Transcripts For CSPAN2 Senate Energy Hearing On Nuclear Waste Storage 20240714

Good morning everyone. The committee will come to order we are meeting to examine an issue that effectively weve been at a stalemate for quite some time. What we should do with used nuclear fuel accumulating at the Nuclear Reactors. At a starting point we should recognize that Nuclear Energy is an important part of our countrys electric generation. I believe its a vital part of our mix. The large reactors not landscape provide reliable admissions free power to communities across our country. Our Nations Nuclear industry is critically important but it also faces a number of challenges and one that impacted the first reactors began operation and Nuclear Waste disposition. Beginning with the passage of the Nuclear Waste policy act of 1982 congress attempted several times to address the backend of the fuel cycle. In an effort to resolve an earlier stalemate the federal government was supposed to begin taking title to use fuel and moving it to a repository at Yucca Mountain in nevada beginning in 1998. The federal governments 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 find another path forward for use fuel storage especially for communities maintaining sites with only used fuel caps left on hand with the rest of the plan commission. In 2010 secretary of Energy Steven shoe can be in the ab to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the fuel cycle. The commissions 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, senator alexander, both on this committee i been a sponsor of the legislation of all along. With senators alexander and senator feinstein. My partners on the energy and water appropriations subcommittee for multiple congresses. Weve been at this for a while and i think its fair to say we would like to put something behind us at some point in time 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 consentbased deciding for interim storage and an additional repository that can be located in states and communities that want it. The bureau also prioritizes the removal of used fuel and decommission reactor sites for temporary storage consolidated sites. Our bill is s1234. I wish it was as easy as 1234. We know it requires some updates and theres a number of ideas to improve specific sections. I welcome those i look forward to the testimony from our distinguished panel this morning. I would also welcome thoughts and comments from others. Ultimately i hope we can all agree that it is long past time to figure this out. The sooner we find a path forward, the better. Its been six years now since i and others cosponsor this legislation where in the same place effectively in the same place when it comes to the back end of the fuel cycle. As when we introduce 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 is the ability to lead the world on some of these technologies but without a solution on Nuclear Waste i believe we are less likely to realize full potential there. We are here today to restart the conversation. I know that chairman barrasso has a bill on Nuclear Waste in his ep w committee. He is keen to move forward on it. Im glad to see weve got renewed interest across congress to address the challenge, its a good thing we got multiple options on the table. I think this is a positive development and i sincerely hope we can move forward on Nuclear Waste after decades of inaction. With that i turned to my Ranking Member and friend senator thank you for having a hearing odd Nuclear Waste Administration Act i want to thank all witnesses here today to 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 Nations Energy mix. Its reliability, especially in adverse weather and the fact is the nation s largest zero mission a paro social. It means its a powerful tool in our flight 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 Nuclear Waste. I believe this bill provides us all a foundation to work from which originated with the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission. On americans nuclear future. I think theres an agreement among us that changes must be made to the current text before moving forward. Dividing an equitable policy pass for Site Selection is something that support is the inequity and Site Selection a large part of the current impasse. Since the National Academy of sciences 1957 report recommended deep geologic disposal for hardy radioactive rent waste its clear what we need to do with the Nuclear Waste. The prudent responsible thing to do is to bury the waist 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 daytoday basis. In particular i want to think chairman makowski, senator cortez moscow for their ongoing leadership on this issue. If weve learned anything in the past 30 years it is that social and political concerns need to be taken into account to site and construct repository. That is not to say the technical considerations are not important. I trust the highly skilled individuals at the National Labs and partners to solve issues that we will face in constructing Storage Solutions that whatever site or sites that are selected where congress should focus on the mechanisms that can drive by in from communities. Other countries in the world have success by creating an organization that separate from an agency or governing body but still regulate the body government. To work with communities to build 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 choice. This action politicized is this process while simultaneously discrediting the federal government. It is my hope that following the markup of this bill will be equitable and how it considers all sites. When a site or sites are selected we know it was a fair process and can move forward accordingly. Let us not forget theres urgency in this issue. Spent fuel poles as reactors are capacity and the need to mitigate carbon emission insurance reactors will continue to operate in this country for decades to come. On top of that, failing to the means to federal government is racking up more liability to be paid to the utilities to store the waste in their own private Storage Facilities adjacent to the reactors. The taxpayer is on the hook to the tune of about 2 million a day with an estimated overall liability of 34. 1 billion. Like it or not this means we already have a de facto interim Storage Program in this country thats inefficient and lax costeffectiveness. While we dont have any Nuclear Waste in West Virginia nor do we have Nuclear Reactors, im invested in working with my colleagues in this issue because preserving and growing Nuclear Power is key to addressing the climate crisis. I want to share with you we had the chairman and i had an opportunity to spend some time with bill gates and he went through boom, boom, boom, 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 are urging time on this. I like to think senator murkowski for holding this most appropriate time. I think much needed not just for the United States of america but for the world. Thank you. Lets turn to our panel. We have a very distinguished panel. We are joined this morning by maria cores nick, the president and ceo of Nuclear Energy institute. Youve 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. Stephen nesbitt is the chair of the American Nuclear society Nuclear Waste policy tax force we thank you for your leadership with that important task force. Geoffrey fettus is the senior attorney at Nuclear Climate and Clean Energy Program for the Natural Resource Defense Council nrdc we welcome you to the committee. And doctor john wegner is with us with one of our National Labs, he is the associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science and Technology Director at the Idaho National lab. We appreciate your leadership in these spaces as well. We will begin with you and miss Maria Korsnick if you can provide comments to the committee we ask that you try to keep comments to about five minutes. Your full statements will be included as part of the record when the full panel has concluded will have an opportunity for questions. Thank you very much. I am Maria Korsnick, president and ceo of the Nuclear Energy institute. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2019. I sincerely appreciate the committee deliberate effort to develop an effective federal use fuel Management Program. Since the 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 funded 20. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical staff has also completed reviews of the Yucca Mountain licensing application concluding that yucca come out and complies with all relation. Private initiatives are underway to develop consolidated Storage Facilities in two 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 divide nearly 20 of americas electricity and more than half of the emissions free electricity. These reactors are carbon free workhorses essential to addressing Climate Change and any realistic manner. That said. The advanced reactors of tomorrow in the u. S. Operating fleet at large are continually subjective to reputational damage because congress for two decades now has played politics with the issue of used fuel. Its vitally important that the u. S. Remains a global heir 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 his end of the bargain at sites in 35 states around the country, commercial used fuel is safely stored and managed awaiting pickup 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 a which has been contributed by electricity consumers and Nuclear Generation companies. Each year over 1. 5 billion more in interest accumulates in the pond and finally each day we dont have a solution cost taxpayer 2. 2 million in damages. The single largest liability paid out of the Judgment Fund you after year. Its really time to solve this and im 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. Let me be clear congressional action is necessary. Three important points must be addressed. First we need to answer on the Yucca Mountain license applicant. 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 concerns with Yucca Mountain to be heard by nrc independent administrative judges. This will allow 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 the site. Helps to alleviate state and local concerns that interim storage will become the de facto Disposal Facility. This point was highlighted recently in a letter by new mexico governor lujan grisham. That said, im pleased interim storage is addressed in s 1234 Nuclear Waste Administration Act i strongly believe interim storage can be successful if moved in parallel with the Yucca Mountain licensing. Finally, the Nuclear Industry and electricity consumers around the country have paid their fair share to address the backend of the fuel cycle. As 1234 was originally drafted prior to the court mandated prohibition on the fee, i want to strongly convey the importance of not prematurely reimposing the Nuclear Waste fee, especially given the substantial balance and large investment interest which occurs annually. The industry believes the fee should not be reinstated until the annual expense for the programs ongoing projects exceed the annual Investment Income on the fund, and that the projected lifecycle cross demonstrates 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. I sincerely appreciate the committees 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 Longterm Management of the nations used fuel. Thank you, i look forward to your questions. Thank you. Mr. Norton, welcome. Good morning chairman murkowski, Ranking Member mansion and members of the committee. My name is wayne norton, the president and ceo of the yankee atomic electric company. ab the three Nuclear Plants that my sites are fully decommissioned both the Storage Facilities for the spent fuel integrated in class c waste produced in 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 of awarded my companys 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 served as the chair of the decommissioning Plant Coalition steering committee. As such i want to express our appreciation for this invitation to appear before you today on behalf of the coalition, and we ask that our full statement be read into part of the record. We are here today in part because of fear of the federal government to make good on its commitment is creating a fuel management burden across the increased number of states both holidays. 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. He new england alone there are five sites in four states that are providing indefinite storage of this material. Even though the electric rate payers in that region have met their obligations and paid upwards 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 the senate 1234, the Nuclear Waste and registration act. Id like to focus on two issues relative to the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations and senate 1234. Consolidate interim storage, and funding the form. As suggested by the Blue Ribbon Commission, senate 1234 calls for consolidated interim Storage Program as part of an active repository citing an licensing effort. Given the congress 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 dbc also believe the most effective and timely path to remedy the governments the fault 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 the consolidated interim Storage Facility license will likely be granted first. 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. 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 will hear from today, the dpc has repeatedly called the need for urgent action by congress to establish an integrated national Nuclear Waste program. Continued in action is now costing american taxpayers, as youve heard today come approximately 2. 2 million a day. ab madam chairman, Ranking Member, mansion and members of the committee, the dpc deeply appreciates your interest in this issue, we are encouraged by your legislative initiative and the attention brought to the conduct of this hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Id be glad to answer any questions. Thank you mr. Norton. Mr. Nesbitt, welcome. Chairman murkowski, Ranking Member mansion, members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Nuclear society. Ans represents 10,000 men and women who work every day to provide clean energy, detect and cure cancer to nuclear medicine, develop systems to power deep space exploration, and enable the many other beneficial obligations of the atom. We applaud the introduction of the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2019 as a serious effort to break political logjam 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 in action in this aerial and intending anniversary that should spur congress and administration to action. The lack of progress on the geological plaza torrey is clearly endangered Nuclear Powers potential to address our longterm energy and environmental objectives. In particular advanced Reactor Developers men and women who earnestly striving to meet Global Demand for emissions free or Reliable Energy most impacted by the question, what about the waste . I will turn to discuss several key positions of s1234 along with other governmental actions what we believe can begin addressing the very fundamental question. We endorse the initiation of a search for geologicals 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. If Yucca Mountain doesnt become operational our waste will have to go somewhere, consolidated interim storage by itself is not the solution. In the country determines a better understanding of what options are realistically available. To enable repository citing the government needs to update several regulations to reflect scientific advances and Lessons Learned over the past decades. In particular the nations generic environmental standard for geological repositories lacks transparency is out of date and inconsistent with international guidelines. We endorse consolidated interim Storage Program with priority per fool down plans as authorized by section 305. Congress should understand that success in this area is unlikely without a credible Repository Program. Ans supports new independent entity to manage highlevel waste but have concerns with the new Government Agency proposed entitled to the northwest aa. We suggest continued consideration be given to the Public Corporation model. Highlevel 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 tactical provisions to allow an empowered Management Entity to use the existing balance of the fund. The approach to consent based signing of Nuclear Waste management facilities described in sections 305 and 306 appear reasonable. However, its an open question for process with all parties have an absolute veto can succeed in our system of government. Additional information on these points and others ab 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 second repository site, and move forward on consolidated interim storage. Initiate the development of uptodate repository regulations for sites other than Yucca Mountain. abin addition to money from the Nuclear Waste fund the federal government has many means for 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 scientists and engineers, Congress Must address the legal and administrative issues associated with Nuclear Waste. 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. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and stand ready to answer your questions. I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you mr. Nesbitt. Mr. Geoffrey fettus welcome. Thank you chairman murkowski, ricky member mansion and members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to present nrdc views. Chairman murkowski started the hearing perfectly when she said we are in the same place. We trust this can be a new beginning with more than 80,000 metric tons of spent fuel and more than half of our states reactors moving to decommissioning we need to reset the process. 1234 will not solve the current stalemate in what lead to workable solutions. Therefore, we oppose it in its current form. For more than 50 years the congress has offered and pass bills that would restrict the yucca licensing process or kick open a door in new mexico or utah for interim storage site. In doing those things as 1234 severs any meaningful link between storage and disposal and excludes nevada from the consent process it sets up. This wont work. In such efforts have failed in tennessee, kansas, nevada, utah, and everywhere else, another such attempt to restart medication in controversy and likely result is continued stalemate weve been in. Seven years ago a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission keenly describe why past attempts failed. The commission wisely asserted we cant keep doing the same thing. Congress must create a process that allows any potential host date to demonstrate consent. For that matter, nonconsent. Rather than spend more of your valuable time on the specifics of why this wont work, their only written, i put before you a durable meaningful reset of how we can manage it and dispose Nuclear Waste and how we can really achieve consent. The solution could be summed up simply, give epa and the states power under wellestablished 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 hazardouswaste law and sizable portions of the clean water act. It ignores the vital role states play in addressing other environmental pollutants. Senator mentioned he talked of the mechanism that can drive by him. Our government is at its strongest when each players role is respected. As an example of the years of wrangling over what standards should be set for cleanup and massively contaminated Nuclear Weapon sites such as those in washington or South Carolina is made exponentially worse by doe selfregulatory status which the Atomic Energy act ordains with these exemptions. The same is true with commercial spent fuel where any status targeted to receive Nuclear Waste looks to be on the hook for the entire burden of the nation spent fuel. State consent 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 beside federal fiat. Its only way consent can happen specifically congress can finally remove the Atomic Energy act and anachronistic exemptions from bedrock environmental laws. No hazardouswaste clean water laws must include all authority over radioactivity and Nuclear Waste facilities so epa and most importantly the states can assert direct Regulatory Authority. Removing these exemptions will not magically solve the puzzle and create final repository. But i think it can work faster than what we have now. It will open a path forward that respects each state rather than offering up the latest one for sacrifice. Texas and new mexico events of the last several weeks demonstrate this. Why will nrdcs plan work . And why does this provide a better chance than as 1234 . Because the state could say no it can also say yes and can set the terms for how it will receive the race waste and importantly, not be on the hook for the entire burden. The 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. Just as important, the fundamental sharing of power can result in Public Acceptance of the solutions. We seen the bills before each is been a mirror of the last. Its time to try something that has a proven track record of addressing other controversial topics. If you want to garner the consent of the blueRibbon Commission deemed necessary you have to give epa and the states Regulatory Authority under environmental law. Its time to regulate Nuclear Waste the same way as every other pollutant with epa and delegated states taking the lead under our abthank you for having me here today and i look forward to answering your questions. Lets go to views from the Idaho National lab, doctor wegner. Chairman murkowski, Ranking Member mansion, members of the committee, its an honor to be here with you today. I want to particularly thank senator murkowski, feinstein, alexander for sponsoring this 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 iml Nuclear Energy Research Development and demonstration efforts, including r d related to spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, transportation, disposal. Throughout my career been intimately involved in the technical issues around spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, transportation and route disposal. abincluding leading a doe program to implement the blueRibbon Commission on Americas Nuclear future recommended nearterm actions which involved laying the groundwork for implementing interim storage, as well as the associated transportation to support that. As the nations Nuclear Energy Research Development and Demonstration Laboratory iml is the leader in the effort to maintain and expand the lives of Americas Nuclear reactor fleet. The safe efficient and highperforming systems produce nearly 20 of the nations electricity and more than half of our carbon free electricity. Thats more than solar, wind, hydro, geothermal combined. At iml we also work with industry on innovative advanced reactor design. This includes megawatt scale, micro reactors, small module reactors, and a variety of advanced designs that offer the potential for improved performance greater inherent safety features and improved ability for certain Market Applications as well as reduced construction, licensing, and operating costs. As the Committee Heard on april 30 during discussion on Nuclear Energy leadership act as strong and vibrant commercial nuclear vital to United States environment, power grid reliability and security, economy and national security. Accordingly we must address the major impediments to developing and applying advanced Nuclear Reactors. Congress to its credit has begun this process bypassing two important pieces of legislation. The Nuclear Energy innovation capabilities act, nika, and the Nuclear Energy aband reintroduced a third which i refer to earlier new law. Now its time to address the waste issue. In 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 evidence 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 however have issues caused by lack of sustained coherent approach for Nuclear Waste and not having a final disposition solution. This is resulted in longer than anticipated storage, and the National Laboratories and industry in coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory commission proactively identifying and addressing the associated potential technical issues with the situation. More worry of some though than the relatively minor technical risk of expanded storage are the Socioeconomic Impact resulting from onsite storage and permanently shut down reactor sites. The cost, which has been referred to multiple times this morning already, approximately 2. 2 million per day per 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. Finally, the negative impact on Public Acceptance of new Nuclear Energy which is also referred to earlier. Given the lack of progress to adjust the waste. Our mission at the 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 they have not addressed the latest issue. Because of all of this and interim Storage Facility can be viewed as an Economic Investment for the nation. It addresses these issues and provides a range of other benefits that have been identified in numerous studies including the prg report i referred to earlier. Finally, id like to note that im encouraged that senate bill 1234 identifies defenserelated spent fuel under Compliance Agreement as a priority. At the discretion of the new administrator. The department of energy at the iml site is responsible for managing and storing a range of spent fuel including defenserelated fuel. This bill would enable meaningful storage alternative for those materials. I appreciate the opportunity to testify, want to thank you again for your attention to this important issue for our nation. I look forward to answering any of your questions. Thank you doctor wegner and thank each of you for being here this morning and for what you are providing the committee. Its clear that the reviews and studies everybody agrees weve got to deal with the permanent in order to get to interim. The discussion about interim sites becoming de facto permanent, thats kind of where we are unfortunately. Which is a place i dont think any of us believe is truly acceptable for the longterm. We are not the only nation that has Nuclear Waste to deal with. Its not like this is a case of First Impression here. Its 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, countries, where they have deep geologic repository siding. They got a consentbased approach to stop mr. Nesbitt you mentioned in your recommendations 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 there geologic formations different than ours . Is it more that they do a consentbased . Im trying to figure out by looking to others who have been more successful than we have, what we might learn. I throw that out to anyone on the panel. First of all, its 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 we have so many options available to us in other countries they are smaller and they really just have to concentrate on one option. The other thing i would like to point out is that in those countries that have been successful so far and what you would call consentbased siding process they do not have anything that corresponds to the State Government in the United States. Thats the nature of their governmental structure. Sweden and finland. Its been a challenge in the United States siding waste facilities and typically the hangup is at the state level. I would actually agree with a lot of what mr. Nesbitt just said. I hope the Committee Notes that, that we call for in my written testimony a return to the u. S. abusgs has started superb work looking at the vast over 36 states dozens and dozens of places around the country that have potential but i would urge the committee to reflect on the fact that there is no country that has fully cited a deep geological depository for spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste yet. Sweden i think and finland are further down the road but for great measure precisely the reason that mr. Nesbitt just pointed out, which is they dont have the tripartite system we do about the community, state, and federal government. They dont have that interlock the tory layer and if you want to solve it consistent with our environmental laws, weve always taken the court of the states. Thats the basis of my testimony. 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. Thank you for the question senator. At my sites as you will see in my written testimony, its approximately 30 million a year combined between the three sites to maintain those facilities and the structure associated with it. What is happening on the site right now . In terms of youve got workers there that are just ensuring theres a level of safety. Whats costing you 30 million . The interesting part about our company is that we are also managing our corporations and not just the storage of the spent fuel at our site. If you just look at spent fuel storage the cost would be closer to 6. 5 million per site. As the courts have found in our cases, or corporation single asset utilities would have gone out of business had the government performed. Not only is our damages including the storage but also to manage the corporations in existence until such time the government performs. About 6. 5 million per site on average upgrades required. Depending on the facility would depend on the significance of that. For instance, the department of energy has been doing studies preplanning studies in the sites. Transportation challenges independent to many of these sites including the shut down ones and including my three. In each of these sites is unique in these challenges. For instance, in yankee they would be minimal upgrades required at the site itself. The inventory reports have more broadly the entire transportation route. And the department of energy and others have focused on the issue and should continue to focus on the issue. The entire transportation pathway needs to be analyzed. I think thats sitespecific almost every site will have to have some level of a let me turn to senator mansion. Thank you madam chairman. I think finding a solution to our Nations Nuclear waste impasse is critically important. You brought so much expertise to the table and i appreciate it very much. Instead of asking now at the beginning of my time ask senator cortez musto says shes been leading this effort and has more skin in the game than any of us sitting here i would like for her to little bit of what shes trying to achieve right now and how we can help. Thank you making mansion. By the Blue Ribbon Commission i believe provide us a blueprint to follow particularly when employing a consentbased method for Site Selection. My state and where im simply asking is that the state of nevada be included in the framework of this legislation. To be treated equally and fairly alongside all the other states. Thats all we are asking. I would like to ask you and Ranking Member mansion to work with me as this bill perceives. You have my insurance on that and all of you i think basically rick expressed in your Opening Statements that the Site Selection has to have buyin to where states can say yay or nay. I think thats important weve got to move forward. I want to understand the economics of what we are doing with you all get paid by the federal government for storage on sites. And never had the responsibility of putting it in repository. To be more clear, we have to sue to get that money. You have to sue to get the money. Every five years we sue the federal government for the previous four years of storage costs. You are suing and received 30 million when your actual cost is 6. 5 million. Im sorry. The differentiation the difference between the actual cost to safely and securely store it versus because we have to incur let me ask you. The cost you are incurring right now you are incurring the cost by keeping on site. We have an onsite storage component to our litigation. Do you feel it say . Yes. I would assume since it safe and youre able to do it. Then there is no urgency and maybe congress has drug its feet for 30 years for that reason. It has become critical mass. And you might want doctor wegner you might want to talk on the ul considered expensive storage can with the corporations are doing. It has continued to be safely stored securely stored t he. The public is not a threat. Thats exactly right. Its kind of a bit of a problem. We will have a crisis per se in terms of safety or security. As utility in the private sector has done an outstanding job in terms of safety and security. And told some of this plants we have plans going offline and talking about Climate Change talking about the carbon diving. And bill gates raise the bar very high saying you think its bad now, wait for another 5 to 10 years were going to zero were not going more nuclear Decarbonization Energy we are going to list. Is it because of running out of room you have no place to store it . Is not because theyre running out of room. Dry storage can be improved and we have a whole set of suggestions on site stores that we think would work better when we get Repository Program on track along the lines of what the brc suggested an nrdc suggested. I would urge you think the long footnote 3 your staff can review it is only an issue has withholding Nuclear Powers ability to picnic a picnic in the market. Whats holding up nuclear as such are its gigantic upfront capital costs. South carolina reactors that are now in 9 billion hole in the ground at summer and vogel i think is now pushing 28 billion for two new units. The likelihood of building new Nuclear Power is vanishing unlikely. The existing power that we have been units that have gone offline today have been restored . Could they have been improved . The plants that are in the marketplace are not shutting down relative to used fuel. Used fuel is a necessary issue that we need to address. It relates to building more Nuclear Plants and peoples concerns about creating additional waste when the current waste is. I think my question is, we are decommissioning their plants. They run their lifecycle . What do i want to being shut down because in the marketplace right now with the marketplace could not recognize the carbon free attribute of nuclear. There is no value to cover three nuclear. That would help. Are any of these plants and basically controlled pscs or all merchants . The ones that are shutting down to the most for emergent. Not all of them but for the most part. We will look to the doe asking for stability and that thats correct. That would be of utmost importance to save some of these plants plus it was helpful. Thank you madam chairman. Thank you senator. Before i turn to senator alexander i wanted to respond to senator cortez musto. You asked a very direct question of me. Know that i do understand the importance of this issue to you, your delegation and your constituency. I want to be very clear that im very open to working on this bill with you, with senator mansion, any other senators 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 you have offered along with senator rosen and senator mansion. 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. I think we all want to find that practical path forward. I look forward to that. Let me turn to senator alexander. Thank you madam chairman and thanks to the witnesses. Me see if i can get into what the i think is the crux of the problem. We got a little concerned about Climate Change, and the effect of comet emissions on Climate Change. 60 of the u. S. Electricity thats carbon free is Nuclear Power. 11 Nuclear Plants are closing by 2025 and most of them will close over the next several years for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons is we have no way to put the was ano place to put the waste off site which the nuclear law requires we do. As a result of that, president obama had a blue ridge Ribbon Commission which came up with several ways to move ahead including a new Yucca Mountain in effect, new interim storage and a couple private interim storage site. There are more places to put this ways that we are talking about. Waste we collected 40 billion from ratepayers to store and that we are paying 2. 5 million a day of damages because we are not doing with the law says we are supposed to do we have for places we could for tracks to follow to do something. We could have a Yucca Mountain open, we can have a new Yucca Mountain, we could have a public interim site for private interim site. The reason we dont have any of those is because some people have said that if you cant do Yucca Mountain, you cant do anything else. Im going to ask each one of you, do you agree with that . Do you agree that in the congress to proceed ahead with Yucca Mountain that we should stop trying to build a new Yucca Mountain . A new public interim site consent based . Or improving a new private site . We need a longterm storage answer as well as a shortterm. Thats not my question, my question is if we cant do Yucca Mountain, should we stop to anything else . Should we stop trying anything else . I think we spent an awful lot of money on Yucca Mountain and i think it should move forward. My question is, if we cant do Yucca Mountain, which we havent 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 . No, we should move forward. Mr. Nesbitt . Let me go down the line, if we cant do Yucca Mountain, should we stop trying any of these other tracks . We should not. I agree, senator, i also think the country should get a return on the 15 billion. My question is, if we cant do Yucca Mountain, should we stop doing trying any other solution . We should not stop trying. We should complete the licensing. I agree we should keep trying and laid out a pathway in our testimony for you. No sir. Thats the issue in the appropriations process. I believe we should finish Yucca Mountain. But what happens is, the senate will agree to fund the next years funding of Yucca Mountain, which is only to determine whether it is safe or not. The house will agree to move ahead with a new repository, a new public site, a new private interim site. That doesnt make any sense at all. We ought to try all four tracks. Thats what the Blue Ribbon Commission says. Let me go to the private side, i think the private site is the site that is most likely to be open first. Even if we were to move ahead we got the mountain. Ms. Course korsnick abms. Korsnick, language has language written for Yucca Mountain that says it will not affect any proceeding or application for license or permit pending before the commission on the date of enactment of this act. It basically said we are sidestepping Yucca Mountain and moving ahead with these permanent repository public interim sites. Today that might affect the two ending private sites. Would it be your opinion that the bill as written would mean that the provisions of the bill include in the consentbased procedures would it apply to the pending applications from new mexico and texas for private site. Thats how we read it that they are already pending applications and would be excluded. Thats precisely right. Texas and new mexico would both be barred from the consent process. To them. They should. And if they do, whether that would slow down the private sites which hold so much promise. Thank you for your time. See next thank you cinderella and i appreciate your commitment to working and pushing all of us towards solutions here. Ms. Carson, you mentioned that the market right now just doesnt value carbon free Nuclear Power. As any i endorsed putting a price on carbon as a way to build that value into the market question mark. Yes we had discussions about a variety of ways to value for clear in the marketplace in the states for example there are zero commission credits that help been discussed and we have supported that in new york and in illinois. Have you endorsed putting a price on carbon as a way to as a federal. We have had conversations. Youve had conversations but have not actually taken a position on that. There are different views. As an organization have you endorsed putting a price on the carbon level . Not an explicit tax. Is not a complicated question. Why shouldnt the pending sites be part of the based approach that when we know that not using a process which by the way the blueRibbon Commission was adamant about, has been a path of failure over and over again as we see. Is your question around nevada specifically . No im asking why shouldnt pending applications also be part of a consent based approach. It was simply reflecting as written says that since it is a pending application. Im not asking about the legislation. I am asking should we use a consent based process for all applications. Yes we are in support of can set based applications. Manager, i am a little frustrated because weve been doing the same thing over and over for a long time and not getting somewhere. I am actually and of actually spent enough time in a Nuclear Reactor as an engineering student and im actually quite proud of the work i have done. I think we have heard local input and state input consent called just the politics. I dont think i think that is a mistake the problem is we have ignored the politics for decades. One of the things that is very concerning to me is that if we move forward on interim site, especially if it is without consent, and you have a consolidated Storage Facility that is filled with waste, and we never build a permanent site, what recourse is the state going to have a permanent Disposal Facility is never built. And 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 and what could effectively be a permanent situation. I want to a couple of letters into the record from new mexico, from the state land commissioner of new mexico, both objecting to interim storage and i would just ask and said that they be concluded included. Mr. Ferris, what should consent look like. Consent should look like Regulatory Authority. It is as simple as that. To the extent that there has been acceptance in new mexico, of the whip, geological suppository. The only operating one in the world. What we have that. Is a little complicated and is not nearly the consent of the to be there. Its on the full regulatory. The state has Hazardous Waste authority and can shut it down and said terms by which it can operate after it had a fire and an explosion that shut it down and contaminated it for several years. And we have reopened that facility which i will repeat that it is the only geological suppository that has been successfully built that i am aware of in this country because of the states involvement. 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. Middledot if i could interject, i just like to. Out that i dont agree with mr. Fences intertwining the concept of Regulatory Authority with consent. I think you can have consent. But i do. Fair enough but i think that the Regulatory Authority that is present in the United States, can be handled in a separate manner. I think the consent goes back to contracts. If you look at the history of Nuclear Waste matter, it is only because the generators of Nuclear Waste entered into a contract with the federal government. It was a two by contract, they pay money and you get something back. The waste removed from your site that if it wasnt for that contract, and we would be at even a worse situation than we are today. Senator heinrich, i just want to reiterate today when i mentioned to senator cortez me meso. When we introduced this legislation we did so knowing we are laying down a market for conversation because quite honestly we need to restart this. I appreciate the. 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 dont believe this will as the end all be all but weve got to start or restart at some. I think you for that. The citizens of her feet. Thank you very much manager. The traditional forms of Nuclear Energy generated a whole lot more waste than many of the methods we are talking about at todays hearing. The sheer volume currently 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 shouldnt continue to develop our nations Nuclear Energy capabilities. Escort think ive got a question for you doctor winger mentioned several small reactors. How much more efficiently with the smaller reactors use fuel than reactors in past decades and can you describe how these new forms of generating Nuclear Energy could possibly change our need for Nuclear Waste storage going forward. Yeah so as you look forward there is a variety of different small modular reactors that can be billed for some of the 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 use full fuel today. In any solutions that we put in, we should remind ourselves that we wanted to be retrievable, there are 95 percent still good energy in what we call use fuel. Its just in a different forum. Some of these reactors that are being looked at for tomorrow, will be able to harvest energy. And will be able to use it far below that 95 percent threshold that you describe. Yes area see me lol ago. They should be elbowed to use that majority of the good energy i would say down to a maybe around 45 percent that is left that would then need to be stored. It brings up another topic i dont know whether it plays into what happens could be reprocessed or recycle. Its another means of dealing with or needs to have a disposal site for our spent fuel. It could be addressed for re cycling were reprocessed. It is my understanding that other countries have relied on Nuclear Energy that they have recycled waste. The us has even developed the technology to do so in the United States that is safe. And clean. Can you describe the process of help nuclear fuel is recycled and how in the history of whiteness process has been banned in the United States westmark. Sort of goes back to when we go back to the 95 percent in what we called used fuel. This transform so instead of being uranium 238 or its turn into plutonium 239. Those isotopes can still release energy but not in the current way in our current water reactors so in recycling, what you do is you essentially take a fuel apart and you isolate whats good and can be used again so that uranium, that linoleum, and it can then be next and you can use it in current reactors thats called mop fuel. Or you can use it for other types of reactors. It sort of close of the fuel cycle if you will. You are left with a very small amount that is not useful in fuel. As an example, in france they have reprocessed their field they turn it into a glass. Then you store that class. Its an error in art. Is not emitting. Is radioactive but is not useful for fuel. It is stored in accordance to a deep geological situation but very small amount. Reduces the overall volume that is produced. Why wouldnt we do that. In the United States, we have chosen not to. Which is the fact that this was made in the carter administration, that the fact of reprocessing may look at it as potential proliferation even though there are many processes and things you can put in place to ensure that its done without any percolation concerns but thats why the United States doesnt currently go without. It was made in the administration the carter administration, 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 be deemed made dangerous . I think weve proven a lot of friends that we have the capability of managing significant things, the government manages petroleum on a regular bases on a safe basis. Thank you. First id like to enter into the record and analysis of this bill made by the Nevada Agency for nuclear and a statement expressing concerns for the spell bite nevada senator. Im sorry senator alexander had to leave. I do agree with him i think we need to have the same. I think we need to safely store what im hearing now where it is. We do need a comprehensive approach for the future. Here is the thing that i am seeking. This is why 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. This all im looking for. Are the similar opportunities particularly at this bill, it creates an equal consent base for all states except for nevada. Let me just highlight for the record, section 306e requires potential postdate to veto or approve a site before they are fully informed of a site local impact. This is prior to a licensing process. Section 506a, gives parity to all other states yet allows decca mountain and other states in new mexico texas and utah, to be kept on the list without requiring their consent. Section 509 eliminates the legal 70000 metric ton limit of waste to be stored at a repository. This guarantees all the to Yucca Mountain. My request is that we all be treated treated equally i so appreciate again the conversation today. Thats why jackie rosen and i have submitted these recommend did amendments to the committee to the spell. That treats nevada equally. Let me start with some of the questions and comments that ive heard today. First of all, mr. Lemanski was. If we are to move forward in a congress intensive approach. I think we all approach agree we need that approach. What is the best way to rebuild the American Peoples confidence in federal governments ability to provide safe storage of height Nuclear Waste. I think youve targeted the right issue and thats confidence. I also put in trust. We certainly support your idea of getting everybody treated equally. Under the consent. We would take it a step further, in that with we just keep the Current System of trying to keep it as consent. Everyone will just say no. Because the entire burden is on. Thats what we are trying to build is a process where states and epa can have trust and confidence in saying yes. Thats the specific of our testimony. This course think when any i support the new nuclear support act has created in this bill. If they walked away from the Yucca Mountain project and designated a new one done in more efficiently and rapidly with a say yes or no. I guess that would reflect to say that we believe that nevada does have a say in the process by continuing with the conversations around yucca. That was not my question. Under this act, would the end ei 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 customer demand i dont see another process could be done. More rapidly with all of the analysis that is already been done in yucca but if you found such magic place, yes we could supportive yes. Could save billions of dollars over the life of this facility. This is the johns ipad. Weve had a stale mate over the last 32 years and weve had offered the opportunity to come and work it us and find a solution. I think you have that today but unfortunately what i see from the industry is the same old playbook. Not willing to even admit theres an opportunity to move forward. Nine and a willingness to talk about the potential new technology that can be utilized to address the safe storage. That is my concern. We need time now for everyone to come together and forward on this issue. We are happy to have those conversations. Thank you. Senator rich. Thank you for holding this hearing today. I joined this committee 11 years ago. We were talking about this then and unfortunately, the discussion today doesnt sound a lot different than it did 11 years ago. Thank you manager. First of all let me say thank you for inviting mr. Wagner here. He is really the appropriate person to have your which ill address in a minute. He is the smartest guy in the panel he left tennessee and moved to idaho. He worked at oak ridge for 17 years. [inaudible conversation] anyway, its appropriate that he be here because interlaboratory of course is the birthplace of Nuclear Energy in america and in the world. We still have the three light bulbs that we let with the Nuclear Energy there. We dont 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 nuclear arms business we became away site for a lot of waste developed during the cold war but my. Is this. And about the 1970s the state of idaho, was unhappy with the department of energy because they were not properly addressing and i believe that the way should be handled properly and as a result of that, we had i hosted the department of energy and eventually entered into a consent agreement with the federal government for cleanup. All of us who were government following that stood shoulder to shoulder behind that agreement and have executed that agreement and the department of Energy Although recalcitrant it at the beginning is now embraced the agreement. There has been a lot of turnover with the people who were involved with that. But the bottom line is this we have been very successful at a national lab as far as clean up this concern and we have addressed virtually every problem there successfully we are not done yet. Is that correct mr. Wagner. We are a long ways down the ro road. Absolutely. So its important that the people who weve had thousands of people great people over the years, from all over the United States might hope who have worked on this and you are really smart at this. We have proven that you can deal with Nuclear Waste and it can be cleaned up and it can be put into storage. Some parents in my permanent and some temporary but it has been done. Its discouraging after sitting here all of these years and not really having move the ball very far down the field. We have done that in idaho. This is a serious problem but my good friend from mexico say that weve ignore the politics. Gosh, i would really disagree with that. It becomes a political issue every time there is a president ial campaign in the madison plate, that becomes a political issue. Its also true here, ive seen it over the years as the senate races have developed. Theres gotta be a better way of doing this and i thank you for holding the steering and just as doctor 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. Hopefully this bill will start the conversation. Thank you so much for the hearing. Thank you centigrade we really dont want this to be deja vu all over again. We have been three congress is now and in the meantime whether its yankees, whether its or where you are, we havent been able to address the longerterm issues that must be addressed and folks looking to us for that legislative direction. Without an obligation to do it just because its hard, just because his political charge just because its expensive, 2. 2 million bucks a day, it just kind of going out the window isnt helping anyone. You had on a good note that we have an obligation to do this. Its discouraging to see that the Nuclear Energy business is going backwards and has been described by everybody here not only in america but all over the world. People are backing away from the Nuclear Energy plants and their closing summary some of reach the end of the life and some havent. At the same time, there is this tremendous push to try and get carbon out of the air and quit discharging carbon into the air. Solar and wind are great, generators but they just dont deliver the load. At some. In time, the carbon fuels run out, nuclear is going to be there. It may not be in the century but future human beings of the plan are going to rely very heavily on nuclear and its up to us to come up with this resulting this bottleneck that has causing us so much problems. I appreciate that and i think we all agree that nuclear should be a strong part of our mix but just as we are seeing plants that are facilities that are being shut down with that then does to the workforce is that to dissipates and we lose the leadership, and we once had, we once used to lead when it came to manufacturing, and nuclear components, we basically seated in so many areas, we cant lose the workforce along with that. Lets go to senator again. Take you manager. Ive experienced is a similar thing that happened in hydro. Major highgrowth developments were pretty much on in the 20s. 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 a lot of the technology and they were stuck in an almost a century old. I find this one of the most difficult issues and i can argue it both ways. You present appealing plan, state based consent based, i havent finished yet. [laughter]. State based consent based getting rid of the exemptions and treating it like other pollutants. However, when a receipt says no. I lived through in the 80s and effort to even discuss a low Level Nuclear site in maine and it was the outcry was unbelievable. What if every state says now, where are we done. Is a place we are now. And we have to try. Just as senator murkowski is 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, the fine state of utah with the psf site, we actually have a site that is licensed in this country right now. You will never receive a gram of waste and the community is well aware of that and its in utah. Senator hatch helped put a wilderness area in order to block it from ever receiving that waste. The problem and i really appreciated the talk of the committee that its not just about politics, politics are how we is the expression of the public will. Were not to let politics lock these things. Thus the public speaking. I couldnt agree more and we have to take account of than the way we done that, remarkably in this country with all kinds of difficult controversial issues, our bedrock environmental statutes. Where we have a strong epa, this is a strong foundational floor of protective standards and then states have delegated programs whether its air, water, something else. If you build a widget factory Senate Senator kings widget factory. And you have apple death that gets emitted from a factory, the state can actually protect its citizens, a environment is waterway, whatever. On hypothetical, we cant find a state the fine says yes. They all say no. You say we are back where we are now. Temporary sites, we got one in maine, costing us 10 million a year. The ratepayers and the federal government 10 million year. That sort of a fallback. I do my. You dont have a countdown clock in front of you if you can do it quickly im running on time. We have a vastly higher chance of actually having states get yes, if they dont have to take the entire burden. It also solves some of the transportation issues, they can do regional,. Will regional is better because of the transportation. Transportation to nevada ive seen them, chicago, kansas city. Almost every congressional district. That be two or three trains a week for years to take care of what we got. Part of the problem with consent is who consents. If you look at the Current Situation nevada right now, the people who live the closest have expressed their political consent for the facility there. When you add. The lady next to me knows more about the people nevada do. But i understand it when you add the additional level of government it becomes very difficult and no one in the world has solved that conundrum today. I understand this last my what if everyone says no. I dont think thats totally unlikely. Let me ask a totally different question a technical question. Why is it that we are now talking about deep holes mines, weve got the sites around the country like an inky that it you all have said they are safe. Why not use an interim technology instead of weve got us all that forever, something that will allow technology to develop over the next 20 to 30 years. Yet still be safe, adding more centralized site, it bothers me that we have 80 sites. I dont think thats very secure. I think theres a couple of things there senator. What if you dont have a permanent solution, the ability to condense a particular location as we talked about at this hearing, to accept. Pointed a larger similar site that they are telling everybody says is safe as an interim step until late figured out what the best i dont understand what we have to go from 80 temporary to permanent. Isnt there a step in between. The challenges nobody wants to sign up for consolidated storage in new mexico the governor just recently wrote a letter that the last mexico governor was in support of our storage but the current one not. The challenge is, because they dont want to become the longterm repository. Until there is an idea of a longterm repository, anybody that raises their hands for the consolidated storage is de facto for the longterm storage. I think thats a good. These two very sites are now the de facto longterm sites. The actual problem we also face in the Obama Administration tried to look at people disposal in south dakota, towards the end of his second term, and it turned into an absolute debacle. This is red state south dakota was objecting. He gets precisely to the reasons weve articulated today which is when youre outside of the major functions or the normal functioning of environmental law, states have no control. So nevada or south dakota erupted just as new mexico has just as nevada has been fighting for 35 years, and when you dont fix the institutional framework, to allow the process to get to yes, we are never going to solve this. I think is important to recognize that a private company did conduct deep drill hole test successfully. I think with 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 focused in her organization that is dedicated to actual success. We have submitted in our comments and our testimony of comments along those lines. It bothers me 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 doesnt requires consent. Madam chairman thank you this is a very important hearing and i appreciate you conducting it. Thank you i just want to have clarification because something is not making a lot of sense to me. Youre telling me were not filled up on site right now so whatever the Nuclear Plants are, they are still the still have capacity to keep the stories is that accurate. We can continue to expand onsite storage as needed. s were not a critical match there. I kind of thought we were and i was led to believe that we had to do something immediately. We are full at several sites. It i would like to add that however, if you got sites like mine live the reactors are decommissioned all the spent fuel that site we sat there loaded and ready to be transported waiting to be some. Now you talk about going to interim sites. It doesnt make any sense to me all because interim site has to be trance or did to a permanent site. Will senator i would like to add in my testimony i pointed this out, id like to know 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 rest. The only thing im saying is it looks like you are just creating a business model. For the interim since weve got to get to permanent. Why would you have these paying privately. Its just a timing issue. If you decided today in the longterm repository site by the time you license it, lets just select essence weve talked about it. That would still be another three to five years just to license it today. All of the analysis has been done. Additional hearings they have to happen, nevada has to have theirs read. For not at capacity why three to five years. Is another decade to build it. You are already talking about 15 years if you are on go today. 35 billion is what your obligation is today, and in 15 years is going to be closer to 50 billion. You have two 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 dont have to pay the judgment fee because youve taken the fuel in an interim state. How far along are we. We are nowhere. If we started today. There are two sides have applications in but whether they actually will go forward and construct their sites, is an open question. Center there are applications senator heinrich entered into the record there will be a ferocious pushback for all of the reasons ive articulated today and i couldnt agree more with the lack wisdom of pursuing an interim site is likely to become a de facto repository that doesnt solve what you are trying to solve. Its the longterm trajectory of how to solve this. So the advantage of interim site site is that if you provide security and monitoring at one location versus dozens of locations, there are economies of scale advantages if youre going to do that for long periods of time. Thats correct. Thank you. Thank you manager and thanks for having this important hearing. I can say for the state of washington there is probably no more important discussion in the cleanup. Disposal of highlevel Nuclear Waste and for a state that did what it was asked of us and the people that were there in the development of people done their best to clean up. We too want to get answers to this. I guess ive been listening to most of the hearing in and out of but i agree with senator alexander that moving forward is a very necessary and positive thing. And i would say that count me in the camp of believe that consensus based approaches. Are more likely to generate quicker results. Then the legal and long process that we have seen continue to play out. And that is even to say if you have legislation, it doesnt mean you have cleared the legal hurdles. One of the things that senator alexander and some of the others have referred to in the committee either discussing their former colleague a member of that, one of the things i liked about the Commission Recommendations was that they thought separating commercial and defense waste in dealing with that separately might be one of those nearterm opportunities to make more progress. Mr. Fettus or anybody else to have a thought on continuing to look at that as a path forward question mark. I think thats a secondary issue senator because i think. Is not second secondary to us. I forgot to put the big monster out here this is the largest Nuclear Waste cleanup site in the entire world. Its complex, its hard, were making progress but we need to get the highlevel waste out. Lets come up with a process of moving the defense waste out. The complex good complexity of einsteins concerns on the commercial side are going to take is a long time to figure out. So just like hanford is cleaning up the easier things do hard things why cant we move forward on defense. I think the challenge on the defense waste is going to be the challenge with commercial spent nuclear fuel. That if you dont have the statutory and regulatory proce process, that can allow consent in getting the gas, you will solve it. Were saying the same thing. The consent process and if they will take that, streamlined defense. So we can get get done faster as you get done with the other things. If you can get all of the waste of the tanks and get a petrified, that would be great. This is a daytoday task for us in the state of washington but we are all we are doing is on the behalf of the United States should be every member of this committees responsibility, this is a responsibility of the United States of america. Not just the state of washington, or environmental director but i would 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 wanted. We will take it. We want to explore those ideas and see if we can move forward so thank you manager. Senator russell. Thank you very much. Good to be here and i want to thank you for holding this important hearing this morning. This congress in this committee has discussed exciting and innovative ways to address Climate Change. Weve explored Carbon Capture technologies, removals of resources and advanced Nuclear Power and energy. In several of the hearings witnesses has strapped that Nuclear Energy is an essential part of our Clean Energy Portfolio and if we have any serious and 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 Nuclear Waste Management Program limits the use and the expansion of new killer power. And manager on my discussion draft legislation that would complement senator murkowski and alexander Nuclear Waste legislation. Eight states right now, have new bands on new nuclear until washington permanently disposals the 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 let this committee is holding this hearing to address these challenges. Mr. Zink and mr. Nesbit american rate paris have now paid about 15 billion. To cite and to study and design a repository for the Yucca Mountain site and this funding is 200 million that was paid to the state of nevada to develop their own scientific and it taking all analysis. Miss karthik, why is it important for the Nuclear Regulatory commissions to complete the independent safety review of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Well you just mentioned the significant money that has been expended. We should have a fair hearing. Give nevada a chance together 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 a los and los understanding science in the licensing process and work ourselves through it. In the future we might need another longterm repository so lets learn everything we can and understand science in the licensing process for the one thats so far along. Following up on that, mr. Karthik mr. Nesbit why is it the nuclear Yucca Mountain licensing review is valuable. To inform safety regulation for a different route repository site so as it also important to complete the pending licensing to build that public trust. I agree with everything this corpsman said and there are other reasons why it is beneficial for the American People to go forward and complete licensing even if Yucca Mountain isnt built. We dont know what the answer is until we do it. If something is found that this is not the right place to do it, weve got to go find another solution. We need to go through the process in order to demonstrate the ability to license a geological support to toys for highlevel Nuclear Waste. Were 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 in the only other thing ill say along those lines is it is the law, that we do that and i think that we demonstrate we are going to follow the law here, if we change the line do Something Different later, then people will believe that we will follow the law thereto. Will back to you ms. Karthik, like senator it allows the secretary of energy to partner with private companies to store spent nuclear fuel on an interim basis. The draft requires the interim Storage Program to proceed at the same time. As a nuclear rios or a of the mountain license application. Do you support a requirement of inters interim storage to tangible action for Nuclear Waste . Yes it enables that interim storage because people will say all right your path the staff or a longterm answer, i am happy to participate in your shortterm answer because they understand this pathway exist. And doctor wayne note the Idaho National and as a leader in development nantes Nuclear Technologies it is also the proposed site of the nations first small modular reactor. I was just going to provide intermountain west. They can increase safety i believe in can decrease site cost and reduce the waste. While advanced nuclear can reduce Nuclear Waste, will there still be Nuclear Waste products that must be permanently disposed of customer. Yes. Significantly increased fuel utilization and there is also different concepts that we have spoke earlier about fuel cycles and reprocessing. But at the end of the data are always going to be some small amount of material that requires geological repository. Thank you men german. Is going to ask a question about what the number. How many additional Storage Facilities longterm repositories do we need. And, as im thinking about that its like well, we dont know because of exactly what you have said mr. Wagner moving forward, what will the future of nuclear bring to us in terms of advanced nuclear and prospect for los waste, weve talked about reprocessing. I think we know will be known 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. Is it the design that we need going forward. I think we need to factor that into the calculus and the question for those of you who have looked at the legislation that weve laid down here as a basically as hard 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 Administration Needs to move forward on. Do we need to do more. Weve been talking about so much about this whole consent. The interim and moving to permanent that we havent really talked about some of the context of this bill that can move the industry forward. Do we have enough in there or do we need to do more mr. Norton. Yes if i could, madam chairman, a couple things i want to reflect on your question. I had this conversation with marias predecessor. When the collation sites in my sides, there were five of us, the poster children of this problem. We operated the plant and we decommission plant. I told them that at that. In time there was los focus both at the nei and the industries than there is today i did tell them on the path we are at back them in the potentially path we are in now. More than 50 percent of our Nuclear Fleet will be in the same condition before we solve this problem if we keep trying the same thing that would keep trying and have been for 20 years. I dont think you believe me but if he was watching it today, the number of classifier are shutdown now shut down we are not going to be far off even if we get moving from here. It is a clear problem and it is a clear issue and i think senator 1234 although we have comments we make recommendation changes. Its a good starting. For us to Work Together to figure out to resolve this problem. But we have been doing for the last 20 years is not going to work. I would also like to acknowledge the senator from maine, the question are we really thinking about this the right way. I think that needs to be asked and i know there are scientists and others that may have a difference of opinion here. I do think that we have challenge ourselves as to do we really flat the right course with our regional plan for repository and is there is an alternative plan to think about this. By consolidating this waste at either reprocessing or other Technological Advancement or other options than other countries are looking up. Take the blinders off. Look at this more holistically. Middledot i would just like to add a couple of things. American Nuclear Society does support and continue to research and advanced Nuclear Energy systems and advanced Waste Management techniques and there is actually private companies out there that are working in this area as well. I think a question of where the needs to reside with her its in your bill or another legislation is a good question. A work of of john wagner and others are doing and i hope, 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. Center of the Blue Commission wisely cautioned against trusting and reprocessing any meaningful and the offramp is past time on recycling. Spent fuel. In the century its a dangerous poolroom alliteration and securities concerns and it creates more waste and it will not solve the waste and no country is used. In most of all, its economical and the prc identified it as likely never will be. Doctor wagner would you like to comment to that. I would like to comment that we dont currently recycle because its not economical. One of the many benefits talked about with respect to consolidated storage is whether in time it becomes economical with this growth or other technologies for Waste Disposal or designs come into play. A consolidated and 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 material. We just had a vote start. Id like to allow my colleagues an opportunity for a last word if they would like. Senator cortez meso. Yes, i do. Thank you for being here and the argument that you make the same arguments i have heard from the last 30 years. They make one argument that talks about Yucca Mountain being utilized to learn from the science in this way it should move forward. I think we should learn from the science of Yucca Mountain because there are no National Barriers or manmade barriers and make it safe. We keep hearing that all of the time a mask that severely learned from the science 40 more miles to uptown to be davids tunnel to bury the canisters which by the way the same canisters that are utilized for Yucca Mountain then said that cant be utilized because the industry doesnt use the same kind of canisters but what i am told it is so hot that once it is stored in leaks like a sieve because the hydraulic g shows that it leaks like a sieve that wants canisters and they are, titanium shells will have to be created to put over the canisters by the the way this titanium drip chills will not be placed in the facility once a canisters until 90 years later and it cannot be placed by man in there. So you have to build aerobatic to put the titanium drip chills. Is that the science you are saying that you would learn from that you should not have any other repository . What i was referring to was completing the licensing process and having 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. We already have the information. We spent 19 million on a tunnel to study the geology and hydrology and we know that because of its volcanic test in their structures through the rock that is in going to lee. So this drip chills need to be part of that plan. So thats why im saying we have already have the information to show that its not safe. Why are we going to waste another 30 years with 218 contentious by the state in losses that i know of with the attorney general against your department or the apart department of energy. Looking forward in a comprehensive approach in utilizing the science to help us understand moving forward in the new technology that is out the there. Thats all im looking forward i would left for the industry to come to the table were for this. The key question is not whether it is built in a volcanic area. Its whether it can or cannot comply with the Environmental Standards to protect the health and safety in the public. Thats the question that would be resolved in the licensing hearing before a fair and impartial and qualified judges. I disagree. Now that i have more time, let me add more to this. I think for purposes of science, we really are and i would ask the scientists here is not the intent here to decrease the unexpected opportunities with respect to science, you want a place that saved the you are going to decrease any vulnerabilities to that site instead of adding to those vulnerabilities by manmade alleged safety barriers or National Safety barriers, you are going to decrease those vulnerabilities. Isnt that what you are really looking for for any type of site geological site . And maybe if you have a response to that. I couldnt agree more. The idea behind any geological suppository define the media they can isolate the waste from the olympics find this dangerous. The problem they get the Yucca Mountain project is repeatedly run into is it whenever it ran into the technological challenges that you so accurately describe, the response was to weaken the standards to allow the site to be licensed so we dont look at the upcoming atomic safety licensing board proceedings if it were ever to go forward as a full exercise and having the state have a fair say. If i could just. If i can just add brick shields, we do know that 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 drip chills. That they were simply added as a extra redundant layer. Automation is clear. But still a drip chills or there is a redundant layer and thus the. You were supposed to be reducing those types of additional redundancies. Are you supposed to be having the national redundancies there . 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 going to be there for millions of years for generations to come for our children and our grandchildren and we to do right by them. We have to be coming together for particularly in this country to address this issue so thank you manager. Thank you senator. 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 be defied the skeptics. And to change the status quo which quite honestly has been going on for far too long. I dont want senator riche to sit 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. Weve got an obligation, we got good folks working on things so lets try to address this very longstanding abuse. We stand adjourned. Franklin d roosevelt never pretended to be in love with joseph stalin. And so in the real world we have to deal with these people. But we dont have to embrace it. And we can treat the leaders of authoritarian space, we can do business with them but we dont need to embrace them in the same way we embrace leaders of democratically elected governments. You mentioned on the hill when i traveled with ron reagan. After the first summit in 1970. And to the russian people. And he did not milk his work and that did not prevent him from reaching walmart gun control in Nuclear Treaty with klobuchar. There is a balancing act and i think that would have to in some fundamental way be central to who we are. You can watch the rest of this discussion on global challenges facing the u. S. Tonight at eight eastern on cspan. Watch our live coverage on the campaign truck. Make up your own mind. Cspan campaign your unfiltered view of politics. Next, james, president of the Federal Reserve bank of st. Louis talks about Monetary Policy and the economy. He spoke at the National Economist Club Luncheon in washington, d. C. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen welcome to the press club and welcome to the National Economist club 2019 summer signature event. I am cliff and im this years president of the National Economist club and im happy to say that we are having a better year or weekly lunch program