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

              UPDATE ON LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 28, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-96

    [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
    99-436 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2016
    ______________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman

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

                                     7_____

                  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)

                                      (ii)

                                 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...........................................     3
    Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      New York, opening statement....................................     4
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8

                                   Witnesses

    Mark Whitney, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
      Environmental Management, Department of Energy.................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    69
    Michael F. Weber, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste,
      Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, Nuclear
      Regulatory Commission..........................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    76
    Jennifer Opila, Director, Colorado, Organization of Agreement
      States.........................................................    38
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
    Leigh Ing, Executive Director, Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste
      Disposal Compact Commission....................................    42
        Prepared statement...........................................    44
        Map, ``Low-Level Waste Compacts''............................    48
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    82
    Chuck Smith, Jr., Council Member, Aiken County, South Carolina,
      and Chairman, Energy Communities Alliance......................    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    85

             UPDATE ON LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
           Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in
    room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper,
    Whitfield, Pitts, Murphy, Latta, McKinley, Johnson, Bucshon,
    Flores, Upton (ex officio), Tonko, Schrader, Green, McNerney,
    and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Will Batson,
    Legislative Clerk; David Bell, Staff Assistant; Jerry Couri,
    Senior Policy Advisor; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor;
    Dave McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy;
    Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy;
    Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Andy Zach, Counsel, Environment
    and the Economy; Christine Brennan, Democratic Press Secretary;
    Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; Meredith Jones,
    Democratic Director of Communications, Member Services and
    Outreach; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and Staff
    Director, Energy and Environment; Deborah Letter, Democratic
    Staff Assistant; and Alexander Ratner, Democratic Policy
    Analyst.
        Mr. Shimkus. The hearing will come to order, and I will
    recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

        Today's hearing on the disposal of low-level radioactive
    waste continues our detailed examination of what it takes to
    manage, store, and dispose of nuclear material.
        Nuclear science and technologies take advantage of
    radiation and nuclear properties of the atom to perform many
    useful activities such as improving food safety, protecting our
    homeland, and providing for precise industrial production.
         However, these invaluable technologies generate low-level
    radioactive waste which must be carefully managed and
    transported for disposal, even though it has a lower level of
    radioactivity and a shorter decay time than spent fuel from a
    nuclear power plant.
        Additionally, as our fleet of nuclear power plants ages,
    more reactors must go through the decommissioning process. For
    example, the decommissioning plan for the Vermont Yankee plant
    will outlast the license for the West Texas facility where the
    low-level waste is currently planned to be sent.
        Over 35 years ago, Congress passed the Low-Level
    Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 to establish a system by
    which States would form regional compacts to have a consent-
    based siting process for low-level waste disposal facilities.
        In 1985, after limited success in implementing the act,
    Congress had to amend the law to provide greater authority to
    host States. Ten compacts are in place today, 6 of which do not
    have an active disposal site, including the Central Midwest
    Compact, which is comprised of Illinois and Kentucky.
        Eight States and the District of Columbia are not
    affiliated with a compact. Prior to 2008, the 6 compacts
    without a disposal site and the unaffiliated States had access
    to the Barnwell, South Carolina facility for Class B and C
    waste.
        However, starting in 2008, the South Carolina legislature
    made a political decision and opted to allow access only to
    members of the Atlantic Compact. As we will hear today, that
    left a significant portion of the country without a disposal
    pathway for Class B and C waste until 2012, when the Texas
    Compact opened for business, the only facility to open as a
    result of the Low-Level Waste Policy Act.
        While Texas is currently filling a national need, political
    considerations could once again shift and force States to store
    material onsite until a new facility is located, licensed, and
    accepting waste.
        It is important for Congress to provide oversight of low-
    level waste policy to make sure States have uninterrupted
    access to a disposal site. While compacts must address
    commercially generated low-level waste, the Department of
    Energy must manage the low-level waste generated by its
    research activities and the nuclear enterprise. DOE works with
    the communities around the Nation to assure safe management and
    permanent disposal.
        Today we will hear how DOE can improve its engagement to
    assure those communities are heard and a part of the process.
    Additionally, the Federal Government is responsible for
    disposing of greater-than-Class C waste, or GTCC, which is more
    hazardous than other classes of low-level waste.
        The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that GTCC waste
    be disposed of in a geologic repository. In 2005, Congress
    directed DOE to examine disposal options for GTCC waste and to
    make recommendations to Congress.
        Congress has not yet received any GTCC recommendations.
    However, DOE walked away from the most practical disposal
    pathway for GTCC waste when President Obama quit work on the
    Yucca Mountain project.
        The longer DOE puts off its recommendation, the longer this
    material must remain onsite in temporary storage instead of in
    a permanent disposal repository.
        The sole geologic repository that has been in operation for
    the Federal Government to dispose of radioactive waste is the
    Waste Isolation Pilot Project, or WIPP.
        In 2014, WIPP experienced an incident that closed the
    facility. I am interested in hearing from DOE how this incident
    has had repercussions in the Federal Government's waste
    management strategy.
        Today's hearing will inform this committee's efforts to
    advance a comprehensive policy to manage spent nuclear fuel and
    high-level waste.
        Let us look closely at the experience of siting low-level
    waste repositories and how the Federal Government engages
    States and local communities in the decision making process.
        The Department of Energy carefully and constructively
    engaged with the State of Nevada to provide for a mixed-level
    waste disposal site at the Nevada National Security Site
    adjacent to Yucca Mountain.
        We should consider how these conversations between the
    Federal Government and Nevada can continue to advance the
    development of a deep, geologic repository for used fuel.
        Thank you again to our witnesses, and I look forward to
    your testimony this morning.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus

        Today's hearing on the disposal of low-level radioactive
    waste continues our detailed examination of what it takes to
    manage, store, and dispose of nuclear material.
        Nuclear science and technologies take advantage of
    radiation and nuclear properties of the atom to perform many
    useful activities, such as improving food safety, protecting
    our homeland, and providing for precise industrial production.
    However, these invaluable technologies generate low-level
    radioactive waste, which must be carefully managed and
    transported for disposal, even though it has a lower level of
    radioactivity and shorter decay time than spent fuel from a
    nuclear power plant.
        Additionally, as our fleet of nuclear power plants ages,
    more reactors must go through the decommissioning process. For
    example, the decommissioning plan for the Vermont Yankee plant
    will outlast the license for the West Texas facility where the
    low-level waste is currently planned to be sent.
        Over 35 years ago, Congress passed the Low-Level
    Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 to establish a system by
    which States would form regional compacts to have a consent-
    based siting process for lowlevel waste disposal facilities. In
    1985, after limited success in implementing the Act, Congress
    had to amend the law to provide greater authority to host
    States.
        Ten compacts are in place today, six of which do not have
    an active disposal site, including the Central Midwest Compact
    which is comprised of Illinois and Kentucky. Eight States and
    the District of Columbia are not affiliated with a compact.
        Prior to 2008, the six compacts without a disposal site and
    the unaffiliated States had access to the Barnwell, South
    Carolina, facility for Class B and C waste. However, starting
    in 2008, the South Carolina Legislature made a political
    decision and opted to allow access only to members of the
    Atlantic Compact. As we will hear today, that left a
    significant portion of the country without a disposal pathway
    for Class B and C waste until 2012, when the Texas Compact
    opened for business, the only facility to open as a result of
    the Low-Level Waste Policy Act.
        While Texas is currently filling a national need, political
    considerations could once again shift, and force States to
    store material onsite until a new facility is located,
    licensed, and accepting waste. It is important for Congress to
    provide oversight of low-level waste policy to make sure States
    have uninterrupted access to a disposal site.
        While compacts must address commercially generated low-
    level waste, the Department of Energy must manage the low-level
    waste generated by its research activities and the nuclear
    enterprise. DOE works with the communities around the Nation to
    assure safe management and permanent disposal. Today we will
    hear how DOE can improve its engagement to assure those
    communities are heard and a part of the process.
        Additionally, the Federal Government is responsible to for
    disposing of greater-than-Class C waste, or GTCC, which is more
    hazardous than other classes of low-level waste. The Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission requires that GTCC waste be disposed of
    in a geologic repository.
        In 2005, Congress directed DOE to examine disposal options
    for GTCC waste and make recommendations to Congress. Congress
    has not yet received any GTCC recommendation. However, DOE
    walked away from the most practical disposal pathway for GTCC
    waste when President Obama quit work on the Yucca Mountain
    project.
        The longer DOE puts off its recommendation, the longer this
    material must remain onsite in temporary storage, instead of in
    permanent disposal.
        The sole geologic repository that has been in operation for
    the Federal Government to dispose of radioactive waste is the
    Waste Isolation Pilot Project or WIPP. In 2014, WIPP
    experienced an incident that closed the facility. I am
    interested in hearing from DOE how this incident has had
    repercussions in the Federal Government's waste management
    strategy.
        Today's hearing will inform this committee's efforts to
    advance a comprehensive policy to manage spent nuclear fuel and
    high-level waste. Let's look closely at the experience of
    siting low-level waste repositories and how the Federal
    Government engages State and local communities in the decision
    making process.
        The Department of Energy carefully and constructively
    engaged with the State of Nevada to provide for a mixed low-
    level waste disposal site at the Nevada National Security Site,
    adjacent to Yucca Mountain. We should consider how these
    conversations between the Federal Government and Nevada can
    continue to advance the development of a deep, geologic
    repository for used fuel.

        Mr. Shimkus. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Tonko,
    for his opening statement.

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

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
    witnesses and good morning.
        We are here this morning to hear about the status of
    facilities and programs to dispose of low-level radioactive
    waste. Low-level radioactive waste includes a wide variety of
    materials that have become radioactive or that were
    contaminated by exposure to radioactive substances.
        It includes cleaning items, protective equipment and
    medical waste, materials used in research and equipment and
    tools, among various other items.
        The amounts of waste generated vary considerably from year
    to year but the volumes are significant. These materials are
    disposed of at three commercially operated sites here in the
    United States. The sites are regulated by the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission.
        States are responsible for the waste generated within their
    borders. However, groups of States have entered into compacts
    or other agreements that allow some to dispose of waste in one
    of the three existing facilities.
        These are not the sites that can or will accept spent fuel
    from nuclear reactors. We have benefitted from our research and
    applications in nuclear medicine and nuclear power but these
    have come at a high cost.
        Projections for many of the DOE-managed sites are that it
    will be decades before cleanup and decontamination are
    completed at costs in the billions of dollars.
        We are fortunate to have Mark Whitney of the Department of
    Energy and Michael Weber of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    here with us this morning on the first panel. Again, welcome.
        Thank you both for being here this morning to testify on
    the important work that you are doing to ensure these materials
    are handled and disposed of properly. We also have an excellent
    group of witnesses on our second panel.
        On our second panel, we will hear from Mr. Chuck Smith, the
    chair of the Energy Communities Alliance. Mr. Smith represents
    the communities that live nearby contaminated sites and deal
    with the issues of nuclear waste cleanup and disposal on a
    daily basis.
        Mr. Smith offers some interesting ideas for speeding
    cleanups and reducing cleanup costs. I agree that we should be
    looking at all options for nuclear waste disposal in an effort
    to find the safest and most cost effective ways to move
    forward.
        We must recognize and deal with both the technical and
    political challenges of disposing of all classes of nuclear
    waste.
        In addition to Mr. Smith, we will have the benefit of
    testimony from Ms. Leigh Ing and Ms. Jennifer Opila to provide
    perspectives of different State organizations responsible for
    these issues.
        More than 60 years after beginning and expanding our use of
    nuclear materials, nuclear waste disposal remains a difficult
    and expensive problem.
        The large volumes of waste generated, the high cost of
    treatment and disposal and the limited locations willing to
    host disposal facilities for any type of waste generated
    considerable or generate considerable an ongoing public concern
    and resistance.
        Until we find better solutions for this problem, further
    development of nuclear power will be seriously constrained. So
    I thank you all for your participation this morning at the
    hearing. I look forward to your testimony and further
    discussion of these important issues.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Shimkus. Ranking member yields back his time.
        Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee,
    Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Nuclear technology is deployed throughout our economy in a
    variety of different ways. For example, radioactive monitors
    accurately map subsurface geology to assist the U.S. efforts to
    capitalize on the oil and gas renaissance.
        Nuclear medicine provides medical treatments that save
    thousands and thousands of lives and this technology will only
    grow and advance with the research and innovation that the 21st
    Century Cures Act will spawn.
        However, all of these activities generate low-level
    radioactive waste, which must be properly managed, transported
    and disposed. Congress provided this responsibility to the
    States, which were to form interstate compacts to collaborate
    to site a disposal facility.
        However, not all States joined compacts, including my home
    State of Michigan. There is currently only one available
    disposal site, located in Texas, for noncompact States.
        I am pleased to welcome the Texas Low-Level Radioactive
    Waste Disposal Compact Commission this morning to understand
    how this compact is operating and to learn how they intend to
    dispose of the Nation's low-level waste.
        In the years since Congress passed the Low-Level
    Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, we have struggled to
    develop the system that Congress envisioned. Today, Canada, our
    neighbor in the Great Lakes region, is facing a similar
    challenge.
        Our experience addressing permanent disposal of nuclear
    material may offer some lessons learned from Canada. I am
    hopeful that today's hearing will serve to inform this
    committee about ongoing challenges and opportunities in
    managing nuclear waste.
        I also want to briefly comment on the markup that we are
    going to have immediately following the hearing. At last week's
    hearing, members discussed moving S. 611 without amendment so
    that we can put it on a fast track to enactment.
        By unanimously passing S. 611, the Senate has given us a
    rare opportunity. We can do our part to help this
    reauthorization become law if we can all agree to approve the
    bill exactly as it passed the Senate so that if the House
    passes it, it will go directly to the President for signature.
        Many smaller and rural communities across the U.S.
    including many in Michigan face significant challenges in
    replacing, maintaining and upgrading their aging water
    infrastructure. It is in every community.
        It is also clear that many of our constituents responsible
    for managing small rural drinking systems do support S. 611 as
    well.
        Many of us have discussed various ideas to improve the Safe
    Drinking Water Act, from addressing the State Revolving Fund to
    developing statutory flexibility for small systems to meet the
    growing technical challenges of complying with changing
    drinking water standards.
        The bill before us today would help communities across
    Michigan and across the country manage increased costs and the
    burden of meeting complex regulatory requirements under the
    Safe Water Drinking Act.
        So we want to make law in this area. Our best chance to do
    it is to take this bill, pass it without any hitches. I urge
    all members to support it.
        I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        Nuclear technology is deployed throughout our economy in a
    variety of different ways. For example, radioactive monitors
    accurately map subsurface geology to assist the United States'
    efforts to capitalize on the oil and gas renaissance. Nuclear
    medicine provides medical treatments that save thousands of
    lives. And this technology will only grow and advance with the
    research and innovation that the 21st Century Cures Act will
    spawn.
        However, all of these activities generate low-level
    radioactive waste, which must be properly managed, transported,
    and disposed. Congress provided this responsibility to the
    States, which were to form interstate compacts to collaborate
    to site a disposal facility. However, not all States joined
    compacts, including my home State of Michigan.
        There is currently only one available disposal site,
    located in Texas, for noncompact States. I am pleased to
    welcome the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact
    Commission this morning to understand how the Compact is
    operating and to learn how they intend to dispose of the
    Nation's low-level waste.
        In the years since Congress passed the Low-Level
    Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, we have struggled to
    develop the system that Congress envisioned. Today, Canada, our
    neighbor in the Great Lakes region, is facing a similar
    challenge. Our experience addressing permanent disposal of
    nuclear material may offer some lessons learned for Canada.
        I'm hopeful that today's hearing will serve to inform this
    committee about ongoing challenges and opportunities in
    managing nuclear waste.
        I also would like to briefly comment on the markup that
    we'll have immediately following this hearing. At last week's
    hearing members discussed moving S. 611 without amendment so
    that we can put it on a fast track to enactment. By unanimously
    passing S. 611, the Senate has given us a rare opportunity. We
    can do our part to help this reauthorization become law if we
    can all agree to approve the bill exactly as it passed the
    Senate so that, if the House passes it, it will go directly to
    the President for his signature.
        Many smaller and rural communities across the United
    States, including many in my home State of Michigan, face
    significant challenges in replacing, maintaining, and upgrading
    their aging water infrastructure. It's also clear that many of
    our constituents responsible for managing small rural drinking
    water systems support S. 611 too.
        Many of us have discussed various ideas to improve the Safe
    Drinking Water Act, from addressing the State Revolving Fund,
    to developing statutory flexibility for small systems to meet
    the growing technical challenges of complying with changing
    drinking water standards. The bill before us today would help
    communities in Southwest Michigan and across the country manage
    increased costs and the burden of meeting complex regulatory
    requirements under the Safe Water Drinking Act.
        We want to make law in this area. Our best chance to do
    that is to take up the Senate-passed bill and pass it on to the
    President's desk where it will become law with no hitches, and
    all of our small and rural communities will be better for it. I
    urge all Members to vote yes to approve S. 611 and to oppose
    any amendments.

        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        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.
        Unfortunately, there is a great deal of low-level nuclear
    waste generated in this country from a variety of source and
    those sources include not just activities at commercial nuclear
    reactors but also manufacturing plants, academic institutions
    and medical facilities and, of course, it also comes from
    Government activities including the cleanup of Department of
    Energy sites.
        So having a number of safe, secure and environmentally
    sound options for disposal of low-level radioactive waste is
    important to a lot of stakeholders.
        But it is also critically important for our local
    communities that once hosted facilities central to our national
    security yet continue to live with low-level and other
    radioactive waste even after those facilities close their
    doors.
        The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Acts of
    1985 gave each State responsibility for disposing of low-level
    radioactive waste generated within its borders.
        In doing so, it encouraged States to enter into interstate
    compacts so that a group of States could agree to develop a
    common site to dispose of their waste and to date 10 regional
    compacts have been formed while 8 States, Puerto Rico, and the
    District of Columbia remain unaffiliated.
        Unfortunately, however, the track record of these sites
    hasn't been entirely successful. Environmental justice concerns
    halted a number of early efforts to site facilities in poor
    communities that did not desire to have them.
        And so while numerous compacts were formed, only 4 are home
    to disposal facilities and as a result those facilities have
    become the de facto sites now accepting waste from a variety of
    other compacts in individual States.
        And while that solution is currently working, I believe we
    need a more rational predictable policy going forward and we
    need to do that in a way that addresses the concerns of the
    communities that are home to radioactive waste generated as a
    result of activities that benefit us all.
        Mr. Chairman, I am very interested to learn more about
    DOE's efforts to clean up and dispose of waste generated from
    its activities, particularly with regard to disposal of the
    most dangerous low-level radioactive waste, the greater-than-
    Class C waste.
        I understand that the Department is working to complete a
    final evaluation of the potential environmental impacts
    associated with the proposed development of a disposal facility
    or facilities for greater-than-Class C and other similar waste.
        I am also interested in hearing about the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission's recent activities in this area. It is
    my understanding that NRC is currently in the process of
    updating its regulations regarding the disposal of low-level
    waste to a more risk-based system that will better align
    disposal requirements with current health and safety standards.
        I also would like to learn more about the July 2015 NRC
    staff paper recommending that the commission allow the State of
    Texas to license the disposal of greater-than-Class C waste.
        While I take no position on the Texas issue, I do think
    that the NRC process is important. If the commissioners are
    confident that Texas can license and manage a program that
    includes the most dangerous low-level waste then this opens up
    a real potential for benefit to communities around the country
    and it would also serve as a step on the road to considering
    the siting of facilities to dispose of material that pose risks
    greater than low-level waste.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko, for
    holding today's hearing on low-level nuclear waste issues.
        Unfortunately, there is a great deal of low-level nuclear
    waste generated in this country from a variety of sources.
    These sources include--not just activities at commercial
    nuclear reactors--but also manufacturing plants, academic
    institutions and medical facilities. And, of course, it also
    comes from Government activities including the cleanup of
    Department of Energy sites.
        So having a number of safe, secure, and environmentally
    sound options for disposing of low-level radioactive waste is
    important to a lot of stakeholders. But it is also critically
    important for our local communities that once hosted facilities
    central to our national security, yet continue to live with
    low-level and other radioactive wastes, even after those
    facilities closed their doors.
        The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of
    1985 gave each State responsibility for disposing of low-level
    radioactive waste generated within its borders. In doing so, it
    encouraged States to enter into interstate compacts so that a
    group of States could agree to develop a common site to dispose
    of their waste. To date, 10 regional compacts have been formed,
    while 8 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia
    remain unaffiliated.
        Unfortunately, however, the track record of these sites
    hasn't been entirely successful. Environmental justice concerns
    halted a number of early efforts to site facilities in poor
    communities that did not desire to have them. So, while
    numerous compacts were formed, only four are home to disposal
    facilities. As a result, those facilities have become the de
    facto sites, now accepting waste from a variety of other
    compacts and individual States.
        While that solution is currently working I believe we need
    a more rational, predictable policy going forward. And, we need
    to do that in a way that addresses the concerns of the
    communities that are home to radioactive waste generated as a
    result of activities that benefited all of us.
        I am very interested to learn more about DOE's efforts to
    clean up and dispose of waste generated from its activities,
    particularly with regard to disposal of the most dangerous low-
    level radioactive waste, greater-than-Class C wastes. I
    understand that the Department is working to complete a final
    evaluation of the potential environmental impacts associated
    with the proposed development of a disposal facility or
    facilities for greater-than-class C and similar wastes.
        I'm also interested in hearing about the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission's (NRC) recent activities in this area. It's my
    understanding that NRC is currently in the process of updating
    its regulations regarding the disposal of low-level waste to a
    more risk-based system that will better align disposal
    requirements with current health and safety standards.
        I also would like to learn more about the July 2015 NRC
    staff paper recommending that the Commission allow the State of
    Texas to license the disposal of greater-than-Class C waste.
        While I take no position on the Texas issue, I do think
    that the NRC process is important. If the Commissioners are
    confident that Texas can license and manage a program that
    includes the most dangerous low-level waste, then this opens up
    a real potential for benefit to communities around the country.
    It also would serve as a step on the road to considering the
    siting of facilities to dispose of materials that pose risks
    greater than low-level waste.
        I want to thank our witnesses and I look forward to
    discussing these matters with them. I yield back.

        Mr. Pallone. I would like to yield the balance of my time,
    Mr. Chairman, to Mr. McNerney.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the
    chairman for holding this important hearing.
        Low-level nuclear waste may not be as dangerous as high-
    level nuclear waste but it is still a risk and people are
    justifiably concerned about that risk.
        There are engineering solutions that would allow us to find
    disposal sites, to transport nuclear materials for those
    disposal sites and there is an urgency to this problem.
        But the real challenge is the politics. In order to get
    this accepted we have to be transparent. We have to let the
    public know what the risks are and what benefits there might be
    to local communities.
        We need to let them buy into it because if we try to
    enforce nuclear waste on any communities it is not going to
    work. So I urge that we develop a system that is very
    transparent, that is very public friendly and I think if we do
    that we will be able to find a solution.
        So with that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time.
        So we want to welcome our witnesses today and first, I
    would like to recognize for his opening statement Mr. Mark
    Whitney, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental
    Management with the Department of Energy.
        Your full statement is in the record, and you have 5
    minutes. Welcome.

        STATEMENTS OF MARK WHITNEY, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
     SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
    AND MICHAEL F. WEBER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR MATERIALS,
       WASTE, RESEARCH, STATE, TRIBAL, AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS,
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                       STATEMENT OF MARK WHITNEY

        Mr. Whitney. Thank you, sir.
        Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko and
    members of the subcommittee. I do appreciate the opportunity to
    be here with you today to discuss the Office of Environmental
    Management's activities to safely and properly dispose of DOE-
    generated low-level radioactive waste and our ongoing planning
    efforts for disposal of greater-than-Class C low-level
    radioactive waste.
        First, let me state that safe performance of our work is
    our overarching priority. The Department's first responsibility
    is to protect our workers, the public and environment during
    our cleanup mission.
        Safety first is the clear expectation for every activity
    that we undertake in implementing that mission. The Department
    of Energy is the largest generator of low-level radioactive
    waste by volume in the Nation with most waste derived from the
    Office of Environmental Management's cleanup efforts.
        Since 2005, the Department has safely disposed of over 330
    million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste. The
    overwhelming majority of the Department's low-level radioactive
    waste is disposed of on the site where generated.
        In fiscal year 2014, 23 million cubic feet of mixed and
    low-level radioactive waste were disposed of at the site where
    generated.
        The Department sites that have the capability to dispose of
    all or a portion of their onsite-generated waste include the
    Hanford site, the Idaho site, the Los Alamos National
    Laboratory, which has limited capability, the Nevada National
    Security Site, Savannah River Site and the Oak Ridge
    Reservation.
        In fiscal year 2015, a decision was made to construct a
    future new disposal facility for decommissioning and
    remediation waste at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and
    similarly the Department is continuing to evaluate options for
    similar waste disposal onsite at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
    Plant.
        The Department of Energy sites without an onsite disposal
    facility mixed and low-level radioactive waste may be disposed
    of at the Department's regional disposal site.
        At present time, the Nevada National Security Site remains
    the Department's only regional disposal site available to serve
    the needs of the Department's cleanup complex.
        Commercial firms also provide each of the Department sites
    with options for mixed and low-level radioactive waste
    disposal. The Department's policy is generally not to utilize
    the commercial disposal facilities operated by the regional
    disposal compacts.
        However, when compliant, cost effective and in the best
    interest of the Government and after formal approval process
    the Department may utilize commercial disposal firms.
        Finally, I would like to provide you with an update on
    where the Department of Energy is with the disposal of greater-
    than-Class C low-level radioactive waste, GTCC.
        The Department is currently finalizing the final
    environmental impact statement for the disposal of GTCC waste
    and GTCC-like waste.
        The final environmental EIS will evaluate the potential
    impacts associated with the proposed development, operation and
    long-term management of a disposal facility or facilities for
    GTCC low-level radioactive waste and GTCC-like waste.
        GTCC-like waste is radioactive waste that is owned or
    generated by DOE and has characteristics similar to those of
    GTCC waste such that a common disposal approach may be
    appropriate.
        The Department plans to identify a preferred alternative in
    the final environmental impact statement. In developing the
    final EIS, the Department will have considered public comments
    on the draft GTCC EIS, human health, disposal methods and waste
    types.
        The Department anticipates publication of the final
    environmental impact statement within the next quarter. After
    the publication of the final environmental impact statement the
    Department will submit a report to Congress as required by the
    Energy Policy Act of 2005.
        The report to Congress will include a description of the
    disposal alternatives considered in the final environmental
    impact statement and must await action by Congress.
        Congressional action would enable the Department to proceed
    with issuing a record of decision on greater-than-Class C low-
    level radioactive waste disposal.
        The Department is eager to work with members of Congress on
    the path forward for GTCC low-level radioactive waste and GTCC-
    like waste disposal.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the
    Department's low-level radioactive waste disposal activities.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitney follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
        Now, I will turn to Mr. Michael Weber, deputy executive
    director of operations for materials, waste, research date and
    compliance program with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        Again, your full statement is in the record. You have 5
    minutes. Welcome.

                     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. WEBER

        Mr. Weber. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Vice Chairman
    Harper, and Ranking Member Tonko, and distinguished members of
    the subcommittee and the committee.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on the
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulation of low-level
    radioactive waste.
        In my testimony I will highlight, one, NRC's regulatory
    role working in partnership with the States, two, the current
    regulatory framework, and three, two current regulatory
    improvement initiatives.
        Since the Congress established the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission in 1975, the agency has worked with our State
    partners to ensure protection of the public health and safety
    associated with low-level waste management.
        This waste is generated by thousands of industrial,
    academic, medical, and Government licensees across the United
    States. Disposal of the waste is permitted in 4 operating
    facilities and the importance of the safe management of
    commercial low-level waste has long been a matter of
    congressional interest.
        In 1980, the Congress enacted the Low-Level Radioactive
    Waste Policy Act and amended it in 1985. Under the Atomic
    Energy Act of 1954, the NRC regulates the safety and security
    of the generation, storage, transportation and disposal of
    commercial low-level waste.
        Pursuant to the law, the NRC has relinquished its licensing
    and enforcement authority over most nuclear materials in 37
    States that have entered an agreement with the NRC--so-called
    agreement States.
        An agreement State conducts the regulatory programs that
    are adequate and compatible with the NRC regulatory
    requirements and oversees agreement State programs.
        The four commercial low-level waste disposal facilities and
    more than 85 percent of the licensees that generate low-level
    waste are regulated by the agreement States.
        The NRC and agreement States have established a
    comprehensive regulatory framework that ensures the safety of
    low-level waste management.
        Among the regulations the NRC has established, 10 CFR Part
    61 contains the primary regulations governing the disposal of
    low-level waste.
        The promulgation of Part 61 in 1982 was driven by some of
    the same factors that prompted the Congress to enact the Low-
    Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, including the need
    to establish a stable regulatory regime to govern safe disposal
    of the waste.
        The NRC is currently working to improve the regulations and
    the regulatory framework. Several years ago, the commission
    initiated development of a rule making proposal to improve Part
    61 with respect to waste streams that were not contemplated at
    the time of the initial development of the rule in the late
    1970s such as the disposal of significant quantities of
    depleted uranium waste.
        On March 26th of this year, the commission published for
    public comment a proposed rule and associated draft guide and
    NRC solicited comments from the public and also conducted five
    public meetings in the vicinity of the operating disposal
    facilities.
        The comment period for this proposed rule closed last
    month, September 21st. The NRC staff is currently analyzing
    public comments.
        As we develop the final rule, we will continue to work
    closely with the agreement States and we expect to provide a
    draft rule for commission consideration in 2016.
        The second initiative is the disposal of greater-than-Class
    C waste. This waste has concentration of radio nuclides that
    exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C waste and
    is generally not therefore suitable for near surface disposal.
        Congress assigned the responsibility for the disposal of
    this waste to the Federal Government and required that the
    waste be disposed of in a facility licensed by the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission.
        In 1989, the commission amended its regulations in Part 61
    to require such waste be disposed of in a geologic repository
    or in an alternative disposal facility approved by the
    commission.
        On January 30th, 2015, the State of Texas sent a letter to
    the NRC enquiring whether a State, as an agreement State, can
    regulate the disposal of this waste.
        In July 2015, the NRC staff provided the commission with an
    analysis of the associated issues along with options and a
    recommendation that the NRC allow the State of Texas to
    regulate the disposal of the waste.
        NRC also recommended that NRC conduct a rule making to
    establish regulatory requirements covering this waste and on
    August 13th, 2015 the commission held a public meeting with the
    staff, the State of Texas and stakeholders to discuss the issue
    and the commission is currently considering how best to
    proceed.
        NRC believes its regulatory program adequately protects the
    public health and safety. We work with our agreement State
    partners to accomplish the safety mission.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before
    you today and I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. Now I will recognize
    myself 5 minutes to start the round of questioning and I would
    start with Mr. Whitney first.
        The Nevada National Security Site currently serves as a
    disposal Site for DOE-mixed waste. I understand that there was
    extensive conversations between the Department and the Governor
    in order to come to an agreement on the type and amount of
    material to be disposed there.
        Will you please describe the process and the lessons
    learned from DOE's engagement with the State of Nevada to agree
    on the memorandum of understanding?
        Mr. Whitney. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus.
        Yes, the memorandum of understanding between the Department
    and the State of Nevada was really the culmination of over a
    year of really close collaboration, regular meetings with the
    State at fairly senior levels with both the DOE and the State
    of Nevada, and it covered a wide range of issues, not just low-
    level radioactive waste disposal at the Nevada National
    Security Site. The limits for what we can put into that
    facility are really governed by the waste acceptance criteria.
        The discussions did not go into that technical detail but
    they were broad discussions on general areas where our
    interests overlap and they are significant and great. And so I
    think at the end of the day, the MOU really kind of solidified
    our agreements to date and our path forward on many areas in
    addition to low-level radioactive waste.
        Mr. Shimkus. So when you say broad discussions on numerous
    things, can you give us some examples?
        Mr. Whitney. Yes. The site, of course, has a national
    security mission so there was discussion of the NNSA mission,
    other potential missions that may happen in NSSA, and protocols
    for how we communicate, how we work with not just the State of
    Nevada but the surrounding communities, and we exercised a lot
    of those already and for various reasons.
        Mr. Shimkus. Transportation discussions?
        Mr. Whitney. Transportation.
        Mr. Shimkus. Are part of the protocols?
        Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. Good. Thank you.
        Mr. Weber, the proposed revision to Part 61 standards
    include a provision that, and I quote, ``defense in depth is
    considered.''
        Will you please describe how defense in depth is intended
    to be implemented for a facility that has very limited
    operating component?
        Mr. Weber. Yes, I would be pleased to.
        In fact, there are multiple barriers that are required as
    part of a low-level waste disposal facility. So the very design
    of a facility is intended to provide defense in depth to
    accomplish the safety of the operation and the long-term
    protection of the environment from the waste.
        These are site characteristics, engineered features,
    barriers that are incorporated in the disposal facility, waste
    characteristics.
        These all contribute to the defense in depth, and defense
    in depth is one of the fundamental principles of nuclear safety
    and it is applied not just for disposal facilities but also for
    nuclear power plants and other facilities.
        Mr. Shimkus. And that would also--you use that same theory
    in high-level waste disposal?
        Mr. Weber. Absolutely.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
        Again, Mr. Weber, in its proposed changes to Part 61
    requirements the NRC has concluded that a back fit analysis is
    not required.
        Given the potential for disruption to existing low-level
    waste disposal facilities and for entities like the Nation's
    uranium enrichment facility that must dispose of depleted
    uranium would the NRC consider or reconsider the decision to
    conduct a cost benefit analysis?
        Mr. Weber. We did a cost benefit analysis as part of the
    regulatory analysis to support the proposed rule and we got
    comment on that.
        One of the principal areas of public comment that we
    received is on this whole topic of retrospective application of
    those requirements.
        So it will be one of the key issues the commission will
    consider in finalizing the rule.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you, and I will try to get this
    last one done.
        Current regulations require the disposal of greater-than-
    Class C and transuranic waste in a geological repository.
    However, NRC staff recently recommended that the commission
    delegate authority to the State of Texas to develop disposal
    criteria for a near surface facility.
        Has the NRC established limits on how much greater-than-
    Class C or transuranic waste could safely be disposed in a near
    surface site and if not would limits need to be established as
    part of any rule making process?
        Mr. Weber. We have not established those limits and that is
    one of the issues that currently is pending before the
    commission.
        Mr. Shimkus. Is NRC contemplating allowing the State of
    Texas to establish these limits or would they just be
    considering granting a license that complies with NRC limits?
        Mr. Weber. We offered several options for the commission's
    consideration and until the commission makes its decision we
    don't have a final position on it.
        Mr. Shimkus. Based on your knowledge of greater-than-Class
    C and transuranic material, do you expect the limits would be
    necessary prior to licensing such a facility?
        Mr. Weber. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much, and I will turn to the
    ranking member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Chuck Smith of the--
    and I will direct this to both of you gentlemen.
        Chuck Smith of the Energy Community Alliance's statement
    recommends the NRC and DOE work together to change the way that
    the United States classifies waste for disposal, citing the
    International Atomic Energy Agency's more risk-based approach
    according to the, and I quote, ``intrinsic qualities of the
    material.''
        There seems to be a movement to a more risk-based approach
    to low-level waste disposal on both your parts including an
    assessment of what constitutes low-level waste. Is that a
    correct interpretation by me?
        Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir.
        I would say for the Department of Energy, for environmental
    management, our low-level waste management, we do use a risk-
    based approach. It is based on performance assessments, site
    specific.
        So it is very quantitative and, like I said, specific to
    the site where the disposal facility would be located.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Mr. Weber. Categories of radioactive waste that are managed
    in the United States are established in statute. So it would
    require legal changes to afford that kind of an approach.
        Now, NRC actually explored the merits of this back in the
    1980s through a notice and comment rule making and the
    conclusion of that rule making was such that the commission
    decided to continue with adherence to the existing statutory
    definitions.
        Mr. Tonko. Mm-hmm. If we were to assume this risk-based,
    would that include assessing the actual radiological content
    and activity of these wastes?
        Mr. Whitney. Sir, I am not real familiar with the ECA
    proposal. I did read Mr. Smith's testimony and we work closely
    with ECA and they are a great partner in a lot of things.
        And so we are interested in hearing more about that as we
    do a range of other issues, sitting down with them and talking
    to them. We are always open to listening to their concerns.
        Mr. Tonko. Right. Now, I hear Mr. Weber saying that you
    would need legislative authority to move in that direction.
        Mr. Whitney, would that be the case for--you obviously are
    dealing with it in somewhat of a risk-based scenario.
        Mr. Whitney. Yes. On our low-level waste, we are. Mr. Smith
    is proposing potentially a reclassification for how we classify
    waste including high-level waste and so, again, I am not real
    familiar with the details of their proposal but am interested
    in sitting down with them.
        My understanding is it would require a--the Atomic Energy
    Act clearly defines what is high-level waste, TRU waste, spent
    nuclear fuel, and byproduct material, and if it doesn't fit
    into one of those categories it is low-level waste.
        Mr. Tonko. And does DOE need NRC to take any action to aid
    in the disposal of greater-than-Class C waste or greater-than-
    Class C-like waste?
        Mr. Whitney. The GTCC environmental impact statement, the
    final EIS, we anticipate issuing that within the next quarter.
    Once that is issued, depending on the preferred alternative it
    could potentially need NRC action, particularly with respect to
    the near surface disposal.
        Mr. Tonko. And are you engaged in discussions on these
    actions? You both are?
        Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Tonko. Both agencies. And have you and will you involve
    public stakeholders in deliberations on reclassification of
    waste?
        Mr. Whitney. We don't have any formal review for
    reclassifying waste right now within the Department of Energy.
    So I don't know if there would be a public participation
    process for that for us.
        Mr. Weber. If I could respond.
        From NRC's perspective that was a subject of the proposed
    rule that we put out for public comment. So we have discussed
    and engaged members of the public stakeholders in both public
    meetings and in consideration of their comments on the proposed
    rule.
        Mr. Tonko. And are there other waste streams that can be
    considered for a more risk-based approach to disposal?
        Mr. Weber. I would say from NRC's perspective, actually our
    disposal requirements dating back to 1982 were one of the
    earliest risk-informed performance-based regulations that the
    NRC issued.
        While you can always refine that as we learn through
    experience and also the development of enhanced analytical
    techniques, that is part of why we continually review our
    regulations to ensure that they are delivering on the safety
    and protection of the environment while not imposing an undue
    burden on the parties that we regulate.
        Mr. Tonko. Mr. Whitney, any further comment on that or--OK.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        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. This is an issue that is very important.
        Obviously, we made--sometimes in the public when you hear
    low-level you let your guard down and don't realize that these
    are issues that are--have to be addressed and certainly we
    expect to figure out a way to cooperate and work together to
    achieve those goals, both with DOE and with the NRC.
        And first, for you, Mr. Weber, if I could, the NRC, I know,
    is evaluating changes to its regulations affecting LLW disposal
    including Part 61 regulations--how low-level waste is
    classified and greater-than-Class C disposal pathways.
        There appear to be areas of overlap and a precedence among
    these various initiatives.
        Has the NRC conducted a high-level analysis to determine
    whether there should be more--a more comprehensive rule making
    or at least greater coordination of seemingly disparate
    activities? If not, why not?
        Mr. Weber. OK. NRC--the rule that I mentioned previously
    back in the 1980s we did consider whether there should be an
    overarching framework regulation established to ensure that
    there is consistency and coherency to the national radioactive
    waste management framework.
        The conclusion of that rule at that time was that such an
    overarching framework was not necessary. Now, having said that,
    the initial development of these regulations dates back to the
    1970s and there was a high-level interagency group that
    established the basic foundations of the way that we manage
    radioactive waste in the United States today.
        Mr. Harper. OK. And in March of 2015 the proposed rule was
    released for public comment. What type of responses have you
    been getting?
        Mr. Weber. We received about a hundred separate distinct
    comment letters, many very thoughtful comments. We also
    received a large number of form responses.
        So we have our work cut out for us to go through the range
    of issues that we heard comments on.
        Mr. Harper. And that public comment period is still
    ongoing?
        Mr. Weber. No, it closed in late September.
        Mr. Harper. OK. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitney, the Federal Government is responsible for the
    permanent disposal of greater-than-Class C waste which the NRC
    determines is not suitable for a near surface disposable
    facility.
        In addition to commercially generated GTCC, the Department
    of Energy has an inventory of GTCC waste, which must be stored
    until Congress approves the disposal facility.
        So, Mr. Whitney, what is the current inventory of GTCC
    waste owned by the Department of Energy?
        Mr. Whitney. Thank you, sir.
        So the Department doesn't formally have a classification
    for greater-than-Class C, and we do, for the purpose of the
    environmental impact statement, call it GTCC-like, and it
    consists of the low-level radioactive waste that might have a
    characteristic similar to the GTCC waste as classified by NRC
    as well as some of our transuranic wastes that don't have a
    disposal pathway.
        But the EIS evaluated about 12,000 cubic meters of waste,
    and about a quarter of that is present and future, is owned by
    the Department.
        Mr. Harper. Got it. Congress directed DOE to recommend a
    disposal pathway for GTC or, I guess, GTCC-like waste in 2005.
    When do you expect DOE will provide the final report to
    Congress and what are the costs and risks of delay?
        Mr. Whitney. We anticipate issuing that final EIS within
    the next quarter and then we will submit the report to Congress
    that outlines the disposal alternatives, the options, the
    preferred alternative and some of the things associated with
    cost, who pays, and how we can ensure the safety.
        We will follow that and we will, of course, await
    congressional action prior to issuing a decision.
        Mr. Harper. So when you say next quarter, you don't mean
    the quarter that we are in--you mean the first quarter of 2016?
        Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Harper. OK. I believe my time will expire before I can
    get an answer here, so I will yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Aren't we in the first quarter of 2016, so you
    mean the second quarter? Is that right?
        Mr. Whitney. By the end of the next quarter, so by the end
    of March. It could be sooner. We are going through the formal
    DOE review process, so we are at the very late stages of the
    process right now.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you for clearing that up.
        Very good. Now I would like to recognize the gentleman from
    Texas for 5 minutes, Mr. Green.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, you and ranking member,
    for holding the hearings on low-level radioactive waste.
        I would like to thank all our panelists for being here. I
    share concerns of many of the subcommittee that the Federal
    Government needs to move forward to find a suitable site for
    greater-than-Class C radioactive waste.
        It is my hope that Department of Energy and NRC are taking
    all safe options under strong consideration in working with
    private sector and local communities to find a solution that is
    the best interest of all the impacted stakeholders.
        Mr. Weber, on January 30th of 2015, the Texas Commission on
    Environmental Quality sent a letter to the NRC requesting
    responses to questions concerning the State of Texas' authority
    to license of disposal cell for the greater-than-Class C, GTCC-
    like and transuranic waste.
        I understand that in July in a paper to the commission the
    NRC developed three options and recommended one of these
    options, Option two, in allowing the State of Texas to license
    and regulate the disposal of GTCC waste.
        Is this correct?
        Mr. Weber. That is correct.
        Mr. Green. I know the NRC has yet to vote on this. But can
    you talk a bit more about the proposal and why the staff
    recommended allowing Texas to license and regulate the disposal
    of the GTCC waste?
        Mr. Weber. Some of the commissioners have voted, but until
    they all complete their votes there won't be a decision from--
    --
        Mr. Green. Is there a time frame for that?
        Mr. Weber. They try to do it as expeditiously as they see
    fit. In terms of your request on the alternatives, the staff
    recommended alternative two, which would allow the State of
    Texas to license the disposal of it.
        But they would require the commission to move forward and
    develop the criteria upon which that decision would be based so
    that the commission could fulfill its responsibilities under
    the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of approving the
    disposal of the greater-than-Class C waste.
        And the other options NRC could issue the license. That is
    not very appealing from the NRC's perspective--the staff's
    perspective as laid out in the paper for a variety of reasons.
        And the final option is the do nothing or the no action
    alternative. That is also not very appealing, given that the
    waste exists and the commission's obligation is to fulfil its
    mission, which is protecting the public health and safety.
        Given that, disposal of that waste is a prudent approach.
        Mr. Green. Is there any guidance from the NRC on if the
    commission decides to go forward with it and develop it is
    there any guidance from NRC? Do you work with the commission in
    Texas? Has this happened before with any other State the NRC is
    working with?
        Mr. Weber. Only on a very limited basis. After the Congress
    enacted the legislation, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
    Amendments Act, in 1985, there were a handful of instances
    where the operating disposal facilities, the States, came to
    the NRC and said we would like permission to dispose of this
    small quantity of waste and so NRC did work with the States.
        Clearly, if the commission moves forward on the options
    that were presented to it by the NRC staff, we would be working
    quite closely with the State of Texas.
        Mr. Green. Our committee, obviously, has jurisdiction--the
    subcommittee and the full committee over the NRC and we have
    had innumerable hearings over the last few years about what we
    are going to do with not only the low-level but also ultimately
    the high-level.
        And so I just hope that the NRC would work with our Texas
    commission because if this is the first location in the country
    that would be able to accept this GTCC waste, it could be a
    prototype, I would hope, because the rest of the country needs
    to also develop their own waste sites because west Texas is a
    big place but I don't know if it is that big.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions and thank you.
    I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Oh, it is that big. It is that big. It is the
    first time I have heard a Texan say it is not that big. Now, I
    don't know what is going on here. If you don't mind, I will
    correct the record. It is that big.
        Mr. Green. OK. Well, Bill, you are closer to west Texas
    than I am.
        Mr. Shimkus. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitney, the USEC Privatization Act assigned
    responsibility to the Department of Energy to dispose of
    depleted uranium, a byproduct of uranium enrichment.
        Has the NRC worked with the DOE to develop a disposal
    pathway for depleted uranium?
        Mr. Whitney. Sir, I believe those discussions are ongoing.
    We have had discussions, and they are ongoing.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. I don't have the date here. When was the
    privatization act? When were you first directed to that?
        Mr. Whitney. And I don't know, either. I would have to get
    back with you on that.
        [The information follows:]

            The USEC Privatization Act was enacted in 1996.

        Mr. Bucshon. It is always surprising me in hearings where
    Congress has said to do things, like, 10 years before and we
    are still talking about it. But this may not be one of those
    instances.
        Will the NRC's current Part 61 rule making affect the DOE's
    plans to dispose of depleted uranium at commercial disposal
    sites?
        Mr. Whitney. I don't believe it would.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. And what would the effect of the DOE's
    disposal plans for depleted uranium--effect on the DOE's
    disposal plans for depleted uranium if the NRC decides to
    incorporate greater-than-Class C and transuranic waste as part
    of their Part 61 rule making?
        Mr. Whitney. It is unclear to me at this point, sir.
        One, it would depend on the ultimate disposal pathway for
    the depleted uranium, of course, and then what the final rule
    making is.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK.
        Mr. Whitney. I am just unaware of any direct implications.
    I apologize.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Flores, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I believe that Mr. Green asked most of my questions so I
    will pass at this point.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
    from Pennsylvania. Do you have any questions, Joe?
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Weber, as a part of the public comment
    process for NRC's revisions to Part 61 regulations--the
    governmental low-level waste disposal facility--the agreement
    States requested that NRC revise the compatibility requirements
    from what is known as compatibility B, which require agreement
    States to have the same regulatory standards as NRC, to
    compatibility C, which permit agreement States to have more
    stringent regulatory standards than NRC regs.
        Will the NRC staff address this issue as part of the rule
    making process prior to providing the rule to the commission
    for approval?
        Mr. Weber. Absolutely, sir.
        That is part of our process. The staff will formulate a
    recommendation. We will also work with the agreement States in
    formulating the recommendations to go back to the commission.
        So there will be lots of discussion on that topic. It did
    get a lot of comments.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Whitney, has the NRC solicited DOE input on
    the matter of revising the current Part 61 rule making as
    opposed to initiating a new rule making after this one is
    completed to include the disposal of greater-than-Class C and
    transuranic waste?
        Mr. Whitney. I believe discussions did occur, sir, yes,
    between DOE and NRC.
        Mr. Pitts. Would a DOE site to dispose of greater-than-
    Class C waste have to be licensed by the NRC?
        Mr. Whitney. The Department of Energy does not have the
    classification of GTCC--we have ``GTCC-like waste,'' which is
    regulated by the Department of Energy.
        So if a preferred alternative was a DOE site and our GTCC-
    like waste went there, we would not need an NRC license.
        Mr. Pitts. Given the need to dispose of GTCC and TRU waste,
    is it reasonable to delay the current rule making to include
    GTCC and TRU waste?
        Mr. Weber. I believe that is a topic that is currently
    under commission consideration.
        Mr. Pitts. What would be the effects on the DOE if the
    current Part 61 rule making is delayed?
        Mr. Weber. Do you want to answer that?
        Mr. Whitney. I am not aware of any direct implications of a
    delay in the rule making. We are, of course, moving forward
    with the environmental impact statement, which will outline the
    alternatives and the preferred alternative. And so at this
    point, I don't see any implications or impacts to delaying the
    rule making.
        Mr. Pitts. OK. And I am not sure which one to ask this but
    did the Yucca Mountain license application include the option
    of disposing of greater-than-Class C material in the
    repository?
        Mr. Weber. Yes.
        Mr. Pitts. In light of the fact that the Department
    previously submitted a license for the disposal of GTCC waste
    at Yucca Mountain, if the NRC issues the Yucca Mountain
    license, will that site be considered as part of the process
    for DOE to recommend a disposal pathway?
        Mr. Whitney. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question, sir?
    I apologize.
        Mr. Pitts. Yes. In light of the fact that the Department
    previously submitted a license for the disposal of GTCC waste
    at Yucca Mountain, if the NRC issues the Yucca Mountain license
    will that site be considered as part of the process for DOE to
    recommend a disposal pathway?
        Mr. Whitney. Yucca Mountain was not considered an
    alternative since the administration deemed it an unworkable
    solution and so it was not considered and has not been
    considered in the GTCC siting process.
        Mr. Pitts. Well, Mr. Weber, as part of the developing
    recommendation on providing Texas authority to license GTCC
    facility, did NRC staff consider proceeding with the Yucca
    Mountain license application as an alternative disposal
    pathway? If not, why not?
        Mr. Weber. The staff completed the safety evaluation report
    for Yucca Mountain and we are currently working on the
    supplement to the environmental impact statement on Yucca
    Mountain.
        And when we conclude that, we will have largely exhausted
    the congressionally appropriated funds for NRC licensing work
    on Yucca Mountain.
        What we considered in formulating our recommendations to
    the commission on greater-than-Class C waste is a response to
    the State of Texas proposal as an alternative to what is
    required today in Part 61. That would be something other than a
    geologic repository.
        So the advice--the recommendations we provided to the
    commission was the consideration of near surface or sub near
    surface disposal as an alternative for geologic repository
    disposal of greater-than-Class C waste.
        Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
        My time has expired.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess I can ask both of you this question. Earlier this
    month, there was a serious incident at a closed down low-level
    waste disposal site in Nevada that involved an explosion and
    fire and the successor to that company that operated that site
    currently manages one of the low-level waste sites currently in
    operation.
        Meanwhile, in February, the Nation's only facility for
    disposal of transuranic, or TRU waste, generated by DOE
    activities was shut down indefinitely as a result of a series
    of incidents there.
        So given these recent disturbing developments can each of
    you tell us why the public should have confidence in DOE's
    ability or NRC's or the State's ability to safely regulate the
    sites?
        I think we can--I think we can but I just think the public
    needs to be reassured. We will start with Mr. Whitney, I guess.
        Mr. Whitney. I thank you, sir.
        The incident in Nevada was at a non-DOE-owned facility. I
    believe it was in or near Beatty, Nevada. The Department did
    provide some technical assistance on the emergency response
    side.
        I believe we are still trying to understand what happened
    and work with them because we would like to make sure we learn
    any lessons from that just like we would like to learn from any
    incidents that might occur at DOE facilities.
        With respect to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant that did
    shut down in February of 2014 as a result of a couple of
    incidents there and we had some significant failures in many
    areas with respect to our operation of a facility there, with
    respect to packaging at the generator site where--in the
    processing where the packaging occurred before it got to WIPP.
        And we are taking those lessons learned and not just
    applying them at WIPP. A tremendous amount of work has happened
    in the last year and a half to ensure the safety of that
    facility and when we recover and resume operations that we are
    able to do so in a safe manner, but also across the complex,
    taking those lessons learned to make sure that we don't repeat
    those at all our sites, whether they are generator sites,
    generate transuranic waste that will go to WIPP, or any of our
    sites where there might be issues that we can apply whether
    they are TRU waste generators or not.
        I believe that the public should and hope the public will
    have confidence in DOE's ability to manage its low-level and
    transuranic waste.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Mr. Weber.
        Mr. Weber. I would like to add to what my colleague
    offered. We are working with the State of Nevada to understand
    what happened at the Beatty low-level radioactive waste
    disposal facility.
        The part of the facility that was affected by the explosion
    and fire. I understand there is a trench that was---waste was
    placed into and the--around 1972, perhaps '69 to 1973 time
    frame, far predating the requirements that we put in place in
    1982, and those regulations were put in place in Part 61
    specifically to enhance the level of protection associated with
    the safe management of the radioactive waste--things like waste
    characteristics, waste forms that did not exist at that time.
    So we are trying to learn with the State about what happened.
        My understanding is that there were no elevated levels of
    radiation associated with the fire and the explosion. So while
    it is not something that is desired to occur at a disposal
    facility. The public is safe in the vicinity of that facility.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you both. I have another
    question here. I don't know if I have time to go through this
    but let me try.
        Mr. Whitney, in your testimony, you discuss the different
    classifications of radioactive waste and you mentioned some of
    the facilities that accept particular classes of it like Energy
    Solutions Utah, which accepts Class A mixed and low-level waste
    and the waste control specialist facility in Anderson, Texas,
    which accepts Class A, B and C waste.
        And as we have heard today, greater-than-Class C waste, or
    GTCC storage, is treated as a separate issue altogether.
        Can you explain what it is about the unique storage needs
    of, say, Class A versus Class C versus GTCC waste that makes
    them require unique regulatory approaches and how prepared
    would current low-level waste storage facilities be to accept
    GTCC waste if that licensing became an option? You have 27
    seconds.
        Mr. Whitney. And if you don't mind, I will turn to my
    colleague. That is an NRC classification scheme.
        Mr. Pallone. Sure.
        Mr. Weber. The greater-than-Class C waste contains higher
    concentrations of longer lived radionuclides and thus the
    disposal of that waste requires higher barriers so that the
    public is protected over a long period of time and that is the
    focus of the State of Texas their review and so would also be
    the focus of the NRC in working with the State of Texas.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. I am going to leave--did you want
    to add something? OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time has expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
    Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, thank
    you for being with us today.
        Mr. Whitney, I want to build upon the conversation that we
    began last time you testified in September.
        As you might remember, we discussed the importance of the
    decontamination and the decommissioning work at the former
    Gaseous Diffusion Plant at Piketon, Ohio.
        Astonishingly, DOE has recently decided to terminate
    funding for the American Centrifuge Project also located at
    Piketon.
        If DOE doesn't soon reverse its decision, we are about to
    add to the price tag of that D&D work because that facility
    there will have to be dealt with, which DOE already attempts to
    under fund year after year.
        So that D&D work is--it is a battle each and every year, it
    seems, to get DOE to put the appropriate amount of money
    towards it.
        DOE's own analysis has confirmed that the ACPs-- AC100
    centrifuge technology will be needed to meet our national
    security enrichment needs in as little as 10 years.
        So allowing the ACP, currently our only domestic enrichment
    capability to shutter its operations now only require--only to
    require its inevitable remobilisation shortly thereafter seems
    to me is a severe mismanagement of Federal resources and an
    ill-advised decision because rehiring of this uniquely skilled
    workforce and its overall remobilisation will prove costly.
        So the national security optics and consequences of the ACP
    closure are both very troubling. So, Mr. Whitney, some
    questions.
        Was the D&D costs to dismantle the current Piketon AC100
    facility--was that taken into consideration when DOE decided to
    cease ACP funding? Do you know if they contacted anyone in your
    department about that?
        Mr. Whitney. I am not aware that they did. We have a
    process of transferring excess facilities from one program to
    the other. So there is a formal process that we would go
    through once the decision is made.
        It is a programmatic decision that didn't necessarily need
    to involve EM. But there would be a process then for transfer
    of the facility when it happens and things of that nature.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Let us assume for a second that the
    closure continues and goes forward and that there is a D&D
    cleanup effort there on the current ACP facility as well.
        What impact could that closure have on the current D&D
    cleanup time line there in Piketon?
        Mr. Whitney. I don't know. I won't be able to provide
    specifics just because we would go through that process when
    the facilities became owned by EM and we would bring into our
    life cycle baseline and we would sequence out the work and see.
    But it would certainly add D&D costs and cleanup costs and----
        Mr. Johnson. Is it safe to say, certainly, given the amount
    of time that we have already spent on the D&D cleanup for the
    gaseous diffusion facility, is it safe to say that that cost
    and time line implications would be significant?
        Mr. Whitney. I can't say that, sir, because I am just not
    sure.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Do you know if the Office of Environmental
    Management was consulted before this decision was made? Did
    anyone talk to you guys about this?
        Mr. Whitney. We were not involved in the decisionmaking
    process because it was a different program.
        Mr. Johnson. All right.
        We understand that the American Centrifuge program shares
    utility and overhead costs to the tune of about $9 to $10
    million with the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion D&D program and
    that shuttering the ACP will shift all of those costs to the
    D&D budget.
        Did they consult with you and have you folks given any
    consideration as to how you will pay for this increase in new
    costs?
        Mr. Whitney. We have given consideration to that and we
    have reached out to our colleagues in the other programs
    formally to start that discussion on how those costs will be
    covered.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. But no decisions have been made?
        Mr. Whitney. No, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. And finally, do you have any--and I think
    you have already answered this but just to be sure, if the
    Department of Energy does press forward with the closure of the
    American Centrifuge project facility, do you have any idea what
    its cleanup costs would be?
        Mr. Whitney. No, sir. At this point, I don't. But that
    would be part of our process if we take over as owner of the
    facility.
        Mr. Johnson. How long will it take you to--how long will it
    take you to go through that type of analysis to determine what
    the cleanup costs would be, from start to finish?
        Mr. Whitney. Generally, once we have ownership of the
    facility it would not take a long time because we have a lot of
    precedent at other facilities. It might be similar at other
    sites.
        Mr. Johnson. Are we talking weeks, months?
        Mr. Whitney. Probably months. Not many months.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
        Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Chairman yields back his time.
        Seeing no other members present, we would like to thank you
    for being here and answering our questions and your testimony,
    and with that we will excuse the first panel and seat the
    second.
        So we will begin with the second panel. Thank you for
    coming. I will do similar as I did at first. I will just
    introduce you when it is your time and we want to welcome you
    here.
        So first to speak to us is Ms. Jennifer Opila. Is that--
    Opila. All right.
        Ms. Jennifer Opila, director, Organization of Agreement
    States. Thank you. Your full statement is in the record. You
    have 5 minutes.

    STATEMENTS OF JENNIFER OPILA, DIRECTOR, COLORADO, ORGANIZATION
     OF AGREEMENT STATES; LEIGH ING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS LOW-
    LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT COMMISSION; AND CHUCK
     SMITH, JR., COUNCIL MEMBER, AIKEN COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND
                 CHAIRMAN, ENERGY COMMUNITIES ALLIANCE

                      STATEMENT OF JENNIFER OPILA

        Ms. Opila. Thank you very much, Chairman, and Ranking
    Member Tonko, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        I appreciate the opportunity to represent the Organization
    of Agreement States and discuss the OAS' views on low-level
    radioactive waste management with you.
        The membership of OAS consists of State radiation control
    directors and staff from the 37 agreement States, who are
    responsible for the implementation of their respective
    agreement State programs.
        Agreement States are those States that have entered into an
    effective regulatory discontinuance agreement with the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission under subsection 274(b) of the Atomic
    Energy Act, the AEA.
        The role of the agreement States is to regulate most types
    of radioactive material in accordance with the compatibility
    requirements, the AEA.
        Under its own internal practices, the NRC periodically
    reviews the performance of each agreement State to assure
    compatibility with the NRC's regulatory standards.
        The purpose of the OAS is to provide a mechanism for these
    agreement States to work with each other and with the NRC on
    regulatory issues associated with their respective agreements.
        Throughout the years, both agreement States and
    nonagreement States have had the responsibility for
    implementing the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act.
        As a result of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act,
    States have formed compacts that have facilitated the safe
    disposal of radioactive waste.
        At times, the compact system has been criticized because it
    has resulted in many States not having access to disposal
    facilities.
        However, with the recent establishment of the Waste Control
    Specialist Facility in Texas, the establishment of the Texas
    Vermont Compact and that compact allowing access to the WCS
    facility from out of compact facilities, this situation has
    been largely resolved and that all States now have access to a
    waste disposal facility.
        Additionally, the WCS facility has added much needed
    capacity to the overall low-level waste disposal inventory. The
    OAS board believes that the compact system should be maintained
    so that States can control the import and export of low-level
    radioactive waste within their jurisdiction.
        Agreement States play a vital role in the regulation of
    low-level radioactive waste disposal in the United States. All
    four active low-level waste sites operate in the agreement
    States of Texas, Utah, South Carolina, and Washington.
        It is these States, not the NRC, who have decades of
    experience in regulating low-level waste disposal. These States
    brought this experience to the recent discussions of changes to
    10 CFR Part 61, the Federal rule regarding low-level
    radioactive waste disposal.
        The purpose of this rule change was to consider the impacts
    resulting from the disposal of unique waste streams such as
    significant quantities of depleted uranium from the operation
    of a commercial uranium enrichment facility.
        The OAS board has two primary objections to the current
    proposed amendments to Part 61. First, the board objects to
    redoing a sites performance assessment unless that site opts to
    take significant quantities of long-lived alpha emitters such
    as depleted uranium.
        Sites that are not going to be accepting these unique waste
    streams do not need to conform to a performance assessment
    process that is designed specifically for those unique waste
    streams.
        Importantly, performance assessments addressing the
    disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium for two
    of the existing low-level waste disposal facilities have either
    been completed or will soon be completed.
        Second, the board proposes compatibility C designation
    instead of compatibility B designation, as currently proposed
    by the NRC for the new requirements of Part 61.
        Many States that regulate low-level radioactive waste sites
    currently have State standards that are more stringent than the
    requirements in the proposed rule.
        These States should not be forced to weaken their standards
    to conform to the new NRC rules. Compatibility C designation
    would allow these States to implement standards that are
    acceptable to the State and the communities that host these
    disposal facilities as long as those standards are at least as
    stringent as the NRC standards.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Opila follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
        Next, I would like to turn to Ms. Leigh Ing, executive
    director of Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact
    Commission.
        You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF LEIGH ING

        Ms. Ing. Thank you very much and thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking
    Member Tonko. I will be providing testimony today on low-level
    radioactive waste compacts, in particular my compact, Texas and
    Vermont.
        As you are well aware, low-level compacts are agreements
    between two or more States in which one of the States becomes
    the host State by providing a disposal facility.
        The remaining States in that compact are guaranteed access
    to low-level radioactive waste to that disposal facility.
    Currently, we have 10 compacts that have been established in
    this country, 3 of which have disposal facilities.
        We have the Richland facility in the Northwest Compact that
    includes the States around Washington as well as Hawaii and
    Alaska, and that facility can take Class A, B, and C waste.
        We also have the Clive facility in Utah, which is open to
    all States but it can take only Class A. We also have the
    Barnwell facility in South Carolina that can take waste from
    South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut.
        And then we have my compact, the Texas and Vermont compact,
    which includes only the State of Texas and Vermont, which
    guarantees access to all low-level waste generated in Texas and
    in Vermont.
        One of the things unique about my compact is that--and
    there is the map that has all of the compacts and you can see
    where I have--we have a facility in the corner of Texas and
    there are stars where there are facilities that can take low-
    level radioactive waste in our compact.
        [The information appears with Ms. Ing's prepared
    statement.]
        One of the things that is unique about my compact is that
    the State of Texas has passed a statute which allows our
    compact to accept imports from all the other States, the
    District of Columbia and territories up to a limit of 275,000
    curies per year.
        The role--the very important role of my compact which is
    composed of eight voting members and one alternative, six of
    those members are put in place by the Governor of Texas. Two,
    in the alternate, are put in place by the Governor of Vermont.
        One of my Texas commissioners by my compact law is required
    to be a representative of the local community. What that
    commission does is we take a look at all generators or brokers
    who may choose to import to our facility and make sure that the
    applications to import meet all of the criteria for import into
    our compact.
        We also work with the State of Texas to ensure that the
    waste coming in is acceptable to the owner of the site, the
    State of Texas. We meet about--approximately every six weeks to
    approve all of these that we deem are approvable. To date, we
    have approved almost a hundred import applications that
    represent imports from 40 States and from Puerto Rico as well
    as from the District of Columbia.
        Overall, we regard what we have been doing has been very
    successful. It has been a learning process for us. We are the
    first compact that takes imports this way and learning how
    generators and brokers work and how our fellow compacts work is
    that we can work collegiately with our compacts had been a very
    good process.
        But we have been learning and tweaking our process as we
    learn more.
        I would say there are three very important points to make
    that we have learned through this process. One, because of our
    facility in the Andrews area, we now have access--in concert
    with our other facilities we have access to all 50 States, the
    District of Columbia, and territories in this country for low-
    level radioactive waste as a result of the compact system as
    put forth by the Low-Level Waste Policy Act.
        Although it may not have been implemented exactly as
    intended, we do now have waste capacity for everywhere in the
    United States. The other thing that I think is important to
    point out is that one of the reasons we have this is because
    the compacts can exclude waste outside of the compact if it
    chooses to do so, as was done by the Atlantic compact and was
    done by the Northwest Compact. That can also be done in ours.
        But currently, given how imports assist the country and
    assist the viability of our facility, and the State of Texas
    and locals also get fees from that, there is not direction that
    has been put forward to limit that at this time.
        The third and final point I will make is that my
    commissioners unanimously believe it is important to have a
    disposal pathway and to do everything in our process and
    working with generators and brokers to make that pathway
    available so that as opposed to being stored it is disposed of
    up to 275,000 curies per year at the facility.
        And that concludes my remarks. Thank you very much for
    allowing me to provide testimony today.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ing follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. You are welcome. We are happy to have you
    here.
        Next, I would like to turn to Mr. Chuck Smith, council
    member of Aiken County--I visited in Aiken County just last
    spring--South Carolina, chairman of the Energy Community
    Alliance.
        So welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF CHUCK SMITH, JR.

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
    Tonko and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
    me to testify today.
        Again, I am Chuck Smith, council member from Aiken County,
    South Carolina. I am a board member of the Savannah River Site
    community reuse organization and chairman of Energy Communities
    Alliance, the association of local communities that are
    adjacent to, impacted by or supporting DOE activities.
        Our communities have long played a key role in supporting
    the country's national security efforts, hosting these
    facilities with the understanding that the waste would
    ultimately be disposed of in a safe and timely manner.
        ECA understands that nuclear waste disposition presents
    many challenges, often more political than technical, and as
    you are well aware the development of a geological repository
    has not proceeded as planned and which is currently receiving
    waste.
        Therefore, there are waste streams in our communities that
    still have no clear disposal path and we remain de factor
    nuclear waste storage sites.
        Today, I would like to make three recommendations. First,
    ECA urges Congress to consider feasible alternatives to move
    waste out of our community safely, beginning with classifying
    waste based on its composition, not just by where it
    originated.
        This would allow the country to move forward properly,
    safely and scientifically to dispose of radioactive waste and
    save taxpayers millions of dollars, and we think it just makes
    sense.
        ECA believes that changing the way the United States
    classifies waste can provide additional safe publically
    acceptable disposable alternatives, leading to lower Federal
    and taxpayers cost for storage and less risk to human health
    and the environment.
        Our radioactive waste classification system currently
    relies primarily on point of origin rather than composition,
    with specific hazards posed by its disposal.
        This approach has many deficiencies. It can be misleading.
    Some waste classified as low-level waste can be more long lived
    and pose a higher risk than others labelled high-level or
    transuranic.
        It could be inconsistent. Low-level waste is defined by
    exclusion whereas high-level waste is defined by its source. It
    can also be vague as is the case with the existing definition
    for high-level waste, which states the waste must contain
    fission products in sufficient concentrations.
        This does not adequately address the current state of
    defense high-level waste, some of which could technically
    qualify as transuranic waste if based on its radioactive
    material content. Only the U.S. classifies nuclear waste this
    way.
        ECA recommends that NRC and DOE work together to consider
    this option. Many stakeholders feel that NRC and DOE already
    have the existing authority to make the change.
        ECA is looking to Congress to implement a change
    immediately through legislation. ECA's multi community task
    force has drafted proposed language for congressional
    consideration and we have shared this with your staff.
        For greater-than-Class C waste disposal in a geologic
    repository is the only method currently approved by the NRC. In
    its absence, greater-than-Class C and greater-than-Class C-like
    waste which includes waste from DOE cleanup programs, has no
    disposal path.
        As the Savannah River Site community reuse organization
    specifically noted in a 2011 letter to DOE, this waste is
    considered orphaned and they do not support Savannah River Site
    as a potential candidate for its disposal.
        As a board member of the SRS CRO, we follow the community's
    guiding principle which is no waste or excess material shall be
    brought into South Carolina unless and improved and funded
    pathway exists for processing a shipment to either a customer
    or an out-of-State waste disposal facility and clarifying waste
    definitions would be helpful in identifying those disposal
    paths.
        Number two, ECA recommends that full consideration be
    given--support be given to communities and States interested in
    providing alternative storage and disposal options as part of a
    consent-based process.
        Greater-than-Class C and greater-than-Class C-like waste is
    essentially the same as remote handled transuranic waste from
    the defense sector, which is already exposed of at WIPP near
    Carlsbad, New Mexico.
        The local communities there are knowledgeable on these
    issues and supportive of the cleanup efforts. If DOE and NRC
    determine this alternative is safe, secure and reliable, if
    legislation is passed to allow WIPP to accept the commercial
    waste as well as the defense waste it already takes, if the
    necessary regulatory changes are made and resources are
    provided for outreach and education to ensure the impacted
    communities in the State understand the potential risk and
    benefits and approve, WIPP could take appropriate classified
    transuranic waste as well as a small amount of commercial
    greater-than-Class C waste.
        This could result in more room for high-level waste and
    spent nuclear fuel in Yucca Mountain or any other geological
    repository.
        As you are well aware, Yucca Mountain is considered full
    before it even opens. I should also mention the efforts by the
    State of Texas to license a disposal cell for greater thank
    Class C and greater-than-Class C-like waste or transuranic
    waste.
        Waste control specialists has a proven track record for
    safe disposal of low-level waste in Texas. They work closely
    with the surrounding communities and they too are interested in
    taking the waste.
        Nye County also supports the inclusion of Yucca Mountain as
    an alternative for disposal of greater-than-Class C waste.
    However, DOE took it off the table in its draft EIS prior to
    the resolution of the regulatory and legal issues.
        This was due in large part to the administration's
    determination that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option and
    suspension of its licensing activities with the NRC.
        And lastly, the public must have the opportunity to
    formally comment on any preferred alternative in pursuit of a
    consent-based process.
        ECA looks forward to reviewing DOE's final greater-than-
    Class C EIS when it is released. However, as impacted
    communities we stress that the public must have an opportunity
    to formally comment on DOE's preferred alternative, especially
    as we move towards implementing a consent-based process.
        This needs to happen even if DOE will have to delay its
    recommendation to Congress and any record of decision while
    they take public input into account.
        In closing, there are options and the Federal Government
    needs to give serious consideration to all safe alternatives.
    Doing so may allow us to overcome stalemates, build momentum
    and implement a comprehensive strategy that will get waste
    moving out of our communities as safely and expeditiously as
    possible.
        Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present
    this testimony to you today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and I will recognize
    myself 5 minutes for opening for the round of questioning and
    just say to start is that the whole idea of having these
    hearings is to get that input as we try to move on legislation.
    So we appreciate that.
        Let me start with Ms. Ing. Your testimony notes that
    starting in 2008 States which were not a part of an interstate
    compact with a host facility were left stranded without a
    disposal option.
        This was the result of the State of South Carolina choosing
    to exclude non-Atlantic Compact Commission States from having
    access to the Bardwell site. Is that correct?
        Ms. Ing. That is correct.
        Mr. Shimkus. To your knowledge, was that decision the
    result of any technical or legal issues or was it a policy
    change as a result of a political process?
        Ms. Ing. I know that part of the reason was a policy change
    as a result of a political process. To the extent there were
    technical issues as well I would not be aware of those.
        Mr. Shimkus. Due to the nature of low-level waste compacts,
    will host State governments always have the ability to modify
    acceptance criteria depending on political and policy
    preferences?
        Ms. Ing. I believe that would depend on how that compact is
    set up and to what extent the State legislature would impact
    that compact. I know in the State of Texas that would be
    allowed to happen for its host facility in the Texas/Vermont
    compact.
        Mr. Shimkus. The--and again, Mr. Smith, you have already
    mentioned the definition of waste and dealt with the
    transuranic. That was going to be one of my questions but you
    covered that.
        So your testimony also notes that the Department of Energy
    successfully engaged with the State of Nevada to dispose of
    DOE-owned mixed waste at the Nevada National Security Site.
         In your view, what were the key steps that enabled DOE and
    Nevada to come together in an understanding for how to dispose
    of the nuclear material.
        Mr. Smith. Well, I can't speak to Nevada's thought process
    on that. But I believe it is probably coordination with the
    State and the community and trying to move things forward.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. There is a--is there a common thread
    through the local communities represented by the energy
    community's association?
        Mr. Smith. Well, there is, and I think the common thread is
    is we want to help solve these problems and make a positive
    impact and we think we have got some solutions but you have got
    to bring those to the community and the leadership in those
    communities to be able to get our ideas and impacts that we
    could have on helping you move these processes forward.
        Mr. Shimkus. And some of them might be evaluation of
    legislation that is proposed and being engaged and helping us
    craft that.
        Mr. Smith. Absolutely. We certainly want input into that.
        Mr. Shimkus. Very good. Thank you.
        Ms. Opila, many of the types of radioactive material are
    disused radioactive sources. Disused sources are sealed sources
    of radioactive material that is not currently being utilized
    and will never be utilized again for the intended purposes.
        According to the disused sources working group, there are
    approximately 2 million sealed sources and tens of thousands of
    disused sources in the United States.
        How are agreement States currently managing disused
    sources?
        Ms. Opila. Thank you, Chairman.
        Disused sources are just like any other radioactive source
    that is licensed at a facility under an agreement State's
    authority.
        And therefore those licenses require those facilities to
    safely and securely manage those sources just as they would any
    other sources.
        The agreement States under their authority periodically
    inspect these facilities to ensure that the facilities are
    managing those sources, both disused and used, in a safe and
    secure manner.
        Mr. Shimkus. Is the NRC working with agreement states to
    track and dispose of disused sources?
        Ms. Opila. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. If so, are there additional actions the NRC
    could undertake to improve the handling of these sources?
        Ms. Opila. I believe that there are options that are being
    considered, one of which is for category one and category two
    sources, perhaps tracking the status of the source, whether or
    not it is used or disused in the national source tracking
    system.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. That is the end of my questions and I
    now--I will yield back my time and yield to the ranking member,
    Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Smith, in your testimony you urged DOE and NRC to work
    together to change the way that the United States classifies
    its waste to a risk-based approach, not just for low-level
    waste but for other types of nuclear waste.
        Is there support among other communities for moving in this
    direction?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. Most of all our communities in the Energy
    Communities Alliance are supportive of this effort.
        Mr. Tonko. And Ms. Opila, your reaction to that?
        Ms. Opila. I am sorry, sir.
        Mr. Tonko. Your reaction to the recommendation by Mr.
    Smith. Is there support amongst communities to move to this
    risk-based approach?
        Ms. Opila. The organization doesn't have an opinion on that
    particular question.
        Mr. Tonko. And Ms. Ing, is there any opinion you can share
    with us for--from your perspective?
        Ms. Ing. I can say that we--that with the licensing of the
    facility, the TCEQ, engaged with the facility operator with the
    risk-based approach. But I can only speak to that facility.
        Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you.
        And Mr. Smith, again, are you seeing support from DOE and
    NRC with regard to reclassification?
        Mr. Smith. Well, we had discussions with DOE but there has
    been no commitment from the Department of Energy. We think that
    the easiest solution would have--would be for Congress to
    change the language to composition as opposed to origin and
    that would give us the ability to look at a number of waste
    streams to be able to move quickly out of our communities and
    have immediate impact.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Do you believe that those agencies currently have the legal
    authority you are saying that there would be statutory change
    that you would recommend we do? But do you believe they have
    the authority to make this change or do you see that the
    legislation is absolutely necessary?
        Mr. Smith. Well, I don't think that I am qualified to
    answer that question. But I do think that legislative
    assistance with this would get the process moving very quickly.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And Mr. Smith, you also stated in your testimony support
    for looking at all options for nuclear waste disposal.
    Regardless of the status of the Yucca Mountain disposal site,
    it has been very difficult to site even the low-level waste
    facilities but we do have several operating.
        What gives you confidence that a consent-based approach to
    siting facilities for high-level waste can yield a better
    outcome?
        Mr. Smith. Well, something has got to be better than where
    we have been. So I think that anytime we can get together and
    you involve the communities we can give you ideas and
    opportunities that you may not see.
        For instance, we have identified over 2,300 canister or
    high-level waste that with this reclassification could possibly
    be considered transuranic waste and be disposed of in a
    different route than a geologic repository.
        Mr. Tonko. And do communities living near the facilities
    where cleanups are underway believe they are consulted
    adequately about the status and plans for ongoing activities at
    these sites?
        Mr. Smith. I think there is good dialogue although there is
    probably mixed results for your question. There could always be
    more. I do think we need to be engaged more, yes.
        Mr. Tonko. And could DOE and NRC or the facility operators
    be doing more to foster good community relationships?
        Mr. Smith. I guess it depends on who you ask that question.
    They think they are. Sometimes we think there should be, you
    know, more community involvement and assistance with the
    communities, you know, with the level of risk that we are
    having to take on behalf of the Department of Energy.
        Mr. Tonko. Can you cite some specifics from your own
    personal interactions with----
        Mr. Smith. Well, it doesn't involve cleanup but, again, you
    know, the MOX facility is something that came to South Carolina
    with the promise that that was going to be completed and that
    those waste streams had a disposition path out and, again, as
    you see it has certainly taken on the same characteristics of
    Yucca Mountain.
        You know, that gives us pause for, you know, what we are
    being told by the Department of Energy and, you know, the
    administration. So yes, we have serious concerns in all of our
    communities and we all have issues like that.
        Mr. Tonko. Mm-hmm. And are there practices in other
    countries or recommended practices by the International Atomic
    Energy Agency that we should look to for new ideas on how to
    deal with waste safely and more quickly than we are currently
    doing?
        Mr. Smith. Well, I am probably not the one to answer that
    question so I would like to consult with staff and get back
    with you on an answer--a written answer to that question.
        Mr. Tonko. Do any of our other witnesses have
    recommendations in that regard?
        If not, that concludes my questioning, Mr. Chair, and I
    yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time.
        Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Ing, you highlighted in your testimony that compact is
    still learning from the first 3 years of operation.
        Will you tell us the most pressing issues that must be
    addressed by both the commission as well as the State of Texas
    when you look forward?
        Ms. Ing. Yes. What we feel is the most pressing issue is
    ensuring--the State of Texas has made it clear to our compact
    that they will allow 275,000 curies per year into the facility.
        It is important for us to understand how our generators and
    brokers work, who would use the facility and how we can engage
    in a process with them that will allow as much as up to 275,000
    curies into that facility as possible.
        There are a number of challenges to generators such as
    predicting curie values, finding transportation for low-level
    radioactive waste to the facility, et cetera. We do not want
    our process to be in any way more cumbersome to that.
        So ensuring that we understand the needs of the folks who
    would use the facility and being able to adapt our process to
    that is the most pressing issue that we have.
        Mr. Flores. OK. And the second question for you is this.
    The WCS site in Andrews County opened in 2012, and it is the
    only facility that is opened as a result of the low-level waste
    policy act.
        The facility has had some challenges along the way and I
    was wondering if you could tell us about some of those
    challenges that the facility has encountered and also how long
    did it take for the facility to be licensed by the TCEQ?
        Ms. Ing. I don't know exactly how long it took the facility
    to be licensed and I am sorry I don't have that answer. I could
    get it. A lot of people know it.
        It took several years. I do know that. I don't know
    exactly. With regard--I don't want to go too far. The facility
    could give you a better answer of some of their specific
    challenges to getting the facility up and going. I think I can
    speak from my discussions with them that some of the
    difficulties have been similar to ours.
        We are the first compact and they are the first facility to
    take imports and ensuring--knowing all the different processes
    that each State, the unaffiliated States and the compacts,
    have.
        For instance, some compacts--the Southwestern Compact, the
    Central Compact, and the Rocky Mountain Compact require
    exportation.
        We cannot take it until they export it, and every compact
    has a different way to export. And so learning the nuances of
    all the different players is one of the challenges I know we
    have worked with the facility operator, WCS, on.
        Mr. Flores. OK.
        If you don't mind, if you could ask the facility to give us
    the time line for the licensing that would helpful.
        Ms. Ing. I would be very happy to provide you that.
        Mr. Flores. And you can provide that supplementally. Go
    ahead.
        Mr. Shimkus. Are you going to yield back?
        Mr. Flores. I will yield to you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes, thank you.
        I just want to--Mr. Smith, in part of these discussions I
    have always tried to figure out what the word local communities
    mean.
        What is your definition of local communities?
        Mr. Smith. Well, I serve on our council. I serve on a CRO.
        Mr. Shimkus. With respect to your association and----
        Mr. Smith. The leadership of the community that helps focus
    the ideas and opportunities that are going to
        Mr. Shimkus. Savannah River is in the county of Aiken,
    South Carolina so that is kind of a good definition. Is the
    country next to Aiken part of the association?
        Mr. Smith. Well, we have a five regional area that consists
    of five different counties that have access or have, you know,
    input into what takes place on the site.
        So we live right on the Savannah River and you cross the
    Savannah River to Georgia they have a third of work force over
    in Georgia and, clearly, they are impacted as well so----
        Mr. Shimkus. So what about the county that is to the east
    of Aiken County?
        Mr. Smith. OK. So that five-county area all has input into
    this process.
        Mr. Shimkus. Are they all bordering Savannah?
        Mr. Smith. They are all bordering Savannah River Site
    except for the Georgia side of the compact.
        Mr. Shimkus. Because of the river?
        Mr. Smith. Because of the river.
        Mr. Shimkus. So they all border the----
        Mr. Smith. That is correct. That is correct.
        Mr. Shimkus. So a county that is one time removed probably
    isn't a local community?
        Mr. Smith. No, it is not a local community.
        Mr. Shimkus. The only point I raise is because especially
    it kind of pertains to even Mr. Tonko's comment on the European
    model.
        There is a definition of--I would argue that especially at
    in Nevada, the local community, especially when you are talking
    about Yucca Mountain, the local community is Federal
    Government.
        BLM land, DOE land, all that, and then some of my friends
    who are 90 miles away--an hour and a half away--aren't really
    part of the local community in this debate. So that is kind of
    why I raised that question.
        Mr. Smith. Well, from Aiken County's standpoint, again, we
    recognize five counties as players or participants in the
    process for Aiken County and Savannah River Site. And so that
    is the input that we want to have on behalf of what takes place
    here.
        Mr. Shimkus. Very good. Thank you.
        I want to thank my colleagues for giving me this time and I
    will now yield to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
    Pallone, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to ask Ms. Ing, I want to better understand from
    your perspective what is happening with the Texas compact and
    the recent request to NRC to consider allowing Texas to license
    a facility to handle GTCC waste.
        Are you satisfied with the handling of your request by the
    NRC? Well, I will start with that.
        Ms. Ing. For clarification, my compact did not make that
    request. That was made by the Texas commission on environmental
    quality. Since we deal with low-level radioactive waste and
    greater-than-Class C as we currently understand that definition
    does not fall within the purview of our compact.
        We haven't developed and haven't seen a need to develop a
    position on that.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. And I guess there is no one else we could
    ask about if--all right. Thanks a lot.
        Mr. Shimkus. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pitts. Thank you. Maybe each of you can respond to this
    question.
        With all of the scientific work that has been done over the
    last 20 years, to appropriately characterize waste, do you have
    any recommendations for how Congress can improve the disposal
    of low-level radioactive waste?
        We will start with you, Ms. Opila.
        Ms. Opila. No, the organization does not have any
    recommendations for how Congress can improve. We believe the
    compact system is working well. We believe the compact system
    is working well.
        We believe that the States that regulate the facilities do
    a good job of regulating these facilities and so we do not have
    any recommendations at this time.
        Mr. Pitts. Ms. Ing.
        Ms. Ing. We do not have any recommendations to improve it
    either. Our facility has been up and operating just since April
    of 2012. We are still learning. We still have access and can
    maintain capacity for all the 50 States and DC and territories.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Again, you know, I am not an expert on this but
    if we were to change the language in the Nuclear Waste Policy
    Act to reflect composition of the waste we think that are other
    alternatives for some of the waste that we currently have at
    Savannah River Site. So we do see alternatives for that.
        Mr. Pitts. Ms. Opila, you--in 2008 the State of South
    Carolina restricted access to the Barnwell disposal facility to
    members of the Atlantic Compact Commission, essentially leaving
    the majority of the country without a Site to dispose of Class
    B and C waste, and I understand that Colorado is part of the
    Rocky Mountain Compact, which has an agreement to send low-
    level waste to Richland, Washington.
        But will you describe how other States managed Class B and
    C waste prior to the opening of the Site in Andrews County,
    Texas?
        Ms. Opila. Yes, sir.
        Most of the facilities that generated low-level waste in
    States that did not have access to a facility during that time
    period between when the Atlantic Compact closed to out-of-
    compact waste and when the WCS facility was open to out of
    compact waste, those facilities were required to basically
    store their waste on Site until they could have access to a
    disposal facility.
        Mr. Pitts. And your testimony notes that the organization
    for agreement States objects to NRC requiring a Site to redo
    its performance assessment unless the site plans to accept new
    material.
        Will you please describe this issue in greater detail?
        Ms. Opila. Sure.
        Essentially, the way we understand the proposed
    requirements of Part 61 that they would require all facilities,
    current facilities to redo their performance assessments and
    for facilities that are not going to be taking these unique
    waste streams there is no need for that and the cost that would
    be incurred by the facility to do this very detailed
    performance assessment as well as the cost incurred to the
    agreement State to evaluate the performance assessment could be
    significant.
        And those costs would not--or redoing these performance
    assessments would not enhance the safety of, you know, disposal
    waste at those facilities if they are not going to be taking
    these unique waste streams.
        Mr. Pitts. What might be some potential implications if
    NRC's requirement forces existing sites to adjust their
    performance standards?
        Ms. Opila. Again, our concern is that the costs that would
    be incurred by the facilities and the States to redo those
    performance assessments and evaluate them could be significant
    and we don't, again, feel that that would be necessary and
    would not enhance any safety of disposal waste at those
    facilities.
        Mr. Pitts. All right.
        Ms. Ing, the Federal Government still must address how to
    dispose of depleted uranium as a result of enrichment.
    Currently, there is a significant amount of depleted uranium
    located at the Urenco facility just across the Texas-New Mexico
    border.
        Has the Texas compact considered whether and how it would
    treat an authorization request to dispose of depleted uranium
    at the Andrews County facility?
        Ms. Ing. The compact would defer to the host State, Texas,
    on that matter. Currently, we will allot 275,000 curies per
    year as per Texas law into that facility. We do not distinguish
    if the curies come from depleted uranium or another source
    material.
        And all of the authorizations are looked at and reviewed by
    the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.To the extent
    through that review or statute they change that position, we
    would defer to that as a compact.
        Mr. Pitts. My time has expired.
        Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time has expired.
        We want to thank the second panel for testifying and just
    remind the first and second panel we are glad to see the NRC
    stayed. We appreciate that.
        We will note that the DOE did leave, though. So having said
    that, the hearing record will be open for 10 legislative days
    for us maybe to receive questions and then get them to you. If
    you would respond when you can, I would appreciate that.
        And the hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned ]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]