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