    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGREEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS FOR SPENT
                             NUCLEAR FUEL DISPOSAL

    =======================================================================

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JULY 7, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-157

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                ____________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    21-623                    WASHINGTON : 2017
    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                     Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota

                  Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy

                             JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
                                     Chairman
    GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman          PAUL TONKO, New York
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                LOIS CAPPS, California
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JERRY McNERNEY, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TONY CARDENAS, California
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina           officio)
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, opening statement....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      New York, opening statement....................................     5
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7

                                   Witnesses

    Dina Titus, A Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Mark E. Amodei, A Representative in Congress from the State of
      Nevada.........................................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    17
    Robert J. Dold, A Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois.......................................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Cresent Hardy, A Representative in Congress from the State of
      Nevada.........................................................    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
    Dan Schinhofen, County Commissioner, Nye County, Nevada..........    31
        Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Joseph Hardy, State Senator, State of Nevada.....................    41
        Prepared statement...........................................    43
    Gene Humphrey, President, International Test Solutions, Inc......    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    48

                               Submitted Material

    Statement of Brian Sandoval, Governor of Nevada, submitted by Mr.
      Shimkus........................................................    64
    Statement of Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of Nevada,
      submitted by Mr. Shimkus.......................................    66
    Statement of Al Hill, Mayor of Zion, Illinois, submitted by Mr.
      Dold...........................................................    68
    Statement of Zion-Benton Area Representatives & Business
      Interests......................................................    70
    Statement of Hon. Dean Heller, U.S. Senator from the State of
      Nevada.........................................................    74

    FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGREEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS FOR SPENT
                             NUCLEAR FUEL DISPOSAL

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
           Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
                               Committee on Energy and Commerce
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Murphy,
    Latta, McKinley, Johnson, Bucshon, Flores, Hudson, Cramer,
    Tonko, Schrader, Green, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director;
    Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Giulia Giannangeli,
    Legislative Clerk, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
    Environment and the Economy; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy
    Advisor; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the
    Economy; Chris Santini, Policy Coordinator, Oversight and
    Investigations; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment
    and the Economy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer,
    Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Dylan Vorbach, Deputy
    Press Secretary; Andy Zach, Counsel, Environment and the
    Economy; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jean Fruci,
    Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Tiffany
    Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health
    Advisor; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff
    Director, Energy and Environment; Alexander Ratner, Minority
    Policy Analyst; Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment
    Policy Advisor; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Shimkus. Doors closed. If members could have their
    seats. If the first panel will take their seats there. We've
    got all my colleagues and the leadership here so we can start
    promptly. I know a lot of people have other meetings.
        So I would like to call the hearing to order and recognize
    myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
        Good morning and welcome to our hearing to receive input
    from Nevada stakeholders about opportunities to move forward
    with the Yucca Mountain project.
        First, I would like to thank my colleagues who are here to
    testify on this important issue. The members of the Nevada
    delegation demonstrate a willingness to engage in this
    conversation of national importance and demonstrate leadership
    in the federal policymaking process.
        Congressman Cresent Hardy represents Nye County, the site
    of Yucca Mountain, and the immediate surrounding counties. I
    appreciate his dedication in representing his constituents in
    Congress and recognition of the need to be part of a
    constructive dialogue.
        He has stated that he will not tolerate the compromising of
    his constituents' safety nor the safety of any other Nevadan
    and I wholeheartedly agree.
        I welcome my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Bob Dold.
    His testimony and legislation highlights the implications on
    communities around the country associated with this
    administration's decision to walk away from Yucca Mountain.
        The legacy impact on cities like Zion, Illinois is often
    lost in the national conversations regarding the development of
    the Yucca Mountain repository to dispose of our nation's
    commercial spent nuclear fuel.
        While we will hear from many Nevada stakeholders this
    morning, we will not be hearing directly from the state of
    Nevada. Governor Sandoval declined the committee's invitation
    to participate and stated his opposition to the project based
    on scientific, technical and legal merit.
        I understand Governor Sandoval's position and look forward
    to seeing the scientific and technical issues resolved when the
    licensing process resumes.
        We are not here to prejudge the outcome of this process
    but, rather, discuss what Congress should consider when the
    license is issued.
        Governor Sandoval is rightly proud of Nevada's
    contributions to our nation as a host of key national security
    facilities and armed forces bases. He notes, ``Nevadans also
    believe our relationship with the federal government should be
    one where the state is seen as a valued partner, an ideal that
    is often not recognized.''
        I hope going forward we will have a meaningful conversation
    about how exactly that partnership can be constructed despite
    the state's formal objection in 2002, one Congress
    overwhelmingly rejected. I look forward to building this
    relationship and continuing dialogue with the governor.
        Our second panel of witnesses today consist of a wide range
    of Nevada stakeholders including state and local elected
    officials and private citizens.
        Those families who reside closest to the repository site
    should have their voices heard so that Congress can understand
    their priorities including how the federal government can
    provide assurance for safety, security and other infrastructure
    needs. This must be a two-way conversation.
        Last March, a Las Vegas newspaper published an editorial
    titled, ``Washington, Make Us an Offer.`` That's stated in
    quotations ``If we're going to have a conversation about
    nuclear waste storage it should start with honesty from both
    sides.''
        The editorial proceeds to identify the potential associated
    with reprocessing and research on nuclear material. This is the
    very conversation that we are here today to have.
        Today's testimony will inform a key component of this
    committee's efforts to develop comprehensive legislation to
    advance used fuel management. This session of Congress we
    received testimony addressing challenges associated with a
    variety of nuclear waste issues including how to safely
    transport nuclear material and fix a broken budgetary system.
        Those two topics in particular are relevant to the state of
    Nevada's interests. I have heard concerns that spent fuel
    shipments will travel too close to population centers. To
    address these concerns, I would welcome alternative proposals.
        Further, Congress needs to assure financial resources for
    the state and affected local governments are available for
    technical and administrative costs when the money is needed.
        However, beyond financial resources I look forward to
    hearing what tangible items could benefit the state such as
    associated infrastructure, access to federal land rights and
    economic value and the jobs to support a nuclear reprocessing
    facility.
        While we are examining the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in
    Nevada, we can also learn from similar examples relating to
    hosting nuclear storage facilities for the federal government.
        For example, what lessons can be learned from the New
    Mexico's experience as a host of the Waste Isolation Pilot
    Plant, WIPP, a repository for transuranic nuclear waste.
        In the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, Congress helped to
    mitigate transportation risk by authorizing an alternative
    route around Santa Fe, New Mexico. Similarly, New Mexico state
    officials have the authority to inspect transportation
    canisters to make sure they meet the high regulatory standards
    in place.
        The federal government also entered into an agreement with
    the state of Idaho in 1995 to govern the storage of U.S. Navy
    spent nuclear fuel. This agreement included a required
    milestone and legally binding consequences if the federal
    government does not meet those standards.
        I recognize that New Mexico and the Idaho situations are
    each unique. But we should be applying lessons learned to
    Nevada rather than current path proposed by this
    administration.
        The Department of Energy is currently in the midst of an
    extended road show to highlight a political message that states
    should have veto power over a national decision to resolve a
    national challenge. But this publicity campaign ignores the law
    of the land.
        Nye County offered to host the DOE in public meetings but
    the department has chose to pursue meetings in the far reaches
    of the country and pretend that the citizens of Nye County are
    irrelevant to the discussion.
        The federal government made the decision to site the
    repository at Yucca Mountain site in 1987. The DOE should be
    working with Nevada stakeholders to make sure of the progress
    on this repository instead of ignoring the law of the land.
        Our hearing this morning will do the job that DOE isn't. We
    will continue to listen to all stakeholders to develop a
    comprehensive solution to dispose of our country's spent
    nuclear fuel.
        Thank you again for your participation on this important
    issue and I apologize for going over time, and I yield back the
    remainder of the time I have.
        The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, from New York.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus

        Good morning and welcome to our hearing to receive input
    from Nevada stakeholders about opportunities to move forward
    with the Yucca Mountain project.
        First, I would like to thank my colleagues who are here to
    testify on this important issue. The members of the Nevada
    delegation demonstrate a willingness to engage in this
    conversation of national importance and demonstrate leadership
    in the Federal policy-making process. Congressman Cresent Hardy
    represents Nye County, the site of Yucca Mountain, and the
    immediate surrounding counties. I appreciate his dedication in
    representing his constituents in Congress and recognition of
    the need to be a part of a constructive dialogue. He has stated
    that he will not tolerate the compromising of his constituents'
    safety, nor the safety of any other Nevadan. And I
    wholeheartedly agree.
        I welcome my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Bob Dold.
    His testimony and legislation highlight the implications on
    communities around the country associated with this
    Administration's decision to walk away from Yucca Mountain. The
    legacy impact on cities like Zion, IL is often lost in the
    national conversation regarding the development of the Yucca
    Mountain repository to dispose of our nation's commercial spent
    nuclear fuel.
        While we will hear from many Nevada stakeholders this
    morning, we will not be hearing directly from the State of
    Nevada. Governor Sandoval declined the Committee's invitation
    to participate and stated his opposition to the project based
    on scientific, technical and legal merits. I understand
    Governor Sandoval's position and look forward to seeing the
    scientific and technical issues resolved when the licensing
    process resumes. We are not here to pre-judge the outcome of
    this process, but rather discuss what Congress should consider
    when the license is issued.
        Governor Sandoval is rightfully proud of Nevada's
    contributions to our nation as the host of key national
    security facilities and armed forces bases. He notes,
    ``Nevadans also believe our relationship with the federal
    government should be one where the state is seen as a valued
    partner; an ideal that often is not recognized.'' I hope going
    forward we will have a meaningful conversation about how
    exactly that partnership can be constructed espite the State's
    formal objection in 2002, one Congress overwhelmingly rejected.
    I look forward to building this relationship and a continuing
    dialogue with the Governor.
        Our second panel of witnesses today consists of a wide
    range of Nevada stakeholders, including State and local elected
    officials, and private citizens. Those families who reside
    closest to the repository site should have their voices heard
    so Congress can understand their priorities, including how the
    Federal government can provide assurance for safety, security,
    and other infrastructure needs. This must be a two way
    conversation.
        Last March, a Las Vegas newspaper published an editorial
    titled ``Washington, Make us an Offer,'' that stated ``if we're
    going to have a conversation about nuclear waste storage, it
    should start with honesty--from both sides.'' The editorial
    proceeds to identify the potential associated with reprocessing
    and research on nuclear material. This is the very conversation
    that we are here today to have.
        Today's testimony will inform a key component of this
    Committee's efforts to develop comprehensive legislation to
    advance used fuel management. This session of Congress we
    received testimony addressing challenges associated with a
    variety of nuclear waste issues, including how to safely
    transport nuclear material and fix a broken budgetary system.
    Those two topics in particular are relevant to the State of
    Nevada's interests. I have heard concerns that spent fuel
    shipments will travel too close to population centers. To
    address these concerns, I would welcome alternative proposals.
    Further, Congress needs to assure financial resources for the
    State and affected local governments are available for
    technical and administrative costs when the money is needed.
        However, beyond financial resources, I look forward to
    hearing what tangible items could benefit the State, such as
    associated infrastructure, access to Federal land, rights to
    economic value and the jobs to support a nuclear reprocessing
    facility.
        While we are examining the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and
    Nevada, we can also learn from similar examples relating to
    hosting nuclear storage facilities for the Federal government.
    For example, what lessons can be learned from New Mexico's
    experience as the host for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
    (WIPP), a repository for transuranic nuclear waste. In the WIPP
    Land Withdrawal Act, Congress helped to mitigate transportation
    risks by authorizing an alternative highway route around Santa
    Fe, New Mexico. Similarly, New Mexico State officials have the
    authority to inspect transportation canisters to make sure they
    meet the high regulatory standards in place.
        The Federal government also entered into an agreement with
    the State of Idaho in 1995 to govern the storage of U.S. Navy
    spent nuclear fuel. This agreement included required milestones
    and legally binding consequences if the Federal government does
    not meet those standards. I recognize the New Mexico and Idaho
    situations are each unique, but we should be applying lessons
    learned to Nevada, rather than the current path proposed by
    this Administration.
        The Department of Energy is currently in the midst of an
    extended roadshow to highlight a political message that states
    should each have veto power over a national decision to resolve
    a national challenge. But this publicity campaign ignores the
    law of the land. Nye County offered to host a DOE public
    meeting, but the Department instead chose to pursue meetings in
    the far reaches of the country and pretend the citizens of Nye
    County are irrelevant to this discussion. The Federal
    government made the decision to site the repository at the
    Yucca Mountain site in 1987. DOE should be working with Nevada
    stakeholders to make progress on the repository instead of
    ignoring the law. Our hearing this morning will do the job that
    DOE isn't.
        We will continue to listen to all stakeholders to develop a
    comprehensive solution to dispose of our country's spent
    nuclear fuel. Thank you again to your participation on this
    important issue.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses
    for joining us here this morning.
        The inventory of spent nuclear fuel in the United States is
    now over 72,000 metric tons and growing every year. We have
    held a number of hearings on this issue during this Congress so
    it will come to no surprise to members of the committee or our
    witnesses to hear me say that we are at an impasse.
        We have been for decades and we will not resolve that here
    today. As we have discussed in previous hearings, many factors
    have prevented the Department of Energy from completing a
    nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.
        At this time I would like to, Mr. Chair, ask for unanimous
    consent for letters from the Nevada governor, Brian Sandoval,
    and State Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt, to be entered into
    the record.
        Mr. Shimkus. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        In both of these letters these officials make it clear that
    the state of Nevada's position has not changed. They call for a
    long-term sustainable solution for the nation's nuclear waste
    through a consent-based process.
        This also will not be news to anyone here. A consent-based
    approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities
    was a recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission and
    supported by the Department of Energy.
        The host state, tribal, and local governments need to have
    a seat at the table and that certainly includes negotiating
    benefits. I am sure that it is a message we will hear this
    morning.
        So I thank our witnesses for being here and in particular I
    want to thank our colleagues for taking the time to testify
    before this subcommittee.
        But with that said, I think it must be acknowledged that
    there are other issues we should be examining within our
    limited time remaining in the session of the 114th Congress.
        Our time could be spent working on problems we can resolve
    now. We can work on an aid package for the city of Flint and
    bring it to the floor.
        Our Senate colleagues and Mr. Kildee have made a number of
    suggestions and yet we have seen no action in this House to
    help the thousands of children that were poisoned by lead in
    their drinking water.
        According to a recently released report from the Natural
    Resources Defense Council, more than 18 million people are
    served by community water systems that exceed the action level
    of the EPA's lead and copper rule guides us with.
        It isn't just Flint. This is a widespread problem. In fact,
    even in our own Cannon Office Building high levels of lead have
    been found in the drinking water. Blood level lead testing is
    now being offered to House members and staffers.
        In my own backyard in upstate New York in the village of
    Hoosick Falls, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has
    contaminated the drinking water. Hoosick Falls is not unique
    either.
        A number of communities have found PFOA or other
    unregulated contaminants present in their drinking water.
    Whether it's lead, PFOA or other contaminants, it is clear that
    the quality of our drinking water deserves greater scrutiny.
        We have ignored our crumbling drinking water
    infrastructure. We ignored lead and other contaminants in our
    drinking water supplies and we have ignored getting the city of
    Flint and other impacted communities the just assistance they
    need and certainly deserve.
        We cannot ignore these problems any longer. Safe drinking
    water is essential to our every life. It's essential to every
    job in this country.
        This is only one of many issues we could address this year
    to make meaningful health, environment economic impacts in our
    country. I hope we can give these other issues the attention
    they deserve also.
        And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. Chairman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes the majority side to see if anyone
    wants time for an opening statement. Seeing none, the chair now
    recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
    Pallone, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today's hearing will take a look at the storage of nuclear
    waste in the United States and the benefits provided to
    communities hosting waste facilities and I want to welcome all
    our witnesses, particularly our colleagues on the first panel.
        While the safe storage and disposal of spent fuel from our
    nation's nuclear reactors is an important matter in the realm
    of our country's energy future, this subcommittee has already
    spent more than enough time on this issue while avoiding other
    more pressing issues, in my opinion.
        In fact, this is the fifth hearing this subcommittee has
    held during this Congress on the issue of nuclear waste. With
    the little time that we have left in this session, we should be
    spending our time focusing on other pressing matters that are
    of serious concern to our constituents and that have not
    already received such significant hearing time.
        For example, we could be using today's hearing time to
    discuss safe drinking water. Last week, Mr. Tonko and I
    requested hearings to address meaningful steps to provide the
    additional tools the state and local governments need to ensure
    the public is provided with clean and safe drinking water and
    this committee has simply not done enough to address this
    issue.
        But we're here again holding another hearing on the
    decades-long debate over the disposal of nuclear waste at the
    Yucca Mountain site. But even in that context this hearing
    misses the mark.
        Regardless of your position on this issue, focusing solely
    on Nevada and Yucca Mountain does not help in moving this
    conversation forward. I believe this hearing might have been
    useful had we invited the Department of Energy to discuss its
    work on consent-based siting and interim storage.
        There are also important perspectives we could hear related
    to applications for storage in Texas and New Mexico that are
    currently pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as
    well as related bipartisan legislation from Mr. Conaway, Mr.
    Green, and others that have been pending before the
    subcommittee.
        Unfortunately, instead of looking for a new path forward
    all we're doing is pursuing the same old path down the same old
    rabbit hole with no clear purpose or benefit to the American
    people.
        I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Green.
        Mr. Green. I want to thank my colleague, Ranking Member
    Pallone for yielding time.
        This is our fifth subcommittee hearing held on nuclear
    waste storage this Congress. It's a very important issue and I
    want to thank Chairman Shimkus for our continued oversight.
        I believe it's now time for our subcommittee to go beyond
    the fight over Yucca Mountain and consider proposals that will
    move the ball forward and safely store our nation's spent
    nuclear fuel.
        I'm an original co-sponsor of the Interim Consolidated
    Storage Act introduced by Congressman Mike Conaway of Texas.
    This legislation would allow for interim storage of nuclear
    waste.
        An interim facility would have to be licensed by the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would be paid through the
    nuclear waste fund.
        Passage of this bipartisan legislation would provide our
    country with a path forward to securely store nuclear waste
    currently held at dozens of facilities like the South Texas
    Nuclear Project in our area around the country while we decide
    what to do with Yucca.
        Waste Control Specialists, a private company out of west
    Texas, has already applied to operate an interim facility with
    federal regulators and believe it can start receiving spent
    fuel by 2020. This proposal is supposedly supported locally and
    by the state and is in line with the Blue Ribbon Commission's
    recommendations.
        I'm on record supporting Yucca Mountain. I visited the
    facility in 2011 with Chairman Shimkus when I was ranking
    member of the subcommittee and believe it's safe for long-term
    storage.
        Taxpayers in Houston and Harris County, Texas and round the
    country have spent $15 billion studying and building the
    facility. Unfortunately, we have not been able to go beyond the
    fight over Yucca for over a decade.
        All the while, thousands of metric tons of spent fuel are
    stored at power plants throughout our country. We owe it to the
    American people to move forward and I urge the subcommittee to
    consider alternative proposals including the Interim
    Consolidated Storage Act.
        And I thank you and yield back my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time and I thank my
    colleagues.
        Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if any other member
    on my side wants their time. I guess not. I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. I am sorry.
        And now I'd like to turn to our colleagues at the first
    panel and we will introduce you one at a time as you give your
    opening statements.
        First is Congressman Dina Titus from--she has corrected me
    many times--Nevada. I'm doing well, right? At least I got
    something in pronouncing the state correctly, and you're
    welcome and recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ranking
    Member Pallone, Ranking Member Tonko and other members of the
    subcommittee.
        I appreciate this opportunity to testify. As you have
    stated, Yucca Mountain has been an issue of major importance
    for Nevadans for decades. It dates back to 1987 when President
    Reagan signed the so-called Screw Nevada bill into law.
        In the years that have followed, I along with bipartisan
    business, civic and apolitical leaders throughout Nevada have
    been unified with rare exception and vehement opposition to
    this failed proposal.
        Now, it's my understanding that today's hearing is intended
    to suggest that some benefit will accrue to Nevada for hosting
    nuclear waste generated elsewhere.
        Well, on behalf of three out of four Nevadans who oppose
    Yucca Mountain, I'm here to say we cannot and will not be
    bought off.
        Mr. Chairman, after word of this hearing got out I was
    contacted by major stakeholders throughout Nevada who wanted to
    weigh in and have their voices heard.
        I have letters in opposition from leading Nevadans and
    organizations, also our governor and Senator Heller, an
    editorial from the Las Vegas Sun. I would request that these be
    entered into the record.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. I can get staff to grab those, bring
    those up here. We'll look at them and then----
        Ms. Titus. Thank you so much.
        Now, I realize that many people may not know about or
    appreciate the significant contributions and major sacrifices
    that Nevada made during Atomic Age.
        More than a thousand nuclear detonations occurred near
    downtown Las Vegas and you could see the mushroom cloud rising
    over the desert not far away.
         These tests took place at a time when the federal
    government conducted duck and cover drills to show us how to
    protect ourselves from radioactive fallout. I imagine some
    among you will remember Bert the Turtle--duck and cover.
        Well, since then billions of dollars have been paid to the
    residents of Nevada, Utah and other downwind states that were
    under that radioactive cloud earlier in the 20th century.
        I give this history lesson not only to highlight Nevada's
    role in atomic development but also to remind you that they
    told us then we were safe and they are telling us now we are
    safe.
        Members of Congress may board a plane to my district and
    then be shuttled out to the desert north of town for a photo op
    where they can see the dry and desolate moonscape where Yucca
    Mountain is located.
        But you shouldn't be fooled by such a superficial look at
    land that Nevadans love and want to protect. Nevada is not a
    wasteland. It's home to unique desert habitats, rare and
    endangered species of plants and animals, iconic wildlife like
    bighorn sheep and desert tortoises, and cultural resources from
    Native American tribes dating back thousands of years.
        Such a quick visit also ignores the fact that beneath the
    surface are major fault lines and a water table that moves
    towards the Las Vegas Valley, where 2 million people live.
        Furthermore, this waste that is going to be stored there
    has to be shipped thousands of miles across this nation on
    highways and byways that go through all of your districts--in
    fact, almost everybody in Congress' district.
        Fourteen years ago, I stood next to our Republican
    governor, Kenny Guinn, and other leaders from around the state
    on the day he first vetoed the Yucca Mountain site. In the
    years that have followed, billions of dollars have been wasted
    on this boondoggle and we are still no closer to a solution.
        It wasn't until the Obama administration assembled a Blue
    Ribbon Commission on America's nuclear future with some of the
    most respected experts on this topic who released a list of
    recommendations to guide us forward.
        One such recommendation, which goes to the heart of the
    matter and has been referenced earlier, is adopting a consent-
    based process by which repositories are sited. That is why I
    joined with my colleague, Joe Heck from the House, and Senators
    Harry Reid and Dean Heller to introduce the Nuclear Waste
    Informed Consent Act.
        Now, I have heard proponents make all kind of false
    promises to us in Nevada. They say Nevada could receive
    hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure projects or
    maybe be allocated more water from the Colorado River, for
    example.
        Well, who can take that seriously, really? This Congress
    has failed in its response to nearly every pressing issue
    facing our nation. There's not even enough money for the
    completion of the Yucca Mountain project, much less extra left
    over--bribe money to give to Nevada.
        Nevadans may be gamblers but we are not fools. We know how
    to calculate the odds.
        So in conclusion, I would ask you to remember that Nevada
    has done its part in the development of U.S. nuclear energy.
    Furthermore, we didn't produce this commercial waste.
        We don't have any nuclear power plants. So we say keep it
    where it is for now. Pass a consent-based bill. Move forward so
    places who want it can have it.
        So in short, I urge my colleagues on this subcommittee
    concentrate your efforts on ways to make progress, to move
    forwards, not backwards, so we can really solve this problem.
        I thank you for your attention and I yield back.
        [The statement of Ms. Titus follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time and we
    thank her for her testimony.
        The chair now recognizes Congressman Amodei from also the
    great state of Nevada and he's recognized for 5 minutes.
        Pull that mic a little closer. I know you've got a big
    mouth.
        Mr. Amodei. I thought that you had wanted me to----
        Mr. Shimkus. And turn the mic on.
        Mr. Amodei. On purpose, Mr. Chairman.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. AMODEI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this
    hearing, Ranking Member Tonko. I appreciate the opportunity to
    share my views regarding the sense of your subcommittee, the E
    & C Committee as a whole and in fact what may indeed be the
    sense of the House of Representatives Regarding the Yucca
    Mountain Nuclear Repository in Nevada.
        No one participating in this hearing should interpret
    anything that I say as expressing a sense of what may or may
    not happen in the 115th Congress either in this house or on the
    north side of the building in the Senate.
        But nonetheless, the 115th Congress will convene in about 6
    months and the issue regarding people sitting in new seats and
    what the nation's policy is going to be with regard to high-
    level long-term nuclear waste issues I think will be something
    that is on the agenda.
        I want to make it clear from the outset no one in Nevada is
    in favor of a nuclear landfill. Neither am I. But I also have
    young people telling me that you can go to things like
    congressionalrecord.com and Google it and put in words like
    Yucca and waste and you can see the names of some people who
    are in this House who take to the floor--I believe, Mr.
    Chairman, your name comes up occasionally--talking about this
    issue. It is not going to go away.
        Nevada cannot afford to just say no. No disrespect to the
    former First Lady, but this is an issue that needs to be dealt
    with. We are not for sale and we are not deficient in the
    national scoring sense of states of the union in terms of doing
    their patriotic duty.
        Accordingly, if we decide to deal with this I appreciate
    the opportunity to have a discussion that says what are the
    real impacts--what should our policy be and in that context
    what is the story for Nevada.
        I have got some things for you to think about as policy
    makers to evaluate a responsible course of conduct with respect
    to local and state economic impacts, operating oversight,
    safety policy in the near and long term and our policy as a
    nation regarding the material itself. Let's start there.
        Remember the statement nobody is in favor of a nuclear
    landfill. There is ongoing research in this country, in the
    state of Nevada, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
    regarding reprocessing.
        So when we talk about dealing with this issue that I think
    we need to talk about well, should we start treating this as a
    commodity instead of trash. Because guess what--even if you
    want to talk about consent as long as we really see it as trash
    good luck with that consent thing. I think they're trying that
    over in Sweden right now.
        So the key becomes in terms of a responsible comprehensive
    policy is how do we do reprocessing in a way that we are not
    looking for someplace to dump it and run. There is already some
    infrastructure there. There are people in Nevada delegation.
        The senior senator has visited that. I would suggest that
    if you want to deal comprehensively you say, what can we do to
    that program there to make it the leader in the nation so that
    we're not talking about trash anywhere--we're talking about a
    commodity. That is something that this committee should look at
    and make it part of comprehensive policy as opposed to just
    Tuesday is garbage day and when the truck is gone we don't have
    to worry about it.
        Next, Nevada has an excellent scientific research entity in
    terms of an outfit that's called the Desert Research Institute
    in terms of nuclear monitoring, operational monitoring, making
    sure that if the assumptions in terms of how this is treated or
    correct that those assumptions actually come through. They
    should be given that responsibility. It is imminently fair if
    you decide to locate this in Nevada that people of
    qualification are put in charge of making sure that our
    assumptions are correct.
        Some people may scream, oh, earmark. Well, guess what, the
    siting is the biggest earmark you can have and we ought to at
    least have our homegrown folks taking a look at it that have
    scientific objective credentials and credibility.
        Let us talk about safety first a minute. Since the location
    of this before--before it transforms hopefully back into a
    commodity is something that is of primary concern to those
    folks in the region. That ought to be the National Center for
    Nuclear Safety.
        That ought to be the National Center for Nuclear Emergency
    Reaction Training. What better place to do it than the folks
    with the largest stake in the nation in terms of proximity to
    the material?
        Now, I want to stop for just a minute and let you know this
    is not hey, how much is it--can you buy us off for this or
    that. This is responsible policy infrastructure which will have
    an economic impact but also has the dual role of saying we're
    dealing with this comprehensively instead of hit and run.
        The final thing I want to leave for your consideration is
    this. Nevada is a state that is owned by a super majority in
    terms of federal lands. Right now, that site is in the
    possession of the Bureau of Land Management, which means if you
    move forward you are going to have to do a federal lands
    transfer to DOE.
        I would suggest that there is a very, very successful
    example in Nevada. It's called the Southern Nevada Public Lands
    Management Act where we transfer lands in a highly transparent
    process for purposes that are agreed upon by everybody in the
    state.
        If you're going to do this and transfer that land I would
    implore you to look for other opportunities in other states,
    because as my colleague from southern Nevada--there are
    transportation issues.
        Transportation issues in Nevada, outside of Nevada, safety
    issues. It is an opportunity to do other lands transfers to get
    you away from the earmark thing, and by the way, when you do
    all those a state that is 87 percent owned by the federal
    government might, if you take some suggestions, oh my, only be
    owned 80 percent by the federal government.
        So it is not ipso facto magical way to get all the lands
    back in the state. It is a responsible way, and by the way, the
    beauty of this we don't have to write a check in Congress for
    that.
        There will be some costs but it is a relatively efficient
    way to say OK, you want some more control--you want to some of
    that economic development stuff, here are some lands that make
    the most step--have at it.
        So, in conclusion, I would just say this. Nuclear policy is
    more than where you're going to put it and walk away. If you're
    going to be responsible it needs to be comprehensive. Not
    looking for a payday, not looking for special treatment.
        But when you think about things like safety operations and
    what's going on in the state there are many opportunities for
    this Congress or the next Congress to go ahead and deal
    comprehensively.
        You'll never get everybody in the state to hug it but at
    least you can stake out some ground that is usually unique
    these days in terms of saying we've dealt with it
    comprehensively, transparently and from a responsible
    perspective.
        I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
    back.
        [The statement of Mr. Amodei follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time and I thank
    him for his testimony.
        The chair now recognizes my colleague from Illinois,
    Congressman Dold, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT J. DOLD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Dold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's, obviously, great
    to be here. I appreciate the honor to be able to testify before
    you, Ranking Member Tonko and members of the subcommittee.
        As you know, I'm Bob Dold. I represent Illinois 10th
    congressional district. I am here today to testify about the
    community of Zion, Illinois, and wanted to talk more
    specifically about H.R. 5632, the Stranded Nuclear Waste
    Accountability Act of 2016, which is a bipartisan bill that I
    had the opportunity to introduce this week.
        To fairly compensate the 13 communities across our country
    affected by the federal government's failure to make good on
    its commitment to remove spent nuclear fuel from formerly
    operating nuclear power plants.
        Zion is a city in the northern part of Lake County. Zion is
    the home to approximately about 25,000 people and in 1973 the
    Zion Nuclear Power Plant Station opened on 257 acres of Lake
    Michigan shoreline.
        The plant operated from 1973 to 1998. But before the plant
    was closed, it created good high-paying jobs for the community
    and the local governments received a significant amount of tax
    dollars from the increased tax base.
        Unfortunately, once the plant closed those benefits to the
    community went away. Since 1998, the community has faced a
    difficult situation due to the presence of spent nuclear fuel
    on the site.
        As this committee is well aware, the federal government's
    failure to move ahead with Yucca Mountain has meant that all of
    the nuclear spent fuel, the radioactive materials that once
    powered the nuclear plant, has remained on site in dry storage
    in the middle of Zion, just a few hundred yards away from one
    of the greatest natural resources we have in our nation in the
    Great Lakes.
         The community of Zion never negotiated to become an
    interim spent nuclear fuel storage location. But without the
    federal government doing its part in developing a long-term
    geologic storage site for nuclear waste that is exactly what it
    has become.
        Zion's status as it is today has come with a very high
    cost. Mr. Chairman, I have brought with me today two letters--
    one from the mayor of the city of Zion, Al Hill, and the other
    from 34 local elected officials and community leaders in the
    Zion area.
        Each of these letters details the impact on Zion, Illinois.
    Each of these letters details, again, what has happened and
    they obviously would like to respectfully request that they be
    submitted for the record.
        Mr. Shimkus. Without objection. Also, Congresswoman Titus,
    we're accepting your letters also.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Dold. In order to help with these 13 communities, Mr.
    Chairman, impacted this way, earlier this week I introduced the
    Stranded Nuclear Waste Accountability Act of 2016.
        This bill recognizes the problem that the federal
    government has caused in the communities that are home to a
    formerly operating nuclear power plant but where spent nuclear
    fuel continues to be stored.
        The federal government would pay the local government a fee
    to compensate that community for their status as a de facto
    spent nuclear fuel storage site. That fee is the same amount
    per kilogram as was included in the original Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act of 1982.
        Importantly, this bill puts a seven-year limit on these
    funds so that these communities are fairly compensated but do
    not become indefinitely reliant on federal dollars. The
    political failure to move ahead with Yucca Mountain has created
    an unfortunate situation for Zion and communities like her
    across our country.
        Without negotiation and without compensation these
    communities have been transformed into spent nuclear fuel
    storage sites. While the best solution is still to find a way
    to make sure that spent nuclear fuel is removed from these
    communities.
        In the meantime, I believe that this bill--my bill, a
    bipartisan common sense proposal to help compensate these
    communities and defray some of the costs associated with
    storing spent nuclear fuel out in these various 13 different
    communities.
        Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko, members of the
    committee, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to
    testify today and I also look forward to answering your
    questions.
        I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Dold follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nevada,
    Congressman Hardy. You're welcome to the hearing room and you
    are recognized for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. CRESENT HARDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Mr. Hardy of Nevada. Thank you. Chairman Shimkus and
    Ranking Member Tonko and members of the committee, thank you
    for the opportunity to----
        Mr. Shimkus. I think it's on. Just pull it closer.
        Mr. Hardy of Nevada. Thank you for the opportunity testify
    here at today's hearing. I represent Nevada's 4th congressional
    district which stretches from north Las Vegas and the northern
    Clark County into the part of six rural counties in central
    Nevada.
        Now, there are many folks back here in Washington who might
    be aware that anything exists north of a little strip of land
    called Las Vegas Boulevard along the strip, as far as they're
    concerned, and that it just might be empty desert.
        However, such thinking fails to recognize the diverse
    mosaic of people who represent the backbone of Nevada including
    the hardworking families of north Las Vegas, the rich cultural
    heritage of our indigenous tribes and the miners and ranchers
    who symbolize the industrious spirit of America West.
        It also ignores the incredible contributions and burdens
    borne by this part of Nevada to protect our national security
    generation after generation. From the testing and development
    of our nuclear deterrent that allowed the United States to win
    the Cold War to the most advanced realistic air combat training
    anywhere in the world to the dedicated airmen and women who fly
    remotely-piloted aircraft in the war against ISIS and al-Qaeda.
    People in this part of Nevada are no strangers to serving our
    country. They are also no pushovers, nor am I.
        As a representative, I am committed to fight so that all
    their voices are heard, to ensure that they always have a seat
    at the table. That brings us to the reason that I am seated
    here at this table here today.
        Yucca Mountain, located roughly a hundred miles northwest
    of Las Vegas, has been designated by an act of Congress as the
    only authorized site for a permanent repository to house spent
    nuclear fuel and highly radioactive waste.
        In the nearly 30 years since that decision billions of
    taxpayer dollars have been spent, endless litigation has played
    out, administrations have stonewalled, recriminations have
    abounded.
        Yet, two fundamental problems continue to fester. Number
    one, our nation has tens of thousands of metric tons of high-
    level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel dangerously
    piling up at the power plants across this country with nowhere
    to safely put it.
        Number two, many Nevadans feel that they are being forced
    by the federal government to store dangerous material that they
    had no role in creating. Both of these facts are shameful
    failures of the federal government and both need to be
    addressed now.
        I often reflect on the courage of our Founders and the many
    great American leaders who followed them to take tough issues
    and make difficult decisions. On the heels of Monday's
    celebration of the 240th year of independence, I am reminded of
    the responsibility elected officials have to the American
    people, now more than ever.
        This issue of nuclear storage is not just about any one
    politician's legacy. It can't be, because on this issue we are
    talking about millennia. Not just about millennia but millions
    of years in the future.
        Geologic time doesn't care about partisan politics or
    eagles. Long after we are all forgotten, footnotes in the dusty
    pages of history, the decisions we make here won't be. The
    decisions we make here will live on and impact the lives of
    countless generations.
        That's why the decision we make here in Washington or
    Carson City or Tonopah or anywhere else for that matter need to
    be based on the soundest science and the best interests of
    Nevadans and every single American.
        The beauty of science is that it's the great equalizer,
    whether you're in Nevada, Illinois or on the surface of the
    moon. The laws of science are universal regardless of politics.
        Yucca Mountain needs to stop being an issue that
    administrations here in Washington only find useful every four
    years in the state of Nevada. Nevadans deserve to have honest
    brokers in their federal government and they deserve to hear
    the unbiased scientific results that are--their hard-earned
    dollars funded.
        After being privileged enough to be elected as a
    representative of the Nevada's 4th district in Congress, I
    discovered that too many politicians are afraid to engage in
    the constructive dialogue on this issue.
        They fail to recognize that discussing Yucca Mountain
    doesn't equal endorsement. It's leadership. I will never
    support a repository in Nevada that isn't safe and that the
    people don't want, period. Nevadans deserve a seat at the
    table. I've taken one of those seats.
        I appreciate the committee's willingness to hear my
    testimony today and I look forward to working with members on
    both sides of the aisle to work towards solutions that is
    really worthy of Americans who have sent us here.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Hardy follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back the time and the
    chair appreciates the testimony of my colleagues.
        It's not the tradition of this committee to take questions
    to our colleagues so we'll dismiss the first panel and ask the
    second panel to take their seats and thank you very much for
    your time.
        So we thank the second panel for joining us today. I want
    to thank my colleagues who have actually shown up in good
    numbers today to hear both our colleagues and this panel and
    their testimony, and hopefully will stay around for a few
    questions.
        So as with the first panel, I will just go one at a time.
    You'll be recognized for 5 minutes. Your full statements
    submitted for the record.
        So with that, Mr.--first we will have Mr. Dan Schinhofen,
    County Commissioner of Nye County, Nevada--a friend of the
    committee's. Good to see you back, and you are recognized for 5
    minutes.

    STATEMENTS OF DAN SCHINHOFEN, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, NYE COUNTY,
      NEVADA; THE HONORABLE JOSEPH HARDY, STATE SENATOR, STATE OF
    NEVADA; GENE HUMPHREY, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TEST SOLUTIONS,
                                  INC.

                      STATEMENT OF MR. SCHINHOFEN

        Mr. Schinhofen. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairmen, members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the need for
    a realistic set of mitigation benefits to go to the state of
    Nevada and affected local communities for accepting a high-
    level spent nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain.
        I am Dan Schinhofen, vice chairman of the Nye County
    Commission and designated liaison commissioner on Yucca
    Mountain. I appreciate the committee's continued interest in
    Yucca Mountain issues.
        If built, the Yucca Mountain repository would be located
    entirely within the boundaries of Nye County. No governmental
    body has more responsibility for the health and safety of our
    residents than the Nye County Commission.
        For that reason, we have been actively involved in the
    Yucca Mountain process for decades. In fact, Nye County has
    conducted its own scientific studies.
        Some of our results became part of DOE's license
    application. Others have been for our own oversight purposes.
    We believe in the integrity of the scientific review process
    for the Yucca Mountain repository. There is a federal process
    led by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that includes all
    entities in a final independent decision on the safety of Yucca
    Mountain.
        The final determination if the repository can be built and
    operated safely should follow this process to completion. After
    spending over three decades and $15 billion dollars, common
    sense demands this. So do the clear mandates of the Nuclear
    Waste Policy Act. In other words, we want to see the federal
    government follow the law.
        My written testimony lays our views that there is no good
    alternative to the licencing process established in the Nuclear
    Waste Policy Act. It also makes a recommendation on ways to
    improve that act.
        To summarize, we believe the law should be amended to
    include a package of benefits that should go to the State of
    Nevada and local communities. This would not be bribe money.
    Instead, it would compensate the state and local communities
    for the increased responsibility that being the home of a spent
    nuclear fuel repository brings with it. It would also provide
    resources needed to build the personnel and physical
    infrastructure to support a massive public work project.
        We believe there should be two sets of benefits--one while
    the license is under review and the second when the repository
    is being built and operated.
        For the first stage we propose the following. One,
    resources to the state and local governments to fund oversight
    activities and participation in the license proceeding. Also,
    resources so those governments can fully participate in the
    planning of transportation routes to guarantee that the waste
    does not pass through Las Vegas.
        Two, resources to the site county to improve its
    infrastructure in preparation for construction. This would
    include resources for equipment, manpower and training for Nye
    County's EMS, fire, law enforcement and other relevant county
    agencies. It would also provide resources to upgrade the
    county's roads and water systems.
        Three, transfer of federal land to the state and impacted
    counties needed to support a repository. Four, resources to the
    University of Nevada system and community colleges to develop
    the trained workforce and expertise to support and monitor the
    project.
        Five, relocation of Department of Energy support offices
    and contractors into Nevada. Six, construction of new DOE
    laboratory facilities in Nye County to support Yucca Mountain
    to develop the next generation of nuclear technologies.
        Seven, payments to the state and local governments to
    replace any lost taxes and other revenues.
        Regarding the second set of benefits, which would kick in
    during the construction and operation phase of the project we
    do not have a comprehensive list prepared. Instead, we propose
    that the law-created task force with representatives from the
    DOE, NRC, state of Nevada, Nye County, impacted Native American
    tribes, and other local governments to develop a list of
    reasonable benefits.
        The task force should report back to Congress within 2
    years. The list should include a minimum additional land
    transfers, construction of a multi-use rail line that would
    serve both Yucca Mountain and other users, construction of
    interstate Highway 111, grants to the University of Nevada and
    local community colleges and payments to the state site county,
    impacted local communities, and Native American tribes.
        The package should also address the need for water which
    will be required for the project and associated support
    activities. If additional water became available for a
    desalinization plant, it would greatly relieve the water
    controversies that plague southern Nevada as well as guaranteed
    needed supply for the project.
        To save even more money, we recommend that the Nuclear
    Waste Policy Act be amended to allow Nevada to be an interim
    storage site. The current site design of Yucca Mountain
    includes aging pads that could hold up to 30,000 metric tons of
    waste. These could be built quickly and Nye County could become
    an interim site almost immediately. This would eliminate the
    unnecessary expense of licensing another site . It would also
    facilitate moving the waste away from utility sites.
        I would add that the Nye County Commission has already
    formally granted its consent to this facility. We believe all
    the savings would result from proceeding with Yucca Mountain
    will far exceed the most generous package.
        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your willingness to engage the
    state of Nevada, local governments to develop a sensible
    package of benefits related to Yucca Mountain.
        I am here today to confirm to you that Nye County will be a
    willing partner in those efforts.
         Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Schinhofen follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired and I thank
    you for your testimony.
        The chair now recognizes, again, from the state of Nevada
    State Senator Joseph Hardy, and you are recognized for 5
    minutes and that the 5 minutes isn't, like, drop dead.
        We are fine if you over a few minutes. So don't let that
    clock scare you. But if you go over too long then we'll
    intervene. But you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF MR. HARDY

        Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking----
        Mr. Shimkus. I think you have to push a button at the mic
    at the bottom there.
        Mr. Hardy. So if it's a green light it's on?
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hardy. That's a new concept. Thank you.
        So as a physician I don't want to do self-CPR so I'm glad I
    have some leeway. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
    Tonko.
        I am grateful for the opportunity to be here. There can be
    no discussion, no deal and no agreement from the state of
    Nevada on Yucca Mountain, the spent fuel repository, until all
    safety concerns have been addressed and resolved.
        We cannot have anyone in Nevada or a visitor to Nevada put
    at risk from either the shipment or the storage of spent
    nuclear fuel. Real people have reasonable and real concerns
    about the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in
    Nevada.
        The hospitality industry is concerned even about the
    perception of any risk that would decrease visitation to
    southern Nevada. People who drive the roads and live in the
    proximity to the roads that would be used have fears of
    accidents. Farmers could worry about well and danger of
    contamination. Politicians do not want to be the one who has to
    live with the wrong decision that could turn out like a water
    contamination on a much bigger scale than Flint, Michigan.
        In so many ways Yucca Mountain project illustrates that
    perception is reality. Thus, it behooves us to be sure that
    the, quote, ``science,'' unquote, of nuclear storage is
    unassailable, irrefutable and verifiable.
        We will have to have every doubt and every question
    resolved with rational answers, not just from the advocates but
    from the skeptics with facts and figures.
        Even from those in foreign countries need to be assured
    that this is a safe place to come, stay and play. Water is
    critical to our lives and prosperity.
        We already know that the aquifers under the Nevada test
    site have been contaminated by underground detonations as well
    as the well documented effects of those downwind from the
    above-ground detonations.
        People will mistrust the government report as recently
    released as May 2016 that uses the word ``small'' in describing
    the potential adverse effect on water.
        There are definite economic benefits and risks for Nevada
    with the acceptance of spent fuel storage. People understand
    that spent fuel is not really inert or impotent in as much as
    we have to cool it down on site for a about a decade before
    putting it in unbreakable casks and burying it in the ground
    far away from civilization.
        Business, developers, public officials all care about the
    fragile consumer confidence that drives our economy. Since
    statehood, Nevada has been shortchanged. Nevada only received
    one half the land as it could have had. Nevada leads the nation
    in the percentage of land controlled by the federal government.
        Payment in lieu of taxes, commonly called PILT, has not
    matched the revenue that would have been generated by land in
    private hands. Nevada remains at or near the bottom of states
    getting a percentage of our money back from the taxes sent to
    Washington, D.C.
        I have been impressed that the best laws come about with
    getting consensus and resolution of concerns from all
    viewpoints taken seriously into account. Partnerships work much
    better than opposing parties when momentous changes are made.
        How can we agree on something? Trust. It would be difficult
    for Nevada to work with the federal government when things are
    seen as impositions as opposed to agreed upon opportunities.
        How can Congress build trust? Relinquish land control,
    build the railroad, participate in road financing, consider
    local problems such as SNPLA, recognize the BLM land take downs
    need to take into account continuous parcels with water runoff
    realities, facilitate communication corridors for fiber optics
    and energy transmissions, I-11 to Las Vegas and on to Reno,
    making a test site--that's what we call it--a place to develop
    research for reprocessing nuclear waste using spent fuel as a
    heat source to generate energy without water like some solar
    plants are doing now using salt, as well as protecting grid
    including microprocessing technologies and listening to the
    locals who know Nevada better than those who live far away.
        I realize that political science, counting votes will trump
    science. But we need both to concur and work together. I
    appreciate what Senator Reid and the Governors Bryan, Guinn and
    Sandoval have done to protect Nevada.
        We have come to a position where things are changing and
    the tide is shifting. I can count votes. In 2003, I presented
    Assembly Joint Resolution 6 originally asking for enough land
    to build a railroad from the Utah border to the test site as
    well as making a more reasonable PILT to Nevada. The land part
    was not accepted as Nevada had the votes to stop nuclear waste
    from coming.
        I now see Nevada in a position to call for all the above-
    mentioned requirements to be met, especially safety for all and
    a relationship built on trust and respect for the process of
    working together in this land of the free.
        This is only my opinion but I am under the impression that
    many share it with me.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        [The statement of Mr. Hardy follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. I thank you for your time.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Gene Humphrey, president of
    International Test Solutions, Incorporated. Again, your
    testimony is submitted for the record. You have 5 minutes and
    take your time.

                       STATEMENT OF MR. HUMPHREY

        Mr. Humphrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. You are recognized.
        Mr. Humphrey. Thanks for allowing me to speak. I am Gene
    Humphrey. I have a small business in Nevada. We moved it to
    Nevada from California because of the business climate in
    Nevada and for tax reasons, naturally.
        We manufacture a thin film that is used in making computer
    chips. We supply 164 different companies around the world. All
    of our material is manufactured in the United States. Most of
    our material is consumed in Asia and foreign countries.
        We maintain offices in Singapore and Taiwan and Japan and
    Korea so pretty international. I was raised near Cheyenne,
    Wyoming, in an area much similar to what Nevada is. Our house
    didn't have running water until I went in the Army. Going into
    the Army was the way I could get out of the environment that I
    was in and advance myself.
        And so through going into the service and spending two
    tours in Vietnam I was able to go back to the University of
    Wyoming and get an education.
        In that area around Cheyenne they built the Atlas ICBM site
    in 1958 and then later on those were replaced with Minuteman
    and Peacekeeper weapons systems. There is 200 silos around the
    ranch. Nuclear weapons are transported approximately a hundred
    miles from the main base at Cheyenne out to the furthest of the
    silos. They are transported over interstate highways--dual
    state highways that oiled and on gravel roads.
        So I know that transportation can be done safely and there
    is technology out there to be able to do it. As Americans,
    we've always faced these problems and been able to identify
    solutions for the problems, and I look at the transportation
    issue simply as technical issues that need to be addressed to
    solve the concerns that people have about safety.
        I also was a member of Nevadans for Carbon-Free Energy a
    number of years ago, a nonprofit to look at various
    technologies that could be brought to the state of Nevada to
    increase jobs in Nevada and revenue for Nevada and one of the
    things that we identified was a business opportunity that
    relates to processing of spent nuclear waste.
        We saw that the Nevada test site already had a history of
    nuclear weapons with multiple nuclear detonations down there
    and also storage currently of low-level nuclear waste in the
    Nevada test site area and it seemed that if it was done
    properly that the Yucca Mountain site could be utilized for the
    benefit of the people in Nevada.
        I've never been able to understand as a private citizen why
    we make the nuclear fuel rods, only use about 6 percent of the
    energy that's in the fuel rod and then propose to park them
    someplace underground 30,000 years, 300,000 years or a million
    years instead of utilizing the rest of the energy that's in
    that rod.
        Seems to me, as a normal business guy, you'd try to utilize
    as much of that energy as you possibly could. I started my
    career working for the Energy Research and Development
    Administration for the U.S. government after the '73 embargo,
    looking at ways to increase energy production in the United
    States. I ended up in the fossil fuels division. My first
    patent was in the conversion of coal to gaseous fuels.
        So I later went to work for the Department of Defense and
    was a weapons systems engineer on ICBMs in Cheyenne and we
    moved nuclear warheads and 220,000 pounds of high explosives
    around regularly in the community around Cheyenne without
    incident.
        So all of this can be done. In the Nevadans for Carbon-Free
    Energy one of the things we did is we funded a survey in the
    state to determine what people felt about using Yucca Mountain
    and reprocessing.
        And in that 2012 survey about 67 percent of the people said
    they supported some kind of development at Yucca Mountain and
    if the storage could be done safely and the plant safely
    operated they would support that.
        There have been surveys done ever since 2003 by multiple
    people and every year they come back with about the same kind
    of response.
        So I think in my time in Nevada people really want an open
    honest decision and input about what the facts are. We get a
    lot of scare tactics by a lot of people to be used for various
    reasons.
        But I think if you present the honest facts to the people
    they'll support development at the Yucca Mountain site. They
    look forward to using the facilities to support our education
    system.
        I was at the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies
    where they were doing treatment of nuclear waste and to destroy
    the waste instead of store it and I met with several of major
    companies who have reprocessing technologies and I know that
    technically it is something that we can do.
        And so I would encourage you in the committee to look at an
    open honest discussion with the citizens of Nevada to find a
    safe way to develop a reprocessing facility and storage at
    Yucca Mountain.
        Thank you, sir.
        [The statement of Mr. Humphrey follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired
    and the chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes for my
    first round of questions--probably the only round that I'll
    take.
        For Commissioner Schinhofen, did Nye County request to host
    a DOE consent-based siting public meeting?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Yes, sir. We did.
        Mr. Shimkus. Did DOE provide a meaningful response to your
    quest and if so, when?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Yes, they did, yesterday. We're going to
    meet with them today.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yesterday?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Yes. We requested in, I think, 2012.
        Mr. Shimkus. Very timely.
        Mr. Schinhofen. We'd guess.
        Mr. Shimkus. Well, will you let us know how that meetings
    goes, will you?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Happy to.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. DOE is currently seeking to develop
    ``a consent-based siting process.'' What is your perspective on
    their endeavor?
        Mr. Schinhofen. I don't know how you can get consent on any
    issue over the next election, let alone over 30 years and in
    consent-based, again, I don't see how that happens because this
    would be a national security site. I don't know what other
    national security sites allow state, local and tribal
    governments to object. So I think this needs to be seen as a
    national security issue, not as a consent. I don't see it
    working.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and it's interesting that the country
    that actually Yucca Mountain resides in has offered and asked
    for involvement in a consent based process. The DOE continues
    to go elsewhere and then they try to propose it, as they have
    in two other states, they've already been told no.
        So it's a little frustrating from our point of view when
    local residents are willing to at least have a discussion and
    the Department of Energy is refusing that request from local
    folks.
        So do you think it is a missed opportunity for DOE to
    listen to the people who have the most experience in having a
    dialogue on spent nuclear fuel disposal? They've offered now to
    have a dialogue as of last night.
        But do you think they've lost a lot of time by not doing
    this when they first talked about this process?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Yes, sir. Absolutely lost a lot of time in
    that process.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. So let me move to Senator Hardy.
        Senator Hardy, I routinely hear claims that nuclear waste
    would be shipped through downtown Las Vegas on its way to Yucca
    Mountain.
        DOE analyzed a variety of transportation alternatives to
    ship spent fuel to Yucca Mountain and concluded that a ``mostly
    rail'' scenario was selected as the route of choice. Knowing
    those areas, I think that makes sense.
        However, as part of DOE's comprehensive transportation
    evaluation highway routing was considered as part of the
    analysis. Federal transportation regulations permit states to
    identify highway, in quotations, preferred routes for
    radiological shipments to minimize risk and file those with the
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
        Currently, Nevada is receiving shipments of low-level
    radioactive waste for permanent disposal at the Nevada national
    security site. Are you aware if the state of Nevada has
    designated any routes for radioactive material with the federal
    government?
        Mr. Hardy. Joe Hardy, for the record. No, sir. I am not
    aware of any particular route that has been designated,
    recognizing that low-level radiation is used in Las Vegas for
    medical purposes, obviously, and so there would be low-level
    radiation things that are in Las Vegas right now.
        And so they would have to be taken somewhere outside of Las
    Vegas from inside of Las Vegas, which means there are no routes
    that I'm aware of that have been so designated.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. It's our understanding the state of
    Nevada has never asked--gone through this process of
    designating routes.
        Mr. Hardy. That is correct, as far as I know, sir.
        Mr. Shimkus. Would you support the state submitting such a
    plan to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration?
        Mr. Hardy. I think realistically a plan is better than no
    plan and recognizing that if we have the concept of rail being
    the thing that is most important and has been designated as
    safest that I would recognize we need to look at rail seriously
    as opposed to taking things through Las Vegas.
        Mr. Shimkus. Would identifying low-risk routes help the
    state of Nevada assure that preferred highway routes avoid
    major population centers such as Las Vegas and Reno?
        Mr. Hardy. It would give, certainly, help for the people
    who are in Las Vegas to recognize that we, the people who make
    decisions, are interested in their safety and wellbeing.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. It is ironic that the state-based
    opposition to Yucca Mountain used previously discounted
    transportation routes as part of their scare tactics. But
    Nevada has not yet identified a preferred transportation route
    for low-level waste that is currently being shipped into Nevada
    for disposal at the Nevada national security site.
        And with that, I yield back my time and turn to the Ranking
    Member, Mr. Tonko, from New York.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and perhaps Mr. Schinhofen
    and to our senator--how do you foresee getting around the state
    water rights issues? Obviously, that's an important part of an
    outcome here.
        Mr. Schinhofen. State water rights issues, Congressman?
        Mr. Tonko. Right.
        Mr. Schinhofen. In the state of Nevada the state water
    engineer has authority over all water issues. There is plenty
    of water in my county. Where all the low-level waste goes too
    is all in Nye County.
        It's a matter of will, and it unfortunately is political
    will and not based in any science at this point and that's what
    we hope is the science would speak to it and the state engineer
    would follow that and allow the water to be used because the
    water is currently used in Area 5, which is just down the road
    from Yucca Mountain.
        Mr. Tonko. And that's a state determination, not a----
        Mr. Schinhofen. A state determination, absolutely.
        Mr. Tonko. And I'm sure you all have examples of incentives
    or benefits that should be included to assist the state, a
    tribal or local government that has agreed to host a nuclear
    repository.
        Do you believe that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act would need
    to be amended to modify or expand the incentives that could or
    should be provided?
        Mr. Schinhofen. As my written testimony and my oral
    testimony, there are some amendments that could help this
    process, make it clear and easier.
        Mr. Tonko. Yes. Senator, any improvements or modifications
    that you can----
        Mr. Hardy. Yes. Thank you. Joe Hardy, for the record.
        We have been meeting on a regular basis with the water
    committee--the legislative water committee, as it were, and
    almost every basin in Nevada is over prescribed as meaning we
    don't have as much water as we've said people have a water
    right to.
        And when you consider the aquifers under Nevada test site
    those major three aquifers have been contaminated already and
    so you don't want to put a well down and bring that up.
        And if you consider the water being contaminated then you
    have to say that maybe when you store something such as the
    interim thing that would require an amendment that you probably
    aren't going to have as much contamination above-ground storage
    or anywhere else as we've already had detonations underground
    but have contaminated the aquifers. So we basically have
    aquifers that are unavailable to us for those reasons.
        Mr. Tonko. And beyond that, are there other specific
    examples of benefits that you support that are not currently
    included in the existing statute?
        Mr. Hardy. And if that question is to me, I firmly believe
    that the consent such as the county of Nye is critical and I
    think realistically that consent can happen and when it's done
    cooperatively recognizing the benefit and risk ratio and the
    benefits are probably going to far exceed the risks when it
    comes down to the reality of how to store it.
        And particularly I'm intrigued with the interim opportunity
    because that could be done, I think, fairly quickly according
    to the Nye County people.
        Mr. Tonko. Yes. Thank you.
        And Mr. Humphrey, in your testimony you mentioned that the
    public should not be concerned by the transportation of spent
    nuclear fuel.
        Can someone give us an explanation of how spent fuel would
    be transported to Yucca Mountain? And would it be, for
    instance, in a combination of rail and truck transport?
        Mr. Humphrey. All of the information that I've seen is in
    casks either by rail or on truck. I know that Sandia did a
    number of tests. If you see the movie where the train runs into
    the cask and it doesn't damage the cask--there's been, I don't
    know, hundreds of millions of dollars of testing done by the
    national labs, by the British government and others on
    transportation casks.
        Mr. Tonko. And does the current infrastructure exist to
    allow for a safe and secure transport of spent fuel or would
    that have to be modified and improved?
        Mr. Humphrey. I would imagine it would have to be modified
    and improved. I'm not an expert on that.
        Mr. Tonko. Yes. The transportation issues, Mr. Schinhofen
    or Senator Hardy, any concerns there that you would want to
    share?
        Mr. Hardy. It was interesting. I think transportation is
    probably one of the biggest challenges that we have if not the
    biggest.
        Earlier, we had put into the record a article from the Sun
    that just came out on the 6th and it used the phrase
    ``radioactive pellets encased in ceramic also can be safely
    kept for more than 120 years in steel-lined water-filled
    concrete pools or reinforced concrete containers alongside the
    nuclear power plants that created them.''
        So it's a little ironic to me to see that we have the
    article that's against storage saying that it can be safely
    stored outside of Yucca Mountain next to a--so the storage
    issue, I think, has some interesting dynamics there.
        So it becomes the transportation issue and I enjoyed
    looking at some of the pictures of the on-site storage where
    they have three guys and four guys on a little thing on the
    other side of a storage place and the other four guys on the
    other side of the storage place and they're putting the cask
    down into the concrete barrier and they are literally guiding
    it in and within arm's reach making sure that it gets in.
        So the concept of how much radiation is going to be in that
    transportation issue is going to have to be looked at for the
    reality of it and divorce some of the emotions from it.
        So the transportation is something that I think can be done
    and can be done safely and we have to recognize that people
    still have rational fears and we have to adjust and make sure
    that we resolve those.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Your time has expired. We need to move on.
        Mr. Tonko. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Chair recognizes my colleague from
    Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, and I welcome this panel.
        I'm from the Pittsburgh area, which is the home of
    Westinghouse where the first commercial nuclear power plants
    were built where we still do a great deal of nuclear power
    plant designing and building and it's also the home of the
    nuclear Navy in many ways in terms of design and work being
    done there.
        So quite familiar with this and Shippingport was the first
    commercial nuclear power plant along the Ohio River west of
    Pittsburgh and we still have Beaver Valley there and other
    plants around.
        So we recognize is when you have spent nuclear fuel it's
    still there right now underneath several feet of water on site
    and it's there and I hope the nation understands this too--it's
    safe there but it's still in close proximity to cities and
    suburban areas very close by.
        So when I look upon things like Yucca Mountain and other
    facilities and I look at the places I have toured in France
    where they grind up spent nuclear fuel and embed it in rock,
    where in Sweden where they drill down hundreds of meters and
    build a cave and look at storing it there.
        There's different designs around the world but it is still
    a clean fuel. It does not have an impact there in terms of
    CO2 emissions and it's something I want to make sure
    we continue to support.
        But all of you have discussed infrastructure needs
    associated with hosting a nuclear disposal facility and I'd
    like to know in your opinion what do you consider to be the
    highest priority infrastructure opportunities for Congress to
    examine?
        Mr. Schinhofen, we'll begin with you and just go across the
    panel.
        Mr. Schinhofen. Thank you, Congressman.
        I think essential to the Yucca Mountain project to store
    the spent fuel down there would be a rail line. Absolutely. If
    we had a rail to move it there would be the best option.
        We currently, with transportation right down the road from
    proposed Yucca Mountain, is Area 5, where we ship what's called
    low-level waste there all the time.
        We have U-235, which is as hot as anything that would go to
    Yucca Mountain, ship there recently safely on the roads. But
    the roads need to be improved and the I-11 corridor would help
    with that, too.
        And currently the city council of Las Vegas does not allow
    shipments to go through the Spaghetti Bowl, which is right
    indowntown Las Vegas. So all that material does come through
    Nye County and Area 5 is completely in Nye County too where we
    store all that, too.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Senator Hardy.
        Mr. Hardy. It would be a little disingenuous of myself to
    say it's rail in Nevada. In order to get to a rail anywhere in
    Nevada you have to get on a rail from someplace elsewhere and
    so you have every single state, every single city on the way
    who's interested in what's coming between there and radiation,
    however safe it may be.
        So yes, we need a rail line in order to be able to do that
    and recognizing that that rail is connected we need the
    conversation to exist bigger than Nevada.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
        Mr. Humphrey.
        Mr. Humphrey. Yes. I assume that the rail lines would have
    to be improved. But it also is a matter of what size shipments
    you're going to use.
        Just because of the tonnage it makes sense to use rail and
    you'd have to improve the rail line. But if you broke it into
    smaller shipments to take it in over longer period of time in
    more random intervals to eliminate any kind of, you know,
    predetermined schedule for shipments you could also ship it
    with trucks.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
        Mr. Schinhofen, on another question--your testimony notes
    the design of facilities at Yucca Mountain could accommodate
    consolidated interim storage sites, which Department of Energy
    is currently pursuing at others sites.
         However, Nuclear Waste Policy Act currently prohibits an
    interim storage facility and a repository in the whole state.
    So would you support removing this statutory barrier so Nye
    County could compete with other locations to host a
    consolidated storage facility?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Yes, sir. In my written testimony too we
    believe that the aging pads that are designed at part of Yucca
    Mountain would be a great place for that and we do realize that
    it would need to be amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I appreciate all of your comments
    and testimony on this and we know we have to deal with this and
    every state has their role to play and I'm thankful for your
    candid testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Chairman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes my colleague from California, Mr.
    McNerney, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman for holding this
    hearing. It's an important hearing and we need to find a
    solution. We can't just assume the nuclear waste is going to go
    away--close our eyes, click our heels. No, that's not going to
    work. We need hard solutions and I appreciate your testimony
    this morning.
        Nuclear waste does have value, in my opinion, but history
    is not very kind about this. I mean, look at Savannah River,
    Rocky Flats, Hanford.
        There are very expensive, very dangerous nuclear waste
    sites that need to be cleaned up because of the actions of the
    federal government. And now the federal government has tried to
    force Nevada to accept using Yucca Mountain without proper
    transparency, without consent and now what's result? We've got
    a big stalemate.
        Twenty years, 30 years, nothing has happened. There are
    technical solutions, I agree completely. I'm a scientist, an
    engineer. We need to just be transparent. We need to be honest
    and we need to do the science properly. But, again, we need
    complete transparency and we need consent-based solutions.
        Now, there's a lot of mistrust that's been sowed over time
    with Nevada because of actions of the federal government.
        Mr. Schinhofen and Senator Hardy have a list of demands,
    which I think are quite in line with what's needed. If the
    federal government meets some of those demands or all of those
    demands are the people of Nevada going to be accepting of a
    project there?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Congressman, if I may speak first.
        I believe they will but I think this goes--my three
    children live in the biggest town to Yucca Mountain. My four
    grandchildren have all been born there.
        So it all goes back to safety--is it going to be safe and
    we won't know that unless the law is followed and we get after
    30 years and $15 billion dollars and all the science has been
    collected we need to hear the science.
        I think if the science is proven and done by the NRC in a
    fair and open process people would definitely be more
    responsive and I refer to the studies the gentleman mentioned
    and the last one in the RJ was 64 percent of Nevadans wouldn't
    object.
        But I think what needs to happen more than anything we need
    to follow the law and let the process play itself out and then
    we will know.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, we've heard a lot of emotional--not a
    lot. We've heard some emotional testimony this morning. Nevada
    has put up with a lot. They have done their duty. They don't
    want any more of this. I mean, is it possible to overcome that?
        And that's not only a question for Nevada. If the citizens
    of Nevada say no, then is any other community in the country
    going to say yes? I mean, I think we're in a real difficult
    quandary here today.
        So what is it going to take for the federal government? And
    you've said that we need transparency. We need science. I'm
    just worried that even if we do those things that mistrust is
    so deep that we're not going to be able to convince any
    community to accept nuclear waste. That's my concern.
        Mr. Hardy. If I may.
        Mr. McNerney. Yes.
        Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the
    question.
        I was a little stunned. February June 17th, Wall Street
    Journal business section, front page of the business section,
    has a subhead line ``Green Groups Ease Opposition to Nuclear
    Power.''
        I mean, we are seeing a understanding that hasn't been
    there before when you are comparing carbon footprints, for
    instance.
        So you are seeing people who are understanding that we have
    nuclear power. It works without the sun shining or the wind
    blowing and we recognize that you're going to have to do
    something and if Texas wanted it we would be thrilled.
        Nevada is not at this table saying we won this. I am not
    going to represent Nevada nor pretend to. But I can tell you
    there are a lot of people that I talk to on a daily basis and
    I've made a point of asking this that say I understand it and I
    think it makes sense.
        Mr. Humphrey. And I would say, sir, that I look at it as a
    business opportunity for Nevada. It's a lot of jobs, a lot of
    revenue, improving our school systems, all the things that
    we've been working for in Nevada to try to do over the last
    years.
        And with this program we are actually getting paid to take
    the jobs and we are not having to use tax abatement and other
    programs to buy the jobs.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I think it comes down to there really
    is value in the waste material. There is energy. There is
    plenty of value if we can get to it without contaminating other
    areas without sowing mistrust like has been done in the past.
        So Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Again, I thank you for
    holding this hearing.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Latta,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you very much to the panel for being here. We appreciate
    your testimony today.
        And Mr. Humphrey, if I could start my questions with you
    and first, thank you very much for your service in the Army, to
    our country. We appreciate it.
        Mr. Humphrey. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. And if I could just go into some of your
    testimony. You talked about reprocessing and we all know what's
    happening in France with their reprocessing.
        I was wondering if you might talk a little bit about France
    and its experience in reprocessing that spent nuclear fuel,
    what their experience has been and maybe what the economic
    impact has been on France because of that reprocessing.
        Mr. Humphrey. Well, my understanding was that France is
    about 60 percent of their electric power was generated from
    nuclear power plants. And so their reprocessing facilities were
    integral and key to their nuclear program.
        Those facilities also are decades old and the technology
    has much improved since that time. In our discussions with
    various companies that can do reprocessing we found in the new
    plants and in the ability to build a reprocessing facility that
    would actually eliminate the need for this long-term storage of
    the large quantities of material.
        Britain had a reprocessing facility. Russia has
    reprocessing. China is incorporating. Japan has a reprocessing
    facility.
        But somehow in the United States we've elected not to do
    reprocessing and yet we are the leaders in technology in the
    world. And it would seem to me that we need to emphasize our
    efforts on eliminating the nuclear waste instead of storing it.
        Mr. Latta. Well, also just to follow up on that, if we
    would have reprocessing here in the United States would it make
    sense that the reprocessing plant really locate near the Yucca
    site when Yucca becomes, let's just say, a repository?
        Mr. Humphrey. I think it's the perfect location. You also
    have interim storage. You'll have some small amount of
    permanent storage and if you had the reprocessing facility
    right there the security for the area is great and I think it
    would be great for the state of Nevada, the jobs it would
    create, and the support for our university systems, having a
    research center located on the site to be a center of the world
    for nuclear research.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Schinhofen, I see you shaking your head there. Would
    you like to comment?
        Mr. Schinhofen. I agree wholeheartedly that that would be--
    Nye County, when we've heard that Nevada has done its part, and
    I agree it has.
        But all of that is located in Nye County and after all
    these years and Area 5 where we store low-level waste and being
    the only county that has had an atomic dropped from a plane on
    it, we have nothing to show for it.
        A reprocessing facility, I agree with Congressman Amodei
    too, as part of this holistic approach, not just dump and run,
    is a great idea and where it should go.
        But the first step is we need to follow what we do have and
    let the science speak and show it safe. But I agree with the
    gentleman here, too.
        Mr. Latta. Let me follow up. In your testimony you also
    discuss how the commission has been actively and constructively
    engaged with the DOE on Yucca for decades. Can you elaborate as
    well as discuss what relationship and communications you have
    had with the NRC?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Our relationship with the DOE over the
    years?
        Mr. Latta. Right.
        Mr. Schinhofen. OK.
        Mr. Latta. And also what your communication has been with
    the NRC.
        Mr. Schinhofen. Unfortunately, I would have to say our
    communication hasn't been quite so good with the DOE as we
    would hope, as evidenced by we're just going to have a meeting
    now about interim when we asked a few years ago.
        And in light of them putting U-235 in Area 5 and we asked
    for a year and a half for information and we didn't get it and
    when we finally did the governor----
        Mr. Shimkus. So they used the site to store and they didn't
    even really ask or--they didn't ask for any permission?
        Mr. Schinhofen. No.
        Mr. Shimkus. There was no consent-based program for this
    storage?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Yes. There was no consent. The governor did
    sit down and hold a group of meetings for about a year with
    them and we were excluded from those meetings. And the site is
    wholly in our county. So we haven't had a lot of open
    communication with them but we have done a lot of studies.
        We have done a lot of water studies in particular. With due
    respect to Congresswoman Titus, none of the water flows towards
    Las Vegas. It flows out towards Amargosa and Beatty in Death
    Valley.
        So we have done a lot of the studies. But as for our
    relationship with DOE we have constantly asked to be involved
    and be included.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. My time has expired.
        Mr. Shimkus. And I thank my colleague for letting me jump
    in there.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia,
    Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. Check your mic again. I don't
    think it's working. So either----
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you. Three quick questions and we'll
    see any one of you that would like to answer that.
        The waste isolation pilot plant that is located--it's an
    obvious geologic repository for nuclear waste located in New
    Mexico. As part of this partnership with the state of New
    Mexico, they had the ability to inspect the transportation of
    canisters into the state.
        That's what I understand the agreement was with DOE. Would
    this model actually help the confidence of your constituents
    that the spent fuel rods can be transported safely?
        Mr. Hardy. If I may. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Anything that we do that allows the state to have control
    is something that is critical. So not only can send but control
    the ability to inspect, the ability to sign off on would be
    absolutely necessary.
        It's not something that you can say we trust the federal
    government and all of its different agencies at a different
    time with a different administrator, et cetera.
        So the state would be critical that it would be involved
    with that and obviously you do not want to ignore the people
    who live there in that process. And so it would behoove us to
    make sure that Nye County not only has a seat at that table but
    has input to it. So if it comes it won't be pretty if we don't
    have the say.
        Mr. McKinley. All right. And maybe just a follow-up
    question.
        Are there other transportation priorities that Congress and
    DOE should examine to, again, continue to increase its
    confidence in people in the transportation? Are there others?
        Mr. Hardy. And while I've got the mic--Joe Hardy, for the
    record--if you consider, and I've heard some people say
    depending on how big the cask is, for instance, you would have
    to do highway hardening.
        So you have a highway that is strong enough to maintain the
    truck traffic. You would have to look at where that is going to
    be and you would have to extend what we call I-11 to a place
    because the current road system probably would not be able to
    sustain the loads that would be needed if there's any truck
    carrying at all through Nevada.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. The third wrap-up question that I have
    with Senator--excuse me, Congressman Murphy, we went over to
    the Hague in France to see the recycling facility about 5 years
    ago, I assume it was.
        But one of the things that I recall very vividly was they
    were talking about the cost of the recycling was so expensive
    and they said that because there is such a demand in France of
    using the nuclear rods that they could afford to make that
    happen and the fact that their utility bills are considerably
    higher than ours in America.
        So they were warning us, I suppose, or alerting us that
    this cost of the spent fuel--the recycling is an expensive
    process. Can any of you enlighten? Other than advancing
    technology, pursuing it so more innovatively that we might be
    able to find that? I've heard you earlier say there is none
    occurring in this country and that's a shame. But what is the
    current--is it cost-driven?
         Mr. Humphrey. I think it's primarily cost-driven. The
    reprocessing and the people that we've talked to said that it's
    going to be much more expensive than generating power from a
    straight, new electric power plant.
        But you're disposing of a problem and under the original
    legislation, as I understand it, the ratepayers are paying this
    tenth of a mil per kilowatt hour, anyone who uses electric
    power, and that's being paid for the disposal of the fuel.
        And so in the original enabling legislation the idea always
    had been as the people that use electric power are going to pay
    for the ultimate life cycle of it, which I also believe should
    be done for other things such as solar, wind, and everything
    else.
        But it certainly will be more expensive. But it solves a
    problem that we've had for a long time and I think the cost of
    it would be minimal.
        Mr. McKinley. Just to illuminate a little--when people use
    these terms a lot of expense is this twice the cost? Three
    times the cost?
        Mr. Humphrey. In what I've seen it's probably close to
    twice the cost.
        Mr. McKinley. Twice the cost.
        Mr. Humphrey. And then but also in the new technology you
    destroy the plutonium and generate electric power, which gives
    you additional revenue so there's some offsetting. And I'm not
    an expert on the economics of reprocessing.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back my
    time.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi,
    Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each of
    you for being here. I guess most of you have been here before
    and we appreciate you taking the time.
        And first, I just want to say to Mr. Humphrey thank you for
    your service to our country and your two tours in Vietnam, and
    I want to say thank you and welcome home. Thank you.
        Mr. Humphrey. Thank you.
        Mr. Harper. Senator Hardy, your testimony notes that the
    federal government obviously owns a large amount of land in
    Nevada. Could you please explain a little more about how this
    federal land control impacts state economic development
    opportunities?
        Mr. Hardy. Thank you. Joe Hardy, for the record.
        If you can have land in private hands, it's very easy to do
    property tax, for instance, and property tax is what the East
    does in order to fund education.
        Eighty-seven percent of the land controlled by the federal
    government we can't tax. So if you look at the numbers you're
    probably getting a tenth of the amount of money that you could
    generate when it's compared with four other states, for
    instance, on how much you could generate in proper use of the
    land. And I heard Congressman Amodei say, you know, we want 5
    percent of the land.
        Well, in 2003, I said I wanted 1.5 percent of the land. But
    if you look at the reality of the land in Nevada there is some
    land that's better than other land at putting in the hands of
    private property.
        BLM doesn't have enough to administer everything anyway and
    if we had the opportunity to sell land and have that
    opportunity to have property tax we would then be able to fund
    education whereas Alaska they got money to fund education--
    poof, here's your money, fund your education.
        I would like land. I can do something with land. I can
    build things. We can have a economic opportunity in Nevada.
        Mr. Harper. Right. Thank you, Senator Hardy.
        Commissioner Schinhofen, does Nye County experience similar
    limitations on economic development and if so what does that
    mean for your economy?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Similar, yes. Ninety-eight percent of my
    county is either owned or managed by the federal government and
    we are the third largest county by land mass in the continental
    United States.
        So yes, we have that same limitation in trying to work with
    BLM to free some of that up it has been 15 years since our last
    RMP.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you both for that input.
        And Senator Hardy, I'm going to talk a little bit about the
    authorizing legislation for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
    WIPP.
        In includes a requirement that DOE provide free and timely
    access to data related to health, safety and environmental
    issues at WIPP to New Mexico and the New Mexico Environmental
    Evaluation Group.
        This enables New Mexico to provide an independent technical
    evaluation of WIPP. So my question, Senator Hardy, is would a
    similar construct for an independent technical evaluation for a
    Nevada-based organization build trust for your constituents and
    assuring the repository meets all regulatory requirements?
        Mr. Hardy. Thank you. Appreciate it.
        Independent is interesting. I'm not sure I want an
    independent. I want one by Nevada. In other words----
        Mr. Harper. OK. Who would you recommend or do you have an
    entity----
        Mr. Hardy. I don't have a list in my pocket.
        Mr. Harper. OK.
        Mr. Hardy. But I would like Nevada to have a role in that
    because if I have the federal government, who has that
    independent group not to use current political things in a
    sentence right now it's not as independent as it is that we
    would trust.
        So if we choose it, we trust it. If you choose it, we don't
    trust it. And so we want control. We want to be able to say
    this is what we hired to have done.
        To illustrate New Mexico, for instance, back in the day I
    did the numbers and we got 75 cents back from our dollar that
    we sent to Washington, D.C. and New Mexico got $2.01 back.
        And so if you look at the medical aspect of the WIPP and
    how it affects health, we went ahead and did our Medicaid
    acceptance and so now you're looking at we doubled the number
    of Medicaid recipients in the state of Nevada when we did that.
    That is a huge cost to the state of Nevada and we are,
    obviously, looking for ways that we can afford that.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Hardy. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
    Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, thank
    you for joining us today. This is an important topic and your
    presence here certainly validates that.
        I want to get into a little bit about the education
    partnerships. Nevada higher education institutions have
    previously received funding to support nuclear science
    activities associated with Yucca Mountain.
        So my question, Senator Hardy and Mr. Schinhofen, do you
    support resumption of that funding and if so how can Congress
    assure that funding is effectively managed and supports nuclear
    science programs in the state?
        Senator, why don't you go first?
        Mr. Hardy. I love the question. First of all, you're asking
    us if you can trust us. That's the irony, I guess, from my
    standpoint. So we have a history of----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, you have to realize, Senator, that the
    federal government issues--and I say the federal government at
    large--spends a lot of money on things that the American people
    don't trust. So it's not me that's asking can we trust you.
        We're the voice of the American people. It's can the
    American people support the state of Nevada, and I think I know
    the answer to that but I want to give you an opportunity to
    articulate that.
        Mr. Hardy. The simple answer is yes. We have been very
    diligent in making sure we know what the Nevada system of
    higher education does, where that money goes and how we do it.
        So if there is, and that's the big if and I can read tea
    leaves, things are happening. They're going to happen. So what
    is it that if something happens that you can depend on us.
        And you can put strings on that as we would hope somebody
    does because I pay taxes, too. So there have to be strings. But
    the recognition of somewhere that is probably the most secure,
    the most safe, the best place to do anything in the way of
    research for nuclear whatever it is happens to be on a place
    that is Yucca Flat----
        Mr. Johnson. Right.
        Mr. Hardy [continuing]. Where we have bombed under and over
    more than anywhere in the world and that is the place that is
    the most secure.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Schinhofen.
        Mr. Schinhofen. Short answer, yes. We would like to have
    that resumed and put the same restrictions on it you put on
    other moneys that came to us from before.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Well, continuing with you and
    continuing on what some of the line of questioning that my
    colleague, Mr. Harper, asked, Mr. Schinhofen, I understand that
    the Bureau of Land Management owns a significant amount of land
    in Nye County.
        Some of this land, specifically, Amargosa Valley, was
    previously made available to Nye County for purchase in 2007--
    for purchase and then in 2007 the Nye County commissioners
    adopted an area plan to use a parcel of land to develop a
    ``Yucca Mountain project gateway area.''
        Will you please describe the key components of this plan
    and how the federal government could assist in developing this
    proposal?
        Mr. Schinhofen. Congressman, I really couldn't go into
    great detail. We did acquire 61 acres or about 5,000 acres that
    were available. The BLM has pulled all of those back and has
    made no land now available in Amargosa for us. We have 61 acres
    near the gate that could be used for a variety of purposes--for
    study, for offices, for support. But I would be happy to send
    you that information----
        Mr. Johnson. Did they give a reason for why they pulled
    that land back?
        Mr. Schinhofen. We are supposed to do a research management
    plan, an RMP, every 10 years. We've been in the middle of ours
    for 15 years now. They're afraid of what taking that land away
    would do to one of the wildlife sites miles away from that.
        Other than that, I don't know why they've done it.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
        And for any one of you on the panel, just real quickly in
    my last 30 seconds, the construction of a repository in Nevada
    would be a massive multi-generational infrastructure project.
    What would this major investment mean for high-skilled jobs in
    the state? We have got about 20 seconds, so quickly.
        Mr. Hardy. The jobs in the state would come with all of the
    research and things that you're going to do there, not just the
    storage because once it is stored, it is there.
        So I think it's the development of the research that comes
    afterwards. It's the development of the site for other
    purposes. It's using the land for other purpose. I want land.
        Mr. Johnson. Right. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time.
        Seeing no other colleagues present, we want to thank the
    second panel for not only your testimony but also your
    answering of the questions. This is just one of numerous
    hearings we've had.
        We've had it on funding. We've had it on transportation.
    We've done some on the science. Obviously, when we talk to NRC
    we've been involved with them in discussions.
        So this is just--as the senator would know, this is a
    process as we move forward on legislation and negotiations with
    the state of Nevada. So we appreciate your time, look forward
    to working with you.
        And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]