[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, [email protected].
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]