    [Senate Hearing 116-311]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 116-311

                  OPTIONS FOR THE INTERIM AND LONG-TERM
                    STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE AND S. 1234,
                    THE NUCLEAR WASTE ADMINISTRATION ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 27, 2019

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    37-808                      WASHINGTON : 2021

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                         Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
      Brianne Miller, Senior Professional Staff Member and Energy Policy
                                    Advisor
                    Sarah Venuto, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
               Rory Stanley, Democratic Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      West Virginia..................................................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Korsnick, Maria, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear
      Energy Institute...............................................     4
    Norton, Wayne, Chair, Decommissioning Plant Coalition Steering
      Committee, and President & CEO, Yankee Atomic Electric Company.    14
    Nesbit, Steven P., Chair, Nuclear Waste Policy Task Force, on
      behalf of the American Nuclear Society.........................    23
    Fettus, Geoffrey H., Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
      Council, Inc...................................................    37
    Wagner, Dr. John, Associate Laboratory Director, Nuclear Science
      and Technology Directorate, Idaho National Laboratory..........    79

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Fettus, Geoffrey H.:
        Opening Statement............................................    37
        Written Testimony............................................    39
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   138
    Garcia Richard, Hon. Stephanie:
        Letter for the Record........................................    96
    Korsnick, Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   131
    Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle:
        Letter for the Record........................................    94
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    National Conference of State Legislatures:
        Letter for the Record........................................   147
    Nesbit, Steven P.:
        Opening Statement............................................    23
        Written Testimony............................................    25
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   135
    Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   103
    Norton, Wayne:
        Opening Statement............................................    14
        Written Testimony............................................    16
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   134
    Nye County (Nevada) Board of Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................   149
    Rosen, Hon. Jacky:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   113
    Union of Concerned Scientists:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   152
    Wagner, Dr. John:
        Opening Statement............................................    79
        Written Testimony............................................    81
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   142

     OPTIONS FOR THE INTERIM AND LONG-TERM STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE AND S.
                   1234, THE NUCLEAR WASTE ADMINISTRATION ACT

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2019

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
    come to order.
        We are meeting to examine an issue that effectively we have
    been at a stalemate for quite some time--what we should do with
    the used nuclear fuel that is accumulating at our nation's
    nuclear reactors.
        As a starting point, I think we should recognize that
    nuclear energy is an important part of our country's electric
    generation mix. I believe it is a vital part of our mix. The
    large reactors that dot the landscape provide reliable,
    emissions-free power to communities across our country. Our
    nation's nuclear industry is critically important but it also
    faces a number of challenges, and one that has impacted it
    since the first reactors began operation is nuclear waste
    disposition.
        Beginning with the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
    in 1982, Congress has attempted several times to address the
    back end of the fuel cycle. In an effort to resolve an earlier
    stalemate, the Federal Government was supposed to begin taking
    title to used fuel and moving it to a repository at Yucca
    Mountain in Nevada, beginning in 1998. The Federal Government's
    failure to deliver on this promise is now costing taxpayers up
    to $2 million per day.
        This hearing is an opportunity for us to consider our next
    steps on nuclear waste. Do we continue to delay in the face of
    stalemate over Yucca, or do we try to find another path forward
    for used fuel storage, especially for communities that are
    maintaining sites with only used fuel casks left on hand, with
    the rest of the plant decommissioned?
        In 2010, then Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, convened the
    Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to conduct a
    comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of
    the fuel cycle. The Commission's report included a number of
    recommendations and led to the introduction of the Nuclear
    Waste Administration Act. Over the years, this legislation has
    been led by a number of members, including Senators Wyden and
    Alexander, both on this Committee. I have been a sponsor of the
    legislation all along with Senators Alexander and Feinstein, my
    partners on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee,
    for multiple Congresses, now.
        We have been at this for a while, and I think it is
    probably fair to say we would like to put something behind us
    at some point in time here sooner rather than later. Our
    legislation aims to move the process forward so that we can
    finally move used fuel to a permanent repository. Our bill
    creates a Nuclear Waste Administration to oversee consent-based
    siting for interim storage and an additional repository that
    could be located in states and communities that want it. Our
    bill also prioritizes the removal of orphaned used fuel at
    decommissioned reactor sites for temporary storage at
    consolidated sites.
        Our bill is S. 1234. I wish it was as easy as one, two,
    three, four. We know it requires some updates and that there
    are a number of ideas to improve specific sections, so I
    welcome those. I look forward to the testimony from our
    distinguished panel this morning, but I would also welcome
    thoughts and comments from others.
        Ultimately, I hope we can all agree that it is long, long,
    past time to figure this out and the sooner we find a path
    forward, the better. It has been six years now since I and
    others cosponsored this legislation. We are in the same place.
    We are effectively in the same place when it comes to the back
    end of the fuel cycle as when we introduced that legislation
    six years ago. But in that time we have seen tremendous
    progress in the area of nuclear with our advanced nuclear
    reactors. The United States has the ability to lead the world
    on some of these technologies, but without a solution on
    nuclear waste, I believe that we are less likely to realize our
    full potential there. We are here today to start, or perhaps we
    need to say restart, the conversation.
        I know that Chairman Barrasso has a bill on nuclear waste
    in his EPW Committee. He is keen to move forward on it. I am
    glad to see that we have some renewed interest across Congress
    to address the challenge.
        It is a good thing that we have multiple options on the
    table. I think this is a positive development, and I sincerely
    hope that we can move forward on nuclear waste after decades of
    inaction.
        With that, I turn to my Ranking Member and friend, Senator
    Manchin.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Manchin. Chair Murkowski, thank you for having a
    hearing on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act, and I want to
    thank all of our witnesses for being here today who will
    provide us with ideas of how to move forward and break our
    nuclear repository impasse.
        Nuclear energy will continue to be an important part of our
    nation's energy mix. It is reliable, especially in adverse
    weather. The fact is, it is the nation's largest zero emission
    power source which means that it is a powerful tool in our
    fight to mitigate climate change and move toward a zero
    emissions economy.
        We will continue to rely on nuclear, thus we must work on a
    solution to dispose of nuclear waste. I believe this bill
    provides a solid foundation to work from which originated with
    the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on America's nuclear
    future.
        But I think there is an agreement among us that changes
    must be made to the current text before moving forward.
    Providing an equitable policy path forward for site selection
    is something that I support as the inequity in the site
    selection is a large part of the current impasse.
        Since the National Academy of Sciences 1957 report
    recommending deep geologic disposal for highly radioactive
    waste, it is clear what we need to do with the nuclear waste.
    The prudent and responsible thing to do is to bury this waste
    deep in the earth to protect the environment and public for
    generations to come. Unfortunately, the path to achieve this is
    not entirely clear.
        I look forward to hearing from our panel today and from my
    colleagues, many of whom represent constituencies that deal
    with nuclear waste on a day-to-day basis.
        In particular, I want to thank Chairman Murkowski and
    Senator Cortez Masto for their ongoing leadership on this
    issue. If we have learned anything in the past 30 years, it is
    that social and political concerns need to be taken into
    account to site and construct a repository. That is not to say
    that technical considerations are not important, but I trust
    the highly skilled individuals at the national labs and their
    partners to solve issues that we will face in constructing
    storage solutions at whatever site or sites that are selected.
        What Congress should focus on are the mechanisms that can
    drive buy-in from communities. Other countries in the world
    have success by creating an organization that is separate from
    an agency or governing body but still regulated by the
    government to work with communities to build a repository in
    their respective backyards.
        In 1987 Congress decided to not go with the original
    Nuclear Waste Policy Act language that directed the Department
    of Energy to characterize several sites and then make a
    recommendation. Instead, due to the price tag associated with
    the characterization of several sites, Congress instead
    legislated this site choice. This action politicized the site
    selection process while simultaneously discrediting the Federal
    Government.
        It is my hope that following the markup of this bill, it
    will be equitable in how it considers all sites so when a site
    or sites are selected, we know it was a fair process and can
    move forward accordingly.
        Let us not forget that there is urgency to this issue.
    Spent fuel pools such as reactors are at capacity and in need
    to mitigate carbon emission and ensures that reactors will
    continue to operate in this country for decades to come. On top
    of that, failing to act means that the Federal Government is
    racking up more liability to be paid to the utilities to store
    this waste in their own private storage facilities adjacent to
    the reactors.
        So the taxpayer is on the hook here to the tune of about $2
    million a day with an estimated overall liability of $34.1
    billion. Like it or not, this means that we already have a de
    facto interim storage program in this country that is
    inefficient and lacks cost-effectiveness.
        While we don't have any nuclear waste in West Virginia, nor
    do we have nuclear reactors, I am invested in working with my
    colleagues on this issue because preserving and growing nuclear
    power is key to addressing the climate crisis.
        I want to share with you. The Chairman and I had an
    opportunity to spend some time with Bill Gates and he went
    through boom, boom, boom, country, by country, by country that
    has nuclear power, all going to zero in a time and era when we
    want to have zero emissions. Something has to be done, and we
    need to act urgently.
        Once again, I would like to thank Chairman Murkowski for
    holding this hearing at the most appropriate time and I think
    much needed, not just for the United States of America, but for
    the world.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
        Let's turn now to our panel. We have a very distinguished
    panel, as I mentioned.
        We are joined this morning by Maria Korsnick, who is the
    President and CEO of Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI. You have
    been before the Committee many times. We welcome you back.
        Mr. Wayne Norton is the Chair for the Decommissioning Plant
    Coalition Steering Committee, also President and CEO of the
    Yankee Atomic Electric Company. We appreciate you being here
    this morning.
        Steven Nesbit is the Chair of the American Nuclear Society,
    Nuclear Waste Policy Task Force. We thank you for your
    leadership with that important task force.
        Geoffrey Fettus is the Senior Attorney at the Nuclear,
    Climate and Clean Energy Program for the Natural Resource
    Defense Council, NRDC. We welcome you to the Committee.
        And Dr. John Wagner is with us from one of our national
    labs. He is the Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear
    Science and Technology Directorate at the Idaho National Lab
    (INL). We appreciate your leadership in these spaces as well.
        We will begin with you, Ms. Korsnick. If you can provide
    your comments to the Committee, we ask that you try to keep
    your comments to about five minutes. Your full statements will
    be included as part of the record. When the full panel has
    concluded, we will have an opportunity for questions. Thank
    you.

      STATEMENT OF MARIA KORSNICK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                   OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

        Ms. Korsnick. Great, thank you very much.
        I'm Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy
    Institute.
        Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Manchin, I greatly
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony of the Nuclear
    Waste Administration Act of 2019. NEI sincerely appreciates the
    Committee's deliberate effort to develop an effective federal
    used fuel management program.
        Since this bill was first introduced in 2013, several
    things have changed. Because of a court order, the Department
    of Energy has reduced the nuclear waste fee fund to zero. The
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical staff has also
    completed reviews of the Yucca Mountain licensing application
    concluding that Yucca Mountain complies with all regulation.
    Finally, private initiatives are now underway to develop
    consolidated storage facilities into states.
        Nuclear energy is the largest and most efficient source of
    carbon-free electricity in the United States. Currently, 97
    commercial nuclear power plants in 29 states provide nearly 20
    percent of America's electricity and more than half of the
    emissions-free electricity. These reactors are carbon-free
    workhorses essential to addressing climate change in any
    realistic manner. That said, the advanced reactors of tomorrow
    in the U.S. operating fleet at large are continually subjected
    to reputational damage because Congress, for two decades now,
    has played politics with the issue of used fuel.
        It's vitally important that the U.S. remain a global leader
    in the commercial nuclear arena, and yet we are the only major
    nuclear nation without a used fuel management program. The U.S.
    nuclear industry has upheld its end of the bargain at sites in
    35 states around the country, commercial used fuel is safely
    stored and managed awaiting pick up by the Federal Government
    which was scheduled for 1998.
        In addition, the nuclear waste fund, which was set up to
    finance the development of a national repository, currently has
    over $41 billion in its coffers which has been contributed by
    electricity consumers and nuclear generation companies. Each
    year over $1.5 billion more in interest accumulates in the
    fund. And finally, each day we don't have a solution, does cost
    taxpayers $2.2 million in damages, the single largest liability
    paid out of the judgment fund year after year. It's really time
    to solve this, and I'm excited to talk about how that can be
    achieved.
        We need a durable used fuel program. We must allow the
    science, not the politics, to guide us forward. But let me be
    clear, Congressional action is necessary and three important
    points must be addressed.
        First, we need to answer on the Yucca Mountain license
    application. DOE submitted the application to the NRC more than
    a decade ago, and Congress directed the NRC to issue a decision
    in 2012. This deadline, like too many, was missed because DOE,
    without basis, shut down the Yucca Mountain project. For the
    sake of the communities holding stranded used fuel wishing to
    redevelop their sites, we must move forward and allow Nevada's
    concerns with Yucca Mountain to be heard by NRC's independent
    administrative judges. This will allow a licensing decision to
    be determined based on its scientific merits rather than
    politics.
        Second, as a licensing process of Yucca Mountain moves
    forward, interim storage can play an important role in helping
    move spent fuel away from reactor sites. Moving interim storage
    in parallel with the Yucca Mountain project helps to alleviate
    state and local concerns that interim storage will become a de
    facto disposal facility. This point was highlighted recently in
    a letter by New Mexico Governor, Lujan Grisham. That said, I'm
    pleased interim storage is addressed in S. 1234, the Nuclear
    Waste Administration Act. I strongly believe interim storage
    can be successful if moved in parallel with the Yucca Mountain
    licensing.
        And finally, the nuclear industry and electricity consumers
    around the country have paid their fair share to address the
    back end of the fuel cycle. But S. 1234 was originally drafted
    prior to the court mandated prohibition on the fee, and I want
    to strongly convey the importance of not prematurely re-
    imposing the nuclear waste fee, especially given the
    substantial balance and large investment interest which accrues
    annually.
        The industry believes that the fee should not be reinstated
    until (1) the annual expense for the program's ongoing projects
    exceed the annual investment and come on the fund, and (2) the
    projected life cycle cost demonstrates that the fee must be
    reinstated to achieve full cost recovery over the life of the
    program.
        The fact that we are here today considering this
    legislation is a positive step in the right direction, and I
    sincerely appreciate the Committee's motivation to find a
    durable solution.
        We look forward to continuing to work with each and every
    one of you to reach bipartisan consensus on the best approach
    for long-term management of the nation's used fuel.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Korsnick follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Norton, welcome.

        STATEMENT OF WAYNE NORTON, CHAIR, DECOMMISSIONING PLANT
       COALITION STEERING COMMITTEE, AND PRESIDENT & CEO, YANKEE
                        ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

        Mr. Norton. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Manchin and members of the Committee. My name is Wayne
    Norton. I'm the President and CEO of Yankee Atomic Electric
    Company with responsibility for Maine Yankee, Connecticut
    Yankee and Yankee Rowe nuclear facilities.
        The three nuclear plants at my sites are fully
    decommissioned but for the storage facilities for the spent
    fuel and graded and Class C waste produced during our operating
    life.
        Each company is undergoing litigation with the Department
    of Energy for monetary damages resulting from its partial
    breach of contract. To date, the courts have awarded my
    companies damages of approximately $575 million, claims that
    now encompass virtually all cost for the management of our
    companies and the fuel storage facilities.
        In addition, I serve as the Chair of the Decommissioning
    Plant Coalition (DPC) Steering Committee. And as such, I want
    to express our appreciation for this invitation to appear
    before you today on behalf of the Coalition and would ask that
    our full statement, excuse me, be read into the part of the
    record.
        We are here today, in part, because the failure of the
    Federal Government to make good on its commitment is creating a
    spent fuel management burden across the increased number of
    states and localities. This delay in performance by the
    government has created a situation whereby communities across
    the nation are becoming the unanticipated home for interim
    storage of spent nuclear fuel.
        In New England alone there are five sites in four states
    that are providing indefinite storage of this material, even
    though the electric ratepayers in that region have met their
    obligations and paid upward of $3 billion into the nuclear
    waste fund.
        Members of the Decommissioning Plant Coalition have adopted
    a formal position statement that emphasizes our support for an
    integrated nuclear waste program that provides for the timely
    and safe solution to removing this material from our sites.
    Many of these positions are captured in the recommendations of
    the Blue Ribbon Commission and in Senate 1234, the Nuclear
    Waste Administration Act.
        I'd like to focus on two issues relative to the Blue Ribbon
    Commission recommendations and Senate 1234. One, consolidate
    interim storage, and two, funding reform.
        As suggested by the Blue Ribbon Commission, Senate 1234
    calls for a consolidated interim storage program as part of an
    active repository siting and licensing effort. Given that
    Congress has not funded the current repository program for
    almost a decade, given the current federal and state tension
    relative to the repository program and given the future funding
    constraints and mounting taxpayer liabilities, we at the DPC
    also believe the most effective and timely path to remedy the
    government's default lies with such a program.
        We appreciate the fact that Senate 1234 does not prohibit
    the commencement of fuel movement to CIS facility prior to
    final action on the repository licensing application. Based on
    the most credible estimates for this licensing action, it seems
    clear that a consolidated interim storage facility license will
    likely be granted first and the explicit linkage between the
    two could unduly delay the anticipated title transfer and fuel
    acceptance, a key to reducing ongoing taxpayer liability.
        Title IV of Senate 1234 is a clear effort to correct our
    major policy concern relative to the sufficient and reliable
    funding of the program. The establishment of a new working
    capital fund is clear movement in a direction that the DPC
    supports. However, it does not fully resolve the continued risk
    of annual appropriations and, perhaps more importantly, it
    leaves unresolved, the matter of $40 billion already funded
    into the nuclear waste fund.
        In conclusion, along with many of our other national
    organizations which you'll hear from today, the DPC has
    repeatedly called for the need for urgent action by Congress to
    establish an integrated national nuclear waste program.
        Continued inaction is now costing American taxpayers, as
    you've heard today, approximately $2.2 million a day and the
    ratepayers of New England and this nation deserve to see the
    tens of billions of dollars, already collected, used for its
    intended purpose.
        Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Manchin and members of the
    Committee, the DPC deeply appreciates your interest in this
    issue. We are encouraged by your legislative initiative and the
    attention you have brought through the conduct of this hearing.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'd be glad
    to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Norton follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Norton.
        Mr. Nesbit, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF STEVEN P. NESBIT, CHAIR, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY TASK
            FORCE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

        Mr. Nesbit. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Manchin and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Nuclear
    Society (ANS). ANS represents 10,000 men and women who work
    every day to provide clean energy, detect and cure cancer
    through nuclear medicine, develop systems to power deep space
    exploration and enable the many other beneficial applications
    of the atom.
        We applaud the introduction of the Nuclear Waste
    Administration Act of 2019 as a serious effort to break the
    political log jam that prevents the effective management of
    nuclear waste in the U.S. To the detriment of the American
    people, the Federal Government is approaching a decade of
    inexcusable inaction in this critical area, an impending
    anniversary that should spur Congress and the Administration to
    action.
        To be clear, used nuclear fuel is being stored safely today
    and poses no immediate danger to the public; however, the lack
    of progress on a geologic repository has clearly endangered
    nuclear power's potential to address our long-term energy and
    environmental objectives.
        In particular, advanced reactor developers, men and women,
    who are earnestly striving to meet global demand for emissions-
    free, reliable energy are most impacted by the question, what
    about the waste?
        I will turn now to discuss several key provisions of S.
    1234 along with other governmental actions that we believe can
    begin addressing that very fundamental question.
        We endorse the initiation of a search for a geologic
    repository site other than Yucca Mountain as required by
    Section 306 of the proposed legislation. Make no mistake about
    it, ANS strongly supports the timely completion of Yucca
    Mountain licensing; nevertheless, if Yucca Mountain doesn't
    become operational, our waste will have to go somewhere.
    Consolidated interim storage by itself is not the solution, and
    the country deserves a better understanding of what options are
    realistically available.
        To enable repository siting, the government needs to update
    several regulations to reflect scientific advances and lessons
    learned over the past decades. In particular, the nation's
    generic environmental standard for geologic repositories, 40
    CFR Part 191, lacks transparency, is out of date and is
    inconsistent with international guidelines.
        We endorse a consolidated interim storage program with
    priority for fuel at shut down plants as authorized by Section
    305. However, Congress should understand that success in this
    area is unlikely without a credible repository program.
        ANS supports a new independent entity to manage high level
    waste but has some concerns with a new government agency
    proposed entitled to the NWAA. We suggest continued
    consideration be given to the public corporation model.
        High level waste funding reform is essential. Title IV of
    the bill takes a step in the right direction by improving
    access to future contributions to the Nuclear Waste Fund. The
    Committee should also consider incorporating practical
    provisions to allow an empowered management entity to use the
    existing balance of the fund.
        The approach to consent-based siting of nuclear waste
    management facilities described in Sections 305 and 306 appear
    reasonable; however, it is an open question if a process with
    all parties having an absolute veto can succeed in our system
    of government. Additional information on these points and
    others is provided in my written testimony.
        In closing, ANS suggests three principles for future
    action. First, make real progress by focusing on achievable
    tasks. Create a viable management organization with the
    necessary resources that can work without undue political
    interference. Empower that organization to complete Yucca
    Mountain licensing, investigate a second repository site and
    move forward on consolidated interim storage. Initiate the
    development of up-to-date repository regulations for sites
    other than Yucca Mountain. Engage with Nevada and other
    potential host states and communities.
        Second, seek to combine the concepts of ``consent'' and
    ``benefit.'' In addition to money from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
    the Federal Government has many means of providing
    infrastructure improvements, federal land, educational
    opportunities and other means of support to states and
    communities interested in exploring a partnership on the
    management of nuclear material. Make those potential benefits
    abundantly clear from the beginning.
        Third, empower our scientists and engineers. Congress must
    address the legal and administrative issues associated with
    nuclear waste. But we will not succeed if we allow politics to
    overwhelm good science. Act based on real risk, not perceived
    risk. We must give our best and brightest nuclear professionals
    the opportunity to take on this challenge with some degree of
    independence, funding and flexibility.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to testify and stand
    ready to answer your questions. I yield back the remainder of
    my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nesbit follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Nesbit. We appreciate that.
        Mr. Fettus, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY H. FETTUS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL
                    RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.

        Mr. Fettus. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski and Ranking
    Member Manchin and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to present NRDC's views.
        Chairman Murkowski started the hearing perfectly when she
    said we're in the same place. We trust this can be a new
    beginning with more than 80,000 metric tons of spent fuel in
    more than half of our states and reactors moving to
    decommissioning, we need to reset the process. S. 1234 however,
    will not solve the current stalemate and won't lead toward
    workable solutions; therefore, we oppose it in its current
    form.
        For more than 50 years Congress has offered and even passed
    bills that would restart the Yucca licensing process or kick
    open a door in New Mexico or Utah for an interim storage site.
    In doing those things, S. 1234 severs any meaningful link
    between storage and disposal and excludes Nevada from the
    consent process it sets up. This won't work. And such efforts
    have failed in Tennessee, in Kansas, Nevada, Utah and
    everywhere else. Another such attempt restarts litigation and
    controversy and the likely result is the continued stalemate
    we've been in.
        Seven years ago, a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission keenly
    described why past attempts failed. That Commission wisely
    asserted we can't keep doing the same thing. Congress must
    create a process that allows any potential host state to
    demonstrate consent or, for that matter, non-consent.
        So rather than spend more of your valuable time on the
    specifics of why this won't work, they're all in the written
    testimony, I put before you a durable, meaningful, reset of how
    we can manage and dispose of nuclear waste and how we can
    really achieve consent. The solution could be summed up simply.
    Give EPA and the states power under well-established
    environmental statutes so that they can set the terms for how
    much and on what conditions they could host a disposal site.
        Radioactive waste is stranded at sites across the country
    and will remain so because the Atomic Energy Act treats
    radioactive waste as a privilege pollutant. The Act preempts
    the regulatory authority of EPA and the states, exempting
    radioactivity from hazardous waste law and sizable portions of
    the Clean Water Act. It ignores the vital role states play in
    addressing other environmental pollutants.
        Senator Manchin talked of a mechanism that can drive buy-
    in. Our government is at its strongest when each player's role
    is respected. As an example, the years of wrangling over what
    standards should be set for cleanup at our massively
    contaminated nuclear weapon sites, such as those in Washington
    or South Carolina, is made exponentially worse by DOE's self-
    regulatory status which the Atomic Energy Act ordains with
    these exemptions.
        The same is true with commercial spent fuel where any state
    that is targeted to receive nuclear waste looks to be on the
    hook for the entire burden of the nation's spent fuel. State
    consent and public acceptance of potential repository sites
    will never be willingly granted unless and until power on how,
    when and where waste is disposed of is shared rather than
    decided simply by federal fiat.
        There's only one way consent can happen consistent with our
    cooperative federalism. Specifically, Congress can finally
    remove the Atomic Energy Act's anachronistic exemptions from
    our bedrock environmental laws. Our hazardous waste and clean
    water laws must include full authority over radioactivity and
    nuclear waste facilities so that EPA and, most importantly, the
    states can assert direct regulatory authority.
        Removing these exemptions will not magically solve this
    puzzle and create a final repository, but I think it can work
    faster than what we have now because it will open a path
    forward that respects each state rather than offering up the
    latest one for sacrifice. The Texas and New Mexico events of
    the last several weeks demonstrate this.
        Why will NRDC's plan work and why does this provide a
    better chance than S. 1234? Because a state can say no. It can
    also say, yes. And it can set the terms for how it will receive
    the waste and, importantly, not be on the hook for the entire
    burden because a state can protect its citizens and
    environment, limit what comes into the state. Such a new regime
    would allow for the thorough technical review on the ability of
    any site to meet strict, protective standards unlike the years
    of fighting that have been the hallmark of this process. And
    just as important, that fundamental sharing of power can result
    in public acceptance of solutions.
        We've seen these bills before. Each has been a mirror of
    the last. It's time to try something that has a proven track
    record of addressing other controversial topics.
        If you want to garner the consent the Blue Ribbon
    Commission deemed necessary, you have to give EPA and the
    states regulatory authority under environmental law. It's time
    to regulate nuclear waste the same way as every other pollutant
    with EPA and delegated states taking the lead under our
    foundational environmental statutes.
        Thank you again for having me here today, and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fettus follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Fettus.
        Let's go to views from the Idaho National Lab. Dr. Wagner.

     STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN WAGNER, ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR,
      NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, IDAHO NATIONAL
                               LABORATORY

        Dr. Wagner. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin and
    members of the Committee, it's an honor to be here with you
    today.
        I want to particularly thank Senators Murkowski, Feinstein
    and Alexander for sponsoring the significant legislation and
    their persistent efforts to make progress on this critically
    important issue for the nation, in general, and for nuclear
    energy, in particular.
        Currently, I oversee INL's Nuclear Energy Research,
    Development and Demonstration efforts, including R&D related to
    spent nuclear fuel storage, transportation and disposal.
    Throughout my career, I've been intimately involved in the
    technical issues around spent nuclear fuel storage,
    transportation and disposal working in the private sector as
    well as for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, supporting the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy on
    these issues, including leading a DOE program to implement the
    Blue Ribbon Commission on America's nuclear future recommended
    near-term actions which involved laying the groundwork for
    implementing interim storage as well as the associated
    transportation to support that.
        As the nation's nuclear energy research development and
    demonstration laboratory, INL is the leader in the effort to
    maintain and expand the lives of America's nuclear reactor
    fleet. These safe, efficient and high performing systems
    produce nearly 20 percent of the nation's electricity and more
    than half of our carbon-free electricity. That's more than
    solar, wind, hydro and geothermal combined.
        At INL we also work with industry on innovative advanced
    reactor designs. This includes megawatt scale microreactors,
    small modular reactors and a variety of advanced designs that
    offer the potential for improved performance, greater inherent
    safety features and approved applicability for certain market
    applications as well as reduced construction, licensing and
    operating costs.
        As this Committee heard on April 30th, during a discussion
    on the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, or NELA, a strong and
    vibrant commercial nuclear industry is vital to the United
    States environment, power grid reliability and security,
    economy and national security. Accordingly, we must address
    some major impediments to developing and deploying advanced
    nuclear reactors.
        Congress, to its credit, has begun this process by passing
    two important pieces of legislation, the Nuclear Energy
    Innovation Capabilities Act, or NEICA, and the Nuclear Energy
    Innovation and Modernization Act, NEIMA, and reintroduced a
    third which I referred to earlier, NELA. Now it's time to
    address the waste issue, an impediment to development of the
    new advanced reactors as well as continued operation of the
    existing plant in some cases.
        First and foremost, I want to be clear from a technical
    standpoint. Spent nuclear fuel storage and transportation is
    safe as evidenced by more than 50 years of safe and secure
    operations by the public and private sectors. We do not have a
    spent nuclear fuel safety crisis in this country.
        We do, however, have issues caused by the lack of a
    sustained, coherent approach for nuclear waste and not having a
    final disposition solution. This has resulted in longer than
    anticipated storage, as you all know. The national laboratories
    and industry, in coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission, are proactively identifying and addressing the
    associated potential technical issues with this situation.
        More worrisome though than the relatively minor technical
    risk of extended storage are the socio-economic and community
    impacts resulting from onsite storage at permanently shut down
    reactor sites. The cost, which has been referred to multiple
    times this morning already, of approximately $2.2 million per
    day for taxpayers which will only increase until the government
    begins to take possession of the spent fuel and will also
    increase as additional existing plants are shut down.
        And then finally, the negative impact on public acceptance
    of new nuclear energy which was also referred to earlier, given
    the lack of progress to address the waste. In our mission at
    the Idaho National Laboratory related to research, development
    and demonstration and ultimate deployment of advanced reactor
    systems, we frequently encounter this issue of how in the world
    can we talk about new nuclear reactors when we have not
    addressed the waste issue? Because of all this, an interim
    storage facility can be viewed as an economic investment for
    the nation that addresses these issues and provides a range of
    other benefits that have been identified in numerous studies,
    including the BRC report that I referred to earlier.
        Finally, I'd like to note that I'm encouraged that Senate
    bill 1234 identifies defense-related spent fuel under a
    compliance agreement, as a priority at the discretion of the
    new administrator. The Department of Energy at the INL site is
    responsible for managing and storing a range of spent fuel,
    including defense-related spent fuel. This bill would enable a
    meaningful storage alternative for those materials.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I want to thank
    you again for your attention to this important issue for our
    nation, and I look forward to answering any of your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Wagner follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Wagner, and thank each of you
    for being here this morning and for what you are providing the
    Committee.
        It is clear that the reviews, the studies, everybody agrees
    we have to deal with the permanent in order to get to interim.
    The discussion about interim sites becoming de facto permanent,
    that is kind of where we are, unfortunately, around the country
    which I don't think any of us believe is truly acceptable for
    the long-term.
        We are not the only nation that has nuclear waste to deal
    with. It is not like this is a case of first impression here.
    There has been reference, plenty of reference, to other nations
    and how they handle their nuclear waste. Finland and Sweden are
    held out as good examples of areas where they have deep
    geologic repository siting. They have a consent-based approach.
        Mr. Nesbit, you mentioned in your recommendations to us
    that there has to be consent and benefit tied together. What
    have they been able to do successfully that we should be
    looking to? Are their geologic formations different than ours
    and that is what gives them the leg up? Is it more that they do
    with the consent-based? I am trying to figure out by looking to
    others who have been more successful than we have, what we
    might learn. And I throw that out to anybody here on the panel.
        Mr. Nesbit, and then we will go to Mr. Fettus.
        Mr. Nesbit. Well, first of all, it's not the geology. The
    United States is blessed with a vast number of different
    geologic media which are all suitable for repository
    development. They have advantages, they have disadvantages, but
    in a way it may be a problem that we have so many options
    available to us. In other countries they're smaller and they
    really just have to concentrate on one option.
        The other thing I'd like to point out is that in those
    countries that have been successful so far in what you would
    call a consent-based siting process, they do not have anything
    that corresponds to the state government in the United States
    and that's just the nature of their governmental structure,
    Sweden and Finland. It has been a challenge in the United
    States siting waste facilities and typically the hang-up is at
    the state level.
        The Chairman. Your thoughts, Mr. Fettus?
        Mr. Fettus. I would actually agree with a lot of what Mr.
    Nesbit just said, so I hope the Committee notes that. That one,
    we call for in my written testimony, a return to the USGS had
    started some superb work at looking at the vast, over 36 states
    and dozens and dozens of places around the country that have
    potential.
        But I would urge the Committee to reflect on the fact that,
    number one, there is no country that has fully sited a deep
    geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level
    waste, yet. Sweden and Finland are farther down the road, but
    for, in great measure, precisely the reason that Mr. Nesbit
    just pointed out which is they don't have the tripartite system
    we do of both a community, a state and the Federal Government.
    They don't have that interlocutory layer.
        And if you want to solve it consistent with our
    environmental laws, we've always taken accord of the states.
    And so, that's the basis of my testimony.
        The Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Let me ask you, Mr. Norton, what does it cost to maintain a
    decommissioned plant that still has used fuel on its site on
    average, just give me a range?
        Mr. Norton. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        At my sites, as you'll see in my written testimony, it's
    approximately $30 million a year combined between the three
    sites to maintain those facilities and the corporate structure
    associated with it.
        The Chairman. What is happening on the site right now? I
    mean, in terms of you have workers there that are just ensuring
    that there is a level of safety. What is costing you $30
    million?
        Mr. Norton. Well, the interesting part about our companies,
    Senator, is that, Madam Chairman, is that we're also managing
    our corporations and not just the storage of the spent fuel at
    our sites. I think if you just looked at spent fuel storage,
    the cost would be closer to $6.5 million per site. But as the
    courts have found in our cases, our corporation single asset
    utilities would have gone out of business had the government
    performed.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Mr. Norton. So not only is our damages including the cost
    of safely and securely storing the fuel, but also to manage our
    corporations and remain in existence until such time as the
    government performs.
        The Chairman. But about $6.5 million per site, on average.
        Mr. Norton. Yeah, on average.
        The Chairman. In order to transport spent fuel canisters,
    do you anticipate that upgrades will be required to these sites
    as you look forward?
        Mr. Norton. Well, I would expect across the nation, Madam
    Chairman, that there would be upgrades required. And depending
    on the facility, would depend on the significance of that.
        For instance, the Department of Energy has been doing
    studies, pre-planning studies, for de-inventorying these sites
    and looked at the transportation challenges, independent to
    many of these sites, including the shutdown ones and including
    my three. And in each of these sites is unique in those
    challenges. And so, for instance, at Maine Yankee, there would
    be minimal upgrades required at the site itself. The inventory
    reports have looked more broadly at the entire transportation
    route. And I realize that the Department of Energy and others
    have focused on that issue and should continue to focus on that
    issue. But, you know, the entire transportation pathway needs
    to be analyzed.
        So, I think it's site specific, but I am certain that
    almost every site in the nation would have to have some level
    of upgrade to start removing this material from their sites.
        The Chairman. I think it is important for us to understand
    that.
        Let me turn to Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I think finding a solution to our nation's nuclear waste
    impasse is critically important, and I think you all have
    brought so much expertise to the table. I appreciate it very
    much.
        Instead of asking a question right now at the beginning of
    my time, I am going to ask Senator Cortez Masto, since she has
    been leading this effort and has more skin in the game than any
    of us sitting here, I would like for her to explain a little
    bit what she is trying to achieve right now and how we can be
    of help.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member
    Manchin for this opportunity. I know it is rare.
        Chairman Murkowski, let me just say the recommendations
    provided by the Blue Ribbon Commission, I believe, do provide
    us a blueprint to follow, particularly when employing a
    consent-based method for site selection.
        My state and what I am simply asking is that the State of
    Nevada be included in this framework of this legislation to be
    treated equally and fairly alongside all the other states. That
    is all we are asking. And I would like to ask you and Ranking
    Member Manchin to work with me as this bill proceeds.
        Senator Manchin. You have my assurance on that and all of
    you all, I think, have basically expressed in your opening
    statements that the site selection has to have a buy-in to
    where states can either say yea or nay and I think that is
    important. But we have to move forward.
        Mr. Norton, if I can, I want to make, go back on Senator
    Murkowski. I want to understand the economics of what we are
    dealing with. Do you all get paid by the Federal Government for
    storage onsite since it never did take the responsibility as
    far as putting it in a repository?
        Mr. Norton. Well, Senator, to be more clear, we have to sue
    to get that money.
        Senator Manchin. You have to sue to get the money.
        Mr. Norton. Every five years we sue the Federal Government
    for the previous four years of storage costs, go through the
    process.
        Senator Manchin. Okay, storage costs. You just said you are
    suing and received $30 million when your actual cost is $6.5
    million.
        Mr. Norton. I'm sorry, again Senator, I might have confused
    you. I was trying to be clear. I think the differentiation of
    the----
        Senator Manchin. Yes, the $23.5 million.
        Mr. Norton. The difference between the actual cost to
    safely and securely store it versus the cost that we have to
    incur at the full cost. So we have, I'm sorry.
        Senator Manchin. The cost you are incurring right now, you
    are incurring that cost by keeping onsite?
        Mr. Norton. Yeah, we have an onsite storage component to
    our litigation and----
        Senator Manchin. Is it safe? Do you feel it is safe?
        Mr. Norton. It is safe, yes.
        Senator Manchin. And I would assume since it is safe and
    you are able to do it and we have had no incidents there, then
    there is no urgency and maybe Congress has dragged its feet for
    30 years for that reason. It hasn't become a critical mass.
        Dr. Wagner, you might want to talk on that, would all
    consider it has been safe storage? I mean, what the
    corporations are doing?
        Dr. Wagner. Yes, your point is exactly right. It has
    continued to be safely stored, securely stored. And so----
        Senator Manchin. The public is not threatened?
        Dr. Wagner. Exactly right.
        So that's kind of a bit of a crux of the problem. We don't
    have a crisis, per se, in terms of safety or security as the
    utility and the private sector has done, you know, an
    outstanding job in terms of safety and security----
        Senator Manchin. I am told, I guess, that some of these
    plants, I mean we have plants coming offline and we are talking
    about in climate change and we are talking about decarbonizing.
    And Bill Gates raised the bar very high in saying, you know,
    you think it is bad now, wait for another five or ten years,
    they are going to, we are going to zero. We are not going to
    more nuclear decarbonization energy. We are going to less.
        So is it because you are running out of room? You have no
    place to store it? Your capacity?
        Mr. Fettus. No, Senator, it's not because they're running
    out of room.
        Dry storage can be improved, and we have a whole set of
    suggestions on hardened onsite storage that we think would work
    better while we get a repository program on track along the
    lines of what the BRC suggested and NRC's suggestion.
        And I would urge you, I think it's a long footnote three,
    your staff can review in our testimony. The actual waste issue,
    honestly, Senator, has not and is not what is holding up
    nuclear power's ability to compete in the market.
        What is holding up nuclear power's ability to compete in
    the market are its gigantic upfront capital costs. The South
    Carolina reactors that are now in a $9 billion hole in the
    ground at Summer and Vogtle, I think, is now pushing $28
    billion for two new units. The likelihood of building new
    nuclear power is vanishingly unlikely in this country for a
    while.
        Senator Manchin. Let me ask this question then.
        The existing nuclear power we have in decommissioned units
    that have gone offline, could they have been restored? Could
    they have been basically improved upon?
        I'm----
        Mr. Fettus. It depends on how they went offline.
        Ms. Korsnick. The plants that are in the marketplace right
    now, the merchant plants that you're talking about, they're not
    shutting down relative to used fuel. Used fuel is a necessary
    issue that we need to address.
        Senator Manchin. Sure.
        Ms. Korsnick. And as----
        Senator Manchin. Why are they shutting down? Cost?
        Ms. Korsnick. It leads to building more nuclear plants and
    people's concerns about creating additional waste when the
    current waste is not being cared for.
        Senator Manchin. No, I think my question is, is that we are
    decommissioning some nuclear plants.
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct.
        Senator Manchin. Are they, have they run their life cycle?
        Ms. Korsnick. Not all of them, no.
        Senator Manchin. Could they be----
        Ms. Korsnick. They're being shut down because in the
    marketplace right now, the marketplace does not recognize the
    carbon-free attribute of nuclear. It's competing with----
        Senator Manchin. So there is no value to carbon-free
    nuclear, is what you are saying?
        Ms. Korsnick. Not in the marketplace there's not. There
    should be and that would help.
        Senator Manchin. Are any of these plants in basically
    controlled PSCs or basically they are all merchant?
        Ms. Korsnick. The ones that are shutting down, for the most
    part, are merchant, not all, but for the most part.
        Senator Manchin. And I think we have gone to the DOE asking
    for some stability in that.
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct.
        Senator Manchin. Right? And that would be of utmost
    importance to save some of these plants from going offline.
        Ms. Korsnick. It would be very helpful.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Before I turn to Senator Alexander, I wanted to respond to
    Senator Cortez Masto, because you asked a very direct question
    of me.
        Know that I do understand the importance of this issue to
    you, your delegation and to your constituency and I want to be
    very clear that I am very open to working on this bill with
    you, with Senator Manchin, and any other Senators that are
    interested in working on it.
        Senator Alexander, Senator Feinstein and I introduced this
    bill understanding that changes are going to be needed to bring
    it in line with current policies. I am aware of the language
    that you have offered along with Senator Rosen and Senator
    Manchin and that you believe it could improve the bill. Know
    that I look forward to discussing this language with you as we
    are moving forward, because I think we all want to find that
    practical path forward. So I look forward to that.
        Let me turn to Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks to
    the witnesses.
        Let me see if I can get down to what I think the crux of
    the problem is. We have a world concerned about climate change
    and the effect of carbon emissions on climate change and 60
    percent of the U.S. electricity that is carbon-free is nuclear
    power, and 11 nuclear plants are closing by 2025 and most of
    them will close over the next several years for a variety of
    reasons and one of the reasons is we have nowhere to put the
    waste, no place to put the waste offsite which the nuclear law
    requires we do.
        As a result of that, President Obama had a Blue Ribbon
    Commission that came up with several ways to move ahead
    including a new Yucca Mountain, in effect, a new permanent
    repository, new interim storage and there are a couple of
    private interim storage sites.
        So there are four places to put this waste that we are
    talking about, waste that we have collected $40 billion from
    ratepayers to store and that we are paying $2.5 million a day
    in damages because we are not doing what the law says we are
    supposed to do. We have four tracks we could follow to do
    something: We could have a Yucca Mountain open, we could build
    a new Yucca Mountain, we could have a public interim site, or
    we could approve a private interim site.
        Now, the reason we don't have any of those is because some
    people have said that if you can't do Yucca Mountain, you can't
    do anything else.
        So I am going to ask each one of you, do you agree with
    that?
        Ms. Korsnick, do you agree that if we can't agree in the
    Congress to proceed ahead with Yucca Mountain, that we should
    stop trying to build a new Yucca Mountain, consent-based, a new
    public interim site, consent-based, or approving a new private
    site?
        Ms. Korsnick. We need a long-term storage answer as well as
    a short-term.
        Senator Alexander. No, that's not my--my question is if we
    can't do Yucca Mountain should we stop doing anything else?
    Should we stop trying anything else?
        Ms. Korsnick. I think we've spent an awful lot of money on
    Yucca, and I think it should move forward with----
        Senator Alexander. That is not my question. My question is
    if we can't do Yucca Mountain, which we have not been able to
    do for 35 years, should we stop doing all the other things that
    this legislation and the Blue Ribbon Commission said we could
    do?
        Ms. Korsnick. No, we should move forward.
        Senator Alexander. We should move forward.
        Mr. Nesbit? Or let me just go down the line. If we can't do
    Yucca Mountain, should we stop trying any of these other
    tracks?
        Mr. Norton. Senator, we should not.
        Mr. Nesbit. I agree, Senator. I also think the country
    should get a return on the $15 billion.
        Senator Alexander. My question is should we stop if we
    can't do Yucca Mountain? Should we stop trying any other
    solution?
        Mr. Nesbit. No, sir, we should not stop trying. But we
    should complete the licensing.
        Mr. Fettus. I agree, we should keep trying and we laid out
    a pathway in our testimony for you, Senator.
        Senator Alexander. Yes.
        Dr. Wagner. No, sir.
        Senator Alexander. Well, I mean, that is the issue in the
    appropriations process. I believe we should finish Yucca
    Mountain but what happens is the Senate won't agree to fund the
    next year's funding of Yucca Mountain which is only to
    determine whether it is safe or not. And so, the House won't
    agree to move ahead with a new repository, a new public site, a
    new private interim site. That does not make any sense at all.
    I mean, we ought to try all four tracks. That is what the Blue
    Ribbon Commission said.
        Let me go to the private site. I think the private site is
    the site that is most likely to be open first, even if we were
    to move ahead with Yucca Mountain.
        Ms. Korsnick, the language of the bill that is proposed has
    language that was written for Yucca Mountain which says, ``This
    Act shall not affect any proceeding or any application for any
    license or permit pending before the Commission on the date of
    enactment of this Act.'' That basically said we are
    sidestepping Yucca Mountain. We are moving ahead with these
    permanent repository and public interim sites. But today, that
    might affect the two pending private sites.
        Would it be your opinion that the bill, as written, would
    mean that the provisions of the bill, including the consent-
    based procedures, would not apply to the pending applications
    from New Mexico and Texas for a private site?
        Ms. Korsnick. That's how we read it, that they're already
    pending applications so they would be excluded.
        Senator Alexander. Anyone else have an opinion on that?
        Mr. Fettus. That's precisely right, Senator. You asked the
    right question. Texas and New Mexico would both be barred from
    the consent process, clearly, by the terms of the bill.
        Senator Alexander. I would assume from your testimony you
    think they should be?
        Mr. Fettus. We think that would put us in precisely the
    same stalemate that's put us here for 50 years.
        Senator Alexander. Ms. Korsnick, in your testimony you
    thought the private sites, because of the promise they have,
    ought to have priority, is that correct?
        Ms. Korsnick. We do think they should have priority.
        The challenge with the private sites right now is they
    don't want to be the de facto, long-term storage which keeps it
    connected to a long-term storage answer.
        Senator Alexander. Well, my own view, Madam Chairman and
    Mr. Ranking Member, is that the private sites are our best
    option, our fastest option. They should have priority and we
    should consider whether the consent-based provisions which,
    apparently, do not now apply to them, should and if they do,
    whether that would slow down the private sites which hold so
    much promise.
        Thank you for your time.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
        I truly appreciate your commitment to working and pushing
    all of us toward solutions here.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Ms. Korsnick, you mentioned that the
    market right now just does not value carbon-free nuclear power.
        Has NEI endorsed putting a price on carbon as a way to
    build that value into the market?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, we've had discussions about a variety of
    ways to value nuclear in the marketplace. In the states, for
    example, there are zero emission credits that have been
    discussed.
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Ms. Korsnick. And we have supported that in New York and
    Illinois.
        Senator Heinrich. But have you endorsed putting a price on
    carbon as a way to pull that in?
        Ms. Korsnick. Those zero emission credits actually do,
    place it----
        Senator Heinrich. As a federal--at the federal level,
    nationally.
        Ms. Korsnick. We have conversations around that.
        Senator Heinrich. You have had conversations, but you have
    not actually taken a position on that?
        Ms. Korsnick. From a member perspective there's different
    views about whether or not a price on carbon would go forward.
        Senator Heinrich. No, I get that. I am just asking what
    your position is as an organization. Has NEI endorsed putting a
    price on carbon at the federal level?
        Ms. Korsnick. Not an explicit tax on carbon.
        Senator Heinrich. Okay.
        Ms. Korsnick. Value on carbon, yes.
        Senator Heinrich. Okay. It is not a complicated question.
        Why shouldn't the pending sites be part of the consent-
    based approach when we know that not using a consent-based
    process which, by the way, the Blue Ribbon Commission was
    adamant about, has been a path to failure over and over again
    as we see in Nevada.
        Ms. Korsnick. Is your question around Nevada specifically?
        Senator Heinrich. No, I am asking why shouldn't pending
    applications also be part of a consent-based approach?
        Ms. Korsnick. It was simply reflecting that as written,
    since it says it's a pending application, that needs to be
    evaluated because they are----
        Senator Heinrich. Yes, so I am not asking about the
    legislation. I am asking should we use a consent-based process
    for all applications?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, we're in support of consent-based
    process for applications.
        Senator Heinrich. So, Madam Chair, I guess I am a little
    frustrated because we have been doing the same thing over and
    over for a long time and not getting somewhere. And I am
    actually, you know, I have spent enough time at a nuclear
    reactor when I was getting my engineering degree that I am
    actually quite proud of the work that I did in one of the
    larger research reactors in the country.
        But I think we have heard local input, state input, consent
    called just the politics. And I don't think, I think that is a
    mistake because the problem is, we have ignored the politics
    for decades.
        And so, one of the things that is very concerning to me is
    that if we move forward on interim sites, especially if it is
    without consent, and you have a consolidated storage facility
    that is filled with waste and we never build the permanent
    site, what recourse is the state going to have if a permanent
    disposal facility is never built?
        I think we owe it to this conversation to answer those
    questions before we expect somebody to take possession in what
    would be a permanent, you know, what could effectively be a
    permanent situation.
        I want to enter a couple of letters into the record. I have
    a letter here from Governor Lujan Grisham from New Mexico, and
    I have a letter from the State Land Commission of New Mexico,
    both objecting to interim storage. I would just ask consent
    that they be included in the record for the hearing.
        The Chairman. They will be included as part of the record.
        [Letters objecting to interim storage follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Fettus, what should consent look
    like?
        Mr. Fettus. Consent should look like regulatory authority,
    as simple as that.
        To the extent that there has been acceptance in New Mexico
    of WIPP.
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Mr. Fettus. Transuranic geologic repository, the only
    operating one in the world.
        Senator Heinrich. Why do we have that? Why do we have
    consent privileges?
        Mr. Fettus. The only consent, well, it's a little
    complicated and it's not nearly the consent that needs to be
    there and it's not the full regulatory authority but the state
    has----
        Senator Heinrich. But the state has----
        Mr. Fettus. ----hazardous waste permitting authority and
    the state can shut the place down and set terms by which it can
    operate after it had a fire and an explosion that shut it down
    and contaminated it for several years.
        Senator Heinrich. And we reopened that facility which, I
    will repeat, is the only, only, deep geological repository that
    has been successfully built that I am aware of in this country
    because of the state's involvement. And so, I think we need to
    look at that model and look at what you suggested in terms of a
    different regulatory approach if we are going to get out of
    doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
        Mr. Nesbit. Senator, if I could interject.
        I'd just like to point out that I don't agree with Mr.
    Fettus' intertwining the concept of regulatory authority with
    consent. I think you can have consent.
        Senator Heinrich. But I do.
        Mr. Nesbit. Okay, fair enough.
        But I think that the regulatory authority that's present in
    the United States is--can be handled in a separate manner. I
    think that consent goes back to contracts.
        And if you look at the history of the nuclear waste matter,
    it is only because the generators of nuclear waste entered into
    a contract with the Federal Government that was a two-way
    contract, you pay money and you get something back, the waste
    removed from your site. That if it wasn't for that contract,
    then we would be an even a worse situation than we are today.
        The Chairman. Senator Heinrich, I just want to reiterate
    what I mentioned to Senator Cortez Masto. When we introduced
    this legislation, we did so knowing that we were laying down a
    marker for conversation because, quite honestly, we need to
    restart this.
        I appreciate the points that you have raised and they will
    be part of this ongoing discussion here. I want to make sure
    that colleagues know and understand, I don't view this bill as
    the end-all, be-all, but we have to start or restart at some
    point. So I thank you for that.
        Let's go to Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        The traditional forms of nuclear energy generated a whole
    lot more waste than many of the methods that we are talking
    about at today's hearing. The sheer volume currently in interim
    storage around the country and also the lack of a permanent
    storage or permanent disposal solution are things that are
    frequently cited as reasons why we should not continue to
    develop our nation's nuclear energy capabilities.
        Ms. Korsnick, I have a question for you.
        Dr. Wagner mentioned several small reactors. How much more
    efficiently would these small reactors use fuel than reactors
    in past decades? And could you describe how these new forms of
    generating nuclear energy could possibly change our need for
    nuclear waste storage going forward?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yeah, so, I guess as you look forward,
    there's a variety of different types of small modular reactors
    that can be built, but some of the types of small modular
    reactors that can be built would actually be interested in
    using a different type of fuel. And some of that fuel could be,
    in fact, what we consider used fuel today. So in any solution
    set that we put in, we should remind ourselves that we want it
    to be retrievable. There's 95 percent still good energy in what
    we call used fuel. It's just in a different form. And some of
    these reactors that are being looked at for tomorrow will be
    able to harvest that energy.
        Senator Lee. And we will be able to use it far below that
    95 percent threshold that you described.
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct.
        Senator Lee. How low would they go?
        Ms. Korsnick. They should be able to use the majority of
    that good energy. I would say, you know, you'll be down to
    maybe the four to five percent ``that's left'' that would then
    need to be stored.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        And that brings up another topic. I don't know whether that
    plays into what happens then. Could it be reprocessed or
    recycled? Is there another means of dealing with our need to
    have a disposal site for spent fuel that could be addressed
    through recycling or reprocessing?
        It is my understanding that other countries that have
    relied on nuclear energy recycle their waste and that the U.S.
    has even developed the technology to do so here in the United
    States in a way that is deemed safe and clean.
        Can you describe the process of how nuclear fuel is
    recycled and the history of why this process has been banned in
    the United States?
        Ms. Korsnick. Sure, so it, sort of, goes back to when we
    said there's a 95 percent still good energy in what we call
    used fuel. It's transformed. And so, instead of being, say
    uranium 235, it's turned into uranium 238 or it's turned into
    plutonium 239. So those isotopes can still release energy but
    they, not in the current way in our current light water
    reactors.
        So in recycling what you do is you essentially take the
    fuel apart and you isolate what's good and can be used again.
    So that uranium, that plutonium, and it can then be mixed and
    you can use it in current reactors, that's called MOX fuel, or
    you can use it for other types of reactors. So again, it, sort
    of, closes the fuel cycle, if you will.
        You're left with a very small amount that is not useful in
    a fuel and France, as an example, reprocesses their fuel. They
    turn that into a glass and then you store that inert glass.
        Senator Lee. So the glass is inert?
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct.
        Senator Lee. It is not fissile at that moment, it is not
    emitting----
        Ms. Korsnick. It's radioactive, but it's not useful for
    fuel.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Ms. Korsnick. So it's stored in accordance with--it would
    be in a deep geologic situation, but it would be a very small
    amount.
        Senator Lee. So it reduces the overall volume of what is
    produced?
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct. That's correct.
        Senator Lee. So why wouldn't we do that?
        Ms. Korsnick. So in the United States, we've chosen not to.
    We've chosen the fact that, and this was made in the Carter
    Administration days, that the fact of reprocessing, they look
    at it as potential proliferation, even though there are many
    processes and things you could put in place to ensure that it's
    done without any kind of proliferation concerns. But that's why
    the United States doesn't currently go for reprocessing today.
        Senator Lee. So if that decision was made in the Carter
    Administration, we are talking about 40 years ago or more.
        Ms. Korsnick. That's correct.
        Senator Lee. What has changed since then that might cause
    us to need to reconsider that? Has the technology changed in
    such a way that what was perceived as dangerous would no
    longer, necessarily, be deemed dangerous?
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, I mean, I think we've proven on a lot
    of fronts that we have the capability of managing significant
    things. The government manages plutonium on a regular basis, so
    it obviously can be done and can be done safely.
        Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        First, I would like to enter into the record an analysis of
    this bill made by the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects and a
    statement expressing concerns of this bill by my Nevada
    colleague, Senator Jacky Rosen.
        The Chairman. Those will be included as part of the record.
        [Analysis and Rosen statement follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        I am sorry Senator Alexander had to leave. I do agree with
    him. I think we need a comprehensive approach here. I think we
    need to--it is safely stored what I am hearing now, spent
    nuclear fuel, and it is safely stored where it is. But we do
    need a comprehensive approach for the future.
        But here is the one thing that I am seeking and this is why
    I so respect Senator Alexander. In 1987, I believe it was,
    Tennessee was able to successfully remove the Oak Ridge
    facility as an interim storage facility, change the law, and
    now in this bill Tennessee has equally the opportunity to say
    no like every other state, except Nevada. That is all I am
    looking for, in my state, are those similar opportunities,
    particularly with this bill it creates an equal consent-based
    siting process for all states, except for Nevada.
        And let me just highlight for the record, Section 306(e)
    requires the potential host state to veto or approve a site
    before they are fully informed of a site's local impact prior
    to initiating a review licensing process. That essentially
    leaves Yucca Mountain as the default sole repository. Section
    506(a) gives parity to all other states, except for Yucca
    Mountain in Nevada, which the consent-based process would not
    be applied to, but would be applied to states such as New
    Mexico, Texas and Utah to be kept on the list without requiring
    their consent. And Section 509 eliminates the legal 70,000
    metric ton limit of waste to be stored at a repository so if no
    state wants to be a host, this guarantees all the waste goes to
    Yucca Mountain.
        My request is that we all be treated equally. I so
    appreciate, again, the conversation today. That is why Jacky
    Rosen and I have submitted these recommended amendments to the
    Committee to this bill that treats Nevada equally.
        Let me start with some of the questions and comments that I
    have heard today.
        First of all, Mr. Fettus, let me ask you this. If we are to
    move forward in a comprehensive approach, and I think we have
    all agreed that we do need that approach, what is the best way
    to rebuild the American people's confidence in the Federal
    Government's ability to provide safe, long-term storage of
    high-level nuclear waste?
        Mr. Fettus. I think you've targeted the right issue,
    Senator, and that is confidence. And I'd also put it as trust.
    And we certainly support your idea of getting everybody treated
    equally under the consent.
        We would take it a step farther in that if we just keep the
    current system of trying to keep it as consent, everyone will
    just say no because the entire burden is on. That's what we're
    trying to build, is a process where states and EPA can have
    trust and confidence and say yes in our process. And that's the
    specific point of our testimony.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Ms. Korsnick, would NEI support the new Nuclear Waste
    Administration Act, as created in this bill, if the NWA walked
    away from the Yucca Mountain project and demonstrated that a
    new repository project could be done more efficiently and
    rapidly than Yucca Mountain? Yes or no?
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, I guess I would reflect to say that we
    believe that Nevada does have a say in the process by
    continuing with the conversations around Yucca.
        Senator Cortez Masto. That was not my question. My question
    was this. Under this Act, would the NEI support this Act if the
    NWA walked away from the Yucca Mountain project and
    demonstrated that a new repository project could be done more
    efficiently and rapidly than Yucca Mountain? Would you support
    that?
        Ms. Korsnick. I don't see how another process could be done
    more rapidly with all of the analysis that's already been done
    on Yucca. But if you found such a magic place, yes, we could
    be----
        Senator Cortez Masto. Well, DOE studies have shown that
    walking away from Yucca Mountain and starting over with a
    repository in salt or shale could save billions of dollars over
    the life of the facility.
        So, and this is the challenge I have had. We have had a
    stalemate over the last 32 years, and we have offered the
    opportunity to come in and work with us and find a solution for
    it. I think you have that today, but unfortunately what I see
    from the industry is the same old playbook and not willing to
    even admit there is an opportunity to move forward. There is
    not even a willingness to talk about the potential new
    technology that can be utilized to address the safe storage,
    and that is my concern.
        We need time now for everybody to come together and move
    forward on this issue.
        Ms. Korsnick. We're happy to have those conversations.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Risch.
        Senator Risch. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you for holding
    this hearing today.
        You know, I joined this Committee 11 years ago and we were
    talking about this then. Unfortunately the discussion today
    does not sound a whole lot different than it did 11 years ago.
        The Chairman. That is going to change.
        Senator Risch. Okay, going to change, thank you, Madam
    Chairman and maybe your bill will get us there.
        First of all, let me say thank you for inviting Mr. Wagner
    here. He is really the appropriate person to have here, which I
    will address in a second.
        I am also sorry that Senator Alexander left, because I was
    going to say he is the smartest guy on the panel. He left
    Tennessee and moved to Idaho and worked at Oak Ridge for 17
    years, was it, Dr. Wagner? And now he is working at Idaho.
        Senator King. You are lucky Senator Alexander didn't hear
    that.
        Senator Risch. Yes, oh, he will hear it.
        [Laughter.]
        Anyway, it is appropriate that he be here because the Idaho
    National Laboratory, of course, is the birthplace of nuclear
    energy in America and in the world, indeed.
        We still have the three light bulbs that we lit, the first
    three light bulbs lit with nuclear energy there. We don't use
    them regularly, but they are still there.
        In any event, because they were the birthplace of nuclear
    energy, the site has been used for decades for various things
    in the nuclear energy business and in the nuclear arms
    business. We became a waste site for a lot of the waste that
    was developed during the Cold War.
        But my point is this. In about the 1970s the State of Idaho
    was unhappy with the Department of Energy because they were not
    properly addressing, in our belief, that the waste should be
    handled properly. As a result of that, we, in Idaho, sued the
    Department of Energy and eventually entered into a consent
    decree with the Federal Government for cleanup at the Idaho
    National Lab. And all of us who were governors following that
    stood shoulder-to-shoulder behind that agreement and have
    executed that agreement. And the Department of Energy, although
    recalcitrant at the beginning, has now embraced the agreement.
    Of course, there has been a lot of turnover with the people who
    were involved and everything. But the bottom line is this. We
    have been very successful at the Idaho National Lab as far as
    cleanup is concerned. We have addressed virtually every problem
    there successfully. We're not done yet.
        Isn't that correct, Dr. Wagner? Are we--we are a long ways
    down the road though, fair statement?
        Dr. Wagner. Absolutely.
        Senator Risch. Yes.
        And so, it is important that the people who have, and we
    have had thousands of people, great people, over the years from
    all over the United States, from Idaho, who have worked on this
    and who are really smart at this. And we have proven that you
    can deal with nuclear waste and it can be cleaned up and it can
    be put into storage, semi-permanent, some temporary. But it has
    been done.
        So it is discouraging after sitting here all these years
    and not really having moved the ball very far down the field.
    We have done that in Idaho. This is a serious problem, but my
    good friend from New Mexico says we have ignored the politics.
    Gosh, I would really disagree with that. I mean, it becomes a
    political issue every time there is a Presidential campaign and
    Nevada is in play, that becomes a political issue. So, and it
    is also true here. I have seen it over the years as the Senate
    races develop in Nevada.
        There has to be a better way of doing this and I thank you
    for holding this hearing. Just as Dr. Wagner has done in Idaho,
    as we have done in Idaho, I think there is a solution but we
    are going to have to come together to do it. And hopefully,
    this bill will start the conversation.
        So thank you so much for the hearing.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        We really do not want this to be deja vu all over again. It
    has been three Congresses now and, in the meantime, whether it
    is Yankee, it does not make any difference where you are, we
    have not been able to address the longer-term issues that must
    be addressed and folks are looking to us for that legislative
    direction.
        We have an obligation to do it. Just because it is hard and
    just because it is politically charged, just because it's
    expensive--$2.2 million a day that is just, kind of, going out
    the window--is not helping anybody.
        Let's go to Senator King.
        Senator Risch. You know, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Go ahead.
        Senator Risch. You hit on a good note about the fact that
    we have an obligation to do this. It is discouraging to see
    that the nuclear energy business is going backward, that has
    been described by everybody here. Not only in America but all
    over the world people are backing away from nuclear energy and
    plants are closing. Some have reached the end of their life,
    some that have not. And yet, at the same time, there is this
    tremendous push to try to get carbon out of the air and quit
    discharging carbon in the air.
        And look, solar and wind are great generators, but they
    just do not deliver the load. At some point in time, the carbon
    fuels will run out and nuclear is going to be there. It may not
    be in this century, but future human beings on the planet are
    going to rely, very heavily, on nuclear. It is up to us to come
    up with this, resolving this bottleneck that is causing us so
    much problem.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. I appreciate that. I think we all agree that
    nuclear should be a strong part of our mix.
        But just as we are seeing facilities that are being shut
    down, what that then does to the workforce is it, too,
    dissipates and we lose the leadership that we once had. We once
    used to lead when it came to the manufacturing of nuclear
    components. We basically ceded that in so many different areas.
    We can't lose the workforce along with that.
        Let's go to Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I experienced and saw a similar thing happen in hydro.
    Major hydro developments were pretty much done in the '20s and
    when we got back into hydro in the '80s a lot of the expertise
    was gone, a lot of the engineers. There were very few firms
    that really knew how to do it. A lot of the technology was
    stuck in almost a century old.
        I find this one of the most difficult issues, and I can
    argue it both ways.
        Mr. Fettus, you present an appealing plan, state-based----
        Mr. Fettus. Thank you.
        Senator King. ----consent-based--yes, I haven't finished
    yet.
        [Laughter.]
        Don't get excited.
        State-based, consent-based, getting rid of the exemptions,
    treating it like other pollutants.
        However, what if every state says no? Which, I think, is
    not unlikely. I lived through in the '80s an effort to even
    discuss a low-level nuclear site in Maine and the outcry was
    unbelievable. What if every state says no, where are we then?
        Mr. Fettus. The same place we are now. And we have to try,
    just as Senator Murkowski is, I think, wisely leading this with
    a very open mind.
        The reason why everyone has said no repeatedly, no matter
    who it is, whether it was then Governor Alexander in Tennessee
    or the fine State of Utah with the PFS site. We actually have a
    consolidated interim storage facility that's licensed in this
    country right now that will never receive a gram of waste and
    the Committee is well aware of that and it's in Utah.
        Senator Hatch helped put in a wilderness area in order to
    block it from ever receiving that waste.
        The problem, and then I really appreciated the talk of the
    Committee that it's not just about politics. Politics are how
    we actually----
        Senator King. Politics are an expression of the public
    will.
        Mr. Fettus. Right.
        Senator King. I don't like it when somebody says we are not
    going to let politics block these things. That is the public
    speaking.
        Mr. Fettus. I couldn't agree more. And we have to take
    account of that.
        And the way we've done that remarkably in this country with
    all kinds of difficult and controversial issues are through our
    bedrock environmental statutes where we have a strong EPA that
    sets a strong foundational floor of protective standards and
    then states have delegated programs whether it's air, water,
    something else. If you build a widget factory, Senator King's
    widget factory, and you have a set of methyl-ethyl death that
    gets emitted from your factory. If your--the state can actually
    protect its citizens, its environment, its waterways, whatever.
        Senator King. Okay, but let me--assume for a moment my
    hypothetical, that we can't find a state that says yes. They
    all say no. Then, as you say, we are back where we are now. We
    have 80 so-called temporary sites. We have one in Maine costing
    us $10 million a year, costing the ratepayers and the Federal
    Government, the ratepayers through the Federal Government, $10
    million a year. That is, sort of, the fallback.
        Mr. Fettus. Well, can I do my quota, my time?
        Senator King. You don't have a countdown clock in front of
    you. You can do it if you can do it quickly.
        Mr. Fettus. Super-fast.
        Senator King. I am running out of time.
        Mr. Fettus. We have a vastly higher chance of actually
    having states get to yes if they don't have to take the entire
    burden. It also solves some of the transportation issues. They
    can do regional. They can do state.
        Senator King. Well, regional is better than one national
    anyway because of transportation.
        Mr. Fettus. Correct.
        Senator King. But the transportation routes to Nevada are,
    I have seen them, I mean, Chicago, Kansas City.
        Mr. Fettus. Almost every Congressional district.
        And but the idea----
        Senator King. And it would be two or three trains a week
    for years to take care of what we have.
        Mr. Fettus. Correct. Yup.
        Senator King. Okay.
        Mr. Nesbit. Senator, if I could interject----
        Senator King. Yes?
        Mr. Nesbit. ----that part of the problem with consent is
    who consents?
        If you look at the current situation in Nevada right now,
    the people who live closest to the repository have expressed
    their political consent for the facility there. But when you
    add----
        Senator King. I think the lady who sits next to me knows
    more about what the people of Nevada feel about----
        Mr. Nesbit. I understand that, but what I was going to add
    is when you add the additional level of government in between
    at the state level, it becomes very difficult. And no one in
    the world has solved that conundrum to date.
        Senator King. Well and I understand that. That is why I
    asked my question, what if everyone says no? Because I don't
    think that is totally unlikely.
        Let me ask a totally different question, a technical
    question.
        Why is it that we are talking about now, forever and
    always, deep holes, mines? We have these sites around the
    country, like in Maine Yankee, that you all have said are safe.
    Why not use an interim technology instead of we have to solve
    it forever, something that will allow technology to develop
    over the next 20 to 30 years and yet still be safe at a more
    centralized site? It bothers me that we have 80 sites. I don't
    think that is very secure.
        Mr. Nesbit. I think there's a couple of things there,
    Senator.
        One is that if you don't have a permanent solution, the
    ability to convince a particular location, as we've talked
    about at this hearing, to accept all this waste----
        Senator King. But if the Maine Yankee site is safe, why not
    a larger, similar site that has the same technology you are
    telling me everybody says is safe, as an interim step until we
    figure out what the best--I don't understand why we have to go
    from 80 temporary to permanent. Isn't there a step in between
    that is a logical piece?
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, that's what consolidated interim
    storage is.
        Senator King. That is what I am talking about.
        Ms. Korsnick. Yeah. And the challenge is nobody wants to
    sign up for consolidated interim storage.
        You mentioned New Mexico. The governor just recently wrote
    a letter. The last New Mexico Governor was in support of
    interim storage. The current New Mexico governor, not.
        And the challenge is because they don't want to become the
    long-term repository. And until there is an idea of a long-term
    repository, anybody that raises their hands for their
    consolidated interim storage is de facto, the long-term----
        Senator King. I think that is a good point because these
    temporary sites are now the de facto long-term sites.
        Mr. Norton. That's correct.
        Mr. Fettus. Senator, though, the actual problem we also
    face, and the Obama Administration tried to look at deep
    borehole disposal in South Dakota toward the end of its second
    term and it turned into an absolute debacle where this is red
    state South Dakota was objecting.
        And it gets precisely to the reasons that we've articulated
    today which is that when you're outside of the major functions
    or the normal functioning of environmental law, states have no
    control. So South Dakota erupted, just as New Mexico has, just
    as Nevada has been fighting for 35 years. And when you don't
    fix the institutional framework to allow the process to get to
    yes, we're never going to solve this.
        Mr. Nesbit. But I think it's important to recognize that a
    private company did conduct a deep drill hole test
    successfully. And I think what that points to is the need to
    get the management of the waste program away from the
    Department of Energy and put it into a single purpose.
        Senator King. Which is what you are suggesting.
        Mr. Nesbit. Focused organization that is dedicated to
    actual success and we have submitted in our comments, in our
    testimony, comments along those lines.
        And I think it goes----
        Senator King. The bill makes sense, but it bothers me that,
    as I understand it, the bill essentially says this is the way
    we are going to proceed except Yucca Mountain is still on a
    different track that does not require consent.
        Anyway, Madam Chairman, thank you. This is a very important
    hearing. I appreciate your conducting it.
        The Chairman. Yes, thank you, Senator King.
        I am going to turn to Senator Manchin, who has to excuse
    himself from the Committee here.
        Senator Manchin. I do, and I appreciate it so much.
        I just want to have clarification, because something is not
    making a lot of sense to me.
        You are telling me we are not filled up onsite right now so
    wherever the nuclear plants are, they are still able to have
    capacity to keep that storage there. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Nesbit. Senator, we can continue to expand onsite
    storage as needed.
        Senator Manchin. So we are not at critical mass there?
        I kind of thought we were. I was led to believe that we had
    to do something immediately.
        Mr. Fettus. We are in the pools at several sites, Senator.
        Senator Manchin. Okay.
        Mr. Fettus. In the spent fuel pools.
        Mr. Norton. If I could, Senator, what I'd like to add to
    that, however, is if you've got sites like mine where the
    reactor is fully decommissioned, all the spent fuel that's ever
    going to be generated at that site has been generated at that
    site. And yet, we sit there loaded, ready to be transported,
    waiting for some----
        Senator Manchin. I understand. I am going to get to that
    next, because now you are talking about going to interim sites.
    That doesn't make any sense to me at all because an interim
    site has to be transported again to a permanent site.
        Mr. Nesbit. Well, Senator, I would like to add and, in my
    testimony, I pointed this out, I'd like to note the difference
    between perceived risk and actual risk. And transportation of
    nuclear material is an area where perceived risk is orders of
    magnitude greater than the actual risk.
        Senator Manchin. The only thing I am saying is it looks
    like you are just creating a business model for the interim
    since we have to get to permanent.
        So why would you have these paying privately?
        Ms. Korsnick. It's really--it's all about timing.
        Mr. Nesbit. The advantage of interim is an economy of
    state.
        Ms. Korsnick. It's just a timing issue.
        If you decided today on a long-term repository site, by the
    time you license it, let's just select Yucca since we've talked
    about it, that would still be another three to five years just
    to license it today because all of the analysis has been done.
    And there's additional hearings that have to happen. Nevada has
    to have their say.
        Senator Manchin. But if we are not at capacity, why would
    we have an interim site? If it is going to be three to five
    years?
        Ms. Korsnick. That's just to get your license. It's going
    to be another decade to build it, alright. So you're already
    talking you have 15 years if you were on go today. Thirty-five
    billion is what your obligation is today, and in 15 years it's
    going to be closer to $50 billion.
        So you have to manage the liability that you are building
    on a daily basis, and the best way to help manage that
    liability is that interim storage because once you start taking
    that fuel offsite, eventually that judgment fund comes down
    because you don't have to pay the judgment fee because you've
    taken the fuel in an interim state.
        Senator Manchin. How far along are we on permitting the
    interim sites?
        Ms. Korsnick. You're nowhere.
        Senator Manchin. So whether we started today with interim
    or permanent, it is the same timetable.
        Mr. Nesbit. There's two sites that have applications in but
    whether they will actually go forward and construct those sites
    is an open question at this point.
        Mr. Fettus. Senator, there are applications but as Senator
    Heinrich just entered into the record, there will be a
    ferocious pushback for all the reasons that I've articulated
    today. And I couldn't agree more with the lack of wisdom of
    pursuing an interim site that's likely to become a de facto
    repository that doesn't solve what you and Senator Murkowski
    are trying to solve which is the long-term trajectory of how to
    solve this.
        Mr. Nesbit. Senator, the advantage of an interim site is
    that if you provide security and monitoring at one location
    versus dozens of locations, there are economies of scale
    advantages for doing that if you're going to do it for a long
    period of time.
        Mr. Norton. That's correct.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for
    having this important hearing. I can say for the State of
    Washington, there is probably no more important discussion than
    the cleanup and disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
        And for a state that did what it was asked of us and the
    people that were there in the development of Hanford, to the
    people who have done their best at cleanup, we too want to get
    answers to this.
        I guess, I have been listening to most of the hearing, in
    and out of other things, but I agree with Senator Alexander
    that moving forward is a very necessary and positive thing. And
    I would say count me in the camp of the belief that consensus-
    based approaches are more likely to generate quicker results
    than the legal and long process that we have to continue to
    play out. And that is even to say if you pass legislation, it
    just does not mean you have cleared the legal hurdles that
    continue to stymie us in these debates.
        So one of the things that Senator Alexander and others have
    referred to, and some of the witnesses have had the Blue Ribbon
    Commission and, in their discussion, our former colleague, the
    late Senator Pete Domenici, a member of that.
        One of the things that I liked about the Commission
    recommendations was that they thought that separating
    commercial and defense waste and dealing with that separately
    might be one of those near-term opportunities to make more
    progress.
        Mr. Fettus or anybody else, do you have a thought on
    continuing to look at that as a path forward?
        Mr. Fettus. I think that's a secondary issue, Senator,
    because I think fixing the----
        Senator Cantwell. Well, it is not secondary to us because
    we are the ones waiting. I forgot to put the big moniker out
    here. This is the largest nuclear waste cleanup site in the
    entire world.
        Mr. Fettus. Agreed.
        Senator Cantwell. It is complex. It is hard. We are making
    progress, but we need to get the high-level waste out.
        So let's come up with a process of moving the defense waste
    out. The complexity of Senator Feinstein's concerns on the
    commercial side are going to take us a long time to figure out.
        Just like Hanford is cleaning up some easy to clean up
    things and getting to the harder things, why can't we move
    forward on defense?
        Mr. Fettus. I think the challenge with the defense waste
    getting to a repository is going to be the same as the
    challenge with commercial spent nuclear fuel--that if you don't
    have the statutory and regulatory process that can allow
    consent in getting to yes, you won't solve it.
        That's why I meant it a second ago----
        Senator Cantwell. I am saying, we are saying the same
    thing.
        Mr. Fettus. Yup.
        Senator Cantwell. I want a consent process that is faster.
    If they will take that, I am just saying, streamline defense so
    it can get done faster as you deal with all the other aspects.
        Mr. Fettus. If you can get all the waste out of the tanks
    and get it vitrified and get it ready, that would be great.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, this is, believe me, a day-to-day
    task----
        Mr. Fettus. Yes.
        Senator Cantwell. ----for us in the State of Washington,
    but we are only doing it on behalf of the entire United States
    and part of stewardship. This should be every member of this
    Committee's responsibility. This is a responsibility of the
    United States of America, not just the State of Washington or
    environmental director.
        But I will tell you as we fight every time on some idea
    that is shortchanging the cleanup process or an idea, we are
    desperate to move the defense waste in a way in which people
    are saying to us, we want it and we will take it and we want to
    explore those ideas and see if we cannot move forward.
        So thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. It
    is good to be here. I want to thank you and Ranking Member
    Manchin for holding this important hearing this morning.
        This Congress, this Committee has discussed exciting and
    innovative ways to address climate change. We have explored
    carbon capture technologies, renewable resources and advanced
    nuclear power and nuclear energy.
        In several of the hearings, witnesses have stressed that
    nuclear energy is an essential part of our clean energy
    portfolio. If we are serious about addressing climate change,
    we must be serious about preserving and expanding the use of
    nuclear energy. We cannot do it without nuclear energy. So the
    lack of a nuclear waste management program limits the use and
    the expansion of nuclear power.
        In May, I chaired an Environment and Public Works Committee
    hearing on my discussion draft legislation that would
    complement and could complement Senator Murkowski and Senator
    Alexander's nuclear waste legislation.
        Eight states right now have new bans, bans on new nuclear
    until Washington permanently disposes of nuclear waste.
    Communities across the country are struggling to accept new
    nuclear plants because there is no permanent pathway to remove
    the nuclear waste.
        I am glad this Committee is holding this hearing to address
    these challenges.
        Ms. Korsnick and Mr. Nesbit, American ratepayers have now
    paid about $15 billion to site, to study and to design a
    repository for the Yucca Mountain site. And of this funding,
    $200 million was paid to the State of Nevada to develop their
    own scientific and technical analysis.
        Ms. Korsnick, why is it important for the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission to complete the independent safety review
    of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository?
        Ms. Korsnick. Well, you just mentioned the significant
    money that has been expended. We should have a fair hearing
    and, quite frankly, give Nevada a chance to have their hearing.
        The process will require that it goes through the judges,
    et cetera, through the licensing process and for all this money
    that has been expended, let's understand the science and the
    licensing process and work ourself through it.
        In the future, we might need another long-term repository,
    so let's learn everything that we can and understand the
    science and the licensing process for the one that's so far
    along.
        Senator Barrasso. Following up on that, Mr. Nesbit, why is
    it important----
        Mr. Nesbit. I knew what you meant.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        You note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Yucca
    Mountain licensing review is valuable. And it is valuable to
    inform safety regulations for a different repository site.
        Is it also important to complete the pending licensing
    process to build that public trust?
        Mr. Nesbit. Absolutely. I agree with everything that Ms.
    Korsnick said.
        There's other reasons why it is beneficial for the American
    people to go forward and complete the licensing even if Yucca
    Mountain isn't built. I mean, we don't know what the answer is
    until we do it. I mean, if something is found that said this is
    not the right place to do it, we've got to go find another
    solution. But we need to go through the process in order to
    demonstrate the ability to license a geologic repository for
    used fuel and high-level radioactive waste here in the United
    States. We're going to learn a great number of lessons from
    that. And having invested $15 billion already, I think it only
    makes sense to get a little more return for that huge
    investment.
        And the only other thing I'll say along those lines is it
    is the law that we do that. I think that if we demonstrate that
    we're going to follow the law here, if we change the law and do
    something different later, then people will believe that we'll
    follow the law there too.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        Along those lines, back to you, Ms. Korsnick.
        Like Senator Murkowski's bill, my Nuclear Waste Discussion
    Draft allows the Secretary of Energy to partner with private
    companies to store spent nuclear fuel on an interim basis. Mr.
    Nesbit just talked about other sites. The draft requires the
    interim storage program to proceed at the same time as the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of the Yucca Mountain
    license application.
        Do you support a requirement that interim storage is
    connected to tangible action on a permanent repository for
    nuclear waste?
        Ms. Korsnick. Yes, in fact, we think it enables that
    interim storage because people will see, alright, you have this
    path for a long-term answer. I'm happy to participate in your
    shorter-term answer because I understand that this pathway
    exists.
        Senator Barrasso. Finally to Dr. Wagner, if I could.
        The Idaho National Lab is a leader, a real leader, in
    developing advanced nuclear technologies. It is also the
    proposed site of the nation's first small modular reactor which
    is going to provide nuclear power to the intermountain West.
        Advanced nuclear reactors can increase safety, I believe,
    can decrease cost, can reduce the amount of nuclear waste. So
    while advanced nuclear can reduce nuclear waste, will there
    still be nuclear waste products that must be permanently
    disposed of?
        Dr. Wagner. Yeah, the short answer is yes.
        There's a variety of advanced reactor concepts that can
    significantly increase fuel utilization. There's also different
    concepts that Maria spoke about earlier that close the nuclear
    fuel cycle through reprocessing. But at the end of the day
    there are always going to be some small amount of material that
    requires deep geological repository.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Madam
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        I was going to ask a question about what is the number? How
    many additional storage facilities, long-term repositories, do
    we need?
        As I am thinking about that, it is like, well, we don't
    know because of exactly what you have said, Dr. Wagner, moving
    forward. What will the future of nuclear bring to us in terms
    of advanced nuclear and the prospect for less waste?
        We have talked about reprocessing. I think we know what we
    know today, but the innovation, that is out there is still
    evolving, if you will. The view into the deep boreholes. We may
    be looking at Yucca as okay, this is the design for what we
    needed 20 years ago but is it the design that we need going
    forward? And so, I think we need to factor that into the
    calculus.
        The question for those of you who have looked at the
    legislation that we have laid down here as our working
    document, do you think we do enough in this proposed
    legislation to be specific about the type of research and
    development that DOE or the Administration needs to move
    forward on? Do we need to do more in that we have been talking
    so much about this whole consent-based process and the interim
    and moving to permanent, but we have not really talked about
    some of the context of this bill that can move the industry
    forward. Do we have enough in there? Do we need to do more?
        Mr. Norton?
        Mr. Norton. Yes, Senator, if I could.
        Madam Chairman, a couple things I wanted to reflect on in
    your question, and I had this conversation with Maria's
    predecessor, Marv Fertel, probably six or seven years ago when
    my sites and the other decommissioning plant coalition sites,
    at the time there were five of us, were kind of the poster
    children of this problem, right?
        The Chairman. Right.
        Mr. Norton. We operated the plant. We've decommissioned the
    plant. We're waiting.
        I told him at that point in time there was less focus on it
    both at NEI and the industry than there is today, but I did
    tell him on the path we're at then and potentially the path
    we're on now, more than 50 percent of our nuclear fleet will be
    in the same condition I'm in before we solve this problem if we
    keep trying the same thing we've been trying for the last 20
    years. And I don't think he believed me. But if he was watching
    it today, with the number of plants that have either shut down
    or announced shut down, my estimate is not going to be far off,
    even if we get moving from here.
        And so, it is a clear problem. It is a clear issue. I think
    Senate bill 1234, although we have comments that would make
    recommendations on changes, is a good starting point for us to
    work together to figure out how to resolve this problem because
    what we have been doing for the last 20 years is not going to
    work.
        I would also like to acknowledge my Senator from Maine,
    Senator King, and his question about are we really thinking
    about this the right way? And I think that needs to be asked.
        I know there's scientists and others that may have a
    difference of opinion here, but I do think we have to challenge
    ourselves as to did we really plot the right course with our
    original plan for a repository and is there an alternative way
    to think about this? By consolidating this waste, looking at
    either reprocessing or other technical advancements, other
    options that other countries are looking at and take the
    blinders off and look at this more holistically.
        The Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Nesbit.
        Mr. Nesbit. Senator, I'd just like to add a couple of
    things.
        One is American Nuclear Society does support continued
    research into advanced nuclear energy systems and advanced
    waste management techniques. There's actually private companies
    out there that are working in this area as well.
        I think the question of where that needs to reside, whether
    it's in your bill or in other legislation is a good question. I
    think the work that John Wagner and others are doing at Idaho
    is, they are looking at advanced energy systems in a holistic
    manner that includes the waste management issue, and I think
    they need to continue that work.
        The Chairman. Got it.
        Mr. Fettus.
        Mr. Fettus. And Senator, the Blue Ribbon Commission wisely
    cautioned against trusting in reprocessing as any meaningful
    solution for nuclear waste and the offramp, it's past time for
    the offramp on recycling of spent fuel in this country. It's
    both dangerous proliferation and security concerns. It creates
    more waste and it will not solve the waste problem, and no
    country has used it to solve their waste problem. And most of
    all, it's not economical and the BRC identified that it likely
    never will be.
        The Chairman. Dr. Wagner, you want to respond to that?
        Dr. Wagner. Well, I would just comment that, you know, we
    don't currently recycle because it's not economical.
        You know, one of the many benefits talked about with
    respect to consolidated interim storage is that whether in time
    it becomes economical with a substantial growth in nuclear
    energy or other technologies for waste disposal and design of
    repositories come into play. A consolidated interim storage
    facility allows you to make progress to move forward on this
    issue while some of those other things may or may not come to
    be other options for the material.
        The Chairman. I appreciate that.
        We have just had a vote start. I would like to allow my
    colleagues an opportunity for a last word, if they would like.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Actually, I do, thank you, Madam
    Chair.
        Mr. Nesbit, I sat here and listened to you. Thank you for
    being here. The arguments you make are the same arguments I
    have heard for the last 30 years from the industry. But you
    make one argument that talks about Yucca Mountain being
    utilized to learn from the science and that is why it should
    move forward. I think we should learn from the science from
    Yucca Mountain because there are no natural barriers or man-
    made barriers that make it safe. But we keep hearing that all
    the time.
        So let me ask you this, if we were to learn from the
    science of Yucca Mountain which would require still 40 more
    miles of tunnel to be, to dig the tunnel to bury the canisters,
    which by the way, the same canisters that are utilized for
    Yucca Mountain in the study can't be utilized because the
    industry does not use the same type of canisters. But what I am
    told it is so hot once it is stored and it leaks like a sieve
    because the hydrology shows already in exploratory tunnel, it
    leaks like a sieve. That once the canisters are there, titanium
    drip shields will have to be created to put over the canisters.
    And by the way, those titanium drip shields would not be placed
    in that facility once the canisters are here until 90 years
    later and it cannot be placed by a man in there, so you have to
    build robotics to put the titanium drip shields to protect the
    water that goes down into the canisters that would go into the
    aquifer below. Is that the science you are saying that you
    would learn from that you should not have in any other
    repository?
        Mr. Nesbit. What I was referring to, Senator, was
    completing the licensing process and having the concerns, such
    as you just expressed, evaluated by a panel of experts and
    ruled on in a manner that we can learn from them, if indeed we
    go on to develop other repositories elsewhere. That's all I'm
    talking about.
        Senator Cortez Masto. We already have the information, and
    that is my point.
        Mr. Nesbit. Well, Senator, I don't agree with your
    concerns.
        Senator Cortez Masto. We have spent $19 billion on a five-
    mile exploratory tunnel to study the geology and hydrology. We
    know that because it is a volcanic tuff and there are fractures
    through the rock that it's going to leak. So that is why the
    titanium drip shields are part of your plan for the canisters
    that will be placed there.
        That is what I am saying. We already have the information
    that shows it is not safe. Why are we going to waste another 30
    years with 218 contentions by the state and lawsuits that I
    know I was part of as Attorney General, against your
    department, or excuse me, against the Department of Energy,
    instead of looking forward in a comprehensive approach and
    utilizing the science to help us understand in moving forward
    on the new technology that is out there. That is all I am
    looking for, and I would love for the industry to come to the
    table and work with us on that.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Nesbit. The key question at Yucca Mountain is not
    whether it's built in volcanic tuff, but whether it can or
    cannot comply with the very conservative environmental
    standards that were laid down to protect the health and safety
    of the public. And that's the question that would be resolved
    in a licensing hearing before fair, impartial and qualified
    judges.
        Senator Cortez Masto. I disagree.
        But now that I have more time, let me add a little bit more
    to this because I think for purposes of science, we really are,
    and I would ask the scientists here, isn't the intent here to
    decrease any type of unexpected opportunities with respect to
    science?
        You want a place that is safe, that you are going to
    decrease any vulnerabilities with respect to that deep geologic
    site instead of adding to those vulnerabilities by man-made,
    alleged safety barriers or natural safety barriers. You are
    going to decrease those kind of vulnerabilities. And isn't that
    what you're really looking for, for any type of site, a deep
    geologic site?
        And maybe, Mr. Fettus, I don't know if you have a response
    to that?
        Mr. Fettus. I couldn't agree more, Senator Cortez Masto.
        The idea behind any geologic repository is to find geologic
    media that can isolate the waste for the length of time it's
    dangerous. And the problem that the Yucca Mountain project has
    repeatedly run into is whenever it ran into the technical
    challenges that you so accurately describe, the response was to
    weaken the standards to allow the site to be licensed. So we
    don't look at that upcoming atomic safety and licensing board
    proceeding, if it were to ever go forward, as a full exercise
    in having the state have a fair say.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Ms. Korsnick. If I could just add, since we were talking
    about drip shields, we do know that EPRI did an analysis back
    in 2008 and they found that the repository was capable of
    meeting the regulatory requirements without the drip shields,
    that they had sufficient defense in depth. The drip shields
    were designed simply as an additional redundant layer of
    protection. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Right, but still the drip shields are
    there as a redundant layer and that is the point. And you are
    supposed to be reducing those types of additional redundancies,
    aren't you, as supposedly having the natural redundancies there
    and then adding them as necessary.
        Again, I am all for moving forward. I think we have to have
    a solution here, and I think we have to be smart about it.
        This is waste that is going to be there for millions of
    years, for generations to come for our children and our
    grandchildren, and we have to do right by them. We have to be
    coming together, particularly in this country, to address this
    issue.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        And to our panel, we appreciate your contribution this
    morning. We all acknowledge that we have an issue that has been
    a longstanding issue that has not been resolved and our effort
    will be to defy the skeptics and to change the status quo
    which, quite honestly, has been going on for far too long.
        I do not want Senator Risch to be sitting here in this
    Committee five years from now in a similar hearing and saying,
    I remember back in 2019 we were talking about it and it was the
    same as it was when I first came to the Committee.
        We have an obligation. We have good folks working on
    things. So let's try to address this very longstanding problem.
        With that, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]