Transcripts For CSPAN3 Senate Energy Hearing On Nuclear Waste Storage 20240714

What we should do with used nuclear fuel thats accumulating at our Nations Nuclear reactors. As a starting point, we should recognize Nuclear Energy is an important part of our countrys electric generation. I believe it is a vital part of our mix. Large reactors that dot the landscape provide reliable power to communities across the country. The Nuclear Industry is critically important, but also faces a number of challenges and one that has impact since the first reactors began operation is Nuclear Waste disposition. Beginning with passage of the Nuclear Waste policy act of 1982, congress has attempted several times to address the back end of the fuel cycle, in an effort to resolve earlier stalemate, the federal government was supposed to begin taking title to use fuel and moving it to a repository at yuca mountain in nevada beginning in 1988. The governments failure to deliver on this promise is costing taxpayers up to 2 million per day. This hearing is an opportunity to consider the next steps on Nuclear Waste. Do we continue to delay in the face of stalemate over yuca or try to find another path for used fuel storage, especially for communities maintaining sites with only used fuel casks on hand. Steven chu committed the Blue Ribbon Commission to do a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the fuel cycle. It included a number of recommendations and led to the Nuclear Waste Administration Act. Over the years, this legislation has been led by a number of members, including senators widen, senator alexander, both on this committee. I have been a sponsor of the legislation all along with senators alexander and senator feinstein. My partners on the energy and water appropriations subcommittee for multiple congresses now. We have been at this for awhile, and i think it is 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 we can move used fuel to a permanent repository. Our bill creates a Nuclear Waste administration to oversee consent based sighting for interim storage and additional repository located in states and communities that want it. Our bill prioritizes removal of orphaned used fuel at decommissioned rk sites for temporary storage at consolidated sites. Our bill is s 1234. I wish it was as easy as 1234. It requires some updates and there are a number of ideas to improve specific sections, i welcome those. I look forward to the Kate Middleton testimony of our distinguished panel, i welcome thoughts and comments from others. Ultimately, i hope we can agree it is long past time to figure it out. Sooner we find a path forward, the better. It has been six years since i and others cosponsored this legislation. Were in the same place, effectively in the same place when it comes to the back end of the fuel cycle as when we introduced that legislation six years ago. But in that time we have seen tremendous progress in the area of nuclear with our advanced Nuclear Reactors. The United States has the ability to lead the world on some of these technologies but without a solution on Nuclear Waste, i believe that we are less likely to realize our full potential there. Were here today to start, perhaps say restart the conversation. I know chairman bore os oh has a bill on Nuclear Waste in his epw committee, keen to move forward on it. I am glad to see we have renewed interest across congress to address the challenge. It is good we have multiple options on the table. It is a mpositive development. I hope we can move forward on Nuclear Waste with action. Chairman, thank you for having the hearing on Nuclear Waste Administration Act. I want to thank all our witnesses for being here that will provide us with ideas of how to move forward, break the Nuclear Repository impasse. Nuclear energy will continue to be an important part of our Nations Energy mix. Its reliability, especially in adverse weather. The fact that nation is the largest zero emissions power source, it is a powerful tool to move to sizero emissions econom. We need a solution to dispose of Nuclear Waste. I believe this bill provides a Solid Foundation to work from which originated with the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas Nuclear future, but i think theres agreement among us changes must be made to current text before moving forward. The inequity of Site Selection is a large part of the current impasse. Since the 1957 report, recommending deep geologic disposal for radioactive waste, it is clear what we need to do with the waste. Prudent and responsible thing is to bury it 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 the panel and my colleagues, many of whom represent constituency that deal with Nuclear Waste on a daytoday basis. Want to thank chairman murkowski for ongoing leadership on this issue. If we have learned anything in the past 30 years, social and political concerns need to be taken into account. Thats not to say technical considerations are not important, but i trust the highly skilled individuals at the National Labs and their partners to solve issues that we will face in constructing Storage Solutions at whatever site or sites that are selected. Congress should focus on are mechanisms that can drive buy in from communities. Other countries have success by creating an organization that is separate from an agency or governing body but regulated to work with communities to build a repository in their respective backyards. In 1987, congress decided to not go with the original Nuclear Waste policy act language that directed the department of energy to characterize several sites and then make a recommendation. Instead, due to the price tag associated with the characterization of several sites, Congress Instead legislated this site choice. This simultaneously discredits the federal government. It is my hope that following the markup of this bill, it will be equitiable how it considers all sites. When a site or sites are selected, we know it is a fair process, can move forward accordingly. Lets not forget there is urgency to the issue. Spent fuel pools and need to eliminate carbon emission ensures reactors will continue to operate for decades to come. On top of that, failing to act means the 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 reactors. So 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. It is inefficient and i am invested in working with my colleagues on this issue because preserving and growing Nuclear Power is key to addressing the climate crisis. I want to share with you. The chairman and i had an opportunity to spend time with bill gates, and he went through boom boom boom, country by country by country that has Nuclear Power. All going to zero in a time and era we want zero emissions. Something has to be done. We are you are jept tiurgent ti. I want to thank you for holding this at an appropriate time, not needed just for the United States but for the world. Thank you. Lets turn to the panel. A very distinguished panel. We are joined by maria coursenick, president and ceo of Nuclear Energy institute. You have been before the Committee Many times. We welcome you back. Mr. Wayne norton, chair for the Plant Coalition steering committee, president and ceo of yankee atomic electric company. Appreciate you being here. Stev steven nesbitt, chairman of the waste policy taskforce. Thank you for your leadership with that taskforce. Jeffrey fettis, senior attorney for the Natural Resource defense counsel, nrdc. Welcome you to the committee. Dr. John wagner is with us with one of the National Labs, associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science and technology at the Idaho National lab. We appreciate your leadership in these spaces as well. We will begin with you. Provide your comments to the committee, we ask you try to keep comments to about five minutes. Full statements will be included as part of the record, when the full panel concluded, well have an opportunity for questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Im maria corsnick. Chairman murkowski and Ranking Member manchin, i appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2019. We appreciate the deliberate effort to develop an effective federal used fuel Management Program. Since the bill was first introduced in 2013, several things have changed. Because of a court order, department of energy has reduced the Nuclear Waste fee fund to zero. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical staff has also completed reviews of the Yucca Mountain licensing application, including that yucca complies with all regulation. Finally, private initiatives are under way 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 provide nearly 20 of americas electricity, and more than half the emissions free electricity. These are carbon free workhorses, essential to addressing Climate Change and any realistic manner. That said, advanced reactors of tomorrow and u. S. Operating fleet at large are continually subjected to reputational damage because congress for two decades now has played politics with the issue of used fuel. It is vitally important that the u. S. Remain a Global Leader in the commercial nuclear arena, yet we are the only Major Nuclear nation without a used fuel Management Program. The u. S. Nuclear industry upheld its 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 set up to finance the development of a National Repository currently has over 41 billion in its coffers, contributed by electricity consumers and Nuclear Generation companies. Each year, over 1. 5 billion more in interest accumulates in the fund. And each day we dont have a solution cost taxpayers 2. 2 million in damages. The single largest liability paid out of the Judgment Fund year after year. It is really time to solve this. 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 application. We submitted the application to nrc more than a decade ago. Congress directed them to issue decision in 2012. This deadline like too many was missed because d. O. E. Without basis shut down the Yucca Mountain project for the sake of communities holding stranded used fuel wishing to redevelop their sites, we must move forward, allow nevadas concerns with Yucca Mountain to be heard by nrcs independent judges. This will allow a licensing decision to be determined based on scientific merits rather than politics. Second, as the licensing process of Yucca Mountain moves forward, interim storage can play an Important Role helping move spent fuel away from reactor sites, moving interim storage, parallel with the Yucca Mountain project helps alleviate state and local concerns that interim storage will be a de facto Disposal Facility. This was highlighted in a letter by the new mexico governor. I am pleased interim storage is addressed in s 1234. I strongly believed interim storage can be successful if moved in parallel with the Yucca Mountain project. As 1234 was originally drafted, prior to court mandated prohibition on the fee, i want to strongly convey importance of not prematurely reimposing that Nuclear Waste fee, especially given the substantial balance and large investment interest which accrues annually. The industry believes the fee should not be reinstated until one, the annual expense for the programs ongoing projects exceed annual Investment Income on the fund, and two, projected life cycle cost demonstrates the fee must be reinstated to get full Cost Recovery over the life of the program. The fact were here today considering this legislation is a positive step in the right direction. I sincerely appreciate the committees motivation for a durable solution. We look forward to continuing to work with each and every one of you to reach bipartisan consensus on the best approach for long term management of the nations used fuel. Thank you and i look forward to your questions. Thank you. Mr. Norton, welcome. Good morning, chairman murkowski, Ranking Member manchin, members of the committee. My name is wayne norton, president and ceo of yankee atomic electric company. Three Nuclear Plants at my sites are decommissioned, but for the Storage Facilities, spent fuel and grade c waste during our operating life. Each company is undergoing litigation with department of energy for monetary damages resulting from its partial breach of contract. To date, the courts awarded my company damages of approximately 575 million, claims that now encompass virtually all costs for management of our companies and fuel Storage Facilities. In addition, i serve as the chair of the decommissioning Plant Coalition steering committee, as such i want to express appreciation for the invitation to appear before you today on behalf of the coalition and ask that full statement be read into the record. We are here today in part because of failure of the federal government to make good on its commitment, creating a spent fuel burden acrossed increased states and localities. This delay in performance by the government created a situation where communities across the nation are becoming unanticipated home for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. In new england alone, there are five sites in four states that are providing indefinite storage of this material, even though electric grade parers have met their obligations, paid upwards of 3 billion into the Nuclear Waste fund. Members of the decommissioning Plant Coalition adopted a formal position statement that emphasizes our support for an integrated Nuclear Waste program that provides for 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 1234, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act. I would like to focus on two issues relative to the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations. And senate 1234. One, consolidate interim storage, and funding reform. Senate 1234 calls for consolidated interim Storage Program as part of active repository siting, licensing effort. Given congress has funded the current Repository Program almost a decade, given the current federal and state tension relative to the Repository Program, and future funding constraints, mounting taxpayer liabilities, we at the dpc believe the most effective and timely path to remedy the governments default lies with such a program. We appreciate the fact that senate 1234 does not prohibit commence movement to cis facility based on the credible estimates for the licensing action, it seems clear that consolidating interim Storage Facility license will likely be granted first. Explicit linkage between the two could unduly delay title transfer and fuel acceptance, key to reducing ongoing taxpayer liability. Title 4 is a clear effort to correct our major policy concern, relative to sufficient and reliable funding of the program. The establishment of a new working capital fund is clear movement in a direction that the dpc supports. However, it does not fully resolve continued risk of annual appropriations, and perhaps more importantly, 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 youll hear from today, the dpc has repeatedly called for the need for urgent action by congress to establish an integrated national Nuclear Waste program. Continued inaction is costing american taxpayers as you heard today approximately 2. 2 million a day, and the rate pairs of new england and this nation deserve to see tens of billions collected used for its intended purpose. Madam chairman, Ranking Member manchin, members of the committee, dpc deeply appreciates your interest in this issue, encouraged by your legislative initiative and attention brought through the conduct of this hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to testify to. Glad to answer any questions. Thank you. Mr. Nesbitt, welcome. Members of the committee, appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of American Nuclear society. Ans represents men and women that develop system deep Space Exploration and enable other beneficial applications of the atom. Applaud the introduction of this act of 2019. To the detriment of the American People, the federal government is approaching a decade of inexcusable inaction in this critical area, pending anniversary that should spur congress and the administration to action. To be clear, used nuclear fuel is stored safely and poses no immediate danger to the public. However, lack of progress on a geologic repository has endangered Nuclear Power potential to address Long Term Energy and environmental objectives. Advanced reactor developers, men and women striving to meet demand for emissions free Reliable Energy are impacted by the question what about the waste. I will talk about provision of s 1234 and other governmental actions that can address that question. We endorse initiation of search for repository site over than Yucca Mountain of the proposed we support timely completion of Yucca Mountain licensing. Nevertheless, if it doesnt become operational, waste has to go somewhere. Consolidated interim storage is not the solution, the country determines a better understanding of what options are realistically available. To enable repository siting, the government needs to update several regulations to reflect scientific advances and Lessons Learned in past decades. The generic environmental standard for repos trees lacks transparency, is out of date, inconsistent with international guidelines. We endorse a program of priority for fuel to shut down plants as authorized by section 305. However, congress should understand success in this area is unlikely without a credible Repository Program. Ans supports a new independent entity to manage high level waste, has concerns with the Government Agency entitled to nwaa. We suggest continued consideration be given to the model. Funding reform is essential. Title 4 takes a step in the right direction, improving access to future contributions to the Nuclear Waste fund. The committee should consider incorporating practical provisions to allow an empowered Management Entity to use existing balance of the fund. The approach to consent based siting of Nuclear Waste management facilities described in 305 and 306 appear reasonable. However, it is an open question if a process with all parties having an absolute veto can succeed in our system of government. Additional information on these points and others is provided in my written testimony. In closing, ans suggests three principles for future action. Make Real Progress achieving tasks, create a viable Management Organization with necessary resources that can work without undue political interference. Empower that organization to complete Yucca Mountain licensing, investigate a second site, and move forward on consolidated interim storage. Initiate development of up to date repository regulations for sites other than Yucca Mountain. Engage with nevada and other host states and communities. Second, seek to combine the concepts of consent and benefit. In addition to money from the Nuclear Waste fund, the federal government has many means of providing infrastructure improvements, federal land, educational opportunities, and other means of support to states and communities interested in exploring a partnership on management of nuclear material. Make those potential benefits abundantly clear from the beginning. Third, empower scientists and engineers, Congress Must address the legal and issues associated with Nuclear Waste. But we will not succeed if we allow politics to overwhelm good science. Act based on real risk, not perceived risk. Give our best and brightest Nuclear Professionals the opportunity to take on this challenge with some degree of independence, funding and flexibility. I thank you again for the opportunity to testify and stand ready to answer your questions. I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you. Mr. Fetis. Thank you for the opportunity to present nrdc views. Chairman murkowski started the hearing perfectly when she said were in the same place. We trust this can be a new beginning, more than 80,000 metric tons of spent fuel in more than half our states and reactors moving to decommissioning, we need to reset the problem. This will not solve the current steal mate, wont lead to workable solutions. We oppose it in current form. More than 50 Years Congress offered and passed bills to restart the yucca licensing process. S 1234 sefrs any meaningful link between storage and disposal, excludes nevada from the process it sets up. This wont work. In such efforts failed in tennessee, kansas, nevada, utah, everywhere else. Other attempts to restarts litigation and controversy. The likely result is the continued stalemate. Seven years ago the Blue Ribbon Commission asserted we cant keep doing the same thing. Congress must create a process that allows a host state to demonstrate consent, or for that matter, nonconsent. Rather than spend valuable time on specifics of why this wont work, i put before you durable, meaningful reset of how to manage, dispose of Nuclear Waste, how we can achieve con sent. The solution could be summed up simply. Give epa and states power under well established environmental statutes so they can set terms for how much and on what conditions they can host a disposal site. Radioactive waste is stranded at sites across the country, will remain so, the atomic act treats it as a privileged pollutant. Exempting radioactivity from Hazardous Waste law and sizable portions of the clean water act. Ignores the role states play in other environmental pollutants. Senator manchin talked of a mechanism to drive buy in. Our government is at its strongest when each players role is respected. As an example, years of wrangling over what standard should be set for cleanup at massively contaminated sites, such as those in washington or South Carolina, is made exponentially worse by self regulatory status which the Atomic Energy act or danes with these exemptions. Same with commercial spent fuel. Any state targeted to receive Nuclear Waste looks to be on the hook for the burden of the nations spent fuel. Public acceptance of sites will never be willingly granted, unless and until power on how, when, where waste is disposed of is shared, rather than decided by federal fiat. Only one way consent can happen consistent with federalism. Congress can remove the exemptions from the bedrock of laws. It must include full authority over the facilities so epa and most importantly the states can assert direct Regulatory Authority. Removing these exemptions will not magically solve the puzzle and create a repository. It will open a path forward that respects each state, rather than offering up the latest for sacrifice. Texas and new mexico events of the last several weeks demonstrate this. Why will nrdcs plan work, why is this a better chance than 1234 . A state can say no, can also say yes. Consent to terms how it will receive the waste, and importantly not being on the hook for the entire burden. A state can protect its citizens and environment, limit what comes into the state. A new regime allows for thorough technical review on ability of any site to meet strict standards. Just as important that fundamentalal sharing of power can result in Public Acceptance of solutions. We have seen the bills before. Each a mirror of the last. Time to try something that has a proven track record of addressing other controversial topics. If you want to garner con sent the Blue Ribbon Commission deemed necessary, you have to give epa and states Regulatory Authority under environmental law. It is time to regulate Nuclear Waste the same as every other pollutant, epa and delegated states taking the lead under the environmental statutes. Thank you for having me today. I look forward to answering questions. Thank you. Lets go to views from Idaho National lab, dr. Wagner. Chairman murkowski, Ranking Member manchin, members of the committee, an honor top with you today. I want to thank senators murkowski, feinstein, alexander for sponsoring significant legislation and persistent efforts to make progress on this critically important issue for the nation in general and Nuclear Energy in particular. Currently, i oversee the Nuclear Energy Research Development and demonstration efforts, including r d related to spent nuclear fuel storage, transportation, disposal. Throughout my career i have been intimately involved in the technical issues around spent nuclear fuel storage, transportation, and disposal. Working in the private sector as well as for Nuclear Regulatory commission and department of energy on these issues, including leading a d. O. E. Program to implement the Blue Ribbon Commission on americas future, recommending near term actions, laying the ground work for interim storage and associated transportation to support that. Inl is a leader to maintain and expand lives of the Nuclear Reactor fleet. These safe, efficient, high performing systems produce nearly 20 of the nations electricity, more than half our carbon free electricity. Thats more than solar, wind, hydro angd geo thermal combined. We also work on innovative advanced reactor designs. Includes mega watt scale micro reactors, small module reactors, and advanced designs that offer potential for improved performance, greater inherent safety features, and reduced construction, licensing and operating costs. As the Committee Heard april 30th during discussion on the Nuclear Energy leadership act, a strong and vibrant Nuclear Industry is vital to the United States environment, power grid reliability and security, economy, and national security. Accordingly, we must address major i am pedestrian imts to developing and employing advanced reactors. Congress to its credit has passed two important pieces of legislation, the Nuclear Energy innovation capabilities act, and Nuclear Energy innovation and modernization act, reintroduced a third referred to earlier, nela. Now it is time to address the waste issue. An impediment to development of the new advanced reactors as well as continued operation of existing plants in some cases. First and foremost, i want to be clear from a technical standpoint, spent nuclear fuel, storage, transportation is safe. As evidenced by more than 50 years of safe and secure operations by the public and private sectors. We do not have a spent Nuclear Safety crisis in this country. We do, however, have issues caused by lack of sustained, coherent approach for Nuclear Waste, not having a final disposition solution. This resulted in longer than anticipated storage as you all know, and National Laboratories and industry in coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory commission are proactively identifying and addressing the associated potential technical issues with the situation. More worry some than relatively minor technical risks of storage, the socioeconomic and Community Impacts resulting from on site storage at permanently shut down reactor sites. The cost which has been referred to multiple times this morning already of approximately 2. 2 million per day for taxpayers, which will only increase until the government begins to take possession of spent fuel, will also increase as additional existing plants are shut down. Finally, negative impact on Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy, also referred to earlier, given lack of progress to address the waste. Our mission at the Idaho National laboratory, related to research, development, demonstration and deployment of advanced reactor systems, we frequently encounter the issue of how to talk about new reactors when we havent addressed the waste issue. Because of this, an interim Storage Facility can be an Economic Investment that addresses these issues, provides a range of other benefits identified in numerous studies, including brc report referred to earlier. Finally i would like to note i am encouraged that senate bill 1234 identifies defense related spent fuel under Compliance Agreement as a priority, at the discretion of the new administrator. Department of energy at the inl site is responsible to manage and store a range of spent fuel, including defense related spent fuel. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I want to thank you for your attention to the important issue for our nation. I look forward to answering questions. Thank you to each of you for being here this morning, what youre providing the committee. It is clear that the reviews, studies, everybody agrees weve got to deal with the permanent in order to get to interim. The discussion of interim sites becoming de facto permanent is where we are unfortunately around the country, which is a place i dont think any of us believe is truly acceptable for the long term. Were not the only nation that has Nuclear Waste to deal with. It is not like this is a case of First Impression here. Theres 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 or countries where they have deep geologic repository siting, have consent based approach. Mr. Nesbit, you mentioned in your recommendations there has to be consent and benefit tied together. What have they been able to do successfully that we should be looking to . Are the are their geologic formations different than others and gives them a leg up . Is it more they do with consent based . Im trying to figure out by looking to others that have been more successful than we have, what we might learn. I throw it out to anybody on the panel. Mr. Nesbit. First of all, it is not the geology. The United States is blessed with a vast number of different geologic media which are all suitable for repository development. They have advantages, they have disadvantages, but in a way it may be a problem that we have so many options available to us in other countries, theyre smaller and 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 in what you would call consent based siting process, they do not have anything that corresponds to the State Government in the United States. And thats just the nature of their governmental structure, sweden and fin land. It has been a challenge to the United States siting waste facilities, and typically the hangup is at the state level. I would agree with a lot of what mr. Nesbit just said. I hope the Committee Notes that, that one, we call for in my written testimony a return to the usgs, started some superb work, looking at the vast, over 36 states and dozens and dozens of places around the country that have potential. But i would urge the committee to reflect on the fact that number one, there is no country that has fully cited for spent nuclear fuel, yet sweden and finland are farther down the road. For precisely the reason mr. Nesbit pointed out, they dont have the system we do of the community, state, and federal government. They dont have that interlocutory layer. If you want to solve it consistent with environmental laws, weve always taken accord of the states. Thats the basis of my testimony. 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, give me a range. Thank you for the question, senator. At my sites as youll see in my written testimony, it is approximately 30 million combined between three sites to maintain those facilities and the Corporate Structure associated with it. So what is happening on the site now . I mean, in terms of youve got workers there that are just ensuring theres a level of safety. Whats costing 30 million . Well, the interesting part about our company, senator, madam chairman, were also managing our corporations, not just the storage of the spent fuel at our sites. I think if you just looked at spent fuel storage, the costs would be closer to 6. 5 million per site, but as courts have found in our cases, our corporations single asset utilities would have gone out of business had the government performed. Not only is our damages including cost of safely and securely storing the fuel, but also to manage our corporations and remain in existence until such time as the government performs. 6. 5 million per site on average. On average. So in order to transport spent fuel cannisters, do you anticipate upgrades will be required to these sites as you look forward . Well, i would expect across the nation, madam chairman, that there would be upgrades required, depending on the facility, would depend on the significance of that. For instance, department of energy has been doing studies, preplanning studies for deinventorying sites, looked at the transportation challenges independent to many of the sites, including the shut down ones, including my three, and each of these sites is unique in those challenges. So for instance, at main yankee, there would be minimal upgrades required at the site itself. Deinventory reports looked broadly at the transportation route, and i realize department of energy and others have focused on that issue, should continue to focus on that issue. But the entire transportation pathway needs to be analyzed. I think it is site specific, but im certain almost every site in the nation would have to have some level of upgrade to start removing the material from sites. It is important to understand that. Let me turn to senator manchin. Thank you, madam chairman. I think finding a solution to our Nations Nuclear waste impasse is critically important. You all brought so much expertise to the table. I appreciate it very much. Instead of asking a question at the beginning of my time, im going to ask senator cortez mass tow since she has been leading this effort, has more skin in the game than any of us sitting here, i would like for her to explain what shes trying to achieve, how we can be of help. Thank you, thank you, Ranking Member manchin for this opportunity. I know it is rare. Chairman murkowski, the recommendations provided by the Blue Ribbon Commission i believe provide a blueprint to follow, particularly employing consent based site. I am asking the state of nevada be included in this framework of the legislation, to be treated equally, fairly alongside all the other states. Thats all were asking. I would like to ask you and Ranking Member manchin to work with me as the bill proceeds. You have my assurance on that. All of on that. And all of you have basically expressed in your Opening Statements that the Site Selection has to have a buy in towards state can say yea or nay. We need to move forward. I want to go back i want to understand the economics of what were dealing with. You all get paid by the federal government for storing on site. And take the responsibility as far as putting it in a required depository, correct . Well, senator, to be more clear we have to sue to get that money. You have to sue to get that money. Every five years we sue the federal government for the previous four years of storage costs. You just said youre suing and receive 30 million when your actual cost 16. 5. Im sorry. I was trying to be clear. The differentation yeah. The incidents between cost to safely store and versus the cost we have to incur, is the full cost. The cost youre incurring right now, youre incurring that cost by keeping on site. Yeah. We have on site storage component to our litigation. Is it safe . Do you feel its safe . It is safe. Sit its safe and theres urgency maybe congress drag its feet for 30 years because its not a Critical Mass. Dr. Wagner you may want to talk on that. Would you all consider its been safe storage . What the corporations are doing . Yes. Your point is exactly right. It has continued to be safely stored, securely stored, and so the public is not threatened . Exactly right. So thats kind of a bit of a crux of the problem. We dont have a crisis per se, in term of safety or security as the utility and the privatesector has done an outstanding job. Im told, i guess, that some of these plants i mean we have plant coming off line. Were talking about Climate Change and talk about decarbonizing and bill gates raised the bar very high. Wait all five, ten years hell go zero. Were not going more nuclear, Decarbonization Energy were going to less. So is it because youre running out of room . We have no place to store it . Senator, no. Its not because they are running out of room. Dry storage can be improved and we have a whole set of suggestions on hardening storage that would work better while we get a Repository Program on track. I would urge you, i think its along footnote 3 your staff can review in our testimony, the actual waste issue, honestly, senator, has not and is not whats holding up Nuclear Powers ability to compete in the market. Whats holding up Nuclear Powers ability to compete in the market are its gigantic upfront capital costs. The South Carolina he reactors that are now a 9 billion hole in the ground and vogel is pushing 28 million for two new units. The likelihood of building Nuclear Power is vanishing. The existing Nuclear Power we have that have gone offline could they have been restored . Could they have been basically improved upon . Its the plants in the marketplace thats youre talking bthey are not shutting down relative to used fuel. Used fuel is an issue we need to address. It costs more to build more Nuclear Plants and peoples concerns about creating additional waste when the current waste my question is were decommissioning some Nuclear Plants. Thats correct. Have they run their lifecycle not all of them, no. They are being shut down because in the marketplace right now the marketplace does not recognize the carbon free attribute of nuclear. Theres no value to carbon free nuclear. Not in the marketplace theres not. There should be. That would help. Are any of these plants in controlled pscs the ones shutting down or merchant not all for the most part. And, i think weve gone to the d. O. E. Asking for some stability. Thats correct. That would be of utmost importance to save some of these plants from going off line. It would be very helpful. Thank you. Thank you, senator. Before i turn to senator alexander i want to respond to senator cortez. You asked a very direct question of me. Know that i do understand the importance of this issue to you, your delegation and to your constituency and i want to be very clear im open to working on this bill with you and senator manchin and any other senators that are interested in working on it. Senator alexander, senator feinstein and i introduced this bill understanding that changes are going to be needed to bring it in line with current policies. So im aware of the language that you have offered along with senator rosen and senator manchin, and that you believe it could improve the bill. I look forward to discussing this language with you as were moving forward because i think we all want to find out a practical path forward so i look forward to that. Let me turn to senator alexander. Thank you, madam chairman and the witnesses. Let me see if i can get down to the kruck of the problem. We have a world concerned about Climate Change and the effect of Carbon Emissions on Climate Change. And 60 of the u. S. Electricity thats carbon free is Nuclear Power and 11 Nuclear Plants are closing by 2025, and most of them will close over the next several years for a variety of reasons and one of the reasons is we have no way to put the waste, no place to put the waste off site which the nuclear law requires we do. As a result of that president obama had a Blue Ribbon Commission that came up with several ways to move ahead, including a new Yucca Mountain in effect, a new repository. New interim storage and there are a couple of private interim storage sites. So there are four places to put this waste that were talking about. Waste that weve collected 40 billion from ratepayers to store and were paying 2. 5 million in damages because were not doing what the law says were supposed. There are four tracks we can follow. We have Yucca Mountain open. Build a new Yucca Mountain. Have a public interim site. Or approve an interim private site. Now 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 if we cant agree in congress to proceed with Yucca Mountain we should stop build agnew Yucca Mountain consent base, a new public interim site consent base or approving 0 new private site we need a long term storage answer as well as a short term my question is if we cant do Yucca Mountain should we stop doing anything else . Should we stop trying anything else . I think weve spent an awful lot of money on yucca 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 all the other things that this legislation and the Blue Ribbon Commission said we could do . No, we should move forward. Mr. Nesbit. Let me go down the line. If we cant do Yucca Mountain should we stop any of these other tracks 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 any other solution . No, sir, we should not stop trying but complete the license. I agree we keep trying. No, sir. Well, i mean thats tissue and the appropriations process i believe we should finish Yucca Mountain. But what happens is the senate wont agree to fund the next years funding of Yucca Mountain which is only to determine whether its safe or not. So the house wont agree to move ahead with a new repository, a new public site, a new private interim site. That doesnt make any sense at all. I mean we ought to trial four tracks. Thats what the Blue Ribbon Commission said. Let me go to the private site. I think the private site is the site most likely to be open first, even if we were to move ahead with Yucca Mountain. The language of the bill thats proposed has language that was written for Yucca Mountain which says this act shall not affect any proceeding or application for a license or permit pending before the commission on the date of enactment of this. That basically says were side stepping with Yucca Mountain and moving ahead with these public repository and public interim sites. Today that might affect the two pending private sites. Would it be your opinion that the bill as written would mean that the provisions of the bill including the consent based procedures wouldnt apply to the pending applications for new mexico and texas for a private site . Thats how we read it, that there are already pending applications so they would be excluded. Anybody else have an opinion on that . Thats right, senator. You asked the right question. Texas and new mexico would both be barred from the consent process. Clearly by the terms of the bill. I freight your testimony you think they should be. That would put us in the same stalemate. You thought private sites because of the promise they have ought to have priority, is that correct . We do think they should have priority. The challenge with private sites they dont want to be the de facto long term storage which keeps it to a long term storage answer. My own view madam chairman that the private sites are the best option, fastest option. They should have priority and we should consider whether the consent based provisions which apparently do not now apply to them should or if they do, whether this would slow down the private sites which hold so much promise. Thank you for your time. Thank you senator alexander. I appreciate your commitment to working and pushing all of us towards solutions here. Senator heinrich. You mentioned that the market right now just doesnt value carbon free Nuclear Power. Has inl path price on carbon in a way to build that value into the market . Yes, weve had discussions about a variety of ways to value nuclear in the marketplace. In the states there are zero emission credits that have been discussed and we have supported that in new york and illinois. Have you endorsed putting a price on carbon as a way to zero emission credits. At the federal level . Weve had conversations around that. Youve had conversations but havent taken a position on that . From a member perspective theres different views about i get that. Just asking what your position as an organization is. Has inl put a price on producing carbon at the federal level . Not an explicit tax on carbon but value on carbon, yes. Its not a complicated question. Why shouldnt the pending sites be part of the consent based approach when we know that not using a consent based process, which by the way the Blue Ribbon Commission was adamant about, has been a path to failure over and over again as we see in nevada . Is your question around nevada specifically no, im asking why shouldnt pending applications also be part of a consent based approach . Im simply reflecting as written, since it says its a pending application that needs to be evaluated im not asking about the legislation. Im asking should we use a consent based process for all applications . Yes, were in support of consent based process for applications. So, madam chair, i guess im a little frustrated because weve been doing the same thing over and over for a long time and not getting somewhere. Im actually, you know, ive spent enough time in a Nuclear Reactor when i was getting my engineering degree that im quite proud of the work that i did in one of the Larger Research reactors in the country. But i think weve heard local input, state input, consent, called just the politics. I dont think i think thats a mistake, because the problem is weve ignored the politics for decades. So one of the things that is very concerning to me is that if we move forward on interim sites, especially if its without consent, and you have a consolidated Storage Facility thats filled with waste, and we never build the permanent site, what recourse is the state going to have if a permanent Disposal Facility is never built . I think we owe to it this conversation to answer those questions before we expect somebody, to you know, take possession in what would be a permanent, you know, what could effectively be a permanent situation. I want to enter a couple of letters into the record. I have a letter here from the governor of new mexico, i got a governor from the state Land Commission of new mexico, both objecting to interim storage and i would just ask consent that they be included in the record for the hearing. Mr. Fettis what should consent look like . Consent should look like Regulatory Authority. To the extent that theres been acceptance of new mexico around that repository why do we have consent . Well, its a little complicated and its not nearly the consent that needs there and its not the full regulatory but the state has Hazardous Waste permitting authority and the state can shut the place down and set terms by which it can operate after it had a fire and an explosion that shut it down and contaminated it for several years. We reopened that facility which ill repeat is the only, only deep geological regulatory thats been successfulbuilt bece states involvement. We need to look at that model and look what you suggested in terms of a different regulatory approach if we get out of doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Senator, if i could interject, i just would like to point out i dont agree with mr. Fettis intertrying the concept of Regulatory Authority with consent. I think you can have consent but i do. Fair enough. But i think the Regulatory Authority thats present in the United States can be handled in a separate manner. I think consent goes back to contracts. And if you look at the history of the Nuclear Waste matter, it is only because the generators of Nuclear Waste entered into a contract with the federal government that was a two way contract, you pay money and you get something back, the waste removed from your site that if it wasnt for that contract then we would be at even worse situation than we are today. Senator heinrich, i just want to reiterate what i mentioned to senator cortez. When we introduced this legislation, we did so knowing we were laying down a marker for conversation because quite honor nef honestly we need to restart this. I appreciate the point you raised and it will be part of this ongoing discussion here. So i want to make sure that colleagues know and understand. I dont view this bill as the end all, be all. But we got to start or restart at some point so i thank you for that. Lets go to senator lee. Thank you very much, madam, chair. The traditional forms of Nuclear Energy generated a whole lot more waste than many of the methods were talking about at todays hearing. The sheer volume currently in interim storage around the country and also the lack of a permanent storage or permanent disposal solution are things that are frequently cited as reasons why we shouldnt continue to develop our Nations Nuclear energy capabilities. I got a question for you. Dr. Wagner mentioned several small reactors. How much more efficiently would these smaller reactors use fuel than reactors in past decades and can you describe how these new forms ever generating Nuclear Energy could possibly change our need for Nuclear Waste storage Going Forward . Yes. So i guess as you look forward theres a variety of different types of Small Modular Reactors that can be built but some of the types of Small Modular Reactors that can be built would actually be interested in using a different type of fuel and some of that fuel could be, in fact, what we consider used fuel today. So any solution set that we put in we should remind ourselves we want to it be retrievable. Theres 95 still good energy in what we call used fuel. Its just in a gaming form. And some of these reactors that are being looked at for tomorrow will be able to harvest that energy. Well be able to use it far below that 95 threshold that you described . Thats correct. How low would they go . They should be able to use the majority of that good energy, i would say, you know, youll be down to maybe 4 to 5 that quote unquote thats left that would then need to be stored. It brings up another topic. I dont know if that plays into what happens then, could it be reprocessed, recycled . Theres another means of dealing with or need to have a disposal site for spent fuel. Could be addressed through recycling or reprocessing. Its my understanding that other countries that have relied on Nuclear Energy recycle their waste and that the u. S. Has even developed the technology to do so here in the United States in a way thats deemed safe and clean. Can you describe the process of how nuclear fuel is recycled and the history of why this process has been banned in the United States . Sure. It sort of goes back to when we said theres 95 still good energy in what we call used fuel. Its transformed. So instead of it being uranium 235 its turned into uranium 238 or turned into plutonium 239. Theres isotopes can still release energy but not in the current way in our current light water reactors. So in recycling what you do is you essentially take the fuel apart and you isolate whats good and can be used again so that uranium, that plutonium can then be mixed and you can use it in current reactors, thats called mox fuel or use it for other types of reactors. So, again, it sort of closes the fuel cycle if you will. Youre left with a very small amount thats not useful in fuel and france, as an example reprocess their fuel. They turn that into a glass and then you tore that inert glass. That glass is inert. Its radio acthe negative. Not useful for fuel. Its stored in accordance. It would be in a deep geologic situation but be very small amount. It reduces the overall volume of whats produced. Thats correct. Why wouldnt we do that . In the United States weve chosen not to. Weve chosen the fact that and this was made in the Carter Administration days that the fact of reprocessing, they look at it as potential proliferation even though there are many process and things you can put in place to ensure that its done without any kind of proliferation concerns but thats why the United States doesnt currently go for reprocessing. That decision was made in the Carter Administration. Were talking 40 years or so or more. Thats correct. What has changed since then that cause us to reconsider that . Has technology changed in such a way that what was perceived as dangerous would no longer necessarily be deemed dangerous . I think weve proven on a lot of front that we have the capability of managing significant things. The government managing plutonium on a regular basis. It can to be done and done safely. Thank you. Madam chair first i would like to enter in the record an analysis made by the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects and a statement expressing concerns of this bill by my nevada colleague. Those will be include as part of the record. Im sorry, senator alexander, i had to leave. I do agree, i think we need a comprehensive approach here. We need to safely store spent fuel and safely stored where it is but we need a comprehensive approach for the future. Heres the one thing im seeking and this is why i so respect senator alexander. In 1987, i believe it was, tennessee was able to successfully remove the oak ridge facility as an interim Storage Facility. Changed the law and now in this bill tennessee has equally the opportunity to say no like every other state except nevada. Thats all im looking for in my state are those similar opportunities, particularly with this bill it creates an equal consent base citing basis for alligator states except for nevada. Let me highlight for the record, section 306e requires potential host state to veto or approve a site before they are fully informed of a sites local impact prior to issuing a review license. That leaves you up a mountain as the default sole repository. Another section gives parity to other states but allows yucca and other states to be kept on. Section 509 eliminates the illegal 70,000 tons of waste to be stored at a repository. If no state guarantees a site the waste goes to Yucca Mountain. I want to be treated equally. I appreciate the conversation again today. Thats why jackie rosen and i have submitted these recommended amendments to the committee to this bill that treats nevada equally. Let me start with some of the questions or comments that ive heard today. First of all, mr. Fettis, let me ask enthusiast. If were to hoff forward in a comprehensive approach and i think weve all agreed we do need that approach whats the best way to rebuild the American Peoples confidence in federal governments ability to provide safe, long term storage of high level Nuclear Waste . I think youve targeted the right issue, senator, and thats confidence and i would also put it as trust. We certainly support your idea of getting everybody treated equally under the consent. We would take it a step farther in that if we just keep the Current System of trying to keep it as consent, everyone will just say no because the entire burden is on. Thats what were trying to build is a process where states and epa can have trust and confidence and say yes in our process and thats the specific point of our testimony. So, thank you. So would inl support the new Administration Act as created in this bill if the nwa walked away from the Yucca Mountain project and demonstrated a new repository project can to be done more efficiently and rapidly than Yucca Mountain . Yes or no . Well, i guess i would reflect to say that we believe that nevada does have a say in the process by continuing with the conversations around yucca. That wasnt my question. My question was this. Under this act would the nei support this act if the nwa walked away from the Yucca Mountain project and demonstrated that a new repository project could be done more efficiently and rapidly than Yucca Mountain. Would you support that . I dont see how another process could to be done more rapidly with all of the analysis thats already been done on yucca but if you found such a magic place, yes we could be d. O. E. Studies showed walking away from yucka mountain and starting over can save billions of dollars in the life facility. This is the challenge ive had. We had a stalemate in the last 32 years and we have offered the opportunity to come in and work with us and find a solution forward and you have that today. But, unfortunately, what i see from the industry is the same old playbook and not willing to even admit theres an opportunity to move forward. Theres not even a willingness to talk about potential new technology that can be utilized to address this safe storage and thats my concern. We need time now for everybody to come forward and move forward on this issue. Were happy to have those conversations. Thank you. Senator rich. Madam chairman, 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 whole lot different than it did 11 years ago. Maybe your bill will get us here. First of all, let me say thank you for inviting mr. Wagner here. Hes preel the appropriate attorney have here which ill address in a second. Im sorry senator alexander left because i was going say hes the smartest person on the panel. He left the tennessee and now lives in idaho and worked at oak ridge. Youre lucky alexander didnt hear that. Hell hear it. Anyway, its appropriate that he be here because the International Laboratory is the birth place of Nuclear Energy in america and in the world. We still have the three light bulb, the first three light bulbs we lit with nuclear are energy there. We dont use them regularly but they are still there. In any event, because they were the birth place of Nuclear Energy, the site has been used for decades for various things in the Nuclear Energy business and the nuclear arms business, we began a waste site for a lot of the waste that was developed during the cold war. But my point is this. In about the 1970s the state of idaho was unhappy with the department of energy because they were not properly addressing in our belief that the waste should be handled properly and as a result of that we in idaho sudden the department of energy and eventually entered into a Consent Decree with the federal government for clean up at the inl national lab and all of us following that stood shoulder to shoulder behind that agreement and executed that. However theyve now embraced the agreement. Theres been a lot of turnover with people involved and everything. The bottom line is this. We have been very successful as far as clean up is concern. Weve addressed virtually every problem there successfully. Were not done yet, is that correct, mr. Wagner . Were a long ways down the road, is that a fair statement . Absolutely. And so its important that the people who and weve had thousands of people, great people over the years, from all over the United States from idaho who have worked on this and who are really smart at this and weve proven can you deal with Nuclear Waste and can it be cleaned up and it can be put into storage, some semipermanent, some temporary, but its been done. Its discouraging after sitting here all these years and not really having moved the ball very far down the field, weve done that in idaho. And this is a serious problem. My good friend from new mexico says weve ignored the politics. Gosh, i would really disagree with that. It becomes a political issue every time theres a president ial campaign and nevada is in play, that becomes a political issue. And its also true here. Ive seen it over the years as the senate races develop in nevada. So theres got to be a better way of doing this, and i thank you for holding this hearing and just as dr. Wagner has done in idaho as weve done in idaho, i think there is a solution, but were going to have to come together to do it and hopefully this Tracee Wilkins start the conversation. So thank you very much for the hearing. Thank you senator. We dont want this to be deja vu all over again. Three congresses now and in the meantime whether its yankee, whether it is doesnt make a difference where you are, we havent been able to address the longer term issues that must be addressed and folks are looking to us for that legislative direction and we have an obligation to do it. Because its hard or politically charged because its expensive, 2. 2 million a day, thats just kind of going out the window isnt helping anybody. Madam chairman, you hit on a good note about the fact we have an obligation to do this. Its discouraging to see that the Nuclear Energy business is going backwards ascribed by everybody here not only in america but all over the world. People are backing away from Nuclear Energy, plants are closing. Some have reached the end of their life, some havent. At the same time there is this tremendous push to get carbon out of the air and quit discharge carbon in the air and look at solar and wind are great generators but they just dont deliver the load. And at some point in time the carbon fuels run out and nuclear will thereabout. You know, it may not be in this century, but future human beings on the planet are going to rely very heavily on nuclear, and its up to us to come up with this, resolving this bottleneck thats causing so much problem. I appreciate that. I think we all agree that nuclear should be a strong part of our mix, but just as were seeing plants that are, facilities being shut down what that then does to the workforce is it too dissipates and we lose the leadership that we once had. We once used to lead when it came to manufacturing of nuclear components. Weve basically ceded that and in so many different areas we cant lose the workforce along with that. Lets go to senator king. Thank you, madam chair. I experienced and saw a similar thing happen in hydro. Major hydro developments were done in the 20s. When we got back to the hydros in the 80s, the experts were gone. Many firms that knew how to do it, the technology was stuck almost a century old. I find this one of the most difficult issues and i can argue it both ways. Mr. Fettis, you present appealing plan, state based, consent based. I havent finished yet. Dont get excited. State based. Consent based. Getting rid of the exemptions, treating it like other pollutants. However, what if every other state says no, which i think is unlikely. I lived through tea 80s an effort to even discuss a low Level Nuclear site in maine and it was the the outcry was unbelievable. What if every state says no, where are we then . The same place where we are now. We have to try. As senator murkowski 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 pfs site. We have a consolidated interim storage thats licensed in this country right now that will never receive a gram of waste and the committee is aware of that and thats 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 an expression of the public will. Right. I dont like it when somebody says we wont let politics block these things. Thats the public speaking. I cant agree with that more. The way weve done that remarkably in this country with all kinds of difficult controversial issues is through our bedrock environment statutes where we have a strong epa that set as Strong Foundation floor of protective standards and then states have dedicated programs whether its air, water, something else. If you have a widget factory, if youre the state can actually protect its citizens, its environment, its waterways. But assume for a moment my hy hypo ti had hyi hahypothetical we cae find a state that says yes r, thats sort of, thats the fall back. Can i do my you dont have a countdown clock in front of you. You can do it if you can do it quickly. Super fast. We have a vastly higher chance of actually having states to get to yes if they dont have to take the entire burden. It also solves some of the transportation issues. They can do regional. Regional is better than one national anyway because of transportation. Correct. Transportation trips to navy ive seen them. Chicago, kansas city. Almost every congressional district. But the idea it would be two or three trains a week for years to take care of what we got. Yep. Okay. If i may interject, part of the problem with consent is who consents. If you look at the Current Situation in nevada right now the people who live closest to the repository have expressed their political consent for the facility there. The lady that sits next to me know more what people of nevada feels. But when you add the additional level of government in between at the state level it becomes very difficult and no one in the world has solved conundrum today. Let me ask a wholly different question a technical question. Why is it were talking about now forever and always deep holes and mines. We got these sites around the country that you say are safe. Why not use an interim technology instead of we got to solve it forever, something that will allow technology to develop over the next 20 to 30 years and yet still be safe at more centralized site. It bothers me we got 80 sites. I dont think thats very secure. Theres a couple of things there, senator. One is if you dont have a permanent solution the ability to condense a particular location as weve talked about at this hearing to accept if the main yankee site is safe, everybody tells me its safe as an interim step until we figure out what the best i dont understand why we have to go from 80 temporary to permanent. Isnt there a step in between . Thats what consolidated interim storage is. The challenge is nobody wants to sign up for consolidated interim storage. The last new mexico governor was in support of interim storage, the current new mexico governor not. And the challenge is because they dont want to become the long term repository. Until there is an idea of a long term repository anybody that raises their hands for that consolidated interim storage is de facto these temporary sites are the de facto long term sites. The actual problem we also face and the Obama Administration tried to look at deep hole disposal in south dakota towards the end ever its second term and it turned into an absolute debacle. This is red state south dakota was objecting. It gets precisely to the reasons we articulated today which is the reason when youre outside of the major functions or normal functioning of environmental law states have no control. So south dakota erupted just as new mexico has, just as nevada has been fighting for 35 years. And when you dont fix the institutional framework to allow the process to get to yes, were never going to solve this. But i think its important to recognize that a private company did conduct deep drill hole tests successfully and i think what that points to is the need to get management of the Waste Program away from the department of energy and put it into a single purpose which is what youre suggesting. Single Purpose Organization thats dedicated to actual success, and we have submitted in our comments, in our testimony comments along those lines. It bothers me, as i understand it, the bill essentially says this is the way well proceed. Accept Yucca Mountain on a different track that doesnt require consent. Madam chairman, thank you. Im going to turn to senator manchin who has to excuse himself. I just want clarification because something is not making a lot of sense to me. Youre telling me were not filled up on site right now so wherever the Nuclear Plants are they are stale able to have capacity to keep that storage there, is that accurate . Senator we can continue expand on site storage as need. Were not at Critical Mass there. Now i kind of thought we were. I was led to believe when he to do something immediately. Were in the pool at several sites. If i could, snarkkcould, sen sites like mine, all the spent fuel that has been generated will be generated but we sit there ready to be transported. Ill get to that right now next. Now youre talk about going interim sites. That doesnt make any sense to me at all because an interim site has to be transported gone a permanent site. Senator, i would like to add and in my testimony i pointed this out, i would like to note the difference between perceived risk and actual risk. Transportation of material is perceived risk greater than the actual risk. Only thing im saying is it looks like youre creating a Business Model for the interim since we got to get to permanent. Why would you have these paying privately. Advantage of interim is economy. Its timing issue. If you decided today on a long term repository site by the time you lie sints, lets suggest yucca, that would still be another three to five years just to license it today because all the analysis has been done and theres additional hearings that have to happen. Nevada if were not at capacity why have an interim site. Thats just to get your license. Another decade to build it. You have 15 years if you were on go today. 35 billion is what your obligation is today and in 15 years it will be closer to 50 billion. So you have to manage the liability. The best twie manage that liability is that interim storage. Once you take that fuel off the site that Judgment Fund comes down because you dont have to pay the judgment fee because you took the fuel to an interim state. How far are we on permitting the interim states. Youre nowhere. Theres two sites that have application in, but whether they will actually go forward and construct those sites is an open question. Senator, there are applications as senator heinrich entered in the record there will be ferocious push back for all the reasons i articulated. I couldnt agree more with the lack of wisdom to pursue an interim site that will become a de facto repository. Senator, the advantage of an interim site if you provide security and monitoring it at one location versus dozens of locations there are economies of scale, advantages for doing that if you do it for a long period of time. Thats correct. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. I can say for the state of washington theres no more important discussion than the clean up and disposal of high level Nuclear Waste and for a state that did what it was asked of us and the people that were there in the development of hanford, to people who hatch done their best to clean up we too want answers to this. I guess ive been listening to most of hearing, in and out of other things but i agree with senator alexander that moving forward is a very necessary and positive thing. And i would say that count me in the camp of the belief that consensus based approaches are more likely to generate quicker results than the legal and long process that we have seen to continue to play out. So, thats even to say if you pass legislation doesnt mean you cleared the legal hurdles that continue to stymie us in these debates. So one of the things that senator alexander and others have referred to and some of the witnesses had the Blue Ribbon Committee and their discussion are former colleague the late senator pete demenci. One thing i liked about the recommendations they thought separating commercial and defers waste and dealing with that separately might be one of those near term opportunities to make more progress. Mr. Fettis or anybody else do you have a thought on continuing to look at that as a path forward . I think thats a secondary issue its not secondary to us. I forgot to put the big monitor out here this, is the largest Nuclear Waste clean up site in the entire world. Its complex. Its hard. Were making progress. But we need to get the high level waste out. Lets come up with a process moving the defense waste out. The complexity of senator feinsteins concerns on the commercial side will take us a long time to figure out. Like handford is cleaning up some easy to clean up things and getting to the harder things why cant we move forward . I think the challenge with the defense waste guesting to a repository will be the same as the challenge with commercial spent nuclear fuel. If you dont have the statute youer to and regulatory process to get to yes were saying the same thing. The consent process thats faster and if they will take that. Im just saying stream line defense so it can get done faster as you deal with all the other aspects. If you can get the waste out of the tanks and get it ready, that would being a great. This is a daytoday task for us in the state of washington, but were only doing it on behalf of the entire United States. This 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 will tell you as we fight every time on some idea thats short changing the clean up process or an idea, were desperate to move the defense waste wane in which people are saying to us we want it. And we will take it. We want to explore those ideas and see if we cant move forward. So thank you marks dam chair. Senator grasso. I want to thank you and Ranking Member manchin for holding this important hearing this morning. This congress, this committee has discussed exciting and innovative ways to cuss Climate Change. We explored Renewable Resources and advanced Nuclear Power and Nuclear Energy. Witnesses have stressed that Nuclear Energy is an essential part of our clean energy portfolio. If we have any serious and if we are serious about addressing Climate Change we must be serious about preserving and expanding the use of Nuclear Energy. Cannot do it without Nuclear Energy. The lack of Nuclear Waste Management Program limits the expansion of Nuclear Power. In may i chaired an Environment Public Works Committee hearing on my discussion draft legislation that would compliment and could compliment senator murkowski and senator alexanders Nuclear Waste legislation. Eight states right now have new bans, bans on new nuclear until washington permanently disposes of Nuclear Waste. Communities across the country are struggling to accept new Nuclear Plants because theres no permanent pathway to remove the Nuclear Waste. So im glad this committee is holding this hearing to address these challenges. So, american ratepayers have paid about 15 billion to site, to study and design a repository for the Yucca Mountain site. This fund 200 million paid to the state of nevada to develop their own scientific and technical analysis. So, why is it important for the Nuclear Regulatory commission to complete the independent safety review of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. You just mentioned the significant money that has been expended. We should have a fair hearing and give nevada a chance the to have their hearing. The process will require that it goes through the judges, et cetera, through the licensing process, and for all this money that has been expended, lets understand the science and the licensing process and work ourselves through it. In the future we might need another long term repository so lets learn everything we can and understand the science and the licensing process for the one thats so far along. Following up on that, mr. Nesbit, why is it i knew what you meant. You note that the regulatory Yucca Mountain licensing review is valuablvaluable. So is it also important to complete the pending licensing process to build that public trust . Absolutely. I agree with everything thats been said. Theres other reasons why it is beneficial for the American People to get forwarder and complete the licensing even if Yucca Mountain isnt built. We dont know what the answer is until we do it. If something is found that says this is not the right place to do it we got to find another solution. We need to go through the process in order to demonstrate the ability to license a geological repository for use of high level radioactive waste. Well learn lessons from that. Having invested 15 billion already it makes sense to get a little more return for that huge investment. The only other thing ill say along those lines, it is the law that we do that. I think that if we demonstrate well the pole the law here if we to change the law and do Something Different later then people will believe well follow the law there too. Along those lines, like senator murkowskis bill, 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 Regulatory Commission Review of the Yucca Mountain license application. So do you support a requirement that interim storage is connected to tangible action on a permanent repository for Nuclear Waste . Yes. In fact it enables that interim storage people will say okay we have this path. Im happy to participate in your shorter term answer because i understand that this pathway exists. Finally, to dr. Wagner. The idaho lab is a leader. Its also the proposed site of the nations first Small Modular Reactor which will provide Nuclear Power to intermountain west, advance Nuclear Reactors can increase safety, decrease cost, reduce the amount of Nuclear Waste. So while advanced nuclear can reduce Nuclear Waste, will there still be Nuclear Waste products that must be permanently disposed of . The short answer is yes. Theres a variety of concepts that can significantly increase fuel utilization. Also different concepts that maria spoke about earlier that closing the fuel cycle through reprocessing. But the end of the day there will be a small amount of material that will require geology jkal repository. I was going to ask a question about whats number. How many additional Storage Facilities long term repocy stories 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 advance nuclear and the prospect for less waste. Weve talked about reprocessing. I think we know what we know today, but the innovation, i think, that is out there is still evolving, if you will. The view into the deep bore holes, we may be, we may be looking at yucca as, okay, this is the design for what we needed 20 years ago. But is at any time the design that we need Going Forward . So i think we need to factor that into the calculus. The question for those of you that looked at the legislation that we laid down here as basically as our working document do you think we do enough in this proposed legislation to be specific about the type of research and development that d. O. E. Or the Administration Needs move forward on . Do we need to do more . Weve been talking so much about this whole consent based process and the interim and moving to permanent, havent really talked about some of the context of this bill that can move the industry forward. Do we have enough in there . Do we need to do more, mr. Norton . Yes, senator, if i could. Madam chairman, a couple of things it to reflect on in your question, and i had this conversation with marias predecessor about six or seven years ago when my sites and the other decommissioning Plant Coalition sites, there were five of us per the poster children of this problem. We operated the plant, decommissioned the plant and waited. I told them there was less focus on it than there is today. But i did tell them on the path we were at then and potentially the path were at now more than 50 of our Nuclear Fleet will be in the same condition im in before we solve this problem. I dont think he believed me but if he was watching it today with number of plants that have either shut down or announced shut down my analysis is not far from here. Although we have comments and make recommendations and changes is a good starting point for us to Work Together to figure out how to resolve this problem. What weve been doing for the last 20 years is not working. Would also like to acknowledge my senator from maine, senator king. His question about are we really thinking about this the right way. I think that needs to be asked and i know scientists may have a difference of opinion here, but i do think we have to challenge ourselves do we really plot the right course with our regional plan for repository and is there an alternative way to think about this, by consolidating the waste. Either reprocession. Other options that or countries are looking at and take the blinders off and look at this holistically. Senator, i just would like to add a couple of things. One American Nuclear society does support continued research into advanced Nuclear Systems and advanced Waste Management techniques. Theres actually private companies out there that are working in this area as well. I think the question of where that needs to reside whether in your bill or in other legislation is a good question. The work that john wagner and others are doing in idaho they are looking at advanced Energy Systems in a holistic manner that includes the Waste Management issue and they need to continue that work. Mr. Fettis. Wisely cautioned against trusting and reprocessing any meaningful solution for Nuclear Waste. And the offramp, its past time for the offramp on recycling of spent fuel in this country. Its both dangerous proliferation and security concerns. It creates more waste and it will not solve the waste problem. And no country has used it to solve their waste problem. And most of all, its economical and the brc identified that it likely never will be. Dr. Wagner, you want to comment to that . I just comment we dont currently recycle because its not economic. You know, one of the many benefits talked about with respect to consolidated storage is whether in time it becomes economical with the substantial growth in Nuclear Energy or other technologies for Waste Disposal coming into play, a consolidated Storage Facility allows you to make progress, to move forward on this issue while some of those things may or may not come to be other options for the material. Appreciate that. We just had a vote start. Id like to allow my colleagues an opportunity for a last word if they would like. Senator cortez masto . Thank you. Thank you very being here. The arguments you make are the same arguments ive heard from the last 30 years of the industry. But you talk about the mountain being utilized to learn from the science and thats why it should move forward. I think we should learn from the science because there are no natural barriers or manmade barriers that make it safe. But we hear that all the time. If we are to learn from the mountain, to dig the tunnels, bury the canisters. Cant be utilized because the industry doesnt use the same type of canisters. Im told it leaks like a sieve because the hydrology shows that. Once the canisters are there, titanium drip shields will have to be created to put over the canisters. By the way, those titanium drip shields would not be placed there until 90 years later. A enit cannot be placed by man in there so you have to build the robotics to put the drip shields to protect the water that goes to the canisters. Is that the science that youre saying you would learn from that you should not have in any other repository . What i was referring to, senator, was completing the licensing process and having the concerns such as you 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. Why do we do that if we already have the information . Thats my point. Senator, i dont agree with your concern. We spent 19 billion on an exploratory tunnel to explore. We know theres fractures through the rock that its going to leak thats why this titanium drip shields are part of your plan for the canisters that will be placed there. So thats what im saying. We already have the information that shows its not safe. So why are we going to waste another 30 years with 218 contentions by the state and lawsuits that i know i was part of as attorney general against your department excuse me. Against the department of energy instead of looking forward in a comprehensive approach and utilizing the science to help us understand in moving forward and the new technology that is out there. Thats all im looking for. And id love the industry to come to the table and work with us on that. So thank you. The key question is not whether its built in volcanic tough, but whether or not it can comply with the Environmental Standards that were laid down to protect the health and safety of the public. Thats the question that would be resolved in a licensing hearing before fair, impartial, and qualified judges. I disagree. I think we are in and i would ask the scientists here. Any type of unexpected opportunities with respect to science. So you want to place a place that is safe that youre going to decrease any vulnerabilities with respect to that deep geologic site. Instead of adding to those vulnerabilities by manmade alleged safety barriers or natural safety barriers. Youre going to decrease those kind of vulnerabilities. And isnt that what youre really looking for for any type of site, a deep geologic site . And maybe mr. Pettus, i dont know if you have anything more on that. I couldnt agree more. The idea behind any geological repositories is to find a way to isolate the waste for the length of time its dangerous. And the problem at the yakima mountain project is whenever it ran into the challenges you described, the response was to weaken the standards to allow the site to be licensed. So we dont look at the upcoming atomic safety and licensing board proceeding if it were to ever go forward as a full site. Since we were talking about drip shields, we do know that there was an analysis back in 2008 and they found that the repository was capable of meeting the regulatory requirements without the drip shields. That they had sufficient defense in depth. The drip shields were designed as an additional redundant layer of protection. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. Right. But still the drip shields are there as a redundant layer. Thats the point. And youre supposed to be reducing those types of additional redundancies, arent you . And have the natural redundancies there and then adding them as necessary. So again, im all for moving forward. I think we have to have a solution here. And i think we have to be smart about it. This is waste thats going to be there for millions of years, for generations to come. For our children, our grandchildren. And weve got to do right by them. And we have to be coming together particularly in this country to address this issue. So thank you, madam chair. Thank you, senator. And to our panel, we appreciate your contribution this morning. We all acknowledge that we have an issue that has been a long standing issue that has and our effort will be to defy the skeptics. And to and to change the status quo which quite honestly has been going on for far too long. I dont want senator risch to be signature here in a similar hearing and say i remember back in 2019 we were talking about it and it was the same it was when i first came to the committee. Weve got an obligation. Weve got good folks working on things. So lets try to address this very long standing problem. With that, the committee stands adjourned. Later today on cnn 3, day two of the faith and Faith Freedom Coalition conference in washington. This afternoon several republican senators including Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell will address the gathering. Thats scheduled for 3 00 p. M. Eastern. And you can see it live here on cspan3. This weekend American History tv will mark the 50th anniversary of the Cuyahoga River fire. An event that shed light on Water Pollution and helped to create the clean water act. On sunday at 9 00 a. M. Eastern, coauthor of where the river burned david stratling joins us to take your calls and talk about the fire, myths associated with it, and the campaign with cleveland stokes to find solutions. Watch our program on the 50th anniversary of the Cuyahoga River fire live sunday at 9 00 a. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3. The Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing yesterday on migrant smuggling and trafficking. Officials with the border patrol, immigration, and Customs Enforcement and customs and Border Protection testified. Good morning. This hear willing come to order. I want to welcome everybody for attending. I want to thank the witnesses first of all for your service to thisun