[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]