Performance Assessment for Yucca Mountain, and . . .
Response. The Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA)
model includes the Transportation, Aging, and Disposal (TAD)
canister concept. The TAD canister is an internal part of the
waste package and, other than the additional strength in
resisting damage from seismic events and rock fall, it
conservatively is assumed not to provide any additional long-
term performance benefit in terms of preventing radionuclide
releases. [What effect will the proposed Transportation, Aging,
and Disposal canister have on] (b) the Key Technical Issue
agreements with the NRC?
Question 4b. The Department has evaluated the effect of the
TADcanister on the Key Technical Issue (KTI) agreements. The
Department identified two KTI agreements now considered closed
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that were likely to be
impacted by the TAD canister: one was related to the
probability of criticality before 10,000 years and the other
dealt with chemistry inside the waste package. Preliminary
analyses of conceptual designs for the TAD based on design
specifications for the canister indicate that the probability
of criticality can be maintained below regulatory levels and
the in-package chemistry would not unfavorably impact waste
form performance. Once the TAD designs are finalized, analyses
will be performed to confirm the performance of the waste
package with the TADcanister.
In addition, the evaluation by the Department identified
nine other KTI agreements that could be impacted by the TAD
canister. The evaluation showed that these agreements generally
benefited from the added barrier provided by the TAD canister
for structural integrity or for corrosion performance of the
waste package. In all cases, the final TAD designs will be
evaluated to ensure the identified KTI agreement issues are
adequately addressed.
Question 4c. When will TADs be commercially available to
utilities, and how much will they cost utilities and
ratepayers?
Response. The Department is in the process of finalizing
the procurement of services for the detailed design, licensing
and demonstration ofTAD-based systems. Successful completion of
this effort should result in the availability ofTAD-based
systems for use at utility sites beginning in 2011. The use
ofTAD-based systems will result in the need for fewer, simpler
facilities at Yucca Mountain which the Department believes will
be easier to license and less costly to construct. The
Department will provide TAD systems for shipping spent nuclear
fuel from utility spent fuel pools to the repository. TADs used
for onsite storage will be paid for in the same manner as
utilities pay for current onsite storage systems.
Question 4d. How will the TSPA take canisters into account
when there aren't even designs for them yet?
Response. A detailed design for the TAD canister is not
required to model its performance attributes in the TSPA. The
current TAD specification contains sufficient information to
effectively model the inclusion of the TADcanister in the
repository system.
Question 4e. What are DOE's assumptions regarding the
protection that TADs will hypothetically provide?
Response. TAD canisters will provide assurance of no
releases during transportation, aging, and packaging. Once
underground, the TADs role is complementary to that of the
waste package outer barrier in long-term radionuclide
containment and release performance.
Question 5a. There are over 800 dual-purpose canisters in
onsite dry cask storage (about 8000 metric tons of waste) that
would have to be transferred to TADs at the reactor site or at
the repository. Would this additional handling be safer than
leaving the waste in NRC approved dry casks?
Response. The existing dual-purpose canisters currently in
place at reactors sites are approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) for above-ground storage and in some cases for
transportation of spent nuclear fuel. Dual-purpose canisters
were not designed to meet the requirements for permanent
disposal at Yucca Mountain. As a result, these existing
canisters will need to be repackaged prior to disposal, either
at the utility site or at Yucca Mountain. The current
repository design has the capability to repackage dual-purpose
canisters at Yucca Mountain.
Question 5b. Who is responsible for making sure the TADs
are properly loaded and welded at the reactor site?
Response. The Department is developing acceptance criteria
that will ensure that all TAD canisters accepted for disposal
at Yucca Mountain have been properly loaded and sealed. Whether
these canisters are prepared at the reactor sites or the
repository, the Department and utilities as NRC licensees are
responsible for compliance with these requirements, and will be
subject to oversight by the NRC. The Department will take
appropriate steps to ensure that its requirements have been
met.
Question 5c. DOEis referring to the use ofTADcanisters as
its ``current approach to disposal.'' Does this mean that its
plans for using TADs for transportation, aging, and disposal
could still change?
Response. The DOEdoes not plan to change its use ofTADs for
transportation, aging, and disposal at Yucca Mountain.
Question 5d. Do the nuclear utilities generally support the
idea of transferring their spent nuclear fuel into TAD
canisters?
Response. In developing the technical requirements for the
TAD-based systems, the Department had a number of discussions
with nuclear utilities, trade organizations, and members of the
spent fuel cask industry. Throughout these discussions, the
participants expressed strong support for the TAD-based
approach, and continue to support its implementation.
Question 6a. Has DOE loaded all documents on which it will
base its license application in the LSN?
Response. No. The Department is not required to have loaded
all documents on which it will base its license application in
the Licensing Support Network (LSN) at this time. In accordance
with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, the
Department will continue to add documents to its LSN collection
as the documents are completed.
Question 6b. Does DOE expect to have more information to
include in the LSN once EPA publishes its final radiation
standard?
Response. The Department does not anticipate needing to add
more documents to the LSN as the result of the issuance of the
final Environmental Protection Agency standard but as stated in
response to Question 6a the Department will continue to add
documents to its LSN collection including any that would need
to be completed or modified as a result of the issuance of the
final standard.
Question 6c. How many documents has DOE included in the
LSN?
Response. The Department has made electronically available
over 3.5 million documents, estimated to exceed 30 million
pages, including scientific, engineering, and other documents.
Question 6d. If DOE is supposed to have placed all of the
documents on LSN which it will use to defend its license
application, does that mean that the documents currently on the
LSN are sufficient to defend the license application?
Response. NRC regulations do not require that all of the
Department's documents on which the Department will defend its
license application to be completed and on the LSN at this
time. In accordance with the NRC regulations, the Department
will continue to add documents to its LSN collection as the
documents are completed.
Question 6e. NRC's regulations specifically say that DOE
must provide 6 months before it submits its license
application, and ``all documentary material'' which it will use
to support the application.
In 2004, the NRC's Pre-License Application Presiding
Officer rejected DOE's certification of the LSN. What will DOE
do if it happens again?
Response. On October 19, 2007, the Department submitted its
LSN certification to the NRC after it met the regulations in 10
CFR 2, Sub-part J, Section 2.1003 ``Availability of material''
and Section 2.1009 ``Procedures.'' Subsequently, the State of
Nevada filed a petition with the NRC to invalidate the
Department's document collection.
In December 2007, the Pre-License Application Presiding
Officer Board denied the State ofNevada's motion to strike.
Question 6f. Will DOE miss the June 2008 deadline?
Response. The Department plans to submit the license
application on or before June 30 2008.
Question 7a. How can DOE demonstrate that the engineered
and natural barriers of the repository will satisfy an EPA
Radiation Standard that has not yet been published?
Response. The license application will describe the
methodology used to project the long term repository
performance as required by current Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) regulations and show the results of that
analysis. Once the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
standard is finalized, the NRC will be able to determine if the
projected repository performance meets the final EPA standard.
Question 7b. Additionally, how will DOE be able to submit a
``complete'' application if it does not know well in advance
the single most important criteria on which NRC will decide
whether the repository should be licensed or not?
Response. See the response to Q7A. We have designed the
repository to provide maximum isolation of radioactive waste
from the environment. The license application will document
that waste isolation capability, and the Department is
confident that its performance will exceed the final EPA
standard.
Question 7c. Has DOE been in contact with EPA at any time
since the original Radiation Standard was promulgated to
discuss Yucca Mountain or the Standard?
Response. The Department of Energy (DOE), NRC, EPA, Office
of Management and Budget, and Department ofJustice have
participated in a dialog that is part of the Interagency Review
process under the auspices of each agency's General Counsel.
Question 7d. Have DOE and EPA ever discussed what it would
take for Yucca Mountain to meet the Standard?
Response. DOE provided comments on the draft EPA standard
including a simplified performance assessment addressing the
million year period. EPA has studied past DOE performance
assessments as part of its background work supporting the draft
rule, as documented in EPA's Background Information Document.
Question 7e. Explain how DOE plans to use drip shields,
when it plans to install them, and what assurances the agency
can make that they will be installed?
Response. Drip shields will be installed at the time of
final closure of the repository and are an integral part of the
current design. Any major changes to that design would require
the NRC to approve a licensing amendment.
Question 7f. How important to satisfying EPA's Radiation
Standard is the installation of drip shields?
Response. Drip shields are an integral part of the current
design and as such an integral part of the Total System
Performance Assessment that will be used to demonstrate
compliance with the EPA standard.
Question 7g. Will DOE run TSPA scenarios that specifically
exclude the presence of the drip shields so NRC can evaluate
the possibility that the government changes its mind about drip
shields in 300 years?
Response. If the NRC grants a license to the DOE based on a
design that includes drip shields, any change in the use of
drip shields will need NRC approval.
Question 8a. When does DOE plan to complete the second
repository report?
Response. The Department of Energy (DOE) intends to
complete the second repository report by mid 2008.
Question 8b. Will a draft plan be made available for public
comment?
Response. The Department does not intend to issue a draft
report for public comment.
Question 8c. In DOE's Supplemental EIS for the proposed
repository, you consider the possibility of expanding Yucca's
capacity beyond the statutory 70,000 metric tons to 135,000
tons. Is this proposal in lieu of a of a DOE recommendation for
a second repository?----
Response. The draft Repository Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement contains an analysis of the environmental
impacts replacing up to 135,000 MTU in the Yucca Mountain
repository. This analysis was done to bound the environmental
impacts of a future decision to remove the limits on the
quantity of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
wastes that can be emplaced at Yucca Mountain.
The analysis of the environmental impacts of this potential
action did not address the issues of the need for a second
repository and does not obviate the need for the second
repository report.
Question 8d. Hypothetically, if DOE were permitted to
expand the cap on Yucca to 135,000 tons, how would this affect
DOE's license application timeline?
Response. If the DOE were directed by the Congress to
expand the capacity of the Yucca Mountain repository beyond its
present statutory limit of 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal
(MTHM), this likely would not impact the timeline for license
application (LA) submittal absent a directive from Congress to
delay submittal.
DOE likely would submit the LA for the 70,000 metric tons
on schedule while initiating additional postclosure analysis to
support the expanded use of the repository. DOE would then
submit a license amendment for Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) review and approval to reflect the expanded capacity.
Question 8e. Would DOE have to redo any of the technical
work and designs to justify expanding the cap?
Response. If the 70,000 MTHM cap were lifted, additional
engineering and scientific analysis would be required in order
to support an application for a license amendment to the NRC.
Question 8f. Would DOE miss its June 2008 deadline for
filing a license application?
Response. If DOE were directed by Congress to expand the
capacity of Yucca Mountain repository beyond its present
statutory limit of 70,000 MTHM, it is not likely to impact
DOE's current timeline for LA submittal for the original
capacity.
Question 9. DOE has faced significant quality assurance
problems on the Yucca project because of its contractors, as
demonstrated when DOE had to spend more than $25 million to
review emails for falsified scientific data. The Nevada
Attorney General recently filed a petition against Sandia-DOE's
lead laboratory for the Yucca project. The AG's complaint
alleges that ``Sandia has subordinated safety and scientific
accuracy to meeting an artificial deadline set by DOE.''
Apparently, Sandia has thrown quality and scope aside, in favor
of meeting the DOE's deadline in order to satisfy the
Department. Is DOE still confident in its lead contractor's
work on Yucca?
Response. Yes. The Department is confident in the quality
of the Lead Lab's work in support ofYucca Mountain. The Nevada
Attorney General's ``Petition for an Independent Investigation
and Suspension of Sandia National Laboratories from Further
Work on the Yucca Mountain Project'' was denied by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission on November 15,2007.
Question 10a. There are concerns that the administration
has restricted meaningful public participation in the Yucca
Mountain licensing process by holding back important relevant
information. The LSN is full ofdocuments--it has millions of
them but the real important information seems like its being
withheld. The EPA hasn't published its Radiation standard, DOE
hasn't made its TSPA available, and there is no publicly
available national transportation plan. How can the public play
a meaningful role in the licensing process when they aren't
given access to the most important information?
Response. The Yucca Mountain licensing process is a
regulatory process controlled by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). The Department ofEnergy (DOE) is an applicant
for an NRC license and, therefore, must submit documents on the
public docket as required by NRC regulations. The Total System
Performance Assessment (TSPA) that will support DOE's
application for construction authorization is still in
preparation. When it is finalized, the TSP A will be made
publicly available on the Licensing Support Network (LSN). With
respect to the radiation standard, DOE defers to the
Environmental Protection Agency to comment on the availability
of the standard. With respect to transportation, transportation
nationally and in Nevada has been analyzed in both the 2002
Final Repository Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and in
the draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and draft Rail Alignment
EIS and with respect to those documents there has been
meaningful opportunity for public participation, including
participation in the scoping process and comment hearings as
well as the opportunity to submit written comments. In
addition, with respect to the draft National Transportation
Plan, a draft was made available for comment, and it is
currently being revised to address those comments.
Question 10b. DOE's public scoping meetings last year
regarding the draft supplemental EIS's didn't even give
stakeholders a forum to voice their concerns publicly. How will
DOE improve this process so affected citizens can actually have
their concerns considered in a public forum?
Response. Any concern that the Department has restricted
meaningful public participation in the Yucca Mountain National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is misinformed. During
the scoping period for repository and the rail corridor
supplemental EISs and the rail alignment EIS the Department
held seven public scoping meetings in six cities in Nevada and
one in Washington D.C. At these meetings the public was invited
to submit comments in writing or in person to a court reporter.
To improve this process the Department conducted eight public
hearings on the draft NEPA documents where the public had the
opportunity to provide comments orally to a court reporter, in
writing, or in oral comments for the record in front of other
hearing participants.
Question 11a. Does DOE intend to allow the NRC, the State
ofNevada, or the public to access its Total System Performance
Assessment?
Response. Yes. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
State ofNevada, and the public will have access to the Total
System Performance Assessment (TSPA) report, which includes the
results of our modeling work.
Question 11b. If yes, at what point in the process? If no,
why not?
Response. The Department expects to complete the TSP A
early in 2008, at which time it will be placed on the Licensing
Support Network.
Question 11c. How can the Commission and other parties to
the licensing confidently determine that DOE's conclusions
based on the TSPA are accurate?
Response. The NRC, in its Rules ofPractice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings and Issuance ofOrders, defines the
process by which parties can review and challenge the
conclusions in the TSPA.
Question 11d. If DOE is considering using a new performance
assessment model, such as the ``next generation performance
assessment,'' in its defense of the Yucca Mountain licensed
application?
Response. The Department ofEnergy (DOE) is not developing a
new performance assessment to support approvals by NRC to
construct and to operate the Yucca Mountain repository.
Question 11e. It has been rumored that the DOE intends to
submit a license application to NRC with this current version
of a total system performance assessment (``TSPA''), and then,
when serious questions are inevitably raised about its
transparency and adequacy, switch to an altogether different
version that DOE already considers more defensible, but which
cannot be included in its initial application filing without
delaying its artificial Yucca filing schedule. In short, DOE
will use an inadequate performance assessment just to meet
their self-imposed filing deadline and then, when proceedings
are underway, switch to the ``real'' performance assessment.
However, a September 13 letter from DOE to Bob Loux, seemed to
rule out the possibility of a second version of the model. Can
you confirm that there will be no bait and switch, and that the
current TSP A is the one that the license will rely on?
Response. The license application will rely on the current
TSPA and DOE has no intent to substitute a new TSP A during the
consideration of the license application.
Question 12a. It is in all of our interest to give the
communities who would host these shipments of highly dangerous
nuclear waste an opportunity to play a meaningful role in the
planning. What has the DOE done to inform affected communities
that nuclear waste will be transported past their homes,
schools and hospitals?
Response. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal ofSpent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS) provides
discussion of representative routes nationally, and the public
is invited to comment on that document. The Department of
Energy (DOE) has not identified specific routes and is working
with representatives from States and Tribes through whose
jurisdictions shipments may be transported in development of
criteria and methodologies for route selection. This process
will culminate in the selection of routes 3-5 years prior to
the first shipment.
Question 12b. Do residents have any forum to comment on
transportation routes?
Response. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal ofSpent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Repository SEIS) provides a
discussion of representative routes nationally, and the public
is invited to comment on that document. In addition, the
Department is productively engaged in development of criteria
and methodologies for route selection with representatives from
States and Tribes through whose jurisdictions shipments may be
transported. This process will culminate in the selection of
routes 3-5 years prior to the first shipment. DOE is also
committed to providing technical assistance and funds for
training related to these shipments for local public safety
officials along shipping routes. DOE notes that individuals and
States do not have the opportunity to address the shipment
plans or routes for any other category of hazardous material
shipped by rail in this country each year.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Sproat.
Mr. Meyers, you are recognized. Your full testimony will be
made a part of the record. I would ask you to summarize and try
to stick within 5 minutes if you could.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. MEYERS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Meyers. Thank you very much. I will do that.
I am pleased to be here before the Committee. In previous
testimony before the Committee, EPA has described its
responsibilities with regard to Yucca Mountain and why we have
proposed revised standards. Just to review very briefly,
though, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 prescribed the
roles and responsibilities of the Federal agencies in
development of disposal facilities for spent nuclear fuel and
high level waste.
In this, EPA was identified as the agency responsible for
establishing standards to protect the general environment for
such facilities. In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress
delineated EPA's roles and responsibilities specific to the
Federal Government's establishment of the potential repository
at Yucca Mountain. EPA's role is to determine how the Yucca
Mountain high level waste facility must perform to protect
public health and safety. Congress directed EPA to develop
public health and safety standards that will be incorporated
into the NRC's licensing requirements for the Yucca Mountain
facility, and the Department of Energy would apply for the
license to construct and operate the facility, and the facility
would only open if NRC determines that DOE complied with NRC
regulations, which incorporate EPA's standards as well as other
requirements.
EPA established its Yucca Mountain standards in June 2001,
as has been referenced earlier by the Committee, and as
required by the Energy Policy Act, these standards address the
releases of radioactive material during the storage at the site
and after final disposal.
The storage standard set a dose limit of 15 millirem per
year for the public outside of the Yucca Mountain site. The
disposal standards consist of three components, an individual
dose standard, a standard evaluating the impacts of human
intrusion into the repository, and a groundwater protection
standard.
The individual protection and human intrusion standards set
a limit of 15 millirem per year to a reasonable maximally
exposed individual, or MEI, who would be among the most highly
exposed members of the public. The groundwater protection
standard is consistent with EPA's drinking water standards,
which the agency applies in many situations as a pollution
prevention measure. The disposal standards were to apply for a
period of 10,000 years after the facility is closed. Dose
assessment were to continue beyond 10,000 years and be placed
in DOE's environmental impact statement, but they are not
subject to the compliance standard.
The 10,000 year period for compliance assessment was
consistent with EPA's generally applicable standards developed
under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and also reflected
international guidance regarding the level of confidence that
can be placed in numerical projections over very long periods
of time.
In July, 2004, in considering litigation filed on the 2001
standard, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
found in favor of the agency on all counts except one, the
10,000 year regulatory timeframe. The court found that the
timeframe of EPA standards was not consistent with the National
Academy of Sciences's recommendations. EPA proposed a revised
rule in August, 2005 to address the issues raised by the
Appeals Court. The proposed rule would limit radiation doses
from Yucca Mountain for up to one million years after it
closes.
Within that regulatory timeframe, we proposed two dose
standards that would apply based on the number of years from
the time the facility is closed. For the first 10,000 years,
the proposal retained the 2001 final rule's dose limit of 15
millirem. This is a protection level at the most stringent
radiation regulations in the U.S. today. From 10,000 years to 1
million years, we have proposed a dose limit of 350 millirem.
Basically, and I will try to sum up here, getting to the
bottom line here, the public comment for the proposed rule
closed in November 2005. We have considered and continue to
consider the more than 2,000 comments we received on the
proposed rule. A document describing our responses to all
comments will be published, along with the final rule.
The draft final rule was submitted to OMB in December,
2006. Since then, we have engaged in productive discussions
with other Federal agencies about the important and complex
issues raised by setting a standard that will protect public
health and safety and the environment. We look forward to
completing these discussions and our analysis of the public
comments and issuing a final rule.
This concludes my prepared statement and I will be happy to
address any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyers follows:]
Statement of Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
For the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, good
morning. My name is Robert Meyers and I am the Principal Deputy
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''). I
am pleased to be here today to discuss the status of EPA's
public health and safety standards for the proposed spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
In previous testimony before this committee, EPA has
described its responsibilities for establishing standards for
Yucca Mountain and why we have proposed revised standards. To
review, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 prescribed the
roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies in the
development of disposal facilities for spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste. EPA was identified as the agency responsible
for establishing standards to protect the general environment
for such facilities. In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress
delineated EPA's roles and responsibilities specific to the
Federal Government's establishment of the potential repository
at Yucca Mountain. EPA's role is to determine how the Yucca
Mountain high-level waste facility must perform to protect
public health and safety. Congress directed EPA to develop
public health and safety standards that would be incorporated
into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (``NRC'') licensing
requirements for the Yucca Mountain facility. The Department of
Energy (``DOE'') would apply for the license to construct and
operate the facility and the facility would open only if NRC
determines that DOE complied with NRC regulations which
incorporate EPA's standards as well as other requirements. In
establishing EPA's role, Congress also stated that EPA's safety
standards are to be based upon and consistent with the expert
advice of the National Academy of Sciences.
EPA established its Yucca Mountain standards in June 2001.
As required by the Energy Policy Act, these standards addressed
releases of radioactive material during storage at the site and
after final disposal. The storage standard set a dose limit of
15 millirem per year for the public outside the Yucca Mountain
site. The disposal standards consisted of three components: an
individual dose standard, a standard evaluating the impacts of
human intrusion into the repository, and a ground-water
protection standard. The individual-protection and human-
intrusion standards set a limit of 15 millirem per year to a
reasonably maximally exposed individual, who would be among the
most highly exposed members of the public. The ground water
protection standard is consistent with EPA's drinking water
standards, which the Agency applies in many situations as a
pollution prevention measure. The disposal standards were to
apply for a period of 10,000 years after the facility is
closed. Dose assessments were to continue beyond 10,000 years
and be placed in DOE's Environmental Impact Statement, but were
not subject to a compliance standard. The 10,000 year period
for compliance assessment was consistent with EPA's generally
applicable standards developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act. It also reflected international guidance regarding the
level of confidence that can be placed in numerical projections
over very long periods of time.
Shortly after the EPA first established these standards in
2001, the nuclear industry, several environmental and public
interest groups, and the State of Nevada challenged the
standards in court. In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit found in favor of the Agency on
all counts except one: the 10,000 year regulatory timeframe.
The court found that the timeframe of EPA's standards was not
consistent with the National Academy of Sciences'
recommendations. The National Academy of Sciences, in a report
to EPA, had stated that the EPA's standards should cover at
least the time period when the highest releases of radiation
are most likely to occur, within the limits imposed by the
geologic stability of the Yucca Mountain site. It judged this
period of geologic stability, for purposes of projecting
releases from the repository, to be on the order of one million
years. EPA's 2001 standards required DOE to evaluate the
performance of the site for this period, but did not establish
a specific dose limit beyond the first 10,000 years.
EPA proposed a revised rule in August 2005 to address the
issues raised by the appeals court. The proposed rule would
limit radiation doses from Yucca Mountain for up to one million
years after it closes. No other rules in the U.S. for any risks
have ever attempted to regulate for such a long period of time.
Within that regulatory timeframe, we proposed two dose
standards that would apply based on the number of years from
the time the facility is closed. For the first 10,000 years,
the proposal retained the 2001 final rule's dose limit of 15
millirem per year. This is protection at the level of the most
stringent radiation regulations in the U.S. today. From 10,000
to one million years, we proposed a dose limit of 350 millirem
per year. The proposed long-term dose standard considered the
variation across the country of estimated exposures from
natural sources of radiation. Our goal in proposing this level
was to ensure that total radiation exposures for people near
Yucca Mountain would be no higher than natural levels people
live with routinely in other parts of the country today. One
million years, which represents 25,000 generations, is
consistent with the time period cited by the NAS as providing a
reasonable basis for projecting the performance of the disposal
system. Our proposal would require the Department of Energy to
show that Yucca Mountain can safely contain wastes, even
considering the effects of earthquakes, volcanic activity,
climate change, and container corrosion over one million years.
The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on
November 21, 2005. We held public hearings in Las Vegas and
Amargosa Valley, Nevada, and Washington, DC. We have considered
and continue to consider comments from the public hearings, as
well as all of the comments submitted to the Agency's
rulemaking docket, in preparing the draft final rule. More than
2,000 comments were submitted on the proposed rule. Commenters
represented a variety of stakeholder perspectives, including
industry, scientific bodies, State and local government, public
interest groups, and private citizens. Comments primarily
addressed one of three topics: first, the proposed post-10,000-
year dose limit of 350 millirem per year, including the
rationale for a higher long-term standard and the use of
natural radiation levels to derive such a standard; second, the
proposed use of the median value of the distribution of dose
projections for comparison to the dose limit; and finally, the
treatment of long-term events and processes, such as
earthquakes and climate change. The comments on these and many
other topics are directly related to the significant
uncertainties in projecting the performance of the Yucca
Mountain disposal system for up to one million years, and the
challenges of interpreting those projections in a regulatory
proceeding. A document describing our responses to all comments
will be published along with the final rule.
The draft final rule was submitted for Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) review in December 2006. We have engaged in
productive discussions with other Federal agencies about the
important and complex issues raised by setting a standard that
will protect public health and safety and the environment for
up to one million years after the Yucca Mountain repository
closes. We look forward to completing those discussions and our
analysis of the public comments and issuing the final rule
soon.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee and present this update on EPA's Yucca Mountain
standards. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to address any questions.
Responses by Robert J. Meyers to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. As I mentioned at the hearing, I understand
that most countries looking at a geological repository for
nuclear waste have set or proposed standards of 10 millirems
per year. Are you aware of any other countries that have set
radiation protection standards as high as those EPA is
proposing--350 millirem per year? If so, what are those
countries and what is the standard in each?
Response. The preferred approach internationally is to
establish a firm risk or dose standard for an initial period
after facility closure, and to rely upon more qualitative
judgments that emphasize other factors contributing to safety
thereafter. We are aware of only one country that has
established a quantitative standard applicable beyond 10,000
years, as EPA has proposed to do. Switzerland applies a 10
mrem/yr standard without time limit, although there are
provisions in the Swiss regulations that allow for a judgment
of safety even if that level is exceeded. In making any
comparison of dose or risk standards, it is important to
consider the specified calculation method, the description of
the designated receptor, the treatment of unlikely events and
processes, and other aspects that can significantly influence
the results of safety assessments.
Question 2. According to your testimony, EPA did not
initially propose a radiation standard for Yucca Mountain after
10,000 years because there is a lack of confidence among
individuals in the scientific community regarding the accuracy
of projections over such a long period of time. Now that you
have proposed standards, what happens if these projections for
acceptable exposure between 10,000 and one million years are
not met? Is there anything that can be done after the waste has
been buried? What contingencies are included in setting the
proposed standards?
Response. EPA's role under the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EnPA) is to establish the ``public health and safety
standards'' for the Yucca Mountain site. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's (NRC's) role is to determine whether the
Department of Energy's (DOE's) dose projections will comply
with the standards. NRC will not authorize construction until
DOE demonstrates that compliance. NRC is in a better position
to address the question of contingency planning (see, e.g., 10
CFR 63.111(e) regarding provisions related to retrievability of
the waste for a specified period of time; also 10 CFR
63.51(a)(3)(iii) regarding DOE's continued oversight of the
repository).
Question 3. Please furnish copies of all correspondence
between EPA and DOE concerning the proposed EPA Yucca Mountain
radiation rule.
Response. Formal correspondence between EPA and DOE related
to the proposed Yucca Mountain rule (70 FR 49014, August 22,
2005) has been submitted to the docket for the rulemaking. For
your convenience, we have attached an index of the materials
currently in the docket.
Question 4. Please send copies of all documents related to
any meetings, conversations, or correspondence between EPA and
DOE concerning the proposed EPA rule.
Response. Please see the response to Question 3 above.
Additionally, formal documents related to meetings between EPA
and DOE regarding the proposed Yucca Mountain rule have been
submitted to the docket for the rulemaking. For your
convenience, we have attached an index of the materials
currently in the docket.
Further, as discussed with your staff on November 29, 2007,
EPA had been working to respond to a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request for documents concerning the proposed Yucca
Mountain rule at the time of your request. As part of that
discussion, Committee staff agreed to receive any information
that EPA provided to the FOIA requester and, after review of
the docket material and FOIA records, to inform EPA whether the
Committee would seek any additional material. Copies of the
documents EPA provided to the FOIA requester are enclosed.
Question 5. We heard late last year that EPA was ready to
publish its final radiation standard for Yucca Mountain. Then
we heard it was going to be published in January. It's now 10
months later and we still have no radiation standard. Where
precisely in the rulemaking process is EPA's final radiation
standard? When can Congress expect to see a final standard? How
will EPA's anticipated new rule compare with the previous one
that the D.C. Circuit rejected? How will the new rule compare
to the draft radiation standard published by EPA?
Response. The radiation standard for Yucca Mountain has not
yet been determined and is the subject of ongoing rulemaking
proceedings. There are many complex issues involved in
establishing regulations applicable for up to one million years
that make it difficult to predict when these rulemaking
proceedings will conclude. EPA continues to review public
comments on its proposed rule and participate in the
interagency review process pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, EPA is not in a position to comment on the
standard or the approach that it may adopt in its final rule.
Question 6. What is the lifetime fatal cancer risk to
someone exposed to the median dose of 350 millirem per year for
70 years? How does this compare with the EPA's present
guidelines for protecting the public? How does it compare with
a lifetime exposure of 15 millirem per year, were it to be
extended to the peak dose period without change from the first
10,000 years. Would the draft standard proposed for the period
after 10,000 years be protective of future populations relative
to present-day EPA criteria?
Response. For reasons discussed in the response to Question
5 above, EPA is not in a position to comment on the final
standard. The final rule is expected to discuss the factors
considered by EPA in arriving at its final standard. We also
note that our August 2005 proposed rule discussed the approach
for the proposed 350 mrem/yr standard (70 FR 49036-49038,
August 22, 2005).
Question 7. How did EPA arrive at its long-term radiation
dose standard of 350 millirems per year?
Response. In EPA's August 2005 proposed rule, we proposed a
dose standard of 350 mrem/yr to apply for the period between
10,000 and 1 million years. The preamble to the proposed rule
discussed at length the approach taken to arrive at the
proposed 350 mrem/yr standard (70 FR 49036-49038, August 22,
2005). For reasons discussed in the response to Question 5
above, EPA is not in a position to comment on the standard or
the approach that it may adopt in its final rule.
Question 8. Does the Nuclear Waste Policy Act create an
``inferred deadline'' that requires EPA to issue the rule
governing the Yucca Mountain Repository before DOE files an
application seeking a license to build the repository? If not,
why not?
Response. The text of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(NWPA), Pub. L. No. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201, does not contain a
deadline on the subject of the question. In any event, the
question pertains to administrative proceedings that NRC and
DOE would be in a better position to address.
Question 9. If the EPA does not issue the Yucca Mountain
radiation standard rule before DOE submits the license
application to NRC, will the EPA's failure to do so impede,
limit, or otherwise affect Nevada's ability to file a legal
challenge against the license application?
Response. NRC would be in a better position to address
whether, when, and to what extent a legal challenge may be made
in the context of an administrative proceeding.
Question 10. Is the DOE's Total System Performance
Assessment relevant to the rule? If it is relevant, how is it
relevant?
Response. EPA's rule will not be based upon the results
(dose projections) generated by the TSPA. EPA's proposed rule
discussed modeling capabilities in general as a consideration
in developing a regulatory standard to apply for up to 1
million years.
Question 11. Is the DOE's October, 2007 draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement relevant to the rule? If it is
relevant, how is it relevant?
Response. Because the rulemaking process is ongoing, EPA is
not in a position to State definitively whether or to what
extent the October 2007 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement is relevant. We note that it does provide the public
with information about DOE's current dose estimates that can be
compared to EPA's proposed standards and NRC's proposed
regulations.
Question 12. According to the OMB website, the Yucca
Mountain radiation standard rule was submitted for final review
on December 15, 2006. Does the fact that the rule was submitted
mean that it is in its final form?
Response. The Yucca Mountain radiation standards are
currently undergoing interagency review, which process is
coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget. In light of
the ongoing rulemaking, including interagency review (see the
response to Question 5 above), the rule is not yet in its final
form.
------
Responses by Robert J. Meyers to Additional Questions
from Senator Cardin
Question 1. In May, Senator Domenici introduced the Nuclear
Waste Access to Yucca Act. Among the provisions included in the
legislation is one which would lift the 70,000 metric ton cap
on waste disposal, which could result in as much as 120,000
metric tons of waste being buried at Yucca Mountain. If Sen.
Domenici's legislation were enacted, how would that effect
EPA's environmental and public health radiation protection
standards for Yucca Mountain?
Response. Neither EPA's 2001 standards for Yucca Mountain
nor its proposed amendments are based upon the amount of waste
in the repository. Senator Domenici's legislation regarding an
expansion of the repository capacity would not be expected to
affect EPA's 40 CFR Part 197 standards.
Question 2. What is the EPA groundwater standard for Yucca
Mountain after 10,000 years?
Response. Consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit decision, we did not propose to
extend the ground-water compliance period beyond the 10,000
year timeframe. (70 FR 49022, August 22, 2005)
------
Responses by Robert J. Meyers to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. In a hearing in March of 2006, Mr. Wehrum
testified that the radiation standard would be finalized by the
end of 2006. Your testimony merely indicates that it will be
done ``soon.'' Please indicate a date by which the rule will
become final.
Response. Please see the response to Senator Boxer's
Question 5, above.
Question 2. The draft radiation standard has been
criticized as not being protective of public health during the
period of ten thousand to a million years. Based on a report
prepared for EPA, I notice that the background radiation level
for the Yucca Mountain area in Nevada is 141 millirem and the
background level for South Dakota is 500 millirem. If, ten
thousand to a million years from now, the radiation exposure to
people living around Yucca Mountain is 350 millirem, according
to the EPA standard, they would still receive less radiation
than people living in South Dakota. Please describe for me why
you believe a radiation standard of 350 millirem ten thousand
years from now is appropriate, or if you don't think so, please
describe your recommendations for evacuating the State of South
Dakota.
Response. The approach taken in the proposed rule described
one way to consider natural background radiation exposures in
developing a standard applicable for up to 1 million years.
Pending the outcome of the rulemaking process, including
interagency review (see the response to Senator Boxer's
Question 5 above), EPA is not in a position to comment on the
standard or the approach that it may adopt in the final rule.
Question 3. Why did EPA choose the median value, rather
than the mean, when estimating peak doses for determining
compliance with the radiation standard?
Response. As described in our proposed rule, we proposed
using the median value of the distribution of dose projections
as a way to address the propagation of uncertainties in
projecting doses for up to 1 million years. (70 FR 49041-49046,
August 22, 2005) Pending the outcome of the rulemaking process,
including interagency review (see the response to Senator
Boxer's Question 5 above), EPA is not in a position to comment
on the standard or the approach that it may adopt in the final
rule.
------
Responses by Robert J. Meyers to Additional Questions
from Senator Clinton
Question 1a. Late last year EPA informed the Committee
that, it was ready to publish its final Radiation Standard for
Yucca Mountain. Then we heard it was going to be published in
January. It's now 10 months later and we still have no
Radiation Standard. Where precisely in the rulemaking process
is EPA's final radiation standard? When can Congress expect to
see a final standard?
Response. Please see the response to Senator Boxer's
Question 5, above.
Question 1b. Please provide to the Committee all
correspondence between the EPA and DOE, NRC, and any other
agency related to the Radiation Standard.
Response. Formal correspondence between EPA and DOE, NRC,
and other Agencies related to the proposed Yucca Mountain rule
has been submitted to the docket for the rulemaking. For your
convenience, we have attached an index of the materials
currently in the docket.
Question 2a. How will EPA's anticipated new rule compare
with the previous one that the D.C. Circuit rejected? How will
the new rule compare to the draft Radiation Standard published
by EPA?
Response. Please see the response to Senator Boxer's
Question 5, above.
Question 1b. Why does EPA have a two-tiered standard in the
first place? If 15 millirems is safe for the first 10,000
years, why don't we just keep it there for the time period
after? Why does EPA think it's OK to suddenly 1 day say that
people can be exposed to 2200 percent more radiation than they
were the day before? That seems just as arbitrary and
capricious as the old standard that the D.C. Circuit rejected.
If the final radiation standard extended the 15 millirem per
year beyond 10,000 years, could Yucca Mountain comply and be
licensed and why should that be the concern of EPA in
establishing this standard?
Response. We discussed in the proposed rule the reasons for
proposing a separate dose standard applicable for the period
between 10,000 and 1 million years. (70 FR 49030-49032, August
22, 2005) Pending the outcome of the rulemaking process,
including interagency review (see the response to Senator
Boxer's Question 5 above), EPA is not in a position to comment
on the standard or the approach that it may adopt in the final
rule.
NRC is responsible for determining whether DOE's dose
projections will comply with EPA's standards. The EnPA does not
direct EPA to develop its standards based upon DOE's
projections of disposal system performance.
Question 3. The EPA's draft Radiation Standard uses the
median of the DOE calculations instead of the mean (average),
as recommended by the National Academy and therefore required
by law. Do you support this aspect of the EPA standard? Will
EPA maintain this approach in the final Radiation Standard?
Response. Please see the response to Senator Inhofe's
Question 3 above.
Question 4. What is the lifetime fatal cancer risk to
someone exposed to the median dose of 350 millirem per year
(taking into consideration the cumulative effect of background
exposure)? How does this compare with the EPA's present
guidelines for protecting the public against radiation? How
does it compare with a lifetime exposure of 15 millirem per
year, were it to be extended to the peak dose period without
change from the first 10,000 years? Would the draft standard
proposed for the period after 10,000 years be protective of
future populations relative to present-day EPA criteria?
Response. Please see the response to Senator Boxer's
Question 6, above.
Question 5a. In their comments to EPA regarding the
proposed Radiation Standard, two prominent scientists called
EPA's proposal ``the worst radiation protection rule that has
ever been proposed'' because it ``actually implies a massive
increase in the level of cancer risk.'' They went on to say
that, the second tier of the standard would pose a lifetime
cancer risk of 1 in 36 for the general population and 1 in 30
for women. If true, this would be a terrible legacy to leave
for future generations. Can you please comment on the
possibility that the EPA Standard will lead to an increase in
cancer risk.
Response. For reasons discussed in the response to Senator
Boxer's Question 5 above, EPA is not in a position to comment
on the final standard. The final rule is expected to discuss
the factors considered by EPA in arriving at its final
standard.
Question 5b. Is the second tier of the radiation standard
any different from having no standard at all? At this high of
an ``acceptable'' radiation exposure level, would DOE ever
surpass it unless there was a major disaster at Yucca Mountain?
Response. EPA's final rule will adopt ``public health and
safety standards'' for the Yucca Mountain site as required by
the EnPA and is expected to discuss the factors considered by
EPA in arriving at its final standard.
Relative to your second question, EPA's role under the EnPA
is to establish the ``public health and safety standards'' for
the Yucca Mountain site. NRC is responsible for determining
whether DOE's dose projections in fact comply with EPA's
standards. Thus, the conditions under which the standards may
be exceeded will be considered during the NRC licensing
proceedings.
Question 6a. How did EPA arrive at its long-term radiation
dose standard of 350 millirems per year?
Response. Please see the response to Senator Boxer's
Question 7, above.
Question 6b. According to this standard, wouldn't the total
maximal exposure be the sum of both the natural radiation as
well as the radiation leaked from Yucca, or up to 700 millirems
per year? EPA was charged to develop a standard that is
acceptable for the health and safety of the public, not by
comparing it to what is already in the environment. Therefore,
is doubling a person's radiation exposure the same as finding
an acceptable level that can be released from Yucca without
increasing the population's risk of cancer.
Response. In the proposed rule, we estimated 350 mrem/yr as
the level of background radiation in Amargosa Valley today.
Therefore, if exposures of 350 mrem/yr from Yucca Mountain were
added to that background radiation, the total maximal exposure
would be 700 mrem/yr. The approach taken in the proposal
described one way to consider such natural exposures. Pending
the outcome of the rulemaking process, including interagency
review (see the response to Senator Boxer's Question 5 above),
EPA is not in a position to comment on standard or the approach
that it may adopt in the final rule. EPA's final standard will
adopt ``public health and safety standards'' for the Yucca
Mountain site, as required by the EnPA.
Question 6c. Including the contribution by an average
natural background of 350 millirems per year, can you please
provide a thorough scientific response analysis, based on
current human health, animal studies, and biomedical data, as
to whether the risks to susceptible populations (including
pregnant women, children, and during fetal development) under
the standard (in particular those exposed to the top 5 percent
of the range) could include having children with serious birth
defects, failed pregnancies, increased risk of cancer, or other
negative health outcomes? How does the type of exposure pathway
play a role in this increased risk and your risk assessments?
Has this risk assessment included the potential for materials
to enter the groundwater, and therefore for future exposure
pathways to include ingestion of either low-or high-energy
emitting particles?
Response. For the reasons discussed in the response to
Senator Boxer's Question 5 above, EPA is not in a position to
comment on the standard or the approach that it may adopt in
its final rule. The final rule is expected to discuss the
factors considered by EPA in arriving at its final standard. We
also note that EPA presented information concerning its
analysis of a 350 mrem/yr standard in its proposed rule (70 FR
49036-49038, August 22, 2005).
Question 7. How does EPA's draft standard for Yucca
Mountain compare with the standard for the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant facility? How does it compare to other countries'
radiation standards for nuclear waste facilities?
Response. Both the proposed Yucca Mountain and WIPP
standards include a 15 mrem/yr standard to the designated
receptor for 10,000 years after disposal, and include
comparable ground-water protection standards for the same
period. The standards applicable to the WIPP do not address the
period beyond 10,000 years. For the reasons discussed in the
response to Senator Boxer's Question 5 above, EPA is not in a
position to discuss the treatment of the period beyond 10,000
years in the final Yucca Mountain rule.
The final rule is expected to discuss the factors
considered by EPA in arriving at its final standard.
Question 8. The US belongs to an international convention
on spent fuel. The convention requires that long-term radiation
standards be essentially the same for future generations as for
the present one. How can you justify EPA's rule on that basis?
Response. For the reasons discussed in the response to
Senator Boxer's Question 5 above, EPA is not in a position to
comment on the standard or the approach that it may adopt in
its final rule. The final rule is expected to discuss the
factors considered by EPA in arriving at its final standard. We
also note that a discussion of intergenerational equity was
included in the proposed rule (70 FR 49035-49036, August 22,
2005).
Senator Carper. Mr. Meyers, thanks very much for that
testimony.
Mr. Weber, you are now recognized. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WEBER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR
MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Mr. Weber. Good morning.
Senator Carper. Good morning.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am
pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the staff of
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discuss the process
that we will use to review and decide whether to authorize the
Department of Energy to build a repository at Yucca Mountain. I
have submitted my written testimony for the record.
Because of NRC's licensing and adjudicatory role in the
national repository program, the NRC takes no position at this
time on whether a permanent geologic repository can be
constructed safely and securely at Yucca Mountain. That remains
to be demonstrated by the Department. If DOE submits a license
application, NRC will decide whether to authorize construction
of the repository based on NRC's comprehensive and independent
safety review and on the results of a full, open and impartial
public hearing.
We have developed our high-level waste regulatory program
consistent with our responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act and under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This
legislation specified an integrated approach and a long-range
plan for both storage, transport and for disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
The law prescribes the respective roles and
responsibilities of the various Federal agencies. The Congress
assigned to the NRC certain pre-licensing responsibilities and
the regulatory authority to authorize construction of a
repository at Yucca Mountain after deciding whether DOE's
license application complies with applicable standards and
regulations.
The Congress directed the NRC to establish safety and
licensing regulations consistent with EPA standards for Yucca
Mountain. As we have already heard by my colleague, in 2001,
EPA published standards and NRC published conforming
regulations. Both were challenged in court and, in 2004, both
were upheld on all but one issue, namely EPA's specification
and NRC's adoption of the 10,000 year compliance period.
In 2005, EPA proposed additional standards that would apply
for the period between 10,000 years and a million years, and
NRC proposed to incorporate these standards in our regulations.
NRC stands ready to conform our regulations in the final
EPA standards as soon as they are published.
Turning now to DOE's anticipated license application for
Yucca Mountain, NRC must decide whether or not to authorize the
Department to build the proposed repository. NRC will base its
decision on a comprehensive, independent safety review and on
the results of a full and impartial public hearing before an
independent panel of judges. Before we start our review,
however, we must first decide whether we can accept DOE's
application. NRC will determine whether the application, if
submitted, contains the required information and whether DOE
has complied with NRC's document access requirements. If the
application passes this initial acceptance review,
which may take up to 6 months, NRC can begin its detailed
technical review. If not, NRC will return the application to
the Department.
The NRC staff is well qualified and prepared to conduct a
detailed, independent technical review of the application. We
are supported in our review by our Center for Nuclear Waste
Regulatory Analysis. We will examine the license application to
determine if the Department has demonstrated that the proposed
repository will protect people and the environment in
compliance with EPA standards and NRC's requirements.
We will document our conclusions in a safety evaluation
report and, in addition, the NRC will provide an opportunity
for formal, public, evidentiary hearings on DOE's application
that will follow a well-established set of rules and
procedures. NRC will decide whether to deny or authorize the
construction of the proposed repository by objectively
reviewing the information submitted, by making decisions on
contested matters based on the record before it, and by
maintaining an open, public, adjudicatory process.
NRC's high-level repository program is in the midst of an
important transition, moving from our pre-licensing role to
that of a more customary role as regulatory and as licensing
authority. DOE
bears the responsibility for demonstrating that the
regulatory and licensing requirements have been fulfilled. The
Commission independently will decide whether to authorize
construction within the three to 4 year period allotted by the
Congress.
I thank you for the opportunity to discuss NRC's licensing
and regulatory role, and look forward to answering questions
that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Statement of Michael Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear material Safety
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
introduction
Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my
pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the process
whereby the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will
review and decide whether or not to authorize the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) to build a repository. Because of
the NRC's licensing and adjudicatory role in the national
repository program, the NRC takes no position, at this time, on
whether a permanent geologic repository can be constructed
safely at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. That remains to be
demonstrated by DOE. If DOE submits a license application, the
NRC will decide whether or not to authorize construction of a
repository upon NRC's comprehensive and independent safety
review, and upon consideration of the results of a full and
impartial public hearing.
congress established nrc's high-level waste regulatory role
The NRC has developed and maintained its High-Level Waste
regulatory program, consistent with our responsibilities under
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. This legislation specified an
integrated approach and a long-range plan for storage,
transport, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and High-Level
Waste. It prescribes the respective roles and responsibilities
of the NRC, the DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in the nation's High-Level Waste program. The
Congress assigned NRC certain pre-licensing
responsibilities and the regulatory authority to authorize
construction of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain after
deciding whether a DOE license application complies with
applicable standards and regulations.
nrc is prepared to implement final epa standards for yucca mountain
The Congress directed NRC to establish safety and licensing
regulations consistent with standards for Yucca Mountain set by
EPA. EPA standards and conforming NRC regulations for Yucca
Mountain were published in 2001. As you know, both were
challenged in court, and, in 2004, both were upheld on all but
one issue, namely the EPA's specification, and NRC's adoption,
of a 10,000-year compliance period. In 2005, EPA proposed
additional standards that would apply for a million years, and
NRC proposed to incorporate EPA's additional standards in our
regulations. NRC stands ready to conform our regulations to
final EPA standards as soon as they are published.
nrc is prepared to evaluate doe's license application
NRC must decide whether or not to authorize DOE to build
the proposed repository. If authorization is granted, NRC must
assure that DOE complies with NRC's requirements. NRC will base
its decision on DOE's anticipated application to build a
repository at Yucca Mountain on a comprehensive, independent
safety review and on the results of a full and impartial public
hearing before an independent panel of judges. Before NRC may
even start its safety review, however, we must first decide if
we can accept DOE's application for review. NRC will need to
determine whether the application contains the required
information and whether there is enough supporting information
to address the elements of DOE's safety case, DOE must also
comply with NRC's document access requirements. If the
application passes this initial review, which may take up to 6
months, NRC can begin its detailed technical review. If not,
NRC will return the application to DOE.
The NRC staff is well qualified and is prepared to conduct
a detailed, independent technical review of the application.
NRC is supported in this effort by its conflict-of-interest
free, federally funded research and development center at
Southwest Research Institute, the Center for Nuclear Waste
Regulatory Analyses. If necessary, the NRC staff is prepared to
require more information from DOE and the NRC staff has the
resources to perform independent analyses, as needed. In its
review, the NRC staff will examine the license application to
determine if DOE has demonstrated that its proposed repository
will protect people and the environment, in compliance with
EPA's standards and NRC's requirements. Once the NRC staff has
completed its comprehensive review, it will document its
conclusions in a Safety Evaluation Report.
The NRC will provide the opportunity for formal, public,
evidentiary hearings on DOE's application that will follow
well-established rules and procedures. Documents from all
parties and potential parties to the hearing will have already
been submitted to the Licensing Support Network to shorten the
time spent on the exchange of documents that may be used as
evidence in the proceeding. NRC will decide whether to deny or
authorize construction of the proposed repository by
objectively reviewing information submitted, by making
decisions on contested matters based on the record before it,
and by maintaining an open, public adjudicatory process.
summary
The NRC staff is in the midst of an important transition--
from the pre-licensing, consultative role defined for NRC in
statute, which was the NRC's emphasis for many years, to the
role as regulator and licensing authority, as NRC prepares for
DOE's license application. The DOE bears the responsibility for
demonstrating that regulatory and licensing requirements are
met to protect public health and safety and the environment.
The Commission, independently, must assess and find that such a
demonstration has been made before we can decide whether or not
to authorize construction of the proposed geologic repository.
NRC's ability to reach this important decision within the three
to 4 years allotted by the Congress, depends upon: the
issuance, by EPA, of final environmental standards, to which
NRC can conform its regulations; receipt of a high-quality
license application from the DOE that demonstrates that NRC
regulations and licensing requirements have been met; and
continued sufficient resources for the NRC to maintain its
independent technical review capability and carry out its
public hearing process. I want to thank you for the opportunity
to discuss NRC's regulatory role for the proposed repository,
and look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Responses by Michael Weber to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. It is my understanding that DOE expects to only
have about 35 percent of the designs complete for both sub-
surface and surface facilities at Yucca Mountain when it
submits its license application to the NRC in June 08,
or earlier. During the question and answer period, you
mentioned that this is not unusual. Please provide examples of
other NRC applicants who have submitted applications with
designs that are substantially incomplete, including the level
of completeness for each application so filed.
Response. complete license application and how NRC decides
that an application is complete enough to commence a safety
review. Before beginning a safety review, NRC conducts an
initial ``acceptance review'' of the application. The purpose
of this review is to ensure that the application has all the
information necessary for the staff to commence a detailed
technical review. The NRC routinely performs acceptance reviews
of the many different types of license applications it
receives, including applications for construction and operation
of nuclear power plants, fuel cycle facilities, and others. The
acceptance review serves as a screening process for faulty
license applications, and prevents NRC from spending resources
on incomplete applications. If NRC finds that information is
missing or inadequate, NRC notifies the applicant and asks the
applicant to supplement or withdraw the application.
NRC will conduct such an acceptance review if it receives a
license application for the geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain. NRC's regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 contain detailed
requirements for the content and scope of DOE's license
application. NRC will perform an acceptance review against
these requirements. If NRC finds that DOE has not provided
enough information to satisfy the requirements in the
regulations, the NRC can either reject the application as an
insufficient submittal or provide DOE an opportunity to
supplement or withdraw the application. NRC does not expect,
nor will it accept, an application with incomplete safety
information from DOE or any other applicant. NRC has an
established process to ensure that any license application it
receives from DOE or other applicants has the required level of
detail to justify an NRC technical review.
Once the NRC staff begins its comprehensive review, there
is no predetermined level of detail or prescribed percentage of
compliance for safe operation of the proposed repository. NRC's
regulations contain a comprehensive set of performance criteria
and safety requirements with which DOE must comply before NRC
can authorize construction. NRC will perform a technical
evaluation of the information provided by DOE against the
requirements set forth in the regulations. If NRC finds DOE
demonstrates compliance with the regulatory requirements, it
can issue a construction authorization. Otherwise, NRC can
request more information or, in the absence of sufficient
information, it can deny a construction authorization.
NRC's regulations do not require DOE to provide all aspects
of the repository's design before receiving a construction
authorization. DOE needs to provide sufficient detailed design
information about those design aspects most important to
radiological safety. While NRC will ensure that DOE meets all
applicable regulatory requirements, its technical review will
focus on the most important features or systems of the
repository design. It is DOE's responsibility to determine the
adequate level of design detail that it will provide in its
application and that it believes supports its compliance
demonstration.
For instance, due to the arid desert environment at Yucca
Mountain, the NRC anticipates that DOE plans to include dust
suppression and control systems as a part of the overall
repository design. However, if NRC confirms that DOE's safety
analysis can show compliance with NRC's radiological safety
requirements without these systems, NRC would not expect DOE to
provide detailed design information for them.
To receive construction permits and operating licenses,
applicants for the 104 currently operating nuclear power
reactors were requested, in many instances, to provide
additional information on structures, systems, and components
important to safety to allow NRC to complete its review and
finding. Applicants provided varying levels of design detail in
their license applications. In most of these cases, NRC
determined that more information was necessary and,
accordingly, requested more information from the applicant
before issuing a license. NRC's approach to its licensing
review, including the separation of the acceptance review and
the detailed technical review processes, ensures that the NRC's
time and resources are spent efficiently and effectively, at
the same time, ensuring that facilities licensed by the NRC
protect public health and safety and the environment.
Question 2. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act directed the NRC
to complete the repository licensing process within 3 years,
with a possible 1-year extension. When does the 3 year clock
start? And, what is the NRC's plan if any portion of the
license review process takes longer than anticipated?
Response. The 3 year clock for the license review starts
once the NRC announces its decision to accept the license
application for review. After NRC receives a license
application, the NRC staff will decide whether the application
is sufficiently complete for NRC to begin its safety review.
During this time period, the staff will conduct a separate
review pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 51.109 to determine whether it
is practicable to adopt DOE's environmental impact statement.
If the staff finds that it can accept the application for
review, NRC will docket the application and publish a Notice of
Hearing in the Federal Register.
NRC will take the time necessary to perform a thorough
safety review. The NRC staff believes it has the necessary
expertise and infrastructure to perform its technical review
within the statutory time constraints. There is no easy way,
however, to predict the issues that may arise during the
licensing review, or the time it will take to address them. NRC
will authorize construction of the proposed repository only if
it finds that its regulations and requirements have been met.
If NRC finds that the established deadline is not
sufficient for completing its licensing review
responsibilities, then NRC will initiate the appropriate
consultation with Congress about the schedule and the proposed
completion of its review.
Question 3. During the question and answer period, I
inquired as to whether there are any circumstances under which
the NRC would decide not to issue a license for DOE to
construct the Yucca Mountain repository. You indicated that NRC
would have to satisfy each of the requirements in your
regulations. Can you describe the key requirements that DOE
will need to meet?
Response. NRC's regulations include specific safety
criteria for the potential repository at Yucca Mountain and for
assessments used to demonstrate that the repository can achieve
those criteria. For example, DOE must demonstrate that during
waste emplacement, and before final closure of the repository,
no member of the public would receive a dose greater than 0.15
millisieverts (15 millirems) each year due to normal repository
operations. DOE must provide a comprehensive safety analysis
called a preclosure safety analysis, showing that operational
dose limits will be met. DOE must also show that it will
protect repository workers using the same standards that apply
to workers at all other nuclear facilities licensed by NRC.
DOE must also demonstrate that projected doses, far in the
future, will meet specific dose limits. DOE must show that for
10,000 years after disposal, a reasonably, maximally exposed
individual would receive a dose no greater than 0.15
millisieverts (15 millirems) each year from the repository. EPA
has yet to issue final standards that identify a limit for the
period after 10,000 years. In 2005, EPA proposed additional
standards to control potential doses that could occur beyond
10,000, up to one million years. NRC will modify its
regulations to be consistent with EPA's additional standards as
soon as they are promulgated.
DOE must show that releases from the repository system do
not cause radioactivity in groundwater to exceed EPA limits
that have been incorporated in NRC's licensing regulations.
Separate standards for groundwater are designed to protect the
groundwater resources near Yucca Mountain.
To show whether the proposed repository would meet these
standards, NRC requires DOE to conduct a comprehensive
performance assessment of how the repository will function
after it is closed. Consistent with NRC regulations, DOE must
identify and describe the capabilities of the barriers it
includes in its Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA), and
on which it relies to show compliance with the safety limits.
In addition to demonstrating compliance with EPA standards,
as incorporated in NRC's regulations, DOE must also demonstrate
compliance with detailed NRC regulations governing physical
protection and security; emergency planning; retrieval of
waste; monitoring and testing; and other aspects of safe waste
disposal. For a more complete description, see the enclosed
brochure, ``Judging the Safety of a Repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Requirements.''
Question 4. 1Has NRC met with EPA to discuss the proposed
EPA Yucca Mountain radiation standard rule? If so, were these
meetings open to the public?
Response. Yes, NRC staff members have met with EPA staff
members to discuss EPA's proposed standards and NRC's proposed
implementing regulations. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act directs
the NRC to adopt EPA's final standard, once issued. Therefore,
it is both appropriate and important for NRC to understand
EPA's approach and to explain and discuss NRC's implementation
issues and approach.
Although these intergovernmental meetings were not open to
the public, it is important to stress that both the EPA's
proposed standards and NRC's proposed regulations, including
the rationale for each, were provided to the public for
comment. After careful consideration of the public comments,
both EPA and NRC will promulgate their final standards and
regulations and explain how public comments were addressed.
Question 5. Please send copies of all documents related to
any meetings, conversations, or correspondence between NRC and
either EPA or DOE concerning the proposed EPA Yucca Mountain
radiation rule.
Response. Enclosed are the appropriate NRC-generated
documents. The remaining documents in our possession were
either provided to the NRC by EPA or DOE, or are NRC-generated
documents that would reveal the substance of the draft final
rule, which is the responsibility of EPA to develop and
promulgate. We request that you obtain these documents from EPA
and DOE, the originating agencies.
Question 6. If the EPA does not issue the Yucca Mountain
radiation rule before DOE submits the license application to
NRC, will the EPA's failure to do so impede or otherwise
affect, in any way, Nevada's ability to file a legal challenge
against DOE's license application?
Response. 1No. If the EPA does not issue final radiation
standards for Yucca Mountain before DOE submits a license
application to NRC, it will still be possible for Nevada to
request an NRC hearing on the DOE license application should
the NRC decide to docket the application and publish a notice
of hearing.
If DOE were to file an application in the absence of final
EPA radiation standards, it may be necessary for DOE to amend
its application once final standards are issued to address the
provisions of the EPA rule. In this event, Nevada would have
the opportunity, consistent with NRC regulations, to seek to
raise new or amended contentions based on DOE's supplement to
the application.
Question 7. Will the NRC docket the DOE's license
application if the EPA has not yet issued the Yucca Mountain
radiation standard rule?
Response. NRC could docket the application and commence its
independent safety review. In the absence of final EPA
standards and final NRC requirements that are consistent with
them, NRC would not be able to complete its review or decide
whether to deny or grant DOE authorization to construct the
proposed repository. NRC's decision whether to docket the
license application and begin the safety review under these
circumstances will be based on consideration of all relevant
information available and the circumstances at the time the
license application is submitted.
Specifically, EPA's standards and NRC's regulations for a
period up to 10,000 years are in final form. EPA has yet to
issue final standards applicable to the period after 10,000
years. Thus, NRC could docket the license application and begin
reviewing those portions of the license application not
governed by EPA standards for the period after 10,000 years.
Once final standards and regulations for a different timeframe
are in place, DOE could supplement its license application as
necessary and NRC could review those portions of the license
application.
Question 8. If the EPA fails to issue the Yucca Mountain
radiation standard rule before the DOE submits its license
application, what steps, if any, will NRC take to ensure that
the EPA's post-license application rule issuance does not
prejudice the rule's challengers?
Response. NRC's regulations governing adjudications provide
for situations where, for any number of reasons, applications
may have to be supplemented. As stated in our response to an
earlier question, NRC will reach no decision to either deny or
grant a license application in the absence of final EPA
standards and final NRC regulations that incorporate them. If
NRC were to docket the license application, and commence its
independent safety review, that part of the review would
address only those aspects of the application not affected by
EPA standards for the period after 10,000 years. For these
reasons, NRC does not believe that those opposed to the
provisions of the final rule would be prejudiced.
Question 9. Why does NRC insist that its staff be a party
advocate in favor of DOE's application? Why must Nevada and
other opponents have to battle two Federal agencies as opposed
to just the one that has the burden of proof? Could NRC staff
not offer evidence at the licensing hearing to help judges
evaluate technical information without acting as a party
advocate in favor of DOE's application?
Response. It is not the role of the NRC staff to act as an
advocate for DOE or to defend the application on behalf of the
DOE. An applicant, in this case DOE, bears the burden of
establishing that its application satisfies all regulatory
requirements. The NRC staff will present its own independent
views in NRC's licensing proceeding. This ensures that the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Commission have the
benefit of the staff's expertise in its decision making process
and should aid in the development of an adequate record upon
which the NRC licensing decision will be based.
The NRC staff has participated in licensing proceedings
before the agency since the inception of the Commission's
regulatory program. Historically, the Commission has considered
the role of the NRC staff in hearings and concluded that it is
appropriate for the staff to be a party to provide its
expertise and its independent analysis in the review of
contested applications.
With respect to any Yucca Mountain Hearing, in a February
20, 2001 letter to Mr. Robert Loux, Executive Director of
Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, then NRC Chairman Richard
Meserve said:
. . . . As envisioned in [the] procedures [in 10 CFR Part
2, Subparts J and G] and in the Commission's regulations for
the licensing of a repository, the NRC staff, with the
assistance of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses
(CNWRA), will conduct an independent technical review of DOE's
license application and Safety Analysis Report if and when they
are received and will prepare a Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
documenting the review and conclusions. Then, the NRC staff, as
a party in the hearing, will independently present and support
its technical analyses and SER insofar as it bears on the
issues placed in controversy in a potential hearing and will
take and support a position on those issues based on the
staff's and CNWRA's expert analyses.
The staff's analyses, positions, and regulatory conclusions
will be wholly independent of those of DOE. The Commission
believes that the staff's participation as a party is useful to
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the other parties, and
the public as it will provide an independent regulatory
perspective for the record. Both the Commission and the NRC
staff are fully aware of and committed to maintaining
objectivity in regulating the activities of DOE or any other
regulated entity. That objectivity will not be undercut--
indeed, it will be enhanced--by the presentation by the staff
of its independent views as a party in a potential hearing.
It has often been recognized that whatever appearance of
staff-applicant agreement there may be, it is the result of a
long and very public process. The core of this process is the
staff's diligent and extended inquiry into the application, an
inquiry that requires many meetings with the applicant;
meetings that are routinely announced to the public, so that
interested persons can attend and participate. In 1986, the
Commission, addressing the appearance issue more generically,
said:
. . . . [The appearance] is attributable not to bias on the
staff's part but to the nature of the staff's extensive
prehearing review of the application. The applicant often makes
changes in the application in order to secure the staff's
approval, so that by the time the hearing commences, many of
the staff's concerns have been accommodated.
Question 10. By only requiring that the DOE's computer
simulation meet one test--that the predicted radiation dose to
an individual 18 kilometers from Yucca Mountain stay below the
EPA limit--NRC has effectively abandoned ``defense in depth.''
How can you justify not having individual requirements on the
separate safety features, as you do for reactors?
Response. NRC regulations contain multiple criteria against
which DOE's performance assessment, including DOE's computer
simulations, will be evaluated. Although DOE's total system
performance assessment, or TSPA, must demonstrate compliance
with EPA's numerical limits, DOE's TSPA must also show that the
proposed repository comprises multiple barriers (both
engineered and natural or geologic) consistent with a defense-
in-depth safety approach.
NRC regulations for the proposed repository at Yucca
Mountain represent a unique application of NRC's defense-in-
depth philosophy to a first-of-a-kind facility. While waste is
being emplaced, and before a geologic repository is closed, its
operation is readily amenable to regulation in much the same
manner as any other large, NRC-licensed facility. Application
of defense-in-depth principles for regulation of repository
performance for long time periods following closure, however,
must account for the difference between a geologic repository
and an operating facility with active safety systems and the
potential for active control and intervention. For the most
part, the safety components of a nuclear power plant work or
fail in a binary fashion, and extensive actuarial data exist to
form the basis for estimating failure rates. The components of
a repository, on the other hand, are expected to behave
continuously over long timeframe for which performance data may
be scarce or non-existent. As a result, performance of
repository safety systems and subsystems must be extrapolated
from limited data. For example, the waste package is expected
to go from a State of complete integrity and total containment
of the waste to a State of very gradual failure over tens to
hundreds of thousands of years. Assessment of the safety of
such a system over long timeframe is best evaluated through
consideration of the relative likelihood of threats to its
integrity and performance, in the context of overall system
behavior. For these reasons, NRC's regulations provide DOE
flexibility to determine the types and capabilities of barriers
it will rely on to demonstrate the repository will perform
within the safety requirements.
The National Academy of Sciences in its report on Yucca
Mountain Standards recommended that NRC not specify separate
requirements for subsystems (i.e., individual barriers).
Consistent with this NAS recommendation, and the reasons stated
above, the NRC did not specify separate limits for individual
barriers. Instead, NRC's regulations require DOE to identify
and describe the capabilities of the barriers it includes in
its TSPA, and on which it relies to show compliance with the
safety limits. NRC will perform a risk-informed review of DOE's
TSPA to decide whether DOE complies with applicable safety
regulations. This means that NRC will review each barrier
important to waste isolation with a rigor commensurate with the
safety significance of the barrier.
The Commission considers this approach for multiple
barriers and defense-in-depth in its Part 63 regulations both
appropriate and protective. When NRC issued final Part 63 on
November 2, 2001 (66 FR 55758), the Commission stated the goal
of the regulations regarding multiple barriers and defense-in-
depth and explained its reasoning for not specifying
requirements for specific barriers:
. . . [T]he emphasis should not be on the isolated
performance of individual barriers but rather on ensuring the
repository system is robust, and is not wholly dependent on a
single barrier. Further, the Commission supports an approach
that would allow DOE to use its available resources effectively
to achieve the safest repository without unnecessary
constraints imposed by separate, additional subsystem
performance requirements. It is also important to remember that
Part 63 requires DOE to carry out a performance confirmation
program to provide further confidence that barriers important
to waste isolation will continue to perform as expected (66 FR
55758).
The court addressed this same issue in Nevada's suit
challenging the Part 63 rule:
Specifically, Nevada contests NRC's use of defense-in-depth
at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository through an overall
system performance assessment rather than using the approach of
its older regulations, which approach tests the individual
performance of the repository's `system elements.' [ . . . ] In
light of NRC's detailed analysis supporting its decision to
evaluate the performance of the Yucca Mountain repository based
on the barrier system's overall performance, we believe that it
adequately explained its change in course. [ . . . ]
Accordingly, we conclude that NRC acted neither arbitrarily nor
capriciously in rejecting Part 60's subsystem performance
approach in favor of the overall performance approach. NEI v.
EPA; 373 F.3d 1251, 1295-97 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Question 11. Recent documents found on the NRC's Licensing
Support Network reveal that DOE might be planning to unveil a
new performance assessment model to replace the Total System
Performance Assessment after the Department submits its license
application. In what ways would such an action by DOE slow
NRC's review of the license application? Would NRC have to re-
consider its decision to docket the license application?
Response. NRC could reconsider its decision, depending upon
the effect of the new model on DOE's compliance demonstration.
If the new information were to dramatically change DOE's
application, the NRC staff could allow DOE to withdraw, revise
and resubmit the license application. The staff would then
begin a new acceptance review, once DOE resubmits its
application. If the new information enhances, but does not
fundamentally alter DOE's compliance demonstration, it would be
possible for NRC staff to continue the review. Depending on the
nature and extent of new information, and its effect on DOE's
demonstration of compliance, NRC staff would consider whether
adjustments to the review schedule would be needed.
Question 12. In its preliminary designs for the repository,
DOE proposes to install titanium drip shields over the nuclear
waste packages in order to keep water from corroding the
packages. However, DOE has said that it would install them just
prior to repository closure, 100 to 300 years after beginning
waste disposal. Will NRC allow DOE to count on drip shields in
its safety analysis for Yucca Mountain, despite the fact that
the drip shields may never be installed?
Response. DOE must apply to NRC for authorization to build
the proposed repository. Under NRC's regulations, DOE must show
that its proposal will comply with specified performance
objectives for the geologic repository after permanent closure.
If DOE files an application, and if NRC accepts the application
for review, NRC will begin a thorough safety review. In that
review, the NRC staff will evaluate whether DOE's proposed
design, including reliance on any specific design feature or
component of the engineered barrier system, such as a drip
shield, succeeds in making the required demonstration.
The NRC staff will then document its assessment in a public
Safety Evaluation Report. If DOE's application fails to make
the necessary demonstrations of compliance with the
Commission's regulations, the NRC staff will not authorize
construction. If the NRC staff recommends that NRC authorize
construction, the NRC may specify license conditions, as
needed, to provide reasonable expectation that relevant
performance objectives will be met. NRC can only assess the
need for such conditions, their reasonableness, and their
potential to be enforced in the context of DOE's overall design
as presented in a license application.
Once the NRC staff completes its review and documents its
conclusions, NRC will hold formal, public, evidentiary hearings
on DOE's application before an independent panel of judges.
These hearings will afford potential parties, including the
State of Nevada, with the opportunity to propose and justify
contentions about the completeness and adequacy of the safety
case DOE presents in its license application. If--based on its
independent safety review and on consideration of the results
of a full and impartial public hearing--NRC is able to
authorize construction, NRC would oversee that construction to
ensure DOE complies with NRC regulations and with conditions of
its authorization.
Before DOE could actually begin disposal of waste at the
repository, however, DOE would need to formally ask NRC to
issue a license to receive and possess waste. Any decision by
NRC to grant or deny this request would, itself, require
consideration of another comprehensive, independent safety
review, and opportunity for another public hearing. Under no
circumstances would NRC permit DOE to receive and possess waste
at a repository without finding that public health and safety
and the environment are protected. If NRC allows DOE to operate
the repository, NRC would oversee DOE operations to ensure DOE
complies with NRC regulations and with all conditions of its
license.
If DOE proposes to install drip shields and if the drip
shields are considered important for waste isolation or
repository performance, the installation of the drip shields at
an appropriate time would become part of the license
conditions. If DOE were to decide, at a later date, not to
install the drip shields, the decision would require specific
regulatory approval in the form of a license amendment which
would be subject to technical review and the potential for a
hearing as part of the amendment process. Alternatively, DOE
may be able to demonstrate regulatory compliance without the
drip shields but still propose to install the drip shields as
an additional barrier. Under such circumstances, as long as DOE
could demonstrate that the drip shields would not degrade the
performance of the repository, installation of the drip shields
would not be a requirement in the license.
Question 13a. Do you believe that the 20-year opposition by
the State of Nevada regarding the Yucca Mountain project is a
relevant factor for consideration?
Response. Under the national policy framework set forth by
the Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as
amended, NRC must consider DOE's application, pursuant to NRC's
authority under the Atomic Energy Act. NRC will decide whether
to deny or grant the application only after it completes a
comprehensive safety review of the application, and considers
the results of a full and impartial public hearing. NRC has
assured, through its hearing process, that Nevada, Affected
Units of Local Government in Nevada and California, Affected
Tribes, and other potential parties will have opportunities to
present their concerns about DOE's demonstration of compliance
with applicable standards and regulations.
Question 13b. Do you believe that permanent spent nuclear
fuel storage should be located in any State that has expressed
overwhelming opposition to such a facility?
Response. As discussed above, this is a question of public
policy that has already been addressed by the Congress.
Consistent with statutory direction, NRC will deny or authorize
construction of the proposed repository based on its
determination of whether or not the health and safety of the
public and the environment will be protected, in accordance
with NRC's regulations.
------
Responses by Michael Weber to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. If EPA's radiation standard has not been
finalized when DOE files the license application next year,
what actions can NRC take on the application prior to
finalization of the standard?
Response. NRC could docket the application and commence its
independent safety review. In the absence of final EPA
standards and final NRC requirements that are consistent with
them, NRC would not be able to complete its review or decide
whether to deny or grant DOE authorization to construct the
proposed repository. NRC's decision whether to docket the
license application and begin the safety review under these
circumstances will be based on consideration of all relevant
information available and the circumstances at the time the
license application is submitted.
Specifically, EPA's standards and NRC's regulations for a
period up to 10,000 years are in final form. EPA has yet to
issue final standards applicable to the period after 10,000
years. Thus, NRC could docket the license application and begin
reviewing those portions of the license application not
governed by EPA standards for the period after 10,000 years.
Once final standards and regulations for a different timeframe
are in place, DOE could supplement its license application as
necessary and NRC could review those portions of the license
application.
Question 2. Ms. Masto contends that NRC staff will unfairly
become an advocate for DOE during the hearing process following
the Safety Evaluation Report. Will you please describe the role
of NRC staff in the hearing process?
Response. The role of the NRC staff in the hearing process
is to independently present and support its technical analyses
and Safety Evaluation Report (SER) insofar as it bears on the
issues placed in controversy in a potential hearing. An
applicant, in this case DOE, bears the burden of proving its
own case in a licensing proceeding. The NRC staff is free to
present its own views in a proceeding regarding its review of a
potential Yucca Mountain License Application. This freedom
ensures that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the
Commission have the benefit of the staff's technical and
regulatory expertise in the decision making process.
The NRC staff has participated in licensing proceedings
before the agency since the inception of the Commission's
regulatory program. Historically, the Commission has considered
the role of the NRC staff in hearings and concluded that it is
appropriate for the staff to be a party to provide its
expertise and its independent analysis in the review of
contested applications.
With respect to any Yucca Mountain hearing, in a February
20, 2001 letter to Mr. Robert Loux, Executive Director of
Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, then NRC Chairman Richard
Meserve said,
. . . . As envisioned in [the] procedures [in 10 CFR Part
2, Subparts J and G] and in the Commission's regulations for
the licensing of a repository, the NRC staff, with the
assistance of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses
(CNWRA), will conduct an independent technical review of DOE's
license application and Safety Analysis Report if and when they
are received and will prepare a Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
documenting the review and conclusions. Then, the NRC staff, as
a party in the hearing, will independently present and support
its technical analyses and SER insofar as it bears on the
issues placed in controversy in a potential hearing and will
take and support a position on those issues based on the
staff's and CNWRA's expert analyses.
The staff's analyses, positions, and regulatory conclusions
will be wholly independent of those of DOE. The Commission
believes that the staff's participation as a party is useful to
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the other parties, and
the public as it will provide an independent regulatory
perspective for the record. Both the Commission and the NRC
staff are fully aware of and committed to maintaining
objectivity in regulating the activities of DOE or any other
regulated entity.
It has often been recognized that whatever appearance of
staff-applicant agreement there may be is the result of a long
and very public process. The core of this process is the
staff's diligent and extended inquiry into the application, an
inquiry that requires many meetings with the applicant,
meetings that are routinely announced to the public, so that
interested persons can attend and participate. In 1986, the
Commission, addressing the appearance issue more generically,
said,
. . . . [The appearance] is attributable not to bias on the
staff's part but to the nature of the staff's extensive
prehearing review of the application. The applicant often makes
changes in the application in order to secure the staff's
approval, so that by the time the hearing commences, many of
the staff's concerns have been accommodated.
Question 3. In her testimony as Nevada's Attorney General,
Ms. Masto claims that the licensing process is biased and
denies Nevada due process rights. Would you please describe in
detail the opportunities the State of Nevada will have to
participate in the licensing process? Please include
opportunities for participation all related agency activities
in preparation for considering a construction authorization
application.
Response. The NRC hearing procedures for Yucca Mountain are
set forth in published Commission regulations, principally its
Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and
Issuance of Orders, which are published at 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
Under these procedures, Nevada, as the ``host State'' may seek
to participate as a Party to a Yucca Mountain licensing
proceeding. Nevada does not need to establish standing, but
must submit one admissible issue of law or fact, called
contentions in the Commission's regulations, to be granted
party status. In addition to contentions about the license
application, the State, if it so chooses, may also file
contentions that it is not practicable for NRC to adopt the
DOE's Environmental Impact Statement. As a party, Nevada is
entitled to litigate its contentions, and may engage in
discovery, file motions, sponsor its own witnesses to support
its position, participate in questioning witnesses of other
parties, file briefs, and appeal Licensing Board decisions to
the Commission.
In the alternative, if Nevada does not wish to participate
as a party, it may also participate as an ``interested
government.'' As an interested government, Nevada would
identify those contentions submitted by other parties that were
admitted for hearing upon which it would participate. Nevada
could then engage in discovery, introduce evidence, interrogate
witnesses, file proposed findings and appeal Licensing Board
decisions to the Commission.
Since the late 1970's, the Commission has expressed its
support for the role and involvement of the State and of local
communities affected by a potential repository. The Congress
provided a role and funding for the State of Nevada, the
Affected Units of Local Government, and Affected Tribes with
the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended. For
the past 20 years, NRC has conducted extensive public pre-
licensing interactions with DOE, which representatives of the
State have attended. State and affected government
representatives have accompanied NRC staff at many observation
audits of DOE's program. At the State's request, NRC staff
conducted a workshop for the State's experts on NRC's Total-
system Performance Assessment (TPA) computer code and on NRC's
plan's for reviewing DOE's performance assessment.
Finally, the use of the Licensing Support Network (LSN)
enhances the public's access to all documents that may be used
during NRC's public hearing for the repository. The LSN is an
Internet-based portal where all participants of the hearings
will make their documents available. The portal is open to
public access and can be used by anyone to search and view any
document that hearing participants may use during the hearings.
Question 4. If new information is added to the license
application after the deadline for filing contentions has
passed, what opportunities will there be to dispute that new
information?
Response. If new information were added to a license
application after the deadline for filing contentions has
passed, Nevada would have the opportunity, consistent with NRC
regulations, to seek to raise new or amended contentions based
on the information added to the license application.
Question 5. Lincoln County, Nevada, petitioned the NRC 6
months ago to allow Affected Units of Local Government to be
represented in the licensing process by ``duly authorized
representatives'' since Lincoln County does not have the
resources to commit to experienced legal counsel. Resolution of
this petition is crucial to Lincoln County's ability to
represent its citizens in the licensing proceeding. Please
describe how the NRC will address this petition expeditiously
and afford Lincoln County the opportunity to participate fully
given their limited resources.
Response. Because NRC's current regulations already allow
Lincoln County the representation it seeks, the Commission
recently denied the petition as unnecessary (December. 20, 2007
letter to counsel for Lincoln County, NV). Under NRC's
regulations, any duly authorized individual may represent an
Affected Unit of Local Government in NRC adjudications,
including Lincoln County, so long as the representation
complies with State law and any applicable local government
charter. Lincoln County has a clear right under NRC's
regulations to appear on its own behalf, as well as be
represented by an attorney. Although the regulations do not
define the extent of this self-representation right for
government bodies, the Commission has decided that States and
local government bodies (as defined in 10 CFR 2.309(d)(2)
and 2.315(c)) may be represented in NRC adjudications by any
duly authorized individual chosen in accordance with State law
and any applicable local government charter. A Notice of the
Commission's decision will appear in the Federal Register.
------
Responses by Michael Weber to Additional Questions
from Senator Clinton
Question 1. It has been reported that at some point during
NRC's review of the Yucca Mountain license application, the
Commission's staff actually step in and defend the application
on behalf of the DOE. This raises a number of troubling
questions about the NRC's role in the process. Can you please
explain the process in which NRC staff advocates in favor of
licensing the repository before the Commission? Having NRC
staff advocate for the DOE in this process seems to put DOE at
a huge advantage of persuading the Commission to authorize
construction. Do the staff that are defending the petition only
make arguments in favor of licensing? If they identify a
problem with the application or a reason why the repository
should NOT be licensed, are they at liberty to inform the
Commission? Why doesn't the Commission make DOE advocate for
itself? Please answer these questions, and explain how this is
a fair and public process.
Response. It is not the role of the NRC staff to act as an
advocate for DOE or to defend the application on behalf of the
DOE. An applicant, in this case DOE, bears the burden of
proving its own case in a licensing proceeding. The NRC staff
is free to present its own views in a proceeding regarding its
review of a potential Yucca Mountain License Application. This
freedom ensures that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and
the Commission have the benefit of the staff's unhindered
technical and regulatory expertise in the decision making
process.
The NRC staff has participated in licensing proceedings
before the agency since the inception of the Commission's
regulatory program. Historically, the Commission has considered
the role of the NRC staff in hearings and concluded that it is
appropriate for the staff to be a party to provide its
expertise and its independent analysis in the review of
contested applications.
With respect to any Yucca Mountain hearing, in a February
20, 2001 letter to Mr. Robert Loux, Executive Director of
Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, then NRC Chairman Richard
Meserve said,
. . . . As envisioned in [the] procedures [in 10 CFR Part
2, Subparts J and G] and in the Commission's regulations for
the licensing of a repository, the NRC staff, with the
assistance of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses
(CNWRA), will conduct an independent technical review of DOE's
license application and Safety Analysis Report if and when they
are received and will prepare a Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
documenting the review and conclusions. Then, the NRC staff, as
a party in the hearing, will independently present and support
its technical analyses and SER insofar as it bears on the
issues placed in controversy in a potential hearing and will
take and support a position on those issues based on the
staff's and CNWRA's expert analyses.
The staff's analyses, positions, and regulatory conclusions
will be wholly independent of those of DOE. The Commission
believes that the staff's participation as a party is useful to
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the other parties, and
the public as it will provide an independent regulatory
perspective for the record. Both the Commission and the NRC
staff are fully aware of and committed to maintaining
objectivity in regulating the activities of DOE or any other
regulated entity. That objectivity will not be undercut--
indeed, it will be enhanced--by the presentation by the staff
of its independent views as a party in a potential hearing.
It has often been recognized that whatever appearance of
staff-applicant teamwork there may be is the result of a long
and very public process. The core of this process is the
staff's diligent and extended inquiry into the application, an
inquiry that requires many meetings with the applicant,
meetings that are routinely announced to the public, so that
interested persons can attend and participate. In 1986, the
Commission, addressing the appearance issue more generically,
said,
. . . . [The appearance] is attributable not to bias on the
staff's part but to the nature of the staff's extensive
prehearing review of the application. The applicant often makes
changes in the application in order to secure the staff's
approval, so that by the time the hearing commences, many of
the staff's concerns have been accommodated.
If the staff identifies a problem with the application or
sees a reason why the repository should not be licensed, the
staff will inform the Commission.
Question 2. DOE's Total System Performance Assessment
modeling program for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository
will form the basis for DOE's license application. Please
explain in detail how NRC will review DOE's conclusions based
on TSPA. I understand it takes hundreds of computers to run
this program. Does NRC have this capability? Will NRC run this
program to check DOE's results? It is my understanding that
nobody outside of DOE--not NRC, not the State of Nevada, nor
any other stakeholder--has access to DOE's TSPA. How similar is
NRC's Total Performance Assessment system to TSPA?
Response.
nrc requires doe to conduct a performance assessment
To comply with NRC's regulations the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) must conduct a performance assessment to provide
numerical estimates of potential radiological exposures to
future residents near Yucca Mountain. A performance assessment
is a systematic analysis that identifies repository features,
events, and processes that could affect performance of a
repository; examines their potential effects on repository
performance; and estimates potential radiological exposures.
NRC regulations specify what a performance assessment must
include and how it should be performed. DOE's performance
assessment will necessarily comprise many parameters, models
and assumptions that will be represented mathematically in many
`computer files.' DOE refers to these components, collectively,
as its Total System Performance Assessment, or TSPA. It is
important to understand that TSPA is not a single computer
program.
DOE's TSPA is expected to perform hundreds or more separate
simulations, or ``runs,'' to depict the different ways a
potential repository could perform over time. The estimates of
overall repository performance, expressed as dose estimates,
are saved in separate computer files. TSPA creates still more
files that preserve intermediate results (such as infiltration
rates, degradation rates of waste packages, timing and release
rates of radionuclides from waste packages, and timing and
release rates of radionuclides from the saturated zone).
nrc staff will conduct an independent safety review of doe's tspa
NRC staff will perform a careful, independent review of the
TSPA computer software itself, and of the many files created
during multiple runs. These reviews will allow NRC staff to
follow and confirm the many calculations within the TSPA and to
examine the component parameters, models, and assumptions on
which DOE relies to assert compliance in its license
application. Key elements of NRC's review of DOE's TSPA
computer programs and files include:
1) Adequacy of scenarios evaluated in the TSPA
NRC staff will examine the models, parameters, and
assumptions in the computer program to verify the scenarios DOE
uses in its TSPA properly represent the potential evolution of
the repository. For example, the TSPA must account properly for
the possible occurrence and timing of disruptive events.
2)Credibility of TSPA representation of performance
NRC staff will review the computer programs and files of
the TSPA to decide whether DOE has properly verified the TSPA.
The goals of this review are to find out whether: (1) DOE's
codes model the physical processes in the repository system in
the manner DOE intends; (2) assumptions made within TSPA are
internally consistent; (3) estimates of uncertainty in the
results are consistent with the model and parameter uncertainty
included in the TSPA; and (4) repository performance and the
performance of individual barriers, as represented by DOE in
the TSPA, are consistent and reasonable.
3)Statistical stability and consistency of resulting dose
estimates
NRC staff will examine the overall dose estimates and the
intermediate results of the TSPA to ensure that (1) the results
are statistically stable; (2) the estimated annual dose curves
reflect contributions from all the scenarios evaluated; and (3)
repository performance and the performance of individual
components or subsystems are consistent and reasonable.
nrc staff has prepared by reviewing publicly available versions of
earlier tspa models
Although DOE's TSPA for the license application is
currently not available, NRC obtained published versions of the
TSPA used for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),
for the Site Recommendation (SR), and most recently for the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to gain
insights into how DOE intends to use the TSPA in its license
application. NRC staff members use commercially available
desktop computers to examine the computer programs and files of
the TSPA for the FEIS, SR, and SEIS. Specifically, the staff
has examined the calculations, results, parameters, models and
assumptions within the TSPA for the FEIS, SR, and SEIS. We
understand that DOE has made published versions of the TSPA
available to the State of Nevada.
nrc has developed the resources it needs for an independent review of
doe's tspa
Conducting hundreds of computer runs to support the license
application in a timely manner, as well as saving intermediate
data for NRC's licensing review, requires DOE's use of a
massive computer system. It is DOE's responsibility as an
applicant for an NRC license to run these TSPA simulations. It
is NRC's responsibility to confirm their validity.
DOE's computer cluster allows DOE to perform a very large
number of simulations in a very short period of time. It is not
possible to perform such a large number of rapid, multiple runs
on a desk top computer. However, the NRC is able and prepared
to perform single simulations of DOE's TSPA. When examining
DOE's TSPA for the FEIS and SR, NRC staff performed single
simulations on a high-performance desktop computer. The
information necessary to conduct such evaluations is expected
to be in the license application, which will be available to
all parties. The NRC is already performing limited simulations
with the TSPA for the FEIS and SR to gain insights on the model
using desktop computers. The NRC staff is exploring the
potential for linking several computers to improve efficiency
of the licensing review by shortening the time required to
perform simulations. However, if additional analyses are
necessary, the NRC will require DOE to perform additional
analyses and submit them for staff review. The staff does not
intend to perform its own multi-simulation runs of the TSPA.
Simple execution of the computer model is no substitute for the
understanding developed through the comprehensive review
described in items 1 through 3, above.
NRC has developed its own independent performance
assessment model as well as its own detailed hydrologic models
that NRC will use to support its critique of DOE's TSPA. The
NRC's independent Total-system Performance Assessment model
(TPA) is similar to DOE's TSPA in that both include similar
processes (e.g., corrosion of waste packages, seepage of water
into repository drifts, transport of radionuclides in
groundwater). In certain cases, however, the models represent
some processes differently. Such differences are expected due
to uncertainties and limitations in the information supporting
the estimates of repository performance far in the future. The
NRC's independent TPA model is publicly available. Over the
past 20 years, the NRC staff has published several reports
documenting its development of TPA and the insights gained from
its use. NRC will use these insights to assist its review of
DOE's TSPA. As necessary, the staff will request additional
information from DOE.
The Commission is confident the NRC staff is prepared to
review DOE's TSPA in support of the license application. This
review process will be open to the public. The Commission
intends to ensure that the public, at a minimum, will have
access to any TSPA codes and data that are accessible to the
NRC staff or that impact safety determinations, providing the
data does not involve appropriately protected information.
Question 3. Recent documents found on the NRC's Licensing
Support Network reveal that DOE might be planning to unveil a
new performance assessment model to replace the Total System
Performance Assessment after the Department submits its license
application. In what ways would such an action by DOE slow
NRC's review of the license application? Would NRC have to re-
consider its decision to docket the license application?
Response. NRC could reconsider its decision, depending upon
the effect of the new model on DOE's compliance demonstration.
If the new information were to dramatically change DOE's
application, the NRC staff could allow DOE to withdraw, revise
and resubmit the license application. The staff would then
begin a new acceptance review, once DOE resubmits its
application. If the new information enhances, but does not
fundamentally alter DOE's compliance demonstration, it would be
possible for NRC staff to continue the review. Depending on the
nature and extent of new information, and its effect on DOE's
demonstration of compliance, NRC staff would consider whether
adjustments to the review schedule are needed.
Question 4. DOE plans to include the installation of the
``drip shields'' up to 300 years into the future to keep water
off waste containers. This is so uncertain, it may not be
physically possible, and it's enormously expensive. It seems
like DOE shouldn't be permitted to count on drip shields in its
safety analysis. How can NRC allow this?
Response. DOE must apply to NRC for authorization to build
the proposed repository. Under NRC's regulations, DOE must show
that its proposal will comply with specified performance
objectives for the geologic repository after permanent closure.
If DOE files an application, and if NRC accepts the application
for review, NRC will begin a thorough safety review. In that
review, the NRC staff will evaluate whether DOE's proposed
design, including reliance on any specific design feature or
component of the engineered barrier system, such as a drip
shield, succeeds in making the required demonstration.
The NRC staff will then document its assessment in a public
Safety Evaluation Report. If DOE's application fails to make
the necessary demonstrations of compliance with the
Commission's regulations, the NRC staff will not authorize
construction. If the NRC staff recommends that NRC authorize
construction, the NRC may specify license conditions, as
needed, to provide reasonable expectation that relevant
performance objectives will be met. NRC can only assess the
need for such conditions, their reasonableness, and their
potential to be enforced in the context of DOE's overall design
as presented in a license application.
Once the NRC staff completes its review and documents its
conclusions, NRC will hold public, evidentiary hearings on
DOE's application before an independent panel of judges. These
hearings will afford potential parties, including the State of
Nevada, with the opportunity to propose and justify contentions
about the completeness and adequacy of the safety case DOE
presents in its license application. If--based on its
independent safety review and on consideration of the results
of a full and impartial public hearing--NRC is able to
authorize construction, NRC would oversee that construction to
ensure DOE complies with NRC regulations and with conditions of
its authorization.
Before DOE could actually begin disposal of waste at the
repository, however, DOE would need to formally ask NRC to
issue a license to receive and possess waste. Any decision by
NRC to grant or deny this request would, itself, require
consideration of another comprehensive, independent safety
review, and opportunity for another public hearing. Under no
circumstances would NRC permit DOE to receive and possess waste
at a repository without finding that public health and safety
and the environment are protected. If NRC allows DOE to operate
the repository, NRC would oversee DOE operations to ensure DOE
complies with NRC regulations and with all conditions of its
license.
If DOE proposes to install drip shields and if the drip
shields are considered important for waste isolation or
repository performance, the installation of the drip shields at
an appropriate time would become part of the license
conditions. If DOE were to decide, at a later date, not to
install the drip shields, the decision would require specific
regulatory approval in the form of a license amendment which
would be subject to technical review and the potential for a
hearing as part of the amendment process. Alternatively, DOE
may be able to demonstrate regulatory compliance without the
drip shields but still propose to install the drip shields as
an additional barrier. Under such circumstances, as long as DOE
could demonstrate that the drip shields would not degrade the
performance of the repository, installation of the drip shields
would not be a requirement in the license.
Question 5. If the final EPA radiation standard is not
published by the time DOE submits its LA, will NRC be able to
docket DOE's submission? How far along in the LA review process
can NRC proceed without a final radiation standard? At what
point in the process must NRC stop reviewing the license
application before EPA promulgates a final standard? Must the
Radiation Standard be subjected to judicial review in Federal
court, with a final decision made, before NRC may issue a
construction authorization?
Response. NRC could docket the application and commence its
independent safety review. In the absence of final EPA
standards and final NRC requirements that are consistent with
them, NRC would not be able to complete its review or decide
whether to deny or grant DOE authorization to construct the
proposed repository. NRC's decision whether to docket the
license application and begin the safety review under these
circumstances will be based on consideration of all relevant
information available and the circumstances at the time the
license application is submitted.
Currently, EPA's standards and NRC's regulations for a
period up to 10,000 years are in final form. EPA has yet to
issue final standards applicable to the period after 10,000
years. Thus, NRC could docket the license application and begin
reviewing those portions of the license application not
governed by EPA standards for the period after 10,000 years.
Once final standards and regulations are in place, DOE could
supplement its license application as necessary and NRC could
review those portions of the license application.
Federal agencies implement their rules beginning on the
effective date of the rule. Absent a court order enjoining the
application of the radiation standard, the NRC could issue a
construction authorization while any judicial challenges to the
radiation standard are pending. However, judicial challenges
could be filed as soon as the radiation standard is
promulgated. If a lawsuit were filed shortly after
promulgation, we would expect that the litigation would be
completed prior to the Commission's issuing a licensing
decision.
Question 6. The Private Fuel Storage licensing process
required more than 8 years to complete. Can the NRC
realistically expect to complete the review of the Yucca
Mountain license application in 4 years or less?
Response. NRC's priority during the licensing process is to
ensure that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain is safe
and secure and that it will protect public health and safety
and the environment. However, the NRC recognizes that the
three-to 4-year period mandated by the NWPA to complete the
licensing process for Yucca Mountain will be challenging and
will require a significant amount of resources to accomplish.
To accomplish this goal, the NRC must first complete a
comprehensive safety evaluation of DOE's application. Second,
the NRC must evaluate and determine if it is practicable to
adopt DOE's Environmental Impact Statement. Third, the NRC must
hold a full and fair public hearing. The NRC will take the time
it deems necessary to complete these milestones and make an
informed and complete decision on the safety of the repository.
If NRC finds that the established deadline is not sufficient
for completing its licensing review responsibilities, then NRC
will initiate the appropriate consultation with Congress about
the schedule and the proposed completion of its review.
Nevertheless, the NRC has and continues to undergo
significant preparations to support the mandated 3-or 4-year
period for the completion of its licensing review. The NRC
staff, with the assistance of the Center for Nuclear Waste and
Regulatory Analyses (a federally funded research and
development center) has had over 20 years of experience and
pre-licensing interactions with the DOE on the technical and
regulatory issues of the proposed repository in Yucca Mountain.
These pre-licensing interactions enhance the NRC's
understanding of the engineering and science matters associated
with the proposed repository. The NRC has also made significant
efforts to make the hearing process more efficient and open to
the public. To shorten the time spent on the exchange of
documents that may be used as evidence in a public hearing for
the repository, all participants will make their documents
available via the Internet-based portal known as the Licensing
Support Network (LSN). The LSN provides a single place where
participants of the licensing hearing can search for documents
from any and all of those collections in a uniform way.
Although these NRC-initiated efforts increase its ability
to meet the stated deadline, there are also external events
that significantly affect this ability and must occur to
support the schedule. First, the NRC must receive a complete,
high-quality license application from DOE to meet this
deadline. A high-quality license application from DOE will
minimize the need to seek information through supplements or
requests for additional information. Additionally, the NRC must
receive the required appropriations from Congress to carry out
its statutory responsibilities in this area.
The NRC is aware that the Private Fuel Storage (PFS)
facility underwent a long and protracted licensing process.
Licensing was protracted in part because the licensee made
several significant changes to the application after NRC staff
had already begun its technical review. In addition, the
process was prolonged by a highly contentious and litigated
public hearing. While NRC also expects a public hearing for the
proposed repository to be highly contested, the NRC is
preparing to complete a public hearing within the period
specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. As stated earlier,
the NRC has significantly streamlined the document exchange
process through the use of information technology and the LSN.
Additionally, the NRC will likely have multiple boards
conducting hearings, possibly simultaneously. The NRC intends
to use multiple boards while doing its best to avoid
simultaneous evidentiary hearings. These efforts contrast
significantly with those taken during the PFS hearing process.
During the PFS hearing process, the use of information
technology was not used as extensively. Additionally, the NRC
did not convene multiple boards to conduct simultaneous
evidentiary hearings. The additional resources that NRC will
devote for a public hearing on the proposed repository will
significantly assist NRC in preparing to meet the schedule
specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Question 7. By only requiring that the DOE's computer
simulation meet one test--that the predicted radiation dose to
an individual 18 kilometers from Yucca Mountain stay below the
EPA limit--NRC has effectively abandoned ``defense in depth.''
How can you justify not having individual requirements on the
separate safety features, as you do for reactors? Bearing in
mind that reactors are much better understood than the Yucca
Mountain repository, why are you not applying a higher standard
here rather than a weaker one?
Response. NRC regulations contain multiple criteria against
which DOE's performance assessment, including DOE's computer
simulations, will be evaluated. Although DOE's total system
performance assessment, or TSPA, must demonstrate compliance
with EPA's numerical limits, DOE's TSPA must also show that the
proposed repository comprises multiple barriers (both
engineered and natural or geologic) consistent with a defense-
in-depth safety approach.
NRC regulations for the proposed repository at Yucca
Mountain represent a unique application of NRC's defense-in-
depth philosophy to a first-of-a-kind facility. While waste is
being emplaced, and before a geologic repository is closed, its
operation is readily amenable to regulation in much the same
manner as any other large, NRC-licensed facility. Application
of defense-in-depth principles for regulation of repository
performance for long time periods following closure, however,
must account for the difference between a geologic repository
and an operating facility with active safety systems and the
potential for active control and intervention. For the most
part, the safety components of a nuclear power plant work or
fail in a binary fashion, and extensive actuarial data exist to
form the basis for estimating failure rates. The components of
a repository, on the other hand, are expected to behave
continuously over long time frames for which performance data
are scarce or non-existent. As a result, performance of
repository safety systems and subsystems must be extrapolated
from limited short-term data. For example, the waste package is
expected to go from a State of complete integrity and total
containment of the waste to a State of very gradual failure
over tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Assessment of the
safety of such a system over long time frames is best evaluated
through consideration of the relative likelihood of threats to
its integrity and performance, in the context of overall system
behavior. For these reasons, NRC's regulations provide DOE
flexibility to determine the types and capabilities of barriers
it will rely on to demonstrate the repository will perform
within the safety requirements.
The National Academy of Sciences in its report on Yucca
Mountain Standards recommended that NRC not specify separate
requirements for subsystems (i.e., individual barriers).
Consistent with this NAS recommendation, and the reasons stated
above, the NRC did not specify separate limits for individual
barriers. Instead, NRC's regulations require DOE to identify
and describe the capabilities of the barriers it includes in
its TSPA, and on which it relies to show compliance with the
safety limits. NRC will perform a risk-informed review of DOE's
TSPA to decide whether DOE complies with applicable safety
regulations. This means that NRC will review each barrier
important to waste isolation with a rigor commensurate with the
safety significance of the barrier.
The Commission considers this approach for multiple
barriers and defense-in-depth in its Part 63 regulations both
appropriate and protective. When NRC issued final Part 63 on
November 2, 2001 (66 FR 55758), the Commission stated the goal
of the regulations regarding multiple barriers and defense-in-
depth and explained its reasoning for not specifying
requirements for specific barriers:
. . . [T]he emphasis should not be on the isolated
performance of individual barriers but rather on ensuring the
repository system is robust, and is not wholly dependent on a
single barrier. Further, the Commission supports an approach
that would allow DOE to use its available resources effectively
to achieve the safest repository without unnecessary
constraints imposed by separate, additional subsystem
performance requirements. It is also important to remember that
Part 63 requires DOE to carry out a performance confirmation
program to provide further confidence that barriers important
to waste isolation will continue to perform as expected (66 FR
55758).
The court addressed this same issue in Nevada's suit
challenging the Part 63 rule:
Specifically, Nevada contests NRC's use of defense-in-depth
at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository through an overall
system performance assessment rather than using the approach of
its older regulations, which approach tests the individual
performance of the repository's `system elements.' [ . . . ] In
light of NRC's detailed analysis supporting its decision to
evaluate the performance of the Yucca Mountain repository based
on the barrier system's overall performance, we believe that it
adequately explained its change in course. [ . . . ]
Accordingly, we conclude that NRC acted neither arbitrarily nor
capriciously in rejecting part 60's subsystem performance
approach in favor of the overall performance approach. NEI v.
EPA; 373 F.3d 1251, 1295-97 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Question 8. It is a well-established fact that the site
selection process was intended to select the most appropriate
geologic repository. In a May 21 letter, USGS Yucca Project
branch chief Kenneth Skipper wrote to Andrew Orrell, senior
program manager for the DOE lead laboratory, that preliminary
data from a recent drilling phase indicate that the location of
the Bow Ridge fault in northern Midway Valley ``may be farther
east than projected from previous work in the area.'' As a
result, in June, Yucca engineers changed where they planned to
build the concrete pads for cooling thousands of tons of highly
radioactive spent fuel before the canisters are entombed in the
mountain, which lies 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It is
clear that DOE does not have a clear picture of the site's
exact geological makeup, and that several other problems
remain, including the dump's proximity to the water table and
engineers' failure to forecast what will happen at the site,
geologically or meteorologically, in the future. Based on these
emerging geological and scientific data, how can NRC approve
the application for Yucca Mountain as a geologic repository for
nuclear waste, when the data does not support this conclusion
and DOE cannot guarantee containment of these materials without
significant engineered barriers? Assuming Yucca Mountain will
not function as a geologic repository, how will that fact be
incorporated into the NRC's review of DOE's plan to use Yucca
Mountain as a geologic repository?
Response. NRC would agree that the site selection process
was intended to select an appropriate site for consideration as
a possible geologic repository, subject to the independent
safety review and determination afforded by NRC's licensing
process. The basis for DOE's design and an evaluation of the
repository's response to geologic hazards will be important
parts of NRC's review of DOE's license application. NRC expects
DOE to provide accurate geologic data, such as fault locations,
to support its demonstration of regulatory compliance.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987,
directed DOE to characterize the Yucca Mountain site. As part
of that characterization program, DOE developed geologic maps.
In developing these maps, DOE used available information to
infer the locations of geologic structures, such as faults
buried under younger, unfaulted soil deposits. Typically, fault
locations identified on these types of geologic maps are
accurate only to within hundreds of feet. This is especially
true for areas like Midway Valley, where faults are buried
beneath younger, unfaulted deposits. Recently, DOE sought more
information so it could characterize subsurface conditions and
define fault locations more accurately to support its design of
certain surface facilities. The resulting DOE drilling program
revealed that the main part of the Bow Ridge fault is several
hundred feet east of its previously mapped location. In
response to this new information, DOE adjusted the location of
some surface facilities to avoid intersection with the Bow
Ridge fault.
The presence of geologic features, such as faults, does not
necessarily imply a safety problem with the performance of the
potential geologic repository. NRC regulations give DOE a range
of options to consider when designing the repository system to
mitigate the possible effects of geologic hazards and meet the
safety standards. As noted above, the basis for DOE's seismic
design, and an evaluation of the repository system's response
to geologic hazards, will be important parts of NRC's review of
the DOE license application. NRC expects DOE to provide
accurate geologic data, such as fault locations, to support its
demonstration of regulatory compliance. DOE's demonstration
must consider, among other things, realistic uncertainties in
the geologic data. Following a detailed review of DOE's
application and a full and impartial public hearing, NRC would
authorize construction only if NRC finds that public safety,
common defense and security, and the environment will be
protected.
Senator Carper. Mr. Weber, thanks for that testimony.
I am going to yield to Senator Clinton, and then we will go
to Senator Inhofe, and then I will ask a question or two, and
then to Senator Craig and Senator Barrasso, and if he returns,
Senator Isakson and others. We will go back and forth as they
come back in.
Senator Clinton, you are recognized.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
I must say that your respective testimony raises a lot of
confusing questions. You know, if the EPA standards and NRC
licensing regulations are not yet final, it is sort of hard on
the matter of just logic to understand whether the NRC can
properly docket and begin a substantive review of DOE's license
application.
As you all noted in your testimony, EPA's radiation
standard is still not final, yet DOE continues to prepare an
application to meet this unknown standard. The NRC indicates
that they will begin to process the license even if EPA has not
finalized the radiation standard when it is received.
I do not believe that this comports with the process that
the Congress set out. It certainly seems to be putting the cart
before the horse. In a few minutes, we will hear from Nevada's
Attorney General and her testimony makes clear that this kind
of unclear process puts Nevada at a great disadvantage, and the
Nevada Attorney General contends that the NRC should be
prohibited from accepting DOE's license application for review
until final EPA and NRC regulatory requirements are in place.
That seems obvious to me.
So I have several questions about the process and about
your testimony. I want to lay them all out and go through them
quickly.
First, if I could, let me turn to Mr. Meyers. When will EPA
finalize the radiation standard?
Mr. Meyers. In my written testimony, I indicated it was our
hope to get that done soon.
Senator Clinton. And what does soon mean?
Mr. Meyers. Soon means probably the normal meaning of the
term is that it is our intent to continue to work on this and
to get this done soon.
[Laughter.]
Senator Clinton. That is very enlightening, Mr. Meyers, I
must confess.
Now, when you get it soon, will soon be before the NRC has
to act?
Mr. Meyers. We are focused on our process, Senator Clinton,
and completing our process.
Senator Clinton. Well, that is the problem. You know, your
final EPA standard is certainly key to any NRC action because
if the standard is not finished soon, by the time the NRC acts,
the NRC will be acting without the standard. Do you agree with
that?
Mr. Meyers. That could be hypothetically correct, but we
intend to proceed with our standard and finish it.
Senator Clinton. Second, let me ask you, Mr. Sproat, why is
the Department of Energy rushing to finalize the license
application by June of next year in the absence of a final EPA
standard?
Mr. Sproat. Good question, Senator.
I just want to make it clear. In terms of the NRC
regulations that govern the licensing and the design
requirements for Yucca Mountain, those regulations have been in
place for almost a decade. There are literally hundreds of
pages of those regulations. Our license application needs to
address all of those.
One very small piece is the last piece that says what is
the long-term radioactive release exposure rates that are
potentially to emanate from Yucca Mountain out to a million
years. That is the one last piece of literally hundreds of
pages of regulation that isn't done yet.
For us, in preparing our license application, we need to do
the calculations to determine how the repository will actually
work. We are doing that. As a matter of fact, we published our
preliminary results in our supplemental environmental impact
statement that we released three weeks ago. It shows that the
peak dose from Yucca Mountain, projected peak dose, will be in
about 200,000 years from now, and be less than five millirem,
which is the combined exposure of a round trip air trip between
New York and Los Angeles.
Senator Clinton. But you know, Mr. Sproat, what is
suggested to me by the delay of the EPA's final standard is
that perhaps the EPA doesn't agree with that. Clearly, this has
been put on a fast track for this Administration. If the EPA
had a sense of urgency about it and if Mr. Meyers were not put
in the awkward position of having to play semantic games in
trying to respond to my question, there would already be a
radiation standard.
So what I am picking up is that there is a disagreement
here, and that DOE is going full-fledged ahead and EPA is
dragging its feet because EPA doesn't want to be on the record
of either contradicting DOE or having to once again mangle
science in order to get to some preconceived outcome that will
suit those who wish to move forward on this.
But finally, let me ask Mr. Weber, why won't the NRC refuse
to accept the application until after the EPA radiation
standard, and your own standards, are complete? Because it is
not only that we don't have the EPA radiation standard, we also
don't have your standards either.
Mr. Weber. Clearly, Senator, our preference would be to
have the EPA final standard and NRC's requirements in place
before the receipt of the application. Congress addressed this
in addressing the legislation. We cannot make our licensing
finding on the construction authorization until such time as we
have in fact received the EPA standard and conformed our
regulations, because the finding that the Congress charged the
NRC to make is that among all the requirements that Mr. Sproat
referred to, one of them is that the EPA standard has been
satisfied.
Senator Clinton. Well, does that mean, then, that you will
delay accepting the application? Or you will delay acting on
the application?
Mr. Weber. If we receive the application, we will commence
our review. We cannot complete that review and reach our
regulatory decision until such time as we have the requirements
in place.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper, I will be submitting additional questions
for the record.
Senator Carper. Fair enough. Thank you very much for those
questions.
Senator Inhofe, you are recognized.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, early on I asked that Ronda Hornbeck's
statement be made a part of the record. She is a county
commissioner, the Chairman of the Lincoln County Commission. It
is already part of the record.
There is another one I neglected to get in, and that is
Kevin Phillips, Mayor of Caliente, Nevada.
I ask that this be made a part of the record.
Senator Carper. Without objection.
[The referenced document follows:]
Statement of Kevin J. Phillips, Mayor of Caliente, NV.,
Lincoln County, NV.
I am Kevin J. Phillips, serving in my 14th year as mayor of
Caliente, Nevada. Many citizens in Nevada and the Nation
understand that nuclear energy is an essential component of our
country's energy portfolio to provide for our base load energy
requirements while minimizing harmful emission. Many Nevadans
also believe that Nevada can and should play a major role in
meeting our nation's needs.
Nevada's leadership would like the Congress to believe that
all Nevadans adamantly oppose the development of the Yucca
Mountain repository. This is not true. I personally know that
most Nevadans are truly ill-informed as to the facts of this
subject, and simply respond negatively to polls asking if they
are in favor of the ``dump.'' Who wouldn't respond this way
when the question is framed in this manner, and in the context
of their lack of knowledge regarding the issue?
There is a significant cross-section of the citizens of
Nevada who want to help solve the national energy crisis and
lead Nevada to become one of the most technologically and
scientifically advanced regions in the world. These Nevadans
are pragmatic, solution-oriented leaders who, first and
foremost, want to ensure that the Yucca Mountain project is
constructed in accordance with sound science and operated in a
way that safety is always the No. 1 consideration. We agree
with the president and with Congress that the science conducted
at Yucca Mountain confirms it to be a suitable site for a
geologic repository.
Furthermore, we recognize that the same amount of used
nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste that is to be
shipped to Yucca Mountain has already been shipped nationally
and internationally without a single radioactive release that
has resulted in harm to the environment or any individual. In
fact, immediately upon the commencement of the used nuclear
fuel shipments along the Caliente Rail Line, my citizens will
experience a decreased amount of risk from hazardous material
shipments. As a railroad town with very little emergency
response resources, the citizens of Caliente are at risk every
day with chlorine cars and other volatile substances. The
increased emergency response capability that will accompany the
shipments to Yucca Mountain will greatly enhance the everyday
safety of my citizens from a risk management perspective.
Congress has a tremendous opportunity to make Yucca
Mountain one of the most important and successful public works
projects in the history of human existence. Washington has been
given all the information it needs to make smart decisions that
accomplish this goal. You need to create an opportunity for
real, meaningful economic diversification, and you need to
start doing real things now rather than later. This project is
far from being broken. Some synergy from you nudging this along
is all that is required. If the Congress is truly committed to
ultimate energy independence and energy security, this can be
achieved.
I respectfully suggest that the Congress take the following
steps:
Change the name of the site at Yucca Mountain to the
``National Energy Reserve at Yucca Mountain.'' This
modification highlights the value of what we truly are dealing
with. This name change, coupled with the following additional
suggestions, changes the way this project is viewed by the
citizens of Nevada.
Build the railroad from the city of Caliente to the
National Energy Reserve at Yucca Mountain. The Record of
Decision issued by the Department of Energy refers to this
route as the ``Caliente Corridor.'' The Department of Energy
has released the Draft Rail Alignment Environmental Impact
Statement naming the Caliente Rail Corridor as the preferred
corridor. After the Final EIS has been completed, they need to
issue the Record of Decision on the specific alignment within
the Caliente Rail Corridor and they need the funding to
commence construction of the railroad.
Ship used fuel to the National Energy Reserve. Here the
fuel can further cool in a remote protected environment.
Litigation pressures are relieved. Enhanced safety is achieved.
The fuel is collected in a central location awaiting re-use.
Change the name of the ``Caliente Corridor'' to the
``Central Nevada Energy Corridor.'' Numerous sites along this
new rail line are prime locations for placement of new
electrical generation power plants of various types. These
``energy zones'' could be pre-licensed and would provide for
great incentive for companies to build new electrical
generation resources, including nuclear, clean-coal, solar,
wind and geothermal.
Designate the National Energy Reserve as the location for
the nation's used fuel recycling facilities. Build such
facilities as soon as time and technology permits. Do this in
conjunction with Nevada's university system. The Nuclear Waste
Policy Act gives Nevada ``preference'' for such things. It
makes total sense. Move the used fuel once. Recycle it. Place
the small amount of ``waste'' left over deep underground in the
repository. Move the new fuel assemblies to a nearby generation
facility on the Central Nevada Energy Corridor and produce
electricity.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was a progressive piece of
legislation with many potential benefits for the State of
Nevada. There are additional changes to the legislation that
could minimize the risk for the citizens of the Nation and
specifically of Nevada while maximizing the benefits for those
citizens and local governments most significantly impacted by
Yucca Mountain. I hope that I and other likeminded leaders in
Nevada will continue to be invited to provide innovative
solutions as the Yucca Mountain project progresses.
Senator Inhofe. Now, let me just read part of it here,
because I am a little bit confused, and you might be able to
clarify this. This is our of his statement. He is the Mayor of
Caliente, Nevada.
``Nevada's leadership would like the Congress to believe
that all Nevadans adamantly oppose the development of the Yucca
Mountain repository. This is not true. There is a significant
cross section of citizens in Nevada who want to help solve the
national energy crisis and lead Nevada to become one of the
most technologically and scientifically advanced regions of the
world.
These Nevadans are pragmatic, solution-oriented leaders who
first and foremost want to ensure that the Yucca Mountain
project is constructed in accordance with sound science and
operated in a way that where safety is always the No. 1
consideration. We agree with the President and with Congress
that the science conducted at Yucca Mountain confirms it to be
a suitable site for a geologic repository.''
I guess I would start with you, Mr. Sproat. In your
position, I am sure you have heard from a lot of people out in
Nevada.
Mr. Sproat. Senator, I have. I go out there. I spend 1 week
a month in Nevada.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. What kind of response to you get? All
we have heard prior to my seeing this is that they are all
opposed to it.
Mr. Sproat. I don't think that is a fair characterization.
I would certainly say that Yucca Mountain, there is a
substantial part of the population that when asked, would you
like a nuclear waste repository in your State, their answer
will be no. However, I can tell you I have quarterly meetings
with the affected units of local government, which are the
counties surrounding the Yucca Mountain site, as well as
representatives from the State of Nevada. And Nye County, which
is the host county, the county which has Yucca Mountain inside
its county borders, that county is in favor of moving forward
with Yucca Mountain.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I was out there some time ago, and
that is the impression I got. That is not the impression we get
here in Washington.
Let me ask you, I think Senator Clinton took a pretty
heroic political position in saying that she is for leaving the
waste in the existing States that are out there. Senator Reid
made one statement that is I think the strongest of his
testimony. I think he repeated it about three times, talking
about the danger of transporting this around the Country. I
have heard both sides of this thing.
He specifically talked about after 9/11, what terrorists
might do.
I would like to have you take whatever time you need to
describe to us what precautions are out there and what the risk
is, and respond to that accusation. Because I think that was
probably the strongest thing that he said in his opening
statement.
Mr. Sproat. Well, I would say first of all in terms of the
regulations governing the transportation of spent nuclear fuel
and high level waste, shared by both the Department of
Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the
Department of Energy has responsibility for complying with
their regulations, No. 1.
No. 2, this is not something new. This has been going on
for over 40 years already, with a very, very high safety
record. I cited in my oral testimony the number of shipments
that have already taken place. I think the reason most people
don't know it is happening is because it has been a tremendous
safety record.
I would say that in terms of the security requirements
associated with shipping high level nuclear waste and spent
nuclear fuel, while there are a number of classified issues
around that, what I can tell you is all those shipments are
tracked by GPS tracking, have armed guards with the shipments,
and the casks are designed for extremely severe accidents to
prevent release of radioactivity.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I can remember years ago, I guess 25
or 30 years ago, when I was Mayor of Tulsa, the thought was
that it would be coming through and we did some checking at
that time, finding it was very, very--well, let's say how would
you compare that with the risk that is out there? There is risk
in anything, I suppose, of Senator Clinton's response to, say,
leaving it in the States that were mentioned by Senator Craig:
New York, Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire. In terms of
relative risk, how would you measure that, between
transportation and leaving it there?
Mr. Sproat. All I would say, Senator, is first of all, I am
a firm believer and I truly believe, coming from the nuclear
industry and having been involved with interim storage at the
plants I was involved with, it is safe where it is. I
absolutely agree.
However, if you are going to raise the question and assume
that it is a target for terrorist acts, I will reprise the
statement I made in my oral testimony, which is which do you
think makes an easier target to go after: a stationary target
that is at 121 locations around the Country and everybody knows
where it is? Or moving targets that the only people who know
where they are the people who are directly involved with
shipping them under armed guard?
That is a question I just leave to the Committee to answer.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Mr. Weber, and I have gone over my time
here, but what is there for the NRC to do if this report
doesn't come out? I have to say, Mr. Meyers, your predecessor,
I guess you are the Acting Director right now, Mr. Wehrum, at
one time, it was about a year and a half ago, said that we
would have all this done by year end, the end of 2006, and it
is still not done.
Now, what can the NRC do now in the absence of that?
Mr. Weber. We have been closely interacting, Senator, with
the Department of Energy to continue to stay up on the current
status of their science and the engineering for the proposed
repository. Our desire is to be as prepared as we can be so
that when and if the application is received, we can act on
that in a prompt and timely way.
Our whole focus is on safety and security, so our mission
is to be ready to make the safety and the security findings
that we need to make to support that license application
review.
We are also closely coordinating with the EPA so that we
can again be as prepared as possible to act promptly on our
rulemaking to conform our regulations to the final EPA
standard.
Senator Inhofe. All right. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I won't be able to be here during the third
panel, but I was talking to Richard Burr yesterday, Senator
Burr, and he has a rather elaborate introduction of Mr. Kerr,
and I would ask that introduction be made a part of the record.
Senator Carper. Without objection.
[The referenced document follows:]
Introduction of James Y. Kerr, III, President, National Association of
Regulatory Utilitiy Commissioners, North Carolina Utilities Commission
Commissioner Kerr was appointed to the North Carolina
Utilities Commission by Governor Mike Easley for an 8-year term
that commenced on July 1, 2001 and expires on June 30, 2009. He
is the First Vice-President of the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), Chairman of its
Executive Committee and Board of Directors, and a member of its
Electricity Committee. Commissioner Kerr is a member of The
Keystone Center Energy Board and the Advisory Council of the
Electric Power Research Institute. Commissioner Kerr is a Past
President of the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (SEARUC) and former is Co-Chair of the Alliance
of State Leaders Protecting Electricity Consumers.
Commissioner Kerr has testified before Committees of the
U.S. Senate and North Carolina General Assembly as well as the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He also has been a
frequent speaker on regulatory issues to such groups as the
American Bar Association, North American Energy Standards
Board, Electric Power Supply Association, Edison Electric
Institute, American Gas Association, National Cable &
Telecommunications Association, and the Harvard Electricity
Policy Group. In 2005, Commissioner Kerr was named the 2005
Bonbright Honoree by the James C. Bonbright Utilities Centre,
Terry College of Business, University of Georgia.
Commissioner Kerr, a Democrat, was born on March 8, 1964 in
Goldsboro, North Carolina. He graduated cum laude from
Washington and Lee University in 1986. Following completion of
his undergraduate degree, Kerr spent 3 years working for First
Union Corporation (now Wachovia) in Charlotte and Atlanta. He
received his law degree from the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill School of Law, where he graduated with honors in
1992.
Prior to coming to the Utilities Commission, Kerr was a
Partner in the law firm of Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett,
Mitchell, & Jernigan, L.L.P. His practice concentrated in civil
and administrative litigation, with significant experience in
the Trial Division of both the State and Federal Court systems,
the Appellate Division of the State Court system, and the
Utilities Commission.
Commissioner Kerr has been active in various bar-related
and community service organizations, including the American Bar
Association, the North Carolina Bar Association, and the North
Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys. He has served on the
Board of Directors of the Triangle Division of the March of
Dimes, the Board of Directors of the UNC School of Law Alumni
Association, and currently he serves as a member of the Board
of Directors of the North Carolina Museum of Art Foundation.
Kerr, his wife, Frances, and children, Yancey and Helen,
live in Raleigh and are members of Hayes Barton United
Methodist Church.
Senator Carper. All right.
Gentlemen, I want us just to back up just a little bit. I
would like for us to take a couple of minutes in the first part
of my questioning, to just go back in time. Just go back to the
1980's when we were debating where to find a site, what might
be an appropriate site. Maybe Mr.
Sproat, you might be the best person to do this, but just
take us back in time and talk through the selection process,
the legislative back and forth, the signing of the law, before
we get into what happened in 2002, but just to back if you
will, into the 1980's.
Mr. Sproat. Senator, as I stated before, I was in my early
30's back then and wasn't directly involved in this process. So
I am not the expert on this, but I do know a couple of pieces.
When the National Academy of Sciences determined in the early
1970's that deep geologic disposal was the appropriate way to
go for high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel, that
the Department of Energy, and I think at that point in time it
was ERDA, began looking at a number of sites across the
Country. Over a period of about eight to 9 years, that number
of sites was winnowed down to three sites: one in Washington
State, one in Texas, and one in Nevada, Yucca Mountain.
There were more detailed studies done on----
Senator Carper. Is that Texas site close to Crawford?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sproat. I don't know where Deaf Smith County, Texas is.
Senator Carper. I don't either.
Mr. Sproat. There were more detailed studies done of those
three sites over about a three to three and a half year period.
At the end of that three and a half year period, and the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act I think was originally approved in
1983, authorized the investigation of those three sites. Then
there was a summary report of those investigations done that
was given to the Congress in 1986. And when the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act was amended in 1987 is when the Congress directed
DOE to only continue studying the Yucca Mountain site.
What I have been told, and I haven't looked at the reports
myself, that when those three technical reports were ranked,
the Yucca Mountain site was ranked first technically. I can't
speak directly to know if that in fact was the case because I
haven't looked at those reports, but that is what I have been
told.
Senator Carper. All right. You were here in the room when I
asked our first panel, Senator Reid and Senator Ensign, about
whether or not the folks in Nevada were ever offered incentives
to encourage them to accept this siting.
Mr. Sproat. In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Secretary
of Energy was empowered to negotiate a deal with the State of
Nevada, with various economic incentives and I think there was
even a requirement for the potential deal to be approved, come
back to the Congress for approval, and there were certain
limitations on it. That never happened. I certainly wasn't a
party to those discussions, so I can't give you any kind of
good answer as to what went on, who said what and how, but
nothing ever came of it.
Senator Carper. That is too bad. That is too bad.
May I direct a question, if I could, to Mr. Weber. Senator
Voinovich and I lead a Subcommittee on this Committee whose
responsibilities include nuclear security and nuclear safety.
We have had a number of hearings where Commissioners from the
NRC have come and testified at literally this table in the last
several years.
One of the questions that we ask the Chairman and the other
Commissioners is to tell us how we are doing at the NRC with
respect to our human resources. I worry right now about having
an adequate number of Commissioners. We have three now. We may
by next summer be down to two. That is not a good situation. I
am concerned about the turnover. We have an impending
retirement of maybe as many as 25 percent or more of the
current work force at the NRC. At the same time that this
happens, we have 100 plus nuclear power plants to say grace
over, and we have hopefully several dozen additional
applications coming across the bow here for the NRC to
consider.
On top of all this, we have the opportunity for the NRC to
apparently receive an application of sorts from the Department
of Energy and to scrub that closely in the months to come.
I would just ask you to take a minute or two and describe
for us briefly the amount of resources that you believe you are
going to need at the NRC, not to meet all those other
responsibilities that I have talked about, but to meet the
responsibility to be able to not just do this review of the
Yucca Mountain, but for doing it very, very well.
I like to say, I have spoken here many times on this
subject of nuclear energy, which I support, we have to be as
close to perfect as we can be. There is no margin for error on
this stuff, whether you are running these power plants,
approving new ones, or in this case, siting, whether it is
Yucca Mountain or some other site.
Please proceed.
Mr. Weber. You are absolutely right, Senator. When it comes
to safety and security, it is important to get it right. That
is what we do at the NRC. We are having quite a bit of success
in bringing in new people, anticipating the challenge with
retirements. We are focusing on knowledge management so that
people who have spent literally their entire careers working in
preparation to conduct a licensing review for the Yucca
Mountain repository can, if they are not going to be around
when the application arrives, that they can convey their
knowledge to their successors.
We have an active training program. We qualify our staff.
We indoctrinate them into what is the background for the
regulation, what is the background on an EPA standard, what are
the tools that they will need to use to conduct their safety
and security reviews. A large amount of the decisions for Yucca
Mountain will be based on something called performance
assessment.
Performance assessment integrates a large amount of
information, scenarios, models, data. It is important that be
done right.
So not only do we ensure that people joining the agency
have the requisite professional skills, technical skills, but
we also equip them with the additional skills that they will
need to conduct their review. That is the same whether we are
talking about the high level waste program at the NRC, or
talking about the nuclear reactor safety program where I just
came from earlier this year. I started my career 25 years ago
working on the high-level waste program, so I was around
working in high-level waste when the Congress enacted the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Amendments Act. I haven't been
there continuously. I have moved around, but I think that is
another feature of the NRC, that we try to broaden our staff so
that they can do a variety of things. Those who choose to
broaden themselves are able to have that opportunity, and
people who really need to focus in on a specific area and want
to be the world's expert on a particular topic--materials
engineering, digital instrumentation control, high-level waste
performance assessment--have that opportunity, because we need
the whole range of administrative, technical and legal skills
to conduct our job.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
My time has expired. Let me turn to my colleague, Senator
Craig, for any questions he might like to ask. Senator Craig,
you are recognized.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
To the panelists, the Chairman and I were not necessarily
there at the beginning, but certainly about the time we came to
Congress that whole debate was picking up. And yes, I was on
the committee that made the final decisions based on the three
sites, and what was the best geology known at the time in the
selection of Yucca Mountain. The exploratory efforts to date
have in no way denied the original arguments in large part.
Mr. Chairman, I think what is important today is not only
to put in context the very open process we are now engaging in,
because some would suggest that his is behind the scenes, that
there is somehow a dark room. Gentleman, all three of you,
would you discuss the very robust public process that we are
going to be entering into as we work our way through to a final
decision by the NRC?
Mr. Sproat. Senator, let me ask Mr. Weber to answer that
first because it is the NRC's process, and I would be glad to
give you my perspective on it.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. Senator, as I alluded to in my testimony, we
have both a formal and an informal public process. In terms of
an informal process, as a Federal agency, we owe it to the
American public to keep them informed about what we are doing.
We have nothing to hide when it comes to safety and security.
It is important the public knows that, and that is why we try
to be open to the extent we can.
We don't go so far as to release sensitive information
pertaining to national security secrets or other information of
that sort, but we do try to be as open as we can. In fact, that
is one of the fundamental objectives that the NRC has. We do
that through our website and we do that through public
meetings. Our interactions with the Department of Energy are
most typically open, unless--again--they are going to be
discussing sensitive security information or other proprietary
information. That is all the informal process.
Beyond that, we also have the formal, adjudicatory process.
As Mr. Sproat alluded to, there are affected units of local
government that have been designated. Recently, the Timbisha
Shoshone Tribe has been identified as an additional unit of
local government affected in this proceeding.
The hearing process affords any interested member of the
public, the State of Nevada, the industry, to come forward and
petition through an evidentiary process, raise issues, and have
their day in court, so to speak, and make certain that whatever
concerns they have, if that is a challenge to the department's
application or to a finding that the NRC has made, they have
that opportunity to have that heard and have evidence
presented. Ultimately, the board that hears that, being
independent of the NRC staff, renders a decision, and that
decision then goes to the Commission.
So, before I can sign a license to authorize construction
authorization or operation of the repository, if it should come
to that, all that process goes through, and there is ample
opportunity for people both formally and informally to raise
concerns and understand what NRC is doing as part of its
review.
Senator Craig. From now and forward?
Mr. Weber. It has been that way for the last----
Senator Craig. No, I understand that, but I am saying, in a
second question, from now forward, with the understanding that
the law requires EPA to develop a standard. This is not a
hypothetical or a not so necessary thing. The law requires them
to have a standard and you consider that standard in relation
to the work of DOE. Is that not correct?
Mr. Weber. Absolutely correct.
Senator Craig. So assuming, Mr. Meyers, you are timely--and
we are going to assume that, you said you would be timely--and
that standard is out and it is considered, could you walk us
through this open timeframe before you make a final decision as
to whether Yucca Mountain or could not be licensed?
Can you give us a reasonable timeframe based on what you
all know?
Mr. Meyers. That is actually not EPA's decision. That is
the decision from the NRC. I would say with respect to our
process, we are operating under Section 801 of the Energy
Policy Act, and within normal administrative process. So
previous to this, we of course published a notice in the
Federal Register. We have received thousands of comments. We
had public hearings in terms of a proposed standard. That is
what we maintain, a public docket.
And what we are doing now is in the process of continuing
to review those comments and everything that came in through
our public process, in order to reach the point in time where
we will have a final regulation for the standards. And then
from there, the NRC essentially takes over.
Mr. Weber. If I could just build on my colleague's remarks,
Senator. If we had an EPA standard final promulgated out in the
Federal Register in, let's say, November, next month, NRC would
act on that promptly. I would expect, and it is ultimately the
Commission's decision, not my decision, not the NRC staff's
decision, but I would expect that by the end of this calendar
year, we could have a final rule in place, if the EPA standard
is similar to what it had previously proposed, if it is not too
dissimilar.
So we are poised to act promptly once we have that EPA
standard to go forward and revise our regulations and put them
out as a final rule in the Federal Register.
Senator Craig. Before I get back to you, Mr. Sproat, let me
stay with you, Mr. Weber.
The first panel talked about all of the waste that is out
there and that it is safe and that it is safe for 100 years and
ought to stay where it is. That is an interesting thought, and
most importantly,
and I think you have alluded to it, Mr. Sproat, it is safe,
and we shouldn't argue that it isn't. We have a very safe
industry.
Has the NRC had anything to do with that safety and those
casks and that storage facility that currently exists out
there?
Mr. Weber. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Craig. Would you tell us that you have been
involved there?
Mr. Weber. That is part of our regulatory program. That is
one of my responsibilities.
Senator Craig. Do you mean the cask that is currently being
used as storage, that is good for at least 100 years, was
established by regulations and determined by the NRC to be
adequate?
Mr. Weber. That is correct. And we would use the similar
regulatory process in reviewing the adequacy of the
construction authorization for the Department of Energy.
Senator Craig. OK.
Mr. Sproat.
Mr. Sproat. Senator, I would just like to give a little
perspective from one who has gone through the NRC licensing
process before in the commercial industry, because that is my
background and my experience.
During one of the statements earlier today, somebody used
the term opaque in describing the NRC licensing process. I
would strenuously disagree with that characterization. This is
the most transparent regulatory process I think the Federal
Government has. From my own experience, the Yucca Mountain
licensing process is even more transparent than the usual
commercial nuclear power plant licensing process for a
particular reason.
The Congress made it very clear in the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act that the interested individuals and affected units of
government had a right to participate in the proceeding. It
also required that the discovery process for this proceeding,
for the hearings, be expedited by making all of the evidentiary
material that we are going to rely on for our license
application, available to the pubic on the internet. That is
not done in normal commercial nuclear licensing proceedings.
So I found it a little interesting this morning when I
heard a remark complaining that there was too much information
on the licensing support network. We are required by the
regulations to put that evidentiary material on there to make
this process as transparent as we possibly can.
Let me just finish with one other point I would like to
make. There was some innuendo also this morning that the DOE
would submit an incomplete license, that we would only have
partial design and engineering complete. I want to make this
very clear. The regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission make it very, very clear as to the level of detail
and the issues that we need to address in this license
application. If we don't meet that standard, they won't docket
it and they won't accept it.
It doesn't do me any good or the Department of Energy or
this Country any good for us to develop a license application,
give it to them, and have them reject it. That is not why I
took this job and that is not why I am here. So I am here to
make sure that license application has the level of
completeness and the level of quality that is needed so they
can docket this license application.
Now, you may hear later this morning that our engineering
and our design work is only 30 percent to 40 percent complete.
That is going to be about right, and that is also appropriate
because when I say 100 percent engineering complete, I mean I
have all the drawings done that I need to build the repository:
the electrical connection diagrams, the rebar installation
diagrams. I don't need that at this stage of the proceeding.
Quite frankly, it would be a waste of ratepayers' and
taxpayers' money to spend money doing that engineering at this
stage of the game. I need to have the engineering done to a
level that allows me to satisfy the NRC that we have done the
level of engineering design and science to answer their
questions, and that is what we are doing.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one last question?
You have been very generous.
Senator Carper. I am going to ask you to hold. We are going
to have another round if you want to stick around.
Senator Craig. OK. Please proceed.
Senator Carper. I came across an interview, I think it was
in The Economist magazine not long ago, with a fellow from
California whose name is Stewart Brand, a long-time
environmentalist and environmental advocate. He was
interviewed, and was asked in the course of the interview about
nuclear power. This is what he had to say, and I will just
quote him. He said, ``Rather than asking how spent nuclear fuel
can be kept safe for 10,000 to 100,000 years, we should worry
about keeping it safe for only 100 years, because nuclear waste
still contains an enormous amount of energy. Future generations
may be able to harness it as an energy source through
tomorrow's better technologies.''
Let me ask our witnesses to respond to his comments in The
Economist.
Mr. Sproat. If I can, Senator, let me answer that first.
There is no doubt in my mind there is a significant energy
resource that resides in residual spent nuclear fuel. The
question is when do we get to the economic tipping point when
the recycling of that fuel makes economic sense, 1compared to
the use of raw uranium right out of the ground. We are not at
that stage yet. For the Administration, we believe that we will
in the future get to that economic tipping point and recycling
makes sense. So we do want to invest money in the technologies
to do that, and we do want to absolutely keep that option open.
One of the things I think many people don't recognize about
the Yucca Mountain regulations is that it requires us, for
whatever reason might be out there, that once the repository
opens and we begin putting spent fuel in that repository, that
we retain the capability to pull it back out, whether it is for
recycling or whether it is because we found something else that
we didn't know at the time of licensing that says we need to
use that fuel for something else.
So I do believe we will eventually go to recycling. I don't
believe it is going to be in the next 10 years or 20 years. And
meanwhile, we still have a significant amount of high level
waste that is not recyclable, spent nuclear fuel from the
nuclear Navy, which is residing in Idaho and the vitrified high
level waste from the Defense programs that is in Washington
State and New York State and some others. That needs to go to
Yucca Mountain and recycling is not an issue regarding the
disposal of that material.
Senator Carper. When you say it is not an issue, just what
do you mean by that? I am sorry.
Mr. Sproat. What I mean is it is not recyclable. It is a
waste form that you can't recycle or it doesn't make any
economic sense to try to recycle.
Senator Carper. This may be an unfair question, but I will
ask it anyway.
Mr. Sproat. That is OK.
Senator Carper. If you take the high level waste in Idaho
that you have alluded to, and Washington State, and you add to
that all of the other waste that is being generated in power
plant storage onsite today, just roughly, what percentage would
be the waste in Idaho that you have alluded to, the waste in
Washington, of the entire amount? Just roughly.
Mr. Sproat. Senator, I would rather take that question for
the record and give you a good answer.
I don't know off the top of my head.
Senator Carper. Less than half?
Mr. Sproat. Yes, less than half.
Senator Carper. Less than 25 percent?
Mr. Sproat. For the Yucca Mountain repository, the 70,000
metric ton limit, we are expecting that approximately 25
percent of that capacity will be used for high level defense
waste.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Meyers, my original question was to ask you to sort of
respond to the comments by Stewart Brand. Do you have any
comment at all?
Mr. Meyers. Well, having only completed about 1 year of
physics in college, I don't think I am qualified to get into
the technical aspects.
Senator Carper. I understand you stayed last night at
Holiday Inn Express, so----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Meyers. I have two sick kids at home, so unfortunately
no.
Senator Carper. You probably wanted to spend last night at
a Holiday Inn Express.
Mr. Meyers. I would make this comment, which I do think is
relevant. We have done other analysis for the Congress and
Senate in particular, that I think the Senator is aware of,
when we look at the various climate change legislation that has
been introduced.
In these scenarios that we look to and try to look at ways
to reach some of the targets that Congress is thinking about
establishing, nuclear power plays a very important role. Under
one scenario, I think it grows about 150 percent and we
project. So I think regardless of the recovery in terms of the
energy mix and in terms of our current analysis on how to
address some of the issues that the Senate is looking at on
climate change, nuclear power is very important to that, along
with carbon capture and sequestration in the coal sector.
Senator Carper. All right.
Mr. Weber, do you want to take a shot at it?
Mr. Weber. Only briefly, Senator. The only thing I would
add is, of course, the concept of recycling raises important
public policy questions about nonproliferation, about
economics, about safety and security. My agency, NRC, recently
started interacting with the Department of Energy, as part of
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, to become better
acquainted with the technologies that are being reviewed, and
ultimately should an applicant come forward and propose to
recycle or reprocess spent nuclear fuel, NRC could be in a
regulatory role for that. If that comes to pass, our focus will
be on safety and security. Security there is writ broadly to
include both international safeguards and domestic safeguards.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Senator Craig, I have one more question I am going to ask
of Mr. Weber, and then we will excuse this panel.
I would just say, I thought I saw Senator Isakson put his
head in just a moment ago. Would somebody just check and see if
he is interested in coming in and asking a question?
Senator Craig, you are recognized.
Senator Craig. The question I was going to ask has already
been broached by the Secretary, and that is in relation to the
other waste. We think of commercial waste. We fail to recognize
there is Defense waste. Senator Domenici and I earlier this
year introduced legislation. One principal provision of it was
early receipt of Defense waste at Yucca. Part of the reason for
that, Mr. Chairman, is exactly what the Secretary spoke to
earlier, and that was the lack of recyclable capability, or
within the structure or the cladding of that particular waste
versus the commercial waste that we know about and are more
focused on recycling in the future.
Would you speak to that a little more? You asked a question
that you are going to get the hard facts. We believe Defense
waste comparable to or comparative to commercial waste would
represent about 10 percent, or somewhere in that realm of
totality, but respond to that. You have spoken in the past in
relation to what Senator Domenici and I had earlier proposed,
your reaction to that.
Mr. Sproat. Senator, in terms of, just to try and clarify
what I said before, the responsibility we have at the
Department of Energy is to take all the Nation's high level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. There is a percentage
of that inventory which is not recyclable. It is already in its
final form. It is in vitrified glass form. That needs to be
disposed of in the deep geologic repository per the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act.
Commercial spent nuclear fuel from the nuclear power plants
is recyclable, and maybe someday it will be not only economic
to do so, but we will have the facilities in this Country to do
that.
Those facilities don't exist right now. The regulatory
framework for those facilities doesn't exist right now. The
economic business case for building those doesn't exist right
now.
So in terms of will we ever get there, I think the answer
is yes. How long it will be, I think it is mere speculation at
this stage of the game.
Senator Craig. But as it relates to waste, there are two
types that oftentimes the discussion is glazed over. There is
the current Defense legacy, if you will, of waste that speaks
to the need for a geologic repository.
Mr. Sproat. That is correct.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Mr. Sproat, if I could, one more question
for you, and then I will telegraph my last question. I have two
questions.
One, I would like for our witnesses to close by responding,
thinking out loud with us, what are some of the most
encouraging best practices, if you will, going on in other
countries with respect to their nuclear waste that may hold the
greatest promise for them and for us?
The other thing is, and I mentioned this to Senator Clinton
before she left, if we actually could get this right in terms
of how to deal with nuclear waste, not only would we solve a
problem of storage around nuclear sites themselves, the need
for a Yucca Mountain I and Yucca Mountain II, but also we would
have a technology that we could sell all over the world and
create jobs through the export of that technology. Other
countries are going to build nuclear power plants, and again we
would encourage most of them to do that.
But that will be my last question to Mr. Weber, so you all
will be thinking about that. And in the meantime, Mr. Weber, I
will ask you to respond to this one. If the final EPA radiation
standard has not been published by the time that the Department
of Energy submits its application to the NRC, will the NRC be
able to make a determination on the completeness of the
application and docket DOE's submission? And a second part to
that question, if you will, is how far can the NRC proceed in
reviewing DOE's application before final EPA radiation
standards are issued, and the NRC conforms its own regulations
to these standards.
Mr. Weber. As I discussed previously, Senator, we can
commence the review. We can complete the acceptance review, but
there is a wild card there, and that wild card is, depending on
the nature of the final EPA standard, if that introduces new
aspects that haven't already been addressed as part of the
application from the Department, that could impose a new
information need that the department would have to address.
Similarly, as we modify our regulations in 10 CFR Part 63,
to be consistent with those of the EPA standards, we may
introduce new requirements that, again, the Department may have
to come back and amend their application to address.
Now, should that take place during the licensing review,
that will all be part of that formal adjudicatory process that
I discussed before in response to Senator Craig's question. So
there will be an opportunity for parties to petition to the
board and to raise concerns and have those concerns freely and
openly heard by the adjudicatory board.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sproat, did you want to take a shot at my other
question? Again, I am looking for best practices. We are
looking for best practices around the world.
Mr. Sproat. Your question is timely, Senator, because 2
weeks ago I attended a conference in Bern, Switzerland. This
conference only occurs once every 4 years, and it is the third
time it has been held. It is the International Conference on
Radioactive Waste Disposal. This conference is attended by the
senior ministers and government officials and private industry
officials from across Europe and Japan to talk about what each
country is doing in their best practices. So I got a pretty
good understanding of what was going on internationally.
A couple of things struck me from that conversation. No. 1
was even in the countries that are supposedly anti-nuclear,
broad consensus across these countries that it is up to this
generation to decide what to do about nuclear waste and not
push it off to future generations.
That was No. 1.
Second is that they all are utilizing what I would term a
technically informed political process for selecting a site in
their country. They are doing explorations. They are trying to
characterize the site, but it is a technically informed
political process. One of the things they try to do is to find
a location where the people want to have the repository.
Now, I would point out that is certainly the optimum and
best potential situation. I would point out, however, and I
think a lot of people forget this, besides the fact that Nye
County, which is the host county for Yucca, does in fact want
the repository to proceed, the Nevada State legislature in 1975
issued a joint resolution inviting the Department of Energy to
place the repository in Nevada. So things do change through a
political process and we need to be aware of that.
So really, those best practices of trying to gain local
acceptance is pretty much an international concept. But we are
probably further along in the actual siting process and the
licensing process than anybody else.
Senator Carper. If I could, I would just like to conclude
by two quick comments. One, earlier this year, in January, I
was in Detroit. I was attending the North American Auto Show,
something I go to about every other year. We have a GM plant in
my State and a Chrysler plant in my State. The most exciting
vehicle that I saw at the auto show was probably a GM product.
It was called the Volt, V-O-L-T. It is a Chevrolet product.
It is one that is a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle. It is a
concept car that they had on display, but they hope to have
them on the highways in substantial numbers beginning in 2010.
That will not be maybe the first flex-fuel plug-in hybrid
vehicle on our roads, but it won't be the last.
As we look to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, as we
look to reduce the emissions of bad stuff up into our air, we
are going to be moving toward those kinds of vehicles. People
will be able to plug them in their garages or at their homes at
night, maybe at work during the day, and they use a fair amount
of electricity. They can go 40 miles on a charge of
electricity, but we are going to need more electricity, and by
using that additional electricity, be able to reduce again the
import of foreign oil, stop paying $90 a barrel sending all
this money, $250 billion a year for foreign countries for the
oil that we are buying from them.
But we need a way to generate the electricity. Part of that
can come from wind. We are trying to site a windmill farm in
the State of Delaware. It can come from solar. It can come from
finding a way to safely sequester carbon from coal-fired
plants. It can certainly come from nuclear.
The big roadblock for us, in the minds of a lot of people,
is not so much the safety of the actual plants themselves,
although that continues to be a constant concern and a matter
of constant vigilance, but how to safely dispose of the spent
fuel.
So thank you for your responses to our questions. Our
Chairman is back. She got the gavel back and she is not going
to give me the halo. This is like Halloween and trick or treat.
I will maybe find a halo at home when I go home.
Senator Boxer.
[Presiding] We are going to have to negotiate on other
issues for the halo, working on other things.
Senator Carper. All right. Fair enough. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. Sorry I was gone. I am
preparing for a big markup tomorrow.
It is my understanding that DOE expects to have about 35
percent of its design complete--I understand you said that in
your testimony--for both subsurface and surface facilities at
Yucca Mountain when it submits its license application to the
NRC. Given the complexity and serious risk involved, I am
concerned about efforts by DOE to push forward an application
before it is ready. Why would DOE submit an incomplete
application?
Mr. Sproat. Senator, unfortunately I addressed this point,
but I will do it again.
Senator Boxer. Well, you could do it again because I wasn't
here.
Mr. Sproat. Absolutely.
First of all, we won't submit an incomplete application. It
does me no good. It does the Department of Energy no good to
submit an application that is incomplete. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has a very detailed set of requirements
that we have to meet, and what we need to include in our
license application for them to determine that it is in fact a
complete application or not. If they determine it doesn't meet
those very detailed criteria, they will reject it.
Senator Boxer. Yes, but you are giving me words. My
understanding is that you expect to have 35 percent of the
design complete. Is that correct? Now, if NRC says 35 percent
equals 100, then that is their problem and I will take it up
with them. But I am asking you how much of the design is
complete.
Mr. Sproat. I don't need 100 percent of the design complete
to license the repository. I need 100 percent of the design
complete to build the repository.
Senator Boxer. Who said that?
Mr. Sproat. Senator, I am a professional licensed engineer
who has built and licensed nuclear facilities.
Senator Boxer. As big as this?
Mr. Sproat. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Where is there another Yucca Mountain that
takes this kind of waste? We have never had a facility like
this.
Mr. Sproat. Senator, if I spend taxpayer and ratepayer
money developing detailed design for like wiring connection
diagrams that are needed to build the repository before I even
have a license to construct it, I think you would probably be
arguing with me that I am wasting the money.
Senator Boxer. So you think it is perfectly fine in this
enormous and complicated and controversial project, you admit
it is very controversial, do you not?
Mr. Sproat. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. You admit that Republicans and Democrats
elected to office oppose it. Correct?
Mr. Sproat. I also admit that it has bipartisan support in
the Congress.
Senator Boxer. We understand. You admit it is controversial
and yet you would move forward when you only have 35 percent of
the design completed.
Mr. Sproat. Because that is all I need to meet the NRC
regulations to submit a license application.
Senator Boxer. Well, that is a different situation. I will
take that up with them next.
Mr. Sproat. That is what is required by the law.
Senator Boxer. But in your view, that is all you need. So
in your view, 35 percent. How about 25 percent, would that be
enough?
Mr. Sproat. No.
Senator Boxer. So it has to be exactly 35 percent?
Mr. Sproat. No, it has to be the level of engineering that
is required to allow us to show the NRC that we are able to
meet their regulations.
Senator Boxer. OK. So the NRC says they only need to be 35
percent complete.
Mr. Sproat. The NRC doesn't set a percentage-wise number.
We determine what the amount of engineering and analysis that
needs to be done to meet their regulations, and if we don't
meet their mark, they will reject it.
Senator Boxer. Well, I don't understand why DOE would
submit an incomplete application for one of the most
controversial projects. How long does the waste last? How long
does the waste remain radioactive? Do you know?
Mr. Sproat. Several hundred thousand years.
Senator Boxer. Oh, OK. And yet you don't think it is
prudent to finish your work before you go for a license. Is
that right?
Mr. Sproat. Not the engineering.
Senator Boxer. Several hundred thousand years.
How will the State of Nevada and other interested parties
be able to evaluate the application if it is incomplete?
Mr. Sproat. First of all, the application will be complete.
Senator Boxer. If it only covers 35 percent of the design,
you call it complete. The average person who doesn't speak
bureaucratic talk, would not agree with you.
Mr. Sproat. Well, I am sorry.
Senator Boxer. I know. I am sorry, too. And I think you
have to start realizing that people don't understand
Government-speak. Thirty-five percent of the design is
complete, and you say it is complete. It doesn't make sense.
Either it is 100 percent complete or it is not complete, and
the State of Nevada, you think they might take you to court
over this?
Mr. Sproat. That will be their decision.
Senator Boxer. Do you think it is a possibility? Excuse me?
Mr. Sproat. They have taken us to court several times.
Senator Boxer. And they may certainly do it on this one.
Mr. Sproat. They probably will.
Senator Boxer. If I was sitting on a jury, if it did go
before a jury, sometimes it doesn't, and they said, well, they
are saying it is complete, but it is only 35 percent complete.
People know what that means. You don't go ahead and build a
house until you have the design complete. And by the way,
houses don't hold radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands
of years.
So I don't understand your thinking. I think you are making
matters worse for your case, in my own opinion.
So Mr. Weber, we turn to you. I understand that DOE expects
to have about 35 percent of the design complete for both
subsurface and surface facilities at Yucca when it submits its
license application to the NRC. Is it common for other NRC
applicants to submit applications that are only 35 percent
complete?
Mr. Weber. Depending on where they are, Madam Senator, in
the process, yes.
Senator Boxer. OK. Would you please make available to me
other facilities that have sent you designs that were 35
percent complete and you felt that was sufficient?
Mr. Weber. I could turn to other staff, but if you look at
the NRC two step licensing process for nuclear power plants,
most plants in this Country were on that order when they
submitted their construction permits. That is in advance of
getting their operating license.
Senator Boxer. This isn't a plant. We are talking about
Yucca Mountain. How long does the waste last?
Mr. Weber. I think the issue, Senator, is ``35 percent of
what?'' In fact, this issue came up in our last quarterly
management meeting in September when we met with the Department
in public.
We discussed this topic because it came up at a previous
discussion that the Department had with the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board.
We agreed that at our next quarterly management meeting, we
would pursue this question, because depending on how Mr. Sproat
and his team assemble their application, it may or may not be
acceptable to the NRC. That is why we have to have a
substantive discussion about ``will the information the
Department is planning to include in their application be
sufficient to address the requirements in our regulations?''
I think Mr. Sproat, at our last quarterly management
meeting, laid out an approach that could be acceptable, but now
we have to get into the specifics about what does it mean 35
percent or 40 percent complete? If that information is
sufficient to address each of the requirements that are in our
regulations, then we would accept the application and we would
commence the review.
If it is not----
Senator Boxer. But you haven't made that decision.
Mr. Weber. We have not made that decision.
Senator Boxer. So Mr. Sproat needs to know you haven't made
the decision. Will you please send me those applications you
have agreed to that have been 35 percent or less complete
please?
Mr. Weber. We would be happy to work with your staff,
ma'am.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
NRC rules require that license applications be complete and
accurate in all material aspects. That is my understanding of
your rules. Would the NRC consider the repository's engineered
barriers to prevent leakage material aspects for the
application?
Mr. Weber. If the Department makes a compelling case that
they satisfied the requirements in our regulations, and through
our independent review, and through the Licensing Board review,
the findings are upheld, then we would accept it.
Senator Boxer. Would these barriers have to be included in
the initial application?
Mr. Weber. The application has to address the engineered
and the natural barriers that will be relied on to satisfy the
performance objectives.
Senator Boxer. And is that done, sir?
Mr. Sproat. We are including that design information
regarding both the engineered barrier system and the natural
barrier system in the license application to be able to meet
their docketing requirements.
Senator Boxer. So you have addressed the issue of the
leakage?
Mr. Sproat. Yes, we have.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Are there any circumstances, Mr. Weber, under which NRC
would decide not to issue a license for DOE to construct the
Yucca Mountain repository? If so, what would they be?
Mr. Weber. To satisfy the NRC that the construction
authorization should be granted, the Department has to satisfy
each of the requirements in our regulations. If they fail to
satisfy those requirements, we will not issue the construction
authorization.
Senator Boxer. I understand that most countries looking at
it--this is for Mr. Meyers--I understand that most countries
looking at a geological repository for nuclear waste have set
or proposed standards of 10 millirem per year. Are you aware of
any other country in this entire world that has set radiation
protection standards as high as those EPA is proposing, 350
millirem per year?
Mr. Meyers. I would like to provide a formal response for
the record. I think that other countries have also--I am not
aware that they have been dealing with a period of 10,000 year
to one million years that we are dealing with in this
particular situation. They have established standards, a
variety of different standards, but we can provide a detailed
response.
Senator Boxer. So you don't know if any other country in
the world would allow for that? Our research says it doesn't.
Mr. Meyers. I am not aware, but I am also not aware that
other countries necessarily, all other countries necessarily
have any specific numeric standard covering the period of time.
Senator Boxer. OK, well why don't we share our information
from our research, which shows that most countries looking at a
geological repository have proposed standards of 10 millirem
and we are 350 millirem.
Now, you are the Environmental Protection Agency. You have
to protect the people, right? So can you talk to me about
exposure to that level of radiation, 350 millirem?
Mr. Meyers. Certainly. I think as we detailed in our
proposal of 2005, exposure is based on essentially the
reasonably maximally exposed individual who is somebody who is
a rural resident of the valley. It is basically an exposure
level that is equivalent to essentially the incremental
exposure somebody would face by living in Denver, Colorado
today, versus somebody who is living in the site.
Senator Boxer. Well, I will tell you, sir, I have been
through this before. Increasing from 15 millirem to 350
millirem is a whole other ball game. I will provide you with
the health information that I have received on this matter. So
I hope you and I can have a conversation because there is no
higher job than protecting the health and safety of the people
of this Country, not just now, but in the future.
So I want to thank the panel very much. I am sorry I had to
step out, but I am very concerned about it. This looks like a
little cozy trio and I just don't feel that good about it. So
fortunately, we will have other people watching your work, as
well as this Committee.
Thank you very much.
And now we will have our third panel. The Honorable
Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, State of Nevada; Mr.
James Kerr, President, National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners, North Carolina Utilities Commission; and
Mr. Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group.
I want to welcome all of you. I want to thank everyone who
has participated in this hearing, and this will be our last
three panelists. Thank you very much for your patience, and we
are going to open it up with you, Attorney General Masto.
Thank you so much. I want to note that the Governor was
invited, but he sent a statement. So Attorney General, please
go ahead.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
NEVADA
Ms. Masto. Thank you, Chairwoman.
For the record, I am Catherine Cortez Masto, the Attorney
General of the State of Nevada. I appreciate this opportunity
to appear before the Committee for the State of Nevada
regarding the Yucca Mountain Repository Program.
Nevada has had a long history of opposing the development
of the proposed high level nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain. The Yucca Mountain site is unsafe and incapable of
geologically isolating nuclear waste. Not only is the site
physically unsuitable for a nuclear waste repository, but the
United States Department of Energy has repeatedly shown itself
to be an unfit applicant for a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Finally, the prospective NRC licensing proceeding is
seriously biased and denies Nevada and other potential
participants basic due process rights. The following summary
highlights issues relating to the involvement of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and NRC in the Yucca Mountain
repository licensing process. Nevada raises these issues to
seek your guidance and to place public safety at the forefront
of any decision regarding the disposal of the Nation's lethal
high level radioactive waste.
The first issue of fact I would like to discuss, which we
have talked about a little bit already, is the EPA standards
and NRC licensing regulations are not yet final. This raises
the issue of whether NRC can properly docket and begin
substantive review of DOE's license application.
DOE plans to file a license application, as we have heard,
relying on the proposed EPA standard by June 2008. NRC staff
has said that it can begin its substantive review even without
the final EPA standard because there are elements of the
license application that are directly responsive to the EPA
standard.
DOE's rationale for proceeding without a standard is that
if the final EPA standard is different from what was proposed,
DOE can simply amend its license application to respond to the
new requirements. Before this can happen, however, NRC will
have to revise its proposed rule written to conform to the
proposed EPA standard. This will create an untenable situation
where EPA and then NRC are revising their standards and rules
while NRC is simultaneously reviewing DOE's license
application.
Interested parties, including Nevada, will be prejudiced by
this chaotic situation. We must begin our review of DOE's
entire application at the time it is submitted because we only
have 30 days after NRC dockets the application to file our
contentions. It is both wasteful of limited resources and
patently unfair that potential interveners, whose accepted or
rejected contentions determine their party status, should be
forced to review and entire license application that likely
will 1undergo substantial amendment and change. The obvious
solution is that NRC should be 1prohibited from accepting DOE's
license application for review until final EPA and NRC
regulatory requirements are in place.
The second issue that I would like to highlight today is
the fact that DOE's rush to file its license 1application
causes serious safety and completeness concerns. At a recent
Nuclear Waste 1Technical Review Board meeting, DOE reported
that the repository safety-related design for the operating
service facilities and the underground disposal area will only
be 35 percent to 40 percent complete at the time the license
application is filed.
Similarly, the design of the waste canisters, the so-called
TADs, which has become the centerpiece of DOE's waste handling
transport, storage and disposal strategy, is not planned to be
complete until after the June, 2008 license application filing
date. Additionally, legally required plans for recovery and
mitigation of accidents and response to emergencies, necessary
accounting for nuclear materials, security at the repository,
and retrieval of waste will also not be included in the license
application.
Clearly, concerns for public safety necessitate that these
critical plans should be complete and reviewable by all parties
and potential parties during the mandatory license application
review.
The lack of complete design and planning information is
wholly attributable to DOE's rigid insistence on its self-
imposed June 2008 license application date.
And finally, the third thing I would like to highlight is
the fact that the Federal Government plans to double-team the
licensing hearing. Under NRC's current rules, NRC staff will be
a party advocate along with DOE, the license applicant. Nevada
and other potential parties will certainly be prejudiced by
this procedural defect. Once the NRC staff has completed its
review of DOE's application, has received acceptable responses
from DOE for additional information, and has written a safety
evaluation report supporting DOE's receipt of a license, NRC
staff and attorneys then turn around and become party advocates
for DOE as a prospective licensee.
This situation, where two powerful executive department
agencies join together to overpower legitimate intervening
parties, is palpably unfair. We believe the public would be
infinitely better served if NRC staff maintained a more
appropriate, neutral role during the hearing. The public's
confidence will certainly be enhanced if NRC staff remains a
neutral evaluator, rather than a redundant advocate and
aggressive partner to DOE.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the
Committee today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Masto follows:]
Statement of Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General,
State of Nevada
I am Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General of the State
of Nevada. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the
Committee for the State of Nevada regarding the Yucca Mountain
repository program.
Nevada has a long history of opposing the development of
the proposed high level nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain. The Yucca Mountain site is unsafe and incapable of
geologically isolating nuclear waste. Not only is the site
physically unsuitable for a nuclear waste repository but the
United States Department of Energy has repeatedly shown itself
to be an unfit applicant for a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Finally, the prospective NRC licensing
proceeding is seriously biased and denies Nevada and other
potential participants basic due process rights.
The following summary highlights issues relating to the
involvement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NRC
in the Yucca Mountain repository licensing process. Nevada
raises these issues to seek your guidance and to place public
safety at the forefront of any decision regarding the disposal
of the nation's lethal high-level radioactive waste.
The EPA Standards and NRC Licensing Regulations are not yet
final.
This unexplained fact raises the issue of whether NRC can
properly docket and begin substantive review of DOE's license
application. DOE plans to file a license application relying on
the proposed EPA Standard by June, 2008. NRC staff has said
that it can begin its substantive review even without the final
EPA standard because there are elements of the license
application that are not directly responsive to the EPA
standard. DOE's rationale for proceeding without a standard is
that if the final EPA standard is different from what was
proposed, DOE can simply amend its license application to
respond to the new requirements. Before this can happen,
however, NRC will have to revise its proposed rule written to
conform to the proposed EPA standard. This will create an
untenable situation where EPA and then NRC are revising their
standards and rules while NRC is simultaneously reviewing DOE's
license application originally written to meet draft standards
and rules which have been subject to extensive critical public
comment. Interested parties, including Nevada, will be
prejudiced by this chaotic situation. We must begin our review
of DOE's entire application at the time it is submitted in
order to file NRC-required contentions thirty days after NRC
has completed its acceptance review and dockets the
application. It is both wasteful of limited resources and
patently unfair that potential interveners, whose accepted or
rejected contentions determine their party status, should be
forced to review an entire license application that likely will
undergo substantial amendment and change.
The obvious solution is that NRC should be prohibited from
accepting DOE's license application for review until final EPA
and NRC regulatory requirements are in place. Then, an orderly
and fair review can commence.
DOE's rush to file its License Application causes serious
safety and completeness concerns.
At a recent Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board meeting,
DOE reported that the repository safety related design for the
operating surface facilities and the underground disposal area
will be only 35 percent to 40 percent complete at the time the
license application is filed. Similarly, the design of the
waste canisters--the so-called TADs (Transportation, Aging and
Disposal canisters)--which have become the centerpiece of DOE's
waste handling, transport, storage, and disposal strategy, is
not planned to be complete until after the June 2008 license
application filing date. Legally required plans for recovery
and mitigation of accidents and response to emergencies,
necessary accounting for nuclear materials, security at the
repository, and retrieval of waste will also not be included in
the license application. Clearly, concerns for public safety
necessitate that these critical plans should be complete and
reviewable by all parties and potential parties during the
mandatory license application review.
This lack of complete design and planning information is
wholly attributable to DOE's rigid insistence on its self-
imposed June 2008 license application date. Without access to
key information, Nevada and other potential parties cannot
adequately develop contentions. The obvious danger inherent in
imposing an inflexible, artificial schedule is that meeting it
takes on overriding importance and safety is shortchanged.
The Federal Government plans to ``double team'' the
licensing hearing.
Under NRC's current rules, NRC staff will be a party-
advocate along with DOE, the license applicant. Nevada and
other potential admitted parties will certainly be prejudiced
by this procedural defect. Once the NRC staff has completed its
review of DOE's application, DOE has provided acceptable
responses to any staff requests for additional information, and
NRC staff has written a Safety Evaluation Report supporting
DOE's receipt of a license, NRC staff and attorneys then turn
around and become party advocates for DOE as a prospective
licensee.
This anachronistic situation, where two powerful executive
department agencies join together to overpower legitimate
intervening parties, is palpably unfair. We believe the public
would be infinitely better served if NRC staff maintained a
more appropriate, neutral role during the hearing. The public's
confidence will certainly be enhanced if NRC staff remains a
neutral evaluator rather than a redundant advocate and
aggressive ``partner'' to DOE.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Responses by Catherine Cortez Masto to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. The State of Nevada had a full opportunity to
participate in the development of the regulations governing the
licensing of a repository and to challenge those regulations
through the administrative and judicial process. If the NRC and
the courts found your complaints to be without merit, what
conditions exist that warrant congressional intervention?
Response. The Senator appears to have received incorrect
information on this matter. In Environmental Protection Agency
v. Nuclear Energy Institute (EPA v. NEt). 373 F.3d 1251 (2004),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
ruled for Nevada in several critical respects. In particular,
the core regulation affecting the safety of the Yucca
repository--EPA's radiation standard for the project--was found
to be contrary to law. Since NRC must adopt EPA's regulation
for its Yucca licensing standard, the NRC's rule was also found
to be contrary to law, at least to the extent it relied on the
EPA rule. EPA has since proposed a new Yucca rule. Nevada and
others filed extensive comments on the current proposed rule
identifying key scientific and legal defects. EPA has delayed
issuance of the final standard for more than 3 years.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding the absence of an EPA standard,
DOE has stated its intention to file a Yucca license
application by June 2008.
Moreover, the D.C. Circuit did not dismiss Nevada's
extensive challenges to the environmental integrity of the
Yucca project under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), but ruled that they were not yet ripe. The Court
invited Nevada to challenge any final agency decision
concerning transportation, environmental and socio-economic
impacts, and the no-action alternative which would allow
continued storage of spent fuel at reactor sites. Nevada will
certainly initiate such a challenge at the appropriate time.
Since DOE has yet to file an application for Yucca
construction authorization, NRC has not yet considered, let
alone ruled, on the merits of Nevada's innumerable challenges
to the project. However, Nevada did challenge the integrity of
DOE's document collection for the Licensing Support Network. In
2004, an NRC administrative law board struck DOE's initial
document certification as unlawful. It took DOE more than 3
years to re-certify. Nevada has challenged DOE's
recertification and will argue its motion on December 5, 2007.
Thus, to the limited extent NRC has ruled on the merits of
Nevada's challenges, it has come down squarely on the side of
Nevada.
In Nevada's view, congressional intervention is needed
because the Yucca Mountain project is unfeasible due to
intractable scientific and technical flaws with the site and
with DOE's work. In addition, myriad procedural irregularities
and regulatory violations should doom the project. Further work
on Yucca results in a colossal waste of taxpayer and electric
utility ratepayer funds. This is especially true given the fact
that commercial nuclear facilities are now storing spent
nuclear fuel in safe. robust dry cask storage systems
determined by NRC to be safe for at least a century. DOE also
has represented that such dry cask storage facilities are safe
for at least a millennium. In spite of this, DOE plans to
submit a license application for Yucca Mountain with designs
that are only 30 to 40 percent complete, and which will lack
critical technical information necessary for NRC staff, Nevada,
other interested parties and the public to fairly evaluate the
project's safety. Moreover, Nevada has learned from recent
documents that DOE itself believes its own computer model
evaluating the safety of Yucca Mountain is obsolete,
incomplete, and utterly lacking in transparency.
Question 2. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider an application for
all or part of a repository. Isn't it clear that Congress
itself did not believe that every last detail needed to be
included initially in the application?
Response. NRC's regulations at 10 C.F.R. 63.10 require
that DOE's initial Yucca Mountain license application must be
``complete and accurate in all material respects.''
Nevada is not asking that ``every last detail'' be
contained in DOE's initial application to NRC for Yucca
construction authorization. Rather, Nevada is demanding, as the
regulations do, that the core technical and scientific
documents and studies necessary to evaluate the safety and
environmental consequences of the project be contained in the
application so that NRC, Nevada, other interested parties, and
the public can successfully gauge the integrity of the project.
DOE's application will admittedly omit some 60 to 70 percent of
the project's design detail. Much of what DOE plans to omit is
considered by Nevada, as well as the congressional Nuclear
Waste Technical Review Board and the NRC's Advisory Committee
on Nuclear Waste, to be essential, core technical information.
DOE 's recent recertification of its document collection, for
example, excluded the critically important Total Systems
Performance Assessment (TSPA) model as well as several key
Analysis Model Reports (AMRs) that go to the heart of the
repository's long-term safety performance.
NRC's Yucca Mountain Review Plan, NUREG 1804 (Rev. 2),
contains a complete list of what NRC believes must be contained
in DOE's initial Yucca license application. and prescribes
NRC's review responsibilities with respect to those products.
It is Nevada's understanding that DOE plans to omit substantial
portions of all the materials listed in NUREG 1804 in its
initial application.
Question 3. Given your concern about wasting financial
resources and given the taxpayer[s] [sic] are already liable
for at least $7 billion, wouldn't it be a better use of
taxpayer dollars to begin the licensing process and let the NRC
decide what additional information may be needed?
Response. Any submission by DOE to NRC that causes the
agency to have to ``stop and restart'' the regulatory review
process will result in exponential increases in the time and
resources required to complete the licensing process. This is
most likely to be the case with an incomplete or premature
initial license application. Once DOE has submitted its Yucca
license application, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the
NRC licensing process to be completed within 3 years, with a
possible extension for a fourth year. This is an extremely
tight window of time for such an enormous, unprecedented
licensing project.
NRC's published guideline, NUREG 1804, already specifies
the components necessary for a materially complete license
application, as does regulation 10 C.F.R. 63.21. Thus, there
is little question about ``what additional information may be
needed'' to satisfy NRC requirements. DOE should already know
what such information comprises. Rather, in order to meet its
politically motivated project schedule, DOE apparently plans to
submit a deliberately incomplete license application in the
hope that NRC will nevertheless docket it and permit ``seasonal
supplementations'' later. But this would have the effect of
drastically extending and complicating NRC's review process,
increasing costs and extending schedules for all parties
concerned. Indeed, Nevada has learned from recently discovered
documents that DOE may actually be planning to submit a
knowingly deficient and incomplete application now while it
quietly prepares for a later submission of its ``real''
application using a ``second generation'' repository
performance assessment. This would cause the NRC's licensing
boards and all parties to spin their wheels needlessly perhaps
for years, only to face a much more serious application later,
together with the prospect of having to return to square one
for license review. It is hard to imagine a more needless waste
of taxpayer and ratepayer resources. That is why DOE is, and
should be, required to complete its application before filing
it with NRC.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Kerr.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JAMES Y. KERR, III, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, NORTH CAROLINA
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Mr. Kerr. Good morning.
Madam Chairman, my name is Jim Kerr. I am a member of the
North Carolina Utilities Commission and also serve as President
of the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners. On behalf of NARUC, as well as my colleagues in
North Carolina, I very much appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you this morning.
NARUC is a quasi-governmental non-profit organization
founded in 1889. Our members include the State Public Service
Commissions that regulate retail rates and services of
electricity, gas, water and telecommunications utilities in
this Country. I have filed more comprehensive testimony, and
for purposes of summary, let me make a handful of basic points
concerning NARUC's perspective on this matter.
First and foremost and perhaps most importantly, NARUC
accepts and supports the right and responsibility of the State
of Nevada to challenge the licensing of Yucca Mountain through
participation in lawful procedures established by the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act. As an organization of States that advocates
the collective interests of State commissions in Federal agency
proceedings, NARUC understands the need for vigorous advocacy
when issues of critical importance to a State or States are at
issue. In fact, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, funds paid
into the fund by consumers across the Country are made
available for just this purpose to the State of Nevada.
Second, NARUC has been laboring in this vineyard for
decades. We have worked to be a constructive voice in
addressing this complex issue. We are neither waste technicians
nor nuclear engineers, but rather economic regulators charged
with protecting the interests of consumers of the electricity
generated on their behalf by nuclear power stations. Through
payment of their electric bills to their local utility, these
consumers have contributed with interest $27 billion to this
program. Illinois has contributed $3.5 billion. My State, North
Carolina, contributed $2.2 billion; California, $1.4 billion;
and so forth and so on. Attached to my testimony at page six is
a comprehensive list of the contributions made by the
individual States across this Country.
To that end, NARUC's goal has been to advocate actions by
Congress and Federal agencies,
DOE, EPA, and NRC, to foster a safe, efficient and cost-
effective waste disposal program to discharge the Federal
Government's promise and responsibility to manage the waste
disposal challenge. On behalf of the American people, and more
specifically consumers of nuclear power, Congress has made the
decision to use a geologic repository, and further has
designated Yucca Mountain as the location of the facility to be
tested through the NRC licensing process.
In our view, it is time, indeed past time, for the process
to move forward. I want to make the following point with
respect to the nuclear waste fund. This is little talked about,
but those dollars are not in a fund. Rather, those dollars have
in fact been diverted for other budgetary purposes. The fund is
nothing but IOUs that are owed by this Federal Government to
the States, and more importantly to the ratepayers who have
paid. Of the roughly $29 billion that has been collected,
approximately $9 billion has actually been spent on its
intended purpose. Because of budgetary restrictions, this
Congress has taken roughly $20 billion of ratepayer money and
used it for other purposes other than those which it was
lawfully intended to.
At the end of the day, ratepayers, consumers of nuclear
generation, end up paying three times for the storage of waste.
First, they pay their assessment into the nuclear waste fund.
Second, in their base rates they are paying for the interim
storage on the sites that has been discussed so often today.
And then third, as taxpayers of this Country, they pay for the
liability of the DOE for the onsite costs related to the breach
of the contractual obligation to take control of the waste.
One of my colleagues in testifying before this Congress
said it much more simply than I have, and that is you have and
are spending our money and we have your waste.
In conclusion, as has been referenced today in this
Committee, and we hope to be part of that discussion as it
deals with concerns about carbon-emitting generation. It is
undeniable that nuclear generation is a part of that equation
of solving that complex problem, and the nuclear waste question
must be resolved as part of that discussion.
I thank you again for the opportunity to be with you to
submit my testimony, and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerr follows:]
Statement of James Y. Kerr, III, President, National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners, North Carolina Utilities Commission
Good morning Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe,
Members of this Committee, and distinguished panelists. Thank
you for holding this important hearing on one of the most
critical issues facing our Nation's energy policy.
My name is Jim Kerr. I am a member of the North Carolina
Utilities Commission (NCUC). I also serve as the President of
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC), and I am testifying today on behalf of that
organization. In addition, my testimony reflects the views of
the NCUC. On behalf of NARUC and the NCUC, I very much
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning.
I ask that my testimony be made a part of the record and I
will summarize our views.
NARUC is a quasi-governmental, non-profit organization
founded in 1889. Our membership includes the State public
utility commissions serving all States and territories. NARUC's
mission is to serve the public interest by improving the
quality and effectiveness of public utility regulation. Our
members regulate the retail rates and services of electric,
gas, water, and telephone utilities. We are obligated under the
laws of our respective States to ensure the establishment and
maintenance of such utility services as may be required by the
public convenience and necessity and to ensure that such
services are provided under rates and subject to terms and
conditions of service that are just, reasonable, and non-
discriminatory.
Madame Chairman and Members of this Committee, NARUC's
interest in this matter is simple. State utility regulators and
the Nation's ratepayers more than 25 years ago bought into the
basic agreement underlining the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982: o The Federal Government is responsible for safe,
permanent disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel (and other
government nuclear waste); and, o Utilities which produced the
spent fuel in making electricity and--most importantly, their
ratepayers--would pay a fee to cover disposal costs.
To date, the ratepayers and utilities have faithfully
upheld their end of the bargain--paying more than $27 billion
in fees and interest into the Nuclear Waste Fund. For your
information, I have attached a listing of payments (page 6)
into that fund for ratepayers in each State, for inclusion in
the record of this hearing. These ratepayers have little to
show for their ``investment'' as, by law, waste disposal was to
have begun in 1998 and current Department of Energy schedules
indicate such disposal will not occur before 2017. Unless
Congress acts to allow full access to annual fee revenue for
this program, even that date is not realistic.
As Congress is well aware, the Federal Government entered
into contracts based on that 1998 acceptance schedule and
Federal courts have found DOE to be liable for waste-acceptance
delay costs which DOE estimates could be $7 billion or more.
This all means that, right now, ratepayers are currently paying
twice for spent fuel storage: they pay the utilities for their
disposal fee payments, and they pay for storage of the waste
that was to have been removed by now. Moreover, we find it
unfair that while Congress appropriates a small fraction of the
Nuclear Waste Fund annual fee revenue to the repository
program, the balance of that revenue is used for other
unrelated government activities while, in effect, accumulating
$20 billion in ``IOUs'' in the Fund.
Madame Chair and Members of this Committee, the ratepayers
of this country did not choose the site for this repository.
Congress did that in 1987 and affirmed the suitability of Yucca
Mountain by joint resolution in 2002. DOE seems at long last to
be on the verge of submitting a license application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the independent agency
given the responsibility under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to
carefully examine the safety and other technical merits of the
proposed facility. We understand the NRC will conduct its
review process with public scrutiny and over a three-to 4-year
period. We are aware of and fully support the right of the
State of Nevada to raise contentions in the review process.
State utility regulators do not have the skills or charter to
evaluate the repository plans; we wish that others would
withhold judgment until they see the application.
President Jimmy Carter said over 25 years ago that
resolving civilian waste management problems shall not be
deferred to future generations. Those who oppose building a
repository at Yucca Mountain (the only site Congress directed
be evaluated for this purpose), when asked what alternative
they would propose, all seem to support variations of leaving
it where it is, which was never the intent when these reactors
were permitted nor does it heed President Carter's charge. If
the repository solution is abandoned, what do we tell the
communities adjoining the 72 reactor sites in 35 States where
the spent fuel is stored today? What do the utilities seeking
to invest in new nuclear power plants tell their prospective
neighbors? What do we tell the ratepayers that have already
invested more than $27 billion? When will they get a refund?
There is another issue to consider in the context of this
hearing. Madame Chair, your committee is moving forward on
legislation that would place limits on the growth of carbon
emissions. For States and regions such as the Southeast, where
I am from, there is a definite need for nuclear generation to
be part of a diversified generation strategy if we are to be
serious about limiting the growth of carbon emissions. If
Congress decides to place limits on carbon-emitting generation,
then nuclear generation, renewables, energy efficiency, and
conservation must all be part of the solution. This means that
the question of nuclear waste must be resolved.
It is an open question as to what links there may be
between ``solving the waste problem'' before considering
investing in new or even replacement nuclear reactors. In the
``nuclear world,'' where safety and reliability are cardinal
principles, it seems ironic that the major element of
unreliability facing the U.S. nuclear industry seems to be
whether the Federal Government will provide the disposal
``services'' promised in law and contracts.
In conclusion, the ratepayers have been patient through the
years of delay for this program and can probably wait for the
NRC to carefully review a well-presented license application.
But, in order for the NRC to review the license, the Department
of Energy needs to execute their plan to submit the high-
quality application they have pledged to do. Further delay only
adds to the government liability, which will be paid out of the
Federal Government Judgment Fund, not the Nuclear Waste Fund.
This means that all taxpayers will bear this financial burden.
Ratepayers and neighbors of 104 reactors look for the
utilities and the NRC to assure them that the spent fuel is
safely and securely stored where it is today. NARUC intends to
continue to press Congress to manage the ratepayers' investment
in the Nuclear Waste Fund as it was intended in the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act and to put a stop to the diversion of fee
revenue to other unrelated uses.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views. I look
forward to answering any questions you have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Response by James Y. Kerr, III, to an Additional Question
from Senator Cardin
Question. Would the fees collected from ratepayers to cover
the disposal costs at Yucca Mountain be sufficient for the
design and use of long-term storage of spent fuel at reactor
sites as proposed by Senators Reid and Ensign?
Response. 1We are not aware of any cost estimates that
would allow us to have an informed opinion on this question.
However, NARUC would strongly oppose such a ``solution''
because it is in fact no solution at all. Such an approach
fails to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to remove
the waste and its policy to utilize centralized storage. In
short, this type of proposal does nothing more than merely
change slightly the oft-used phrase of, ``You, Federal
Government, have our money and we, the States, have your
waste,'' to, ``You, Federal Government, STILL have our money
and we, the States, STILL have your waste.''
------
Responses by James Y. Kerr, III, to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. If Yucca Mountain was not an option for storing
nuclear waste, what alternative would you support? What should
the Nuclear Waste Fund be used for if it could not be spent to
build a repository at Yucca?
Response. In 1987, Congress made clear its intention that
Yucca Mountain should be the only option considered for study,
and, in 2002, Congress approved the site. Since that time, the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC) has held a consistent position that, based on an
appropriate licensing process, it supports geological disposal
at Yucca Mountain as the best way to isolate radioactive waste.
Accordingly, it is NARUC's position that the licensing process
should be allowed the opportunity to be initiated and
completed. Based upon the findings of an open, public licensing
process and review--and any appellate review of same--a
decision should then be made to either move forward with Yucca
Mountain or begin the process to find another site. The Nuclear
Waste Policy Act (NWPA) remains the law and, should Yucca
Mountain no longer be an option, Congress would then be
responsible for choosing the new site.
Regarding the funding issue, the NWPA in Sec. 302(d) states
that the Fund is to be used for the purposes of developing a
geologic repository and emplacing spent fuel in it.
Additionally, consideration should also be given for the use of
the Fund to finance the cost to develop and operate central
interim storage facilities, away from reactor storage sites,
only until Yucca Mountain or alternative geologic repository/
repositories are available. However, use of the Fund in this
interim manner would require amending the NWPA.
Question 2. How does your association feel about DOE's
proposal to place all spent nuclear fuel in Transportation,
Aging and Disposal (TAD) canisters, at the expense of
utilities, before transporting it to Yucca? Do you have any
idea how much this could cost nuclear utilities? Is it cost-
effective for utilities that already use dry cask storage to
transfer that waste into TAD canisters?
Response. The concept of using a single canister for
storage, transportation and disposal is appealing. We are
pleased to see the reconsideration of this concept and the
cooperative planning efforts being pursued by DOE and the
nuclear industry on development of the TADs.
Under the ``standard contracts'' between each owner of
spent nuclear fuel and DOE, the utilities are responsible for
loading the spent fuel into casks provided by DOE. As we
understand it, DOE intends to procure and deliver TAD canisters
to the utilities when the waste acceptance schedule indicates
spent fuel is ready to be accepted for geologic storage. There
will likely be, however, a transitional period in which many of
the utilities will need to remove additional amounts of spent
fuel from cooling pool storage to be placed in dry-cask storage
at the reactor site before DOE is ready to accept it. We
understand that DOE seeks to have the utilities procure and use
TAD canisters for this interim/transitional storage and to
develop some equitable way of sharing these costs within the
standard contract and in compliance with the NWPA. It must also
be noted that, given the litigation over waste acceptance
delay-related storage costs, the development and use of dry-
cask storage--using TAD canisters or not--ultimately may be the
government's liability from the Judgment Fund.
We have no informed opinion concerning the cost of loading
spent fuel by the utilities into the TAD canisters, although we
are comfortable in opining that it is likely to be nominal
compared with the cost of procuring the TADs themselves. Cask
procurement and transportation have always been repository
program cost elements and thus fundable from the Nuclear Waste
Fund, except in the circumstance described in the previous
paragraph.
We would note that DOE's plans for the Yucca Mountain
surface facilities call for up to 90 percent of spent fuel to
arrive in TADs, but there will be facilities there for the
acceptance of spent fuel in non-TAD canisters and to transfer
the contents into TADs at the repository. Many, if not all, of
the nine sites where reactors have been decommissioned no
longer have the equipment and infrastructure to transfer from
existing dry-casks to TADs.
Question 3. 1DOE's liability for not accepting nuclear
waste by 1998 is growing, and could cost up to $500 million per
year. This will continue to grow until DOE takes ownership of
spent nuclear fuel and finds a solution for it. Even if Yucca
were approved by NRC, DOE admits that they could not have it
constructed before 2022 under very optimistic conditions.
Wouldn't a short term alternative that stops the mounting
liability be cheaper for rate payers?
Response. Yes. One such short-term alternative NARUC has
supported is the transfer of spent fuel from present reactor
storage sites to one or more central interim storage facilities
pending availability of a geologic repository. Legislation to
do this at Yucca Mountain has been considered and rejected by
Congress in the past. Other alternatives have been discussed to
consider temporary storage at existing DOE sites that already
store other radioactive waste. Another initiative directed DOE
to consider whether communities seeking to host spent fuel
reprocessing facilities under the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP) program might take some spent fuel temporary
storage as a condition to further GNEP candidacy.
Additionally, a group of utilities proposed to take spent
fuel storage matters into their own hands until DOE accepted
the fuel for permanent disposal. These utilities formed Private
Fuel Storage PLC (PFS) and developed a plan to store up to
40,000 metric tons of commercial spent fuel from their member
firms and other utilities on land to be leased from the Skull
Valley Band of the Goshute tribe in Utah. PFS applied for a
storage license and the NRC took 7 years to review the
application. In 2006 the NRC granted approval over the
objections of the State of Utah.
------
Responses by James Y. Kerr, III, to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Several comments by committee members or
witnesses were made recommending the Department of Energy take
responsibility for spent fuel storage, keep it at reactor sites
for up to 100 years, and abandon the development of a
repository at Yucca Mountain. If, after spending 25 years and
$6 billion dollars, DOE decided to abandon its effort at Yucca
Mountain without even seeking NRC authorization, how do you
think Governors and public utility commissioners would react?
Response. As we stated in response to the previous
question, our belief is that such an approach is contrary to
the NWPA and the obligations and responsibilities undertaken by
the Federal Government in enacting this law. Given that the
ratepayers in the States have fulfilled their responsibilities
under the NWPA by providing the funding to solve this national
problem, I would expect that many Governors and utility
commissioners would be disappointed if the process established
by Congress were to be circumvented. While I am certain that
all States support the right of Nevada to protect its interests
in an open and fair process, I am equally certain that they
would object to aborting the repository project before the
independent agency with the responsibility and the technical
expertise to evaluate the license application has been given
the opportunity to consider it on its merits..
Question 2. Although the purpose of the hearing was to
discuss the Yucca Mountain licensing process, since other
witnesses have expressed their opinions on broader aspects of
the proposed repository, would you care to tell the Committee
why the repository is needed?
Response. In the late 1970's this country determined that
it would no longer pursue reprocessing of commercial spent
fuel. After this decision was made, a Federal review panel
determined that geologic disposal for all commercial spent
nuclear fuel and other forms of high-level radioactive waste
was the best way to move forward. This became official US
policy and law upon the adoption of the NWPA in 1982, and it
remains the law and policy of this country today.
With the adoption of the NWPA, Congress determined this to
be a national problem, and it remains one today. Even if the
commercial nuclear power industry did not exist, this country
would still need a repository to store spent nuclear fuel from
weapons and defense programs. Moreover, as we attempt to solve
the many challenges facing our energy future, the failure of
the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibilities creates
unnecessary uncertainty about the role of commercial nuclear
generation going forward.
But let me be clear: NARUC would not support the disposal
of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain if the Federal agencies
responsible for determining the safety and viability of the
site conclude that it is unsafe for present or future
generations. We look to the experts and policy officials at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rigorously review the
repository license application. We accept the NRC assurance
that present reactor-site storage is both safe and secure, but
we would expect there would be greater security if more of the
spent fuel could be placed more securely in the underground
repository in a better-protected location.
Question 3. 1Utilities producing nuclear power make
payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund of around $750 million a
year and the Fund earns interest on the balance of
approximately $1 billion each year, yet in the most recent full
year Congress appropriated just $99.2 million from the Fund
(and $346.5 million from the Defense budget) to the repository
program. What do you recommend to address this problem?
Response. Congress should, as a first step, enact the
provisions (Sec. 5) of the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal
Act as proposed by the Administration this past March. Under
that provision, fees collected and deposited in the Nuclear
Waste Fund would be credited to the Fund as discretionary
offsetting collections each year in amounts not to exceed the
amounts appropriated from the Fund the same year. This, I am
told, allows the annual appropriations be limited by fee
revenue rather than be subject to other discretionary spending
caps.
We agree with the position stated by House Energy and
Commerce Committee Chairman Dingell that the proposal does not
go far enough in that it does not address the question of how
or whether the repository gains access to the more than $20
billion supposedly in the Nuclear Waste Fund ``balance.''
Although the Department of Energy attempts to reassure us that
the money is there--and even earning interest added to the
balance--we remain uneasy about whether Congress will honor the
IOU's that it has left for future Congresses to honor. In 2001,
former Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham submitted an
excellent analysis and report on Alternative Means of Financing
and Managing the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program.
To my knowledge, Secretary Abraham's emphasis that the Nuclear
Waste Fund ``has lost its original funding intent and should be
addressed immediately'' was met with silence.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cook.
STATEMENT OF KEN COOK, PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP
Mr. Cook. Madam Chair, thank you very much for the
invitation to testify today. I will summarize my written
testimony for the record, if I may.
I want to make three central points. First is that the
American public has a fundamental right to know the full
implications of thousands of potential shipments of lethal
radioactive waste across this Country before central decisions
are made that will determine that those shipments must take
place: a fundamental right to know.
Second, we have to ask if it makes any sense to generate
enormous additional quantities of waste before we have figured
out these transportation and storage issues.
And finally, we are very concerned about what appears to be
a rush to judgment to approve the license for Yucca Mountain,
again before these important transportation questions have been
raised.
Madam Chair, if I may direct you to our testimony, on the
first couple of pages we have several maps. I apologize for the
quality of one of these that depicts your home State of
California. This is not the Environmental Working Group's map.
This is a map from the appendix J, the official Government
transportation route map would Yucca Mountain become
operational.
What you notice about this map is there is only one city in
your State on it: Sacramento. You will look in vain for San
Francisco or Oakland or San Jose or Los Angeles or Fresno or
Bakersfield or any number of other major cities in your State
because in this map, they are not shown. I don't know if that
was 36 percent that was the extra percent that they left off or
not, but it would have been nice to have better maps.
We have tried to produce some of those using up to date
technology, Google maps, that almost anyone has access to. But
the question here is, would the people of California, 7.5
million of whom live within one mile of these proposed routes,
maybe, knowing that they live there, knowing that there were
dozens of schools and hospitals in their communities near these
routes, maybe they would approve of the process of finalizing
the Yucca Mountain and starting the shipments.
Maybe they would approve even if they knew that by
generating additional waste through re-licensing or perhaps new
reactors in your State or other States, that there would be a
constant flow of waste over these highways for decades beyond
what they have been given to understand.
Or maybe if they understood these implications, they
wouldn't approve.
And maybe that is the case in Oklahoma. Maybe that is the
case in New York. Maybe that is the case all over this Country.
But the fact of the matter is, they by and large don't know
because the Department of Energy has not told them, and that is
our central point.
We have added some maps for some other cities here. I
remember very well briefing Senator Carper on this. Yours was
the only conference room that had a plasma display that allowed
us to show these maps some years ago. We didn't get your vote,
but we had your attention, Senator, and I appreciated that
tremendously.
Look at some of these cities. This is just a few of them,
where these waste routes will go. And people do not understand
that. When I heard a representative of the Government today
make the case that they have made time and again, isn't it
better to have all of this waste in one place than in 123
places across the Country. I just want to underscore two
points. One, if we continue operating these reactors by
extending their licenses for 20 years, of course we will
continue to have waste at those sites, plus we would have it on
the roads.
The second point is, what is safer? I have not been to
Iraq, Senator Boxer. I know you have and I presume you have,
too, Senator Carper. Are you safer in the Green Zone which must
be carefully guarded? Or are you safer on the road to Baghdad,
Iraq airport? Are you really much safer traveling and moving?
Or are you safer in one fortified position? I am not a military
expert, but if you ask me, having both the stationary positions
that are dangerous for decades, and moving waste along the
roads that will be dangerous for decades, expands the risk. It
doesn't reduce it. Just in conclusion, Senator, this is an
industry that wouldn't split an atom without a subsidy.
They ask for subsidies for research, to deal with cleanup,
to deal with waste disposal, and on and on. But probably the
biggest subsidy our Government is providing right now to the
nuclear industry is the lack of information, the subsidy that
they are providing in effect by not telling the American public
the full implications of these decisions, leaving them with the
risk, the expense and the unthinkable.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]
Statement of Kenneth Cook, President, Environmental Working Group
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, distinguished members of the
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on some of
the crucial issues surrounding the licensing process for the proposed
facility for long-term storage of lethal, long-lived nuclear waste at
Yucca Mountain in Nevada. My name is Kenneth Cook and I am president of
Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit environmental research
and advocacy organization that uses the power of information to protect
public health and the environment. EWG has offices in Washington, DC
and Oakland, California.
Since 2002, EWG has examined and assisted the public in
understanding the transportation implications of nuclear waste routes
that could be utilized to transport deadly radioactive material from
around the United States, and through virtually every major city in the
Nation, to Yucca Mountain, should the proposed repository there become
operational.
I want to emphasize three main points in my testimony today:
1. The American public's fundamental right to understand the
full implications of thousands of potential shipments of
extremely dangerous nuclear waste across this country should be
central to the government's process for licensing Yucca
Mountain, for operating any other repository for this material,
and for all decisions to relicense existing reactors or build
new ones. The Federal Government has not respected that right
to know.
2. It makes no sense to generate enormous, additional amounts
of deadly nuclear waste when we haven't figured out what to do
with the tens of thousands of tons already on hand. Our
government has ignored that common sense precaution.
3. The government is rushing to approve the license application
for Yucca Mountain before rudimentary, life and death questions
have been resolved about transportation, storage, and a truly
protective radiation safety standard.
Let me start with a vivid illustration of my first point.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I apologize for the exceedingly poor quality of the first of those
two maps, in particular to you, Chairman Boxer, since it depicts your
home State of California. This is the official transportation map,
buried in Appendix J of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository. More cartoon than cartography, this illustration depicts
only one city in our most populous state: the capital, Sacramento. It
also shows the location of facilities from which lethal radioactive
waste would be shipped to Yucca Mountain if it is ever made
operational, along with a few highway designations and some unnamed
rail lines.
You won't find San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles, San
Diego, Fresno, Bakersfield or any other major California cities on this
map of nuclear waste routes to Yucca Mountain. But DOE's prospective
routes for shipping deadly nuclear reactor waste go through or near
every one of those cities, or the suburbs around them, and countless
more communities in California.
If the people you represent did somehow find their way to Appendix
J of the EIS for Yucca Mountain, Chairman Boxer, they wouldn't find any
telling details about how the potential highway or rail routes might
wend their way through the towns and cities and communities of your
state.
The people of California probably wouldn't realize that 7.5 million
them live within a mile of those routes, or that there are over 1,500
schools or 130 hospitals also within a mile of those routes in your
state.
Now, maybe, Chairman Boxer, your constituents, knowing all that,
would still decide that it makes sense to put lethal radioactive waste
on California's highways and rail lines, right near their homes and
through their communities, en route to Yucca Mountain. Maybe
Californians would come to that decision knowing that plenty of waste
would still remain to be dealt with at reactors in the State once Yucca
Mountain is filled to its current statutory limit. Maybe residents of
California would still conclude that reactors in the state, or in
states to the north that might route waste through your state, should
operate for an additional 20 years, generating more nuclear waste and
more shipments for decades. Maybe the people of California would
approve of new reactors being built, creating yet more waste at reactor
sites, and on highways and railways, for generations to come.
Or maybe they wouldn't approve at all if they really knew what
approval meant. Californians have a right to know the implications of
shipping waste to Yucca Mountain, or of expanding nuclear power and
waste production, before decisions are made for them.
The second map was made by Environmental Working Group, using
Google Maps after we painstakingly overlaid the rail and highway routes
from that very same set of maps in the Yucca Mountain EIS. We are in
the process of making maps like this available online for all of the
proposed shipment routes to Yucca Mountain. Here are some other
examples, with additional EWG maps presented on the charts before you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
There are no operating nuclear power reactors in Oklahoma,
something the State has in common with Nevada. But EWG estimates that
254,000 people live within 1 mile of the Department of Energy's
proposed routes for the shipment of high level nuclear waste across
Oklahoma from out of state; some 879,000 people live within 5 miles.
Our geographic information system analysis also finds an estimated 99
schools within 1 mile of the Department of Energy's proposed high-level
nuclear waste transportation routes and 289 schools within 5 miles. We
also estimate that 14 hospitals are within 1 mile and 29 hospitals are
within 5 miles. Again, localized, community-specific information of
this sort might or might not affect the opinions of Oklahomans
regarding the shipment through their cities and their communities of
nuclear waste from other states. The only way we'll know if this
information is important is if we entrust it to the people of Oklahoma
before decisions that affect them are made.
My point is that the people of Oklahoma and every other State have
a right to know and fully understand the implications for them of the
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository before the license for the
facility is finalized. And they have the same right to know what
expansion of nuclear waste generation will mean for transportation
through their State if reactors around the country are relicensed for
20 additional years of operation, or new reactors are constructed. They
may or may not know that decisions made hundreds of miles away will
have profound implications for the shipment of high-level, deadly
nuclear waste through their neighborhoods for decades to come.
This right to know the implications of shipping nuclear waste to
Yucca Mountain is not being respected by our government in its rush to
approve the operating license for the Yucca Mountain facility.
concerns about epa radiation standards for yucca
In August 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published
its proposed, revised radiation protection standards for the proposed
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. These public health standards set
the maximum allowable levels of radiation to which humans can be
exposed and the maximum level of radiation that can be in groundwater
from leakage from the proposed dump. Under the Energy Policy Act of
1992, these standards are required to conform to National Academies of
Science's mandate that the standard protect human health during periods
when leakage will cause peak levels of radiation.1 Unfortunately, EPA's
standards neither protect public health nor meet the law's
requirements.
EPA proposes a 15 millirems radiation dose limit for humans during
the first 10,000 years of the proposed dump's operation (when no
leakage from waste containers is expected), but would weaken the
standard to 350 millirems after 10,000 years (when leakage is all but
certain). In other words, at the time of the greatest threats to human
health, EPA proposed weakening the standard by a factor of 23 times
more lenient.
1 Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486; National Academy of
Sciences, National Research Council, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain
Standards, 1995.
Notably, nowhere in its proposal does EPA discuss the increased
risk to human health and safety from the higher levels of exposure at
the 10,000-year mark, despite EPA's and NAS's acknowledgement of a
linear-dose response relationship between radiation and cancer. The
risk to public health increases at higher levels of radiation.
EPA also seems to be intentionally disregarding its legal
obligations. EPA's original human dose standard was 15 millirems per
year for the first 10,000 years. EPA proposed that there be no public
health radiation standard in place after 10,000 years, the period in
which leakage is expected from the repository. But since EPA had
arbitrarily determined that this standard did not need to be in place
when peak leakage will occur, the DC Court of Appeals invalidated it as
inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act.
In addition, EPA proposes the same groundwater protection standard
that the District Court voided in 2004. EPA proposes a 4 millirems
standard for the first 10,000 years, and no groundwater protection
standard at the time when peak exposure is expected to occur, after
10,000 years. Radiation from the proposed repository will travel
through groundwater, and the groundwater under Yucca Mountain provides
drinking and irrigation water to tens of millions of people throughout
Amargosa Valley and Southern California.
Moreover, EPA will not consider public comment on the groundwater
standard in the proposed regulation, despite the fact that the
groundwater standard is integral to protecting public health and that
the radiation standard is integral to determining the safety and
integrity of the proposed dump.
concluding observations
I think we are all aware that the U.S. nuclear industry wouldn't
split an atom without a subsidy. They never have, and they never will.
Nuclear energy companies never hesitate to lean on American
taxpayers for money to conduct nuclear research, for indemnification in
the event of horrific nuclear accidents, for money to clean up
industry's lethal waste and cost overruns, or for the collateral of the
public's purse--something the companies are seeking today to coax Wall
Street out of its sober reluctance to invest in new nuclear reactors.
But the ultimate subsidy for the nuclear industry may well be our
government's scandalous failure to fully inform our own people about
the potential consequences of the Yucca Mountain repository until it is
too late for the people to do anything about it but accept the risk,
the expense, or the unthinkable.
I thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, for this
opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions
or providing additional information at the pleasure of the Committee.
I wish to thank colleagues at the Environmental Working Group for
the research and analysis underlying my testimony today: Richard Wiles,
Sandra Schubert, Sean Gray, and Chris Campbell; and former colleagues
John Coequyt, Jon Balivieso, and Tim Greenleaf. We are also grateful
for technical assistance provided over the years by experts at the
Nuclear Information And Resource Service and in particular by Kevin
Kamps, now on the staff of Beyond Nuclear. EWG is responsible for the
contents of this testimony.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
I want to pick up where Mr. Cook left off, because what
seems to me to be bizarre is the fact that,
as Senator Carper said, these decisions were made 25 years
ago. We were both in the Congress at that time.
Since then, we have had 9/11, and everyone agrees this was
a moment where the whole world turned and it has changed our
lives forever. Indeed, it has been used as a reason for war,
the argument being made is we don't want to have the terrorists
in any way get access to any nuclear materials. We hear it
every day. Somehow we don't hear it in reference to Yucca
Mountain.
Mr. Cook, do you know how many trips will be made in the
course of the life of Yucca Mountain? How many trips there will
be by truck or rail?
Mr. Cook. I wish we did know, Madam Chair. It is a
fundamental question because they haven't decided whether they
are going to mainly send it along highways or their preferred
option, mainly send it along railroads. But either way, it will
be thousands of trips, and thousands more as we extend licenses
as we are doing for 20 years or build more reactors, thousands.
Senator Boxer. My understanding is there will be 9,500 rail
casks and 2,700 truck casks, thousands of shipments. I am
afraid most of them or a lot of them are through my State. You
pointed that out. My State has a real problem with this, and
that is why I have been outspoken for many years, not only
dealing with the potential for an accident, one; two, a terror
incident; and leakage into water that really is going to impact
our water supply and destroy our drinking water.
So you know, Mr. Kerr talks about money that has been put
in. You know, money, money, money. How much is your grandkid's
life worth? You would say you can't put a number on that. So I
think we can't talk about the possibility of terrorism and
nuclear materials as it refers to things that are happening
abroad, and have our mind closed to what we are doing right
here.
Look, I don't want to frighten anybody, but I have seen the
list of where the al Qaeda cells were before 9/11. It is not
secret information. It is published. It was published by the
State Department. There were more cells in America than almost
any other place, OK, before 9/11.
That is a fact. And there were none in Iraq, just by the
way. That is the Bush State Department's own document. I have
it. You can all see it.
So you would think as we look through people's luggage,
their purses, search them--I mean, I just had this whole body
search the last time I went through--looking for is my perfume
really my perfume, that the obvious somehow is in another
compartment. It is over here at the DOE and the NRC. It is
bizarre.
So I wanted to thank you, Mr. Cook, because for me, it is
what I care about in this Committee, safety. This is the
Environment Committee, Environment and Public Works. We want to
do things the right way and we could get into an argument over
pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. I don't even think that is worth
the time. The question is what is a safe project and is Yucca
Mountain safe.
I want to ask Hon. Catherine Masto a question. I know you
are following every line of this debate and every piece of
paper that moves forward as the Bush administration, it seems
to me, is rushing to get this thing done. You note that several
legally required parts of the application, including accident
mitigation and emergency response, security at the repository,
and retrieval of waste, will not be included in the initial
license application. That is why I took so much time on that
point of the application. It is to me outrageous that the
people who are living near this repository wouldn't be able to
see accident mitigation, emergency response, security at the
repository, retrieval of the waste.
Now, how will the State of Nevada and other interested
parties draft challenges or contentions to DOE's license
application if this information is not made available until
after the application is filed? What do you do? Do you have to
go to court more? Talk about money. How much more money are we
going to have to spend on lawyers and such?
Ms. Masto. Senator, thank you. That is a great question,
because a lot of people don't realize when we talk about court,
again the State of Nevada, just the process itself is
inherently unfair because we can't go to District Court and get
an evidentiary hearing to argue. We have to go to Appellate
Court. So all of our legal challenges have been at the
Appellate Court level, which limits our legal remedies.
With respect to the licensing application, where we go, we
have heard, well, it is going to be fair; it is going to be
fair;; it is an evidentiary hearing. It is before the NRC.
Again, our concern is the NRC says they are going to be
objective and fair, but their staff are the ones that are
working closely with the DOE in moving this forward and working
on the licensing application.
Senator Boxer. You know, I picked that up when I talked to
the DOE. He kept saying, oh, we are going to be complete
because the NRC is going to say we are complete. What is that?
That was very odd. As a matter of fact, I have not seen that. I
have always thought the NRC is going to be outside of this and
be tough and say we need more information.
The DOE recently certified its submission of over 3.5
million documents to the NRC's licensing support network, or
the LSN. That sounds like a lot of documents for interested
parties to review.
Ms. Masto. That is a lot of documents.
Senator Boxer. More than three million documents.
Ms. Masto. And the question is whether all of the documents
are there, and we contend they are not, and those are important
documents that we need.
Senator Boxer. Tell me what documents do you think are not
there?
Ms. Masto. I have listed in my report here, but one of the
key documents and one of the key concerns that we talk about is
the TSPA. That was in my written document.
Senator Boxer. TSPA?
Ms. Masto. Yes.
Senator Boxer. What is that?
Ms. Masto. That is computer modeling and the information
with respect to the basis for the computer modeling. The
computer modeling is based on having the DOE determine whether
there are peak doses and the radiation and the EPA radiation
standard, and they have to prove that it complies.
Well, we won't have access to any of the information that
they based that on, the TSPA, or the TPSA. And so that is a
concern of ours because we won't have information with respect
to how they are making that determination on the peak dosage of
the TSPA code. It is a modeling, a computer modeling. We won't
have access to that. The NRC does not have access to that. The
DOE is the only individual or the only agency that has access
to that, can put the computer modeling and do the numerical----
Senator Boxer. Why do you think they wouldn't give that to
you?
Ms. Masto. They are afraid that we are going to challenge
it. That is the only thing I can think of.
All along, this is supposed to have been an open process.
My understanding, based on the previous testimony, based on the
guidelines from the DOE and everything that has been written,
it is an open process. We are supposed to have access to these
documents, millions of documents because there are so many, so
that we can complete this discovery period in a timely manner.
Senator Boxer. Why is this computer modeling--what does it
show you? Why is it so crucial?
Ms. Masto. The computer modeling is basically, and let me
find it in my testimony here real quick. The computer modeling
basically is the modeling that determines that peak dosage.
When we talk about the radiation standard----
Senator Boxer. When you say peak dosage, talk to me in
English. What do you mean?
Ms. Masto. OK. What happens is the radiation standard we
are looking at, and we have heard 15 millirem for the first
10,000, 350 millirem after. But they had to comply with the
National Academy of Sciences findings and recommendations. The
National Academy of Sciences findings and recommendations was
that after 10,000 years is where you are going to have the peak
dosage of the radiation.
And so what we are contending is that if the peak dosage is
after 10,000, why is the standard so high at 350 millirem? You
would think it would be the 10 millirem that you are talking
about, or 15 millirem, but instead it is a much higher standard
which does not make sense. The TSPA modeling is based on that.
The TSPA modeling, let me find this real quick.
So compliance with the EPA radiation protection standard is
determined by calculation of the dose from repository releases
to a member of the public at the boundary of the accessible
environment determined by EPA to be a 11 miles. The EPA
standard requires that the dose calculation be carried out
using a probabalistic performance analysis. DOE has constructed
this TSPA, which stands for total system performance
assessment, to use as the tool for determining the dose
calculation. So that is what the TSPA is, but nobody has access
to the basis for it or the information going in, the formulas
that are being conducted. We can't go in and do any
information, take a look at what they are basing this on, and
that is our concern.
And even if we do have access to this, it takes hours upon
hours to even conduct any type of formula to go through this
computer modeling. I am not the expert. I am just talking from
what my experts tell me. I would be happy to provide more
information to you, Senator, with respect to this issue.
Senator Boxer. Well, is your point that you want to know
what the residents of Nevada today and in the future are going
to be exposed to? What you are basically telling me is, you
don't have the information you need to be able to make that
judgment.
Ms. Masto. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Boxer. Is that right?
Ms. Masto. Absolutely correct. My main concern is for the
safety and the welfare of the individuals in this State.
Radiation and exposure to radiation is the most important thing
we need to understand, and we won't be able to have that
information. And if we do get it, it will be after the fact or
within a limited period of time for us to be able to take
advantage of our legal remedies.
Senator Boxer. And you have asked for it? And what did they
say when you asked for the information?
Ms. Masto. One minute. At this point in time, they are
claiming it is privileged attorney-client product information,
so we cannot have this until they are ready, if at all, to
provide it to us.
Senator Boxer. What attorney-client, between what attorney
and what client?
Ms. Masto. I would assume--I don't have the answer to that
other than the DOE is telling it to us, so I assume it is
whoever attorneys they are talking with, the DOE attorneys.
Senator Boxer. So let me get this straight. The United
States of America wants to put this enormous dump in your
backyard. They are keeping information from you and when you
ask for the information, they say we can't because you might
sue us. Is that basically what we are seeing there?
Ms. Masto. I think that is the concern there, absolutely.
Senator Boxer. Well, I just want to send the strongest
possible message to DOE, to NRC, to anyone who has anything to
do with this. We are turning against our own people. That is
unacceptable. This is an outrage, to turn against our own
people and keep information from our own people. It happens
over and over and over again, whether it is the CDC that comes
forward and has information about the public health impacts of
global warming, and pages and pages get redacted, and we can't
find the information. When we ask for it, we are told the same
thing: it is privileged. Oh, gee, it is privileged.
Privileged? Aren't the American people--don't we say that
they are privileged to live in America? Then they should be
privileged enough to have this information. I mean, this is a
misuse of, in my opinion, the law. I find that it is one thing
to have a legitimate argument pro and con Yucca Mountain. It is
another thing to keep information away from the very people who
are going to be impacted by it.
I will do everything in my power as Chairman of this
Committee to get you the information that you seek.
Thank you very much.
Senator Carper, the time is yours.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to go back and revisit, we don't have on this panel
anyone from the NRC or the DOE, but I just want to say, I guess
for the record, that my understanding is when the NRC, I think
we still have a witness in the audience from the NRC, when the
NRC receives the Department of Energy's application in this
case for Yucca Mountain, I believe the first thing that the NRC
does is to determine its completeness. The way it is supposed
to work, if the application is not complete, the NRC is
required to send it back to DOE to ensure its completeness.
I would just say to my friends who might still be here from
the NRC, we expect that to be the case. I know it is the case
in other applications for plants and so forth. It had better be
the case in this instance as well. I see several folks nodding
their heads, so I think it is received.
Mr. Kerr, whose name is spelled Kerr, has you name ever
been mispronounced, Mr. Kerr?
Mr. Kerr. Just this morning, Senator. I think while you
were out of the room.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I apologize for that. Our name has been
mispronounced, too. In fact, we are called things you wouldn't
want to repeat here in this hearing.
As you know, I think that a number of companies are
preparing to apply for a license to build new nuclear reactors.
We talked about that with the first panel of witnesses. I think
one application has already been submitted from one utility. I
guess from the perspective of a regulator--you are from North
Carolina, aren't you? Whereabouts?
Mr. Kerr. I live in Raleigh, but I am from Goldsboro.
Senator Carper. My wife is from Boone. In fact, we own a
little farm up there around Boone, so I guess you kind of work
for us. That is good.
From the perspective of a regulator, utility commissioners,
does the opening of Yucca Mountain impact the National
Association of Regulatory Utilities?
Mr. Kerr. Regulatory utilities.
Senator Carper. Does it impact the NARUC's support of new
nuclear power? How does it, if at all?
Mr. Kerr. Well, those individual decisions about new
reactors are made by State regulators based on the evidence of
record and the individual applications at the State level. As a
matter of national policy, what we have done is I think done
two things. With respect to Yucca Mountain, and not really
Yucca Mountain, but the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and the point
that I made in my opening statement is, you know, there are
three parts to the Act. One is that this is a national problem.
No. 2 is that the Federal Government should take responsibility
for the waste.
And No. 3 is that the ratepayers, utilities really, the
ratepayer should pay for it.
The point I made in my opening was I think one third of
that triumvirate has been taken care of, and that is the
ratepayers have paid the money that they are responsible for.
So I don't think we are disposed to Yucca Mountain as opposed
to any other sites. We are disposed to the fulfillment of the
basic roles assigned by the Act.
I would say that I think we inherently believe that the
agencies who have been assigned the task, the Federal court
system, and there is a process. What we want is the process to
work itself out and to move forward. It is woefully behind for
all the reasons that you are already aware of.
With respect to whether you license or site new plants, it
would be ideal if we knew what the permanent solution is. I
think that there is belief, as has been discussed here today,
that interim storage onsite can be an interim and can continue
to be an interim solution. There were certainly steps taken in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to incent nuclear generation. So
I think what you see is the companies and the regulators such
as the North Carolina Commission, you are sort of caught. These
things have long lead times. You are trying to forecast your
ability to meet a growing demand out a decade or two decades in
advance, and unfortunately, it is like planes landing at the
airport. The issues are stacked up. We are doing the best we
can.
It would certainly make it easier as we address climate
change to understand the role nuclear generation can plan, and
it is going to be essential. One of my concerns about Mr.
Cook's comments is it presumes we are not going to need nuclear
generation going forward because we can't transport it. I think
that is not what I have heard from members of this Committee
today.
But we have to have nuclear generation. If we could solve
the storage problem as the Act requires, it would take one of
the risk factors off the table and that is why we are
supportive of doing what the law adopted in 1982 says. Can we
get by for an interim period of time without an answer to Yucca
Mountain or permanent storage, whether it is Yucca Mountain or
something else, quite frankly I think we are going to have to,
and we are going to find out.
Senator Carper. Just a question if I could, you are a
commissioner in North Carolina. I know in Delaware the Governor
nominates people to serve on our Public Service Commission and
the folks are confirmed by the State Senate or not confirmed.
How does the process work in North Carolina?
Mr. Kerr. We are appointed by the Governor. I was appointed
by Governor Easley. We are confirmed by both Houses of our
General Assembly.
Senator Carper. What term do you serve?
Mr. Kerr. We serve for 8 years.
Senator Carper. And how long have you been serving?
Mr. Kerr. For six and a half, I think.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Kerr. My wife knows to the day.
Senator Carper. Well, thanks for sharing with us, or with
the people of North Carolina.
Let me just close, if I could, Madam Chair, with another
question or two for the record. I want to thank our witnesses
for being here, both panels for being here, and for your
responses to our questions, and for your commitment and concern
on these important issues.
My boys, one is in college now and the other is a senior in
high school, but growing up they have been in the Boy Scouts,
and one is an Eagle Scout and one is just about to become one.
We are real proud of them. One of the things I do, I take our
scouts to different service academies, military academies,
Naval Academy, Merchant Marine Academy. We are going to do the
Coast Guard Academy next.
But one of the other things I do, a couple of years ago I
took them down to Norfolk Naval Station. We spent a weekend
there with about 20 or 25 scouts, and maybe a half dozen or so
adult leaders. We crawled all over ships and submarines and
aircraft carriers. It was quite a treat for them, and I think
for the adults, too. One of the ships that we visited was a
carrier called the Teddy Roosevelt. The captain of the ship
actually came and met us and took us up for a tour of the ship.
We were up in one part of the ship and he said to the boys, he
said, boys, the Teddy Roosevelt is 1,000 feet long, and the
scouts went, oooh. He said, boys, the Teddy Roosevelt is 35
stories high, and the boys went, oooh. And he said, boys, when
the Teddy Roosevelt goes to sea, we have 5,000 sailors aboard
and 75 to 100 aircraft, and the scouts went, oooh. And he said,
boys, my ships stops to refuel once every 25 years. And the
adults went, oooh.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. For us to somehow squander the opportunity
that I think is there for our Country that nuclear energy
provides for our Country, I think we make a big mistake. One of
the surest ways that we can squander that opportunity is, and I
see the NRC is still with us, and the folks who operate these
plants, is to not operate safely, to make a mistake. I always
like to say if it isn't perfect, make it better. And we just
have to be vigilant every single minute of every single day
with respect to this industry.
Part of the secret here is to figure out what to do with
the spent fuel and to see if we can fine more opportunities to
use the energy that is inherent therein. My hope is that we
can. As a Nation, it is interesting, we had that Manhattan
Project all those years ago and we almost need like a bookend,
if you will, another Manhattan Project. The first one was to
figure out how we could unleash the power of the atom. Maybe
the second Manhattan Project is to figure out, now that we have
unleashed the power of the atom, how can we make sure that we
don't hand off a problem to the next generation as we dispose
of the spent fuel.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
I drive a car that gets 52 miles per gallon. Oooh, it's
good.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Let me just say, Attorney General, is your
State getting the respect it deserves in terms of--and I just
want to get this on the record--the information that you need
at this point?
Ms. Masto. No.
Senator Boxer. OK. Does your Governor share that view?
Ms. Masto. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Is your Governor Republican?
Ms. Masto. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Are you a Republican?
Ms. Masto. Democrat.
Senator Boxer. You are a Democrat. So this is across party
line. I really agree with that. It is an outrage not to give a
State the information it needs and to almost act--scratch
almost--to act in a secretive fashion, keeping information away
from people when you are talking about disposing the deadliest
waste that there is.
I went to France to visit the recycling there, the project
that they have there. That was really interesting. I went in a
room where they store these casks. They do recycle 96 percent
of the waste. There is 4 percent left over. It is hot. It is
very small. It is hot. And so I said, well, you reuse so much
of the fuel, doesn't that mean you just need a small place to
store the remainder, because it is only 4 percent? They said,
well, no, because it is so hot that we need the same size. We
can't even go to a smaller size, as if we were burying it all.
Now, there is a message there. This isn't just an everyday
situation. The people who are close by, including by the way my
people in California, there are boards of supervisors that have
sent me resolutions in the past. They have strong opposition
because of the leakage issue into the water table. Somebody
said that, I think it was Senator Clinton, that there were
earthquakes nearby. Is that accurate? Do you have that
information, Attorney General?
Ms. Masto. Yes, there are. In fact, there are earthquakes
in Nevada, earthquakes near this site, and she in fact talked
about the fact that where they were siting a concrete pad was
on top of a fault line, so they have had to move that concrete
pad, not far from the fault, but it is off of the fault line.
Senator Boxer. Only the Government could figure that out.
So if I could just be straightforward, we have a situation
where a decision was made a couple of decades ago siting this
nuclear waste dump. Since then, we have had 9/11 and we have
been warned constantly that the combination of a terrorist
attack and nuclear materials is the biggest thing we have to
fear. And yet still this project moves forward. The people of
the State of Nevada, Republicans and Democrats and every other
stripe, have bonded together and said, we don't want this; this
is dangerous for us; at the minimum give us information. You
have not been respected. You have earthquakes, if not right on
the site, near the site, and no one seems to pay attention to
that.
What is wrong with this picture? Everything. I just simply
do not understand some of the things that Government does. And
again, I think the question of whether you are for nuclear
power or against it is immaterial to me on this. It has nothing
to do with it. Mr. Kerr said they are going to still support
building more nuclear power. There is a window here. So it is
not about that. It is about safety. It is about safety.
So I would just say as a message, and I am really happy the
NRC has remained. I thank you so much, sir. We need to start
having some independent review here because if we don't, the
people of Nevada are going to stop us every step of the way,
and I will support them because it is their lives and the lives
of their grandkids and generations to come.
When I was a kid, my dad always said you want to leave this
earth as least as good as you inherited it. That is something
you do. That is a responsibility, a spiritual responsibility
and a citizenship responsibility. I intend to do that to the
best of my ability, as one person working with some others that
feel that way. Not everybody seems to see it that way, but that
is OK. I think this issue is a seminal issue in terms of what
are we going to leave future generations.
So I want to say to the State of Nevada, don't give up. You
have friends here. You have a lot of friends here. Just keep on
telling the truth. Keep on demanding the truth. Keep on
demanding transparency. We will be behind you because you
deserve to have information. No State should have something
rammed down its throat that it doesn't want, especially when it
has to do with such a potential health hazard as this dump
might be if it is not done right and if the site itself is not
amenable, which we have seen over and over again, whether it is
earthquakes or leakage, we have seen that.
So I just want to thank you very much. I just want to
correct the record. I think it was the EPA who said that the
Denver level of radiation was 350 millirem. Wrong. It is 50.
And at 10 millirem you get one cancer cases in 100,000. So you
do the math of the cancer cases at 350, I say to the NRC.
So let's get real here. You know, sometimes you have to
say, I was wrong. It is hard. Those words are very difficult
for all of us to say, but this was wrong, and a rush to begin
this licensing now I think would just lead to a circumstance
that none of us will want to see.
Thank you very much, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m. the committee was adjourned.]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the
State of Maryland
Thank you for holding this hearing today.
Nuclear power is a complex and emotional issue. That is as
it should be. We are dealing with America's energy future and
we are dealing with waste issues that will be with humanity for
longer than recorded history.
We need to get it right, and it won't be easy. It certainly
has not been fast.
A number of Federal agencies from the Department of Energy
to the Environmental Protection Agency to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission have important regulatory and oversight
roles. These organizations are dealing with the most complex
issues they will ever face. Less than 2 weeks ago the
Department of Energy announced that it has over 3.5 million
documents exceeding 30 million pages of information in
preparation of its license application to operate the Yucca
Mountain facility. The proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Site
is probably the most studied piece of real eState in America.
If we are to have nuclear power in this country, we need to
decide upon a disposal location. With nuclear wastes posing
radiation risks for tens of thousands of years, we should
insist this be done with great care. This is as close to
forever as we have ever done.
Senators Reid and Ensign have a different idea about how to
handle spent nuclear fuel. They would prefer to keep the wastes
at the sites of the power plants that generated them. They also
raise legitimate concerns about how the Federal agencies have
conducted themselves to date.
Madame Chairman, I am a supporter of the nuclear power
industry. I think we need to have nuclear power today and as a
bridge to an energy future that
promotes our energy independence,
reduces global warming gases, and
helps move us away from a dangerous reliance on nations
that do not support us.
But I am also a supporter of a robust Federal Government
that safeguards the American people and our precious
environment. We should insist that the Federal agencies execute
their jobs with the highest levels of professionalism. Shoddy
work by Federal agencies or their contractors is simply
unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to all of us, but
especially those of us who support the nuclear industry.
I want to give today's witnesses fair warning that those of
us who support the nuclear industry are likely to be their most
persistent questioners.
I look forward to their testimony.
Statement of The Prairie Island Indian Community Tribal Council
Madam Chair and Members of the Committee:
This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Prairie Island
Indian Community (``Prairie Island''). Prairie Island is a
federally recognized Indian tribe located in southeastern
Minnesota along the Mississippi River and just 600 yards from
an above-ground temporary nuclear waste storage site owned by
Xcel Energy. Prairie Island has a compelling interest in the
safe, permanent storage of the nation's nuclear waste. As such,
we respectfully request that this testimony be given due
consideration and entered into the public record as part of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee oversight hearing
on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project.
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Prairie Island supports the development of a national
nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain and urges
the Committee to exercise its oversight authority to help
ensure the project meets all the necessary requirements to
satisfy the Federal Government's commitment to the American
people to develop a facility to safely store our nation's
nuclear waste.
Developing a safe, permanent storage facility for spent
nuclear fuel is critical to the health and welfare of the
millions of Americans who currently live near temporary nuclear
waste storage sites. The Federal Government must fulfill its
obligation under the National Nuclear Waste Storage Act and
subsequent acts of Congress to solve the waste disposal problem
and move the nation's nuclear waste to a safe and secure
facility.
PRAIRIE ISLAND BELIEVES:
The indefinite storage of high-level nuclear waste at 121
different locations in 39 states poses a serious threat to
national security and puts at risk more than 169 million
Americans currently living within 75 miles of these temporary
storage facilities.
Yucca Mountain is a remote, militarily secure site that
is designed to permanently store the nation's high-level
nuclear waste, and it is a safer alternative to leaving nuclear
waste under varying levels of security at multiple locations,
near communities, rivers, and other natural resources.
American ratepayers have contributed more than $28
billion to the national Nuclear Waste Fund, including $470
million from Minnesotans. The American public deserves results.
Until or unless the Federal Government solves its nuclear
waste problem, it is simply irresponsible to allow the
construction of new nuclear power plants anywhere in the United
States.
TESTIMONY OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL
Prairie Island is a small Indian reservation located in
southeastern Minnesota along the banks of the Mississippi
River, approximately 50 miles from the Twin Cities of
Minneapolis and St. Paul. Our reservation is home to nearly 300
of our community members.
Prairie Island is among the closest communities in the
Nation to a nuclear power plant and an above-ground nuclear
waste storage site. Twin nuclear reactors and nearly two dozen
large cement nuclear waste storage casks sit just 600 yards
from our homes. As many as 35 additional casks will be added in
the coming years. The only evacuation route off our island
reservation is frequently blocked by passing trains.
At any given time, as many as 8,000 people could be on
Prairie Island. This includes our employees and guests of our
casino as well as our tribal members, some of whom are elderly
and disabled. Tens of thousands of people live in cities and
towns just beyond our reservation.
Prairie Island is just one of thousands of communities in
39 different states located in close proximity to a temporary
nuclear waste facility. There are presently 121 temporary
nuclear waste storage sites scattered across the United States.
Twenty-five years after Congress passed the National
Nuclear Waste Storage Act and mandated the establishment of an
underground repository, the future of the nation's nuclear
waste disposal program remains in doubt. Lost in the debate
over Yucca Mountain are the communities that bear the burden of
the Federal Government's inaction and failure to solve the
nation's nuclear waste problem.
Public safety was a core justification for building Yucca
Mountain. As President Bush correctly noted in his Feb. 15,
2002 letter to the Congress:
``Proceeding with the repository program is necessary to
protect public safety, health, and the Nation's security
because successful completion of this project would isolate in
a geologic repository at a remote location highly radioactive
materials now scattered throughout the Nation. In addition, the
geologic repository would support our national security through
disposal of nuclear waste from our defense facilities.''
Congress later approved Yucca Mountain as the site for the
nation's first permanent repository for high-level nuclear
waste. However, in the years since, Yucca Mountain has suffered
numerous delays and has been under-funded despite billions of
dollars in contributions to the Nuclear Waste Fund from
American ratepayers. The paramount public safety concerns that
first compelled Congress to build an isolated storage facility
seem to be fading as the issue slips from the American
consciousness and gives way to talk of building new nuclear
power plants.
Understandably, for most Americans the nuclear waste issue
is not at the top of their minds. It's not an issue they are
exposed to every day. For Prairie Island, the issue is more
difficult to escape. We are reminded of our nation's nuclear
waste problem whenever we look out our living room windows.
The talk of building new nuclear power plants is more
difficult to forgive. The nuclear power industry, it's been
said, is on the verge of a ``renaissance.'' Dozens of new
nuclear power plants are being proposed throughout the
country--this despite the uncertainty surrounding the nation's
waste disposal program and no firm answers for how to deal with
the waste problem.
The Texas-based utility NRG has already submitted an
application--the first in the U.S. in nearly 30 years--to build
two nuclear power plants in south Texas. NRG's president was
quoted recently in the Las Vegas Sun saying, ``Whether Yucca
Mountain happens or not plays no part in our calculation.'' He
added that as far as he is concerned, the waste can stay on the
company's property for the next century. (Lisa Mascaro, Las
Vegas Sun, Sept. 26, 2007)
Permitting the industry to build new nuclear plants without
any regard for a permanent, secure repository for the waste
that will be generated removes the only real incentive the
industry has for solving the waste problem. The Federal
Government must get serious about solving its nuclear waste
disposal problem, before allowing the construction of new
nuclear power plants anywhere in the United States.
We believe the Federal Government must deliver on its
promise to move the nation's nuclear waste to a safe, secure
facility before it embraces this so-call nuclear power
renaissance and turns to nuclear power as a preferred energy
source for this country.
Our community leaders have visited Yucca Mountain several
times, and we recognize there may be no perfect solution to the
nuclear waste storage problem. Science can be twisted and used
to prove or disprove the viability of virtually any proposed
storage site on earth. However, we believe Yucca Mountain
offers a reasonable solution. The facility is located many
miles from civilians; it is below ground, militarily secure and
designed for permanent storage. It is simply a better
alternative to leaving nuclear waste where it is--in some
cases--just yards from vulnerable communities like ours and
essential waterways like the Mississippi River. Securing and
defending one nuclear waste site has to be superior to securing
and defending hundreds.
On behalf of the thousands of communities in the United
States living in proximity to what are supposed to be temporary
nuclear waste sites, the Prairie Island Community thanks the
Committee for holding this oversight hearing and for bringing
much needed attention to this important and unresolved problem.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Jim Gibbons, Nevada Governor
Honorable Madame Chair and members of the committee, it is
my honor as the Governor of the State of Nevada to submit these
written comments for the Committee's consideration. While I
could not be present today to testify in person, I ask the
Committee to carefully consider these written comments, as well
as the comments presented by Nevada's Federal delegation and
Nevada's Attorney General. I am pleased that all of us stand in
unified opposition to the Yucca mountain project.
During my 10 years of service to the State of Nevada in
Congress, I fought tirelessly against this flawed project. Now,
as Governor, I appreciate the opportunity the people of Nevada
have given me to continue the fight.
The Yucca mountain project always has, and always will, be
based on unsound science, questionable legal interpretations,
and poor public policy. I trust this Committee will carefully
consider Nevada's views. As a matter of both science and law,
and in the interests of State comity and sound national policy,
Yucca Mountain should not be developed as a high-level nuclear
waste repository.
Nevada has done more than its share with respect to
exposure to high-level radioactive waste. Nevada served as a
nuclear weapons testing area during the cold war. Hundreds of
millions of radioactive curie contaminants from those tests
remain embedded in Nevada soil to this day, exposing many
Nevadans to serious health risks. Nevadans have not forgotten
this legacy.
Now, the Department of Energy seeks to foist even more
harmful contaminants on the people and lands of Nevada. Not
only does the Department of Energy seek to store radioactive
waste in Nevada, but by necessity, seeks to transport that same
waste through Nevada, including through and near major
metropolitan areas.
The Department of Energy has mismanaged this project from
its ill-conceived inception. This mismanagement is well-
documented and has been the subject of numerous legal
challenges and repeated public testimony by Nevada public
officials. The geologic issues at Yucca mountain are numerous
and concerning. The Department of Energy has not been able to
demonstrate that the planned repository is able to geologically
isolate radioactive waste. The Nevada Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has identified hundreds of technical issues that
remain unresolved to this day. The Yucca mountain project site
is located in an area that has been identified as prone to
volcanic activity. Even more concerning is the seismic
integrity of the site. Yucca Mountain sits in the heart of one
of the largest earthquake fault zones east of California.
Hundreds of earthquakes greater than magnitude 2.5 have
occurred at the Yucca site just in the past 20 years. The Yucca
mountain site is also prone to serious groundwater seepage.
Recognizing the deteriorating effects groundwater can have on
storage casks, the Department of Energy has suggested that a
drip shield is appropriate. This Committee should ask itself,
if this site is truly geologically appropriate, why does the
Department of Energy need to spend billions of dollars on a
man-made drip shield?
Against this backdrop are the recent and continuing
disingenuous actions of the Department of Energy. Just this
year, Nevada was forced to go to court to stop the Department
of Energy from flaunting Nevada water law in an attempt to
drill bore-holes for soil samples at the Yucca site. The
Department of Energy chose to ignore Nevada law and simply
drilled numerous bore-holes without permission. Fortunately, a
Federal district court recognized that the Department of Energy
is required to follow Nevada water law just like everyone else,
and the bore-hole drilling project was stopped. However, the
cavalier attitude the Department of Energy has taken toward the
State of Nevada is telling, and is certainly cause for grave
concern.
In the next few days many of you will return to your homes
thousands of miles away from Nevada, but for many in the
hearing room today, Nevada is home. Nevadans are the ones who
have to risk deadly exposures based on the Department of
Energy's culture of ignoring science in favor of expediency.
And I remind you that there is still no viable plan for
transporting this deadly waste through our communities for
thousands of miles. The safety of the American people along the
transportation route is in jeopardy due to this moving hazard
that too easily could be a moving target. It is my hope that
our Federal public officials will fully examine this project in
a common-sense and scientifically sound manner and be able to
ignore the pressures of rubber stamping this project. It is
Nevada's hope that you will see the flaws and the risks
associated with opening Yucca Mountain and transporting high-
level nuclear waste. It is our hope that you will protect the
people of Nevada and of this great nation.
I thank you for you time today, and I respectfully request
that these comments be introduced into the record.
Corrected statement of Kenneth Cook, President, Environmental Working
Group
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, distinguished
members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on some of the crucial issues surrounding the
licensing process for the proposed facility for long-term
storage of lethal, long-lived nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada. My name is Kenneth Cook and I am president of
Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit environmental
research and advocacy organization that uses the power of
information to protect public health and the environment. EWG
has offices in Washington, DC and Oakland, California.
Since 2002, EWG has examined and assisted the public in
understanding the transportation implications of nuclear waste
routes that could be utilized to transport deadly radioactive
material from around the United States, and through virtually
every major city in the Nation, to Yucca Mountain, should the
proposed repository there become operational.
I want to emphasize three main points in my testimony
today:
1. The American public's fundamental right to
understand the full implications of thousands of
potential shipments of extremely dangerous nuclear
waste across this country should be central to the
government's process for licensing Yucca Mountain, for
operating any other repository for this material, and
for all decisions to relicense existing reactors or
build new ones. The Federal Government has not
respected that right to know.
2. It makes no sense to generate enormous, additional
amounts of deadly nuclear waste when we haven't figured
out what to do with the tens of thousands of tons
already on hand. Our government has ignored that common
sense precaution.
3. The government is rushing to approve the license
application for Yucca Mountain before rudimentary, life
and death questions have been resolved about
transportation, storage, and a truly protective
radiation safety standard.
Let me start with a vivid illustration of my first point.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I apologize for the exceedingly poor quality of the first
of those two maps, in particular to you, Chairman Boxer, since
it depicts your home State of California. This is the official
transportation map, buried in Appendix J of the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. More cartoon
than cartography, this illustration depicts only one city in
our most populous state: the capital, Sacramento. It also shows
the location of facilities from which lethal radioactive waste
would be shipped to Yucca Mountain if it is ever made
operational, along with a few highway designations and some
unnamed rail lines.
You won't find San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Los
Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Bakersfield or any other major
California cities on this map of nuclear waste routes to Yucca
Mountain. But DOE's prospective routes for shipping deadly
nuclear reactor waste go through or near every one of those
cities, or the suburbs around them, and countless more
communities in California.
If the people you represent did somehow find their way to
Appendix J of the EIS for Yucca Mountain, Chairman Boxer, they
wouldn't find any telling details about how the potential
highway or rail routes might wend their way through the towns
and cities and communities of your state.
The people of California probably wouldn't realize that 7.5
million them live within a mile of those routes, or that there
are over 1,500 schools or 130 hospitals also within a mile of
those routes in your state.
Now, maybe, Chairman Boxer, your constituents, knowing all
that, would still decide that it makes sense to put lethal
radioactive waste on California's highways and rail lines,
right near their homes and through their communities, en route
to Yucca Mountain. Maybe Californians would come to that
decision knowing that plenty of waste would still remain to be
dealt with at reactors in the State once Yucca Mountain is
filled to its current statutory limit. Maybe residents of
California would still conclude that reactors in the state, or
in states to the north that might route waste through your
state, should operate for an additional 20 years, generating
more nuclear waste and more shipments for decades. Maybe the
people of California would approve of new reactors being built,
creating yet more waste at reactor sites, and on highways and
railways, for generations to come.
Or maybe they wouldn't approve at all if they really knew
what approval meant. Californians have a right to know the
implications of shipping waste to Yucca Mountain, or of
expanding nuclear power and waste production, before decisions
are made for them.
The second map was made by Environmental Working Group,
using Google Maps after we painstakingly overlaid the rail and
highway routes from that very same set of maps in the Yucca
Mountain EIS. We are in the process of making maps like this
available online for all of the proposed shipment routes to
Yucca Mountain. Here are some other examples, with additional
EWG maps presented on the charts before you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
There are no operating nuclear power reactors in Oklahoma,
something the State has in common with Nevada. But EWG
estimates that 254,000 people live within 1 mile of the
Department of Energy's proposed routes for the shipment of high
level nuclear waste across Oklahoma from out of state; some
879,000 people live within 5 miles. Our geographic information
system analysis also finds an estimated 99 schools within 1
mile of the Department of Energy's proposed high-level nuclear
waste transportation routes and 289 schools within 5 miles. We
also estimate that 14 hospitals are within 1 mile and 29
hospitals are within 5 miles. Again, localized, community-
specific information of this sort might or might not affect the
opinions of Oklahomans regarding the shipment through their
cities and their communities of nuclear waste from other
states. The only way we'll know if this information is
important is if we entrust it to the people of Oklahoma before
decisions that affect them are made.
My point is that the people of Oklahoma and every other
State have a right to know and fully understand the
implications for them of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository before the license for the facility is finalized.
And they have the same right to know what expansion of nuclear
waste generation will mean for transportation through their
State if reactors around the country are relicensed for 20
additional years of operation, or new reactors are constructed.
They may or may not know that decisions made hundreds of miles
away will have profound implications for the shipment of high-
level, deadly nuclear waste through their neighborhoods for
decades to come.
This right to know the implications of shipping nuclear
waste to Yucca Mountain is not being respected by our
government in its rush to approve the operating license for the
Yucca Mountain facility.
CONCERNS ABOUT EPA RADIATION STANDARDS FOR YUCCA
In August 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
published its proposed, revised radiation protection standards
for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. These
public health standards set the maximum allowable levels of
radiation to which humans can be exposed and the maximum level
of radiation that can be in groundwater from leakage from the
proposed dump. Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, these
standards are required to conform to National Academies of
Science's mandate that the standard protect human health during
periods when leakage will cause peak levels of radiation.1
Unfortunately, EPA's standards neither protect public health
nor meet the law's requirements.
EPA proposes a 15 millirems radiation dose limit for humans
during the first 10,000 years of the proposed dump's operation
(when no leakage from waste containers is expected), but would
weaken the standard to 350 millirems after 10,000 years (when
leakage is all but certain). In other words, at the time of the
greatest threats to human health, EPA proposed weakening the
standard by a factor of 23 times more lenient.
1 Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486; National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Technical Bases
for Yucca Mountain Standards, 1995.
Notably, nowhere in its proposal does EPA discuss the
increased risk to human health and safety from the higher
levels of exposure at the 10,000-year mark, despite EPA's and
NAS's acknowledgement of a linear-dose response relationship
between radiation and cancer. The risk to public health
increases at higher levels of radiation.
EPA also seems to be intentionally disregarding its legal
obligations. EPA's original human dose standard was 15
millirems per year for the first 10,000 years. EPA proposed
that there be no public health radiation standard in place
after 10,000 years, the period in which leakage is expected
from the repository. But since EPA had arbitrarily determined
that this standard did not need to be in place when peak
leakage will occur, the DC Court of Appeals invalidated it as
inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act.
In addition, EPA proposes the same groundwater protection
standard that the District Court voided in 2004. EPA proposes a
4 millirems standard for the first 10,000 years, and no
groundwater protection standard at the time when peak exposure
is expected to occur, after 10,000 years. Radiation from the
proposed repository will travel through groundwater, and the
groundwater under Yucca Mountain provides drinking and
irrigation water to tens of millions of people throughout
Amargosa Valley and Southern California.
Moreover, EPA will not consider public comment on the
groundwater standard in the proposed regulation, despite the
fact that the groundwater standard is integral to protecting
public health and that the radiation standard is integral to
determining the safety and integrity of the proposed dump.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
I think we are all aware that the U.S. nuclear industry
wouldn't split an atom without a subsidy. They never have, and
they never will.
Nuclear energy companies never hesitate to lean on American
taxpayers for money to conduct nuclear research, for
indemnification in the event of horrific nuclear accidents, for
money to clean up industry's lethal waste and cost overruns, or
for the collateral of the public's purse--something the
companies are seeking today to coax Wall Street out of its
sober reluctance to invest in new nuclear reactors.
But the ultimate subsidy for the nuclear industry may well
be our government's scandalous failure to fully inform our own
people about the potential consequences of the Yucca Mountain
repository until it is too late for the people to do anything
about it but accept the risk, the expense, or the unthinkable.
I thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, for
this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering
any questions or providing additional information at the
pleasure of the Committee.
I wish to thank colleagues at the Environmental Working
Group for the research and analysis underlying my testimony
today: Richard Wiles, Sandra Schubert, Sean Gray, and Chris
Campbell; and former colleagues John Coequyt, Jon Balivieso,
and Tim Greenleaf. We are also grateful for technical
assistance provided over the years by experts at the Nuclear
Information And Resource Service and in particular by Kevin
Kamps, now on the staff of Beyond Nuclear. EWG is responsible
for the contents of this testimony.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]