Transcripts For CSPAN3 Senate Energy Hearing On Nuclear Waste Storage 20240714

This hearing is an opportunity for us to consider the next steps on Nuclear Waste. Do we try to find another pass forward especially for communities are maintaining sites with the fuel caps left on hand in 2010 they convened a blue River Communications to manage the cycle. They had a number of recommendations that led to the introduction of the Nuclear Administration waste act. This legislation has been led by number of members including senator alexander, both on this committee, i have been a sponsor of the legislation with senators alexander and senator feinstein. And my partners on energy and water appropriations subcommittee for multiple congresses now. Weve been at this for a while and i think it is fair to say that 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 to fuel to a permanent repository. Our bill creates a Nuclear Waste administration to oversee consentbased society for interim storage and an additional repository located in states and communities that wanted. Our bill also prior torres is the removal of orphaned used fuel at a decommissioned reactor sites and temperate storage at consolidated sites. Our bill is s1234. We know that it requires some updates and there are number of ideas to improve specific sections, i welcome those i look forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel, i also welcome thoughts and comments from others. Ultimately i hope we can agree that it is long past time to figure this out. The sooner we find a path forward, the better. It has been six years now since i another cosponsors were in the same place, effectively the same place when it comes to the back into the fuel cycle as when we introduce that legislation six years ago. In that time weve seen tremendous progress in the area of nuclear with our advanced Nuclear Reactors. United states has the ability to leave the world on some of these technologies but without a solution on Nuclear Waste, i believe that we are less likely to realize our full potential there. We are here today to start, perhaps to restart the conversation. I know that the chairman has a bill on Nuclear Waste in his committee and is keen to move forward on it. Im glad to see we have some renewed interest across congress to address the challenge. Is a good thing we have multiple options on the table. I think this is a positive development, and i sincerely hope that we can move forward on Nuclear Waste after decades of an action. With that i turn it over to the senator chairman, thank you for having this hearing on Nuclear Waste Administration Act. I want to thank all witnesses for being here that will provide us with ideas on how to move forward breaking the Nuclear Repository impasse. Nuclear energy will continue to be an important part of a Nations Energy mix. Its reliability, especially in adverse weather. The fact that its the nations largest zero emissions power source, it is a powerful tool to minify Climate Change and move towards a zero emissions economy. We will continue to read rely on nuclear and 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, i think theres an agreement among us the changes need to be made to the current text before moving forward. They inequity of Site Selection is a large part of the current impasse. Since the National Academy of science 1957 report, recommending deep disposal it is clear that what we need to do with the Nuclear Waste. The predinner responsible thing to do is buried deep in the earth to protect the environment and generations to come. Unfortunately the path to achieve this is not entirely clear. I look forward to hearing from the panel today and my colleagues, many of whom represent constituencies that deal with Nuclear Waste on a daytoday basis. In particular i want to thank chairman murkowski for the ongoing leadership on this issue. If we have learned anything in the past 30 years, it is that social and political concerns may be taken into account. Thats not to say the technical considerations are not important, i trust the highly skilled individuals at the National Labs and their partners to solve issues that we will face in constructing Storage Solutions in whatever site or sites that are selected. Congress should focus on mechanisms that can drive by and from the communitys. Other countries have success by creating an organization that is separate from an agency or governing body, but is still regulated by the government to work with committees 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 care try several sites, and then make a recommendation. Instead to the price tag associated with the characterization of several sites, Congress Instead legislated this site choice. This action politicized the Site Selection process while simultaneously describing the federal government is my hope that found the market but this bill, it will be equable and how considers all sides. When the site or sites are selected we note the fair process and can move forward accordingly. Lets not forget that there is urgency to this issue. Spent fuel pools as reactors are at capacity, and the need to eliminate carbon emission ensures a reactors will continue to operate in this country for decades to come. On top of that, failing to act means the federal government is racking up more than a liability be paid to 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 estimate overall liability of 34. 1 billion. Like it or not, this means we already have a de facto interim Storage Program. In this country that is inefficient and lacks cost effectiveness. While we dont have Nuclear Waste in West Virginia or Nuclear Reactors im 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, he went through boom, boom, boom. Country by country that has Nuclear Power. All going to zero in a time and an e. R. A. When we want to have zero missions but something has to be done, and we are an urgent time. I want to thank chairman murkowski for hosting this of the most appropriate time. This is needed not just for United States but for the world. Thank you senator manchin lets turn to the panel, very distinguished panel. We are joined by maria course nick the president and ceo of the Nuclear Energy institute. You been before the Committee Many times, we welcome you back. Mr. Wayne norton is a chair for the Coalition Steering committee, we appreciate you being here, Stephen Nesbit is a chairman of the waste policy task force. We thank you for your leadership with that important task first. Jeffrey fetters, the senior attorney at the Nuclear Climate and clean energy program. And we welcome you to the committee. And doctorwagneris with us with one of the National Labs, hes at the Idaho National lab and we appreciate your leadership we will begin with you, if you can provide your comments to the committee we ask that you keep your comments to five minutes. And your statement will be part of the full record. Will have an opportunity for questions. Hello my name is maria corsnick, im appreciative of the opportunity to provide testimony on the Nuclear Waste ministration act of 2019. We appreciate the deliberate effort of the committee to develop an effective federal used to 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 to zero. The nuclear Rogatory Commission technical staff has also completed reviews of the yucca licensing application. And finally private initiative is underway to develop Storage Facilities in the two states. It is the whole largest source of Carbon Free Energy in the United States. 97 power plants in 29 states provided 20 of americas electricity and more than half of the emissions free electricity. They are carbon free work courses that are essential to addressing Climate Change. That being said the advanced reactors of tomorrow and the operating fleet a larger continually subjected to reputational damage because congress for two decades now has placed politics with the issue of used fuel. It is vitally important that the United States remain a Global Leader in the commercial nuclear arena. And yet, we are the only Major Nuclear nation with the lacking of used fuel management program. The u. S. Nuclear industry upheld its end of the bargain with the sites in 35 states around the country. Commercial used to fuel is safely stored and managed awaiting pickup by the federal government which was scheduled for 1998. In addition the Nuclear Waste fund that was set up to finance the development of a National Repository currently has over 41 billion in its coffers, which was contributed by electricity consumers and Nuclear Generation companies. Each year, over 1. 5 billion more in interest accumulating the fund. And each day we dont have a solution it does cost the taxpayers 2. 2 million in damages. The single largest liability paid out of the Judgment Fund year after year. Its 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 four. 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. The application was committed to the nrc more than a decade ago. Congress directed the nrc to issue a decision in 2012. This deadline like others was missed because the doe shut down the Yucca Mountain project. For the sake of the communitys holding stranded used fuel wishing to redevelop their site, we must move forward and allowed nevadas concerns with Yucca Mountain to be heard by nrcs independent judgment. This will allow a licensing decision to be determined based on scientific merit rather than politics. Second, as a licensing process of Yucca Mountain moves forward, storage can play an Important Role in moving spent fuel away from reactive sites. Moving interim storage parallel with the Yucca Mountain project alleviates the state and local concerns that interim storage will become a de facto disposal facility. This was highlighted in the letter by the governor of new mexico. I am pleased that interim storage is addressed and s1234. I strongly believe that interim storage can be successful if moved in parallel with the Yucca Mountain project licensing. Energy consumers have paid their fair share to address the back into the fuel cycle. S1234 was drafted prior to the court mandated probation of the fee. I want to strongly convey the importance of not prematurely reimpose in the Nuclear Waste fee, especially given the substantial bounds and large investment interest that accrues annually. The industry believes that the fee should not be reinstated until the annual expense for the programs ongoing projects exceed the annual Investment Income on the phone, and the projected lifecycle cost demonstrates that the fee must be reinstated to achieve full Cost Recovery or the life of the program. The fact that we are here today considering this legislation as a positive step in the right direction. And i sincerely appreciate the committees motivation to find a durable solution. We look forward to continue to work with each and every one of you to reach bipartisan consensus on the best approach for Longterm Management of the nations that used fuel. Thank you and i look forward to your questions. Thank you mr. Norton, welcome. Good morning chairman murkowski Ranking Member manchin , and members of the committee. My name is wayne norton, im present ceo of yankee atomic electric company. Three Nuclear Plants at my site are fully decommissioned, but the Storage Facilities spent fuel and grade wasted during the operation life. It is undergoing litigation with the department of energy for monetary damages resulting from this partial breach of contract. To date, the court has awarded my company damages up 575 million. Claims that now encompass virtually all the cost for the management of our companies in the fuel Storage Facilities. In addition, i serve as the chair of the decommissioning plant Coalition Steering committee, as such i want to express our appreciation for the invitation to appear before you today behalf of the coalition and asked that the full statement be read into the record. We are here into a today because the government is creating a spent fuel burden across states and localities. This delay in performance by the government created a situation where committees across the nation are becoming the unanticipated home for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. In new england alone, there are five sites in four states that are providing indefinite storage of this material. Even though the lecture grade terrors have met their obligations and 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 site. Many of these positions are captured in the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission and in s1234, the nuclear ministration act like to focus on two issues relative the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations and s1234. One consolidate interim storage, and funding reform. As suggested by the Blue Ribbon Commission, s1234 calls for consolidated interim Storage Program as part of an active repository siding and the licensing effort. Given the congress has now 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, mounting taxpayer liabilities, we believe that the most effective and timely path to remedy the government defaults liza such a program. We appreciate the fact that senate 1234 does not prohibit commencement of a fuel movement to facilities prior to the action on the repository licensing application. Based on the most credible estimates, it seems clear that consolidating interim storage license will likely be granted first. The explicit linkage between the two could unduly delay the title transfer and fuel acceptance. Which is key to reducing ongoing taxpayer liability. S1234 is a clear effort to correct our major policy concern, relative to this vision arrival funding the program. The establishment of a new working capital fund is clear moving in a direction that the dpc supports. However does not fully resolve continue risk of annual appropriations, and perhaps more importantly it leaves unresolved the matter 40 billion already funded into the Nuclear Waste fund. In conclusion, along with many other National Organizations which you will 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 in action is costing american taxpayers as your today approximately 2. 2 million a day, and the ratepayers of new england and the nation deserve to see the tens of billions of dollars that have already been collected used for its intended purpose. Madam chairman, and Ranking Member tran for the dpc deeply appreciate your interest in this issue, we are encouraged by your legislative initiative and the attention brought to the content of this hearing. Thank you for the opting to testify today. Im glad to answer any questions. Thank you mr. Norton. Welcome mr. Nesbitt. Thank you, members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Nuclear society we represent 10,000 men and women that work every day to provide clean energy, develop systems to power deep Space Exploration and enable other beautiful applications of them. We applaud the introduction of the act of 2019, two break the political logjam that is to the detriment of the american people. The federal government is approaching a decade of inexcusable inaction in this area. And pending anniversary that sure spur congress and Administration Action. To be clear, he used nuclear fuel is stored safely and poses no immediate danger to the public. However a lack of progress on a geological repository has endangered Nuclear Power potential to addressing Long Term Energy and environmental objectives. In particular advanced reactor developers, men and women striving to meet Global Demand for immersions for a reliable energy, they are impacted by the question what about the waste . I will turn now to talk about the key provisions of s1234 along with other governmental actions that we believe can address that fundamental question. We endorse the initiation of a search for geological repository sites other than Yucca Mountain ofs proposed. Make no mistake. We strongly support the timely come pollution of the Yucca Mountain license. If it doesnt become operational, the waste left go somewhere . Consolidated interim storage is not the solution, the country determines a better understanding of what options are realistically available. To enable repository siding, the government needs to update several regulations to reflect scientific advances and Lessons Learned in the past decade. In particular the generic bimetal standard for geological repositories lacks transparency, is out of date, and inconsistent with international guidelines. We endorse a Consolidation Program a party 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. We support a new independent entity to manage highlevel waste, but we have concerns with the Government Agency that is entitled to the nwa. We suggest continued consideration be given to the Public Corporation model. High level funding reform is essential, this takes a step in the right direction improving access to the future contribution the Nuclear Waste fund. The committee should also consider corporate and practical provisions to allow for an empowered Management Entity to use existing balance of the fund. The approach to consentbased 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 have 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, we suggest three principles for future action. Make a Real Progress achieving tasks, create a viable Management Organization with necessary resources they can work without undue political interference. Empower that organization to complete Yucca Mountain licensing, investigate a second repository site, and move forward on consolidated interim storage. Initiate development of upto date repository regulations for sites other than Yucca Mountain. Engage with nevada and another was dates and communities. Second, seek to combine the concepts of concept 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 of deadly clear from the beginning. Third, empower scientists and engineers, and congress. They must address the legal and issues associated with Nuclear Waste. We will not succeed if we love politics to overwhelm good science. Act based on real risk, not perceived risk. We must give our best and brightest Nuclear Professionals the opportunity to take on this challenge with some degree of independence, funding, and flexibility. I thank you again for the opportunity testify and i stand ready to answer your questions. I yobak the remainder my time. Thank you master nesbitt. Mr. Fetis welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. The chairman started the hearing perfectly. She said we are in the same plays. We trust that this can be a new beginning with more than 80,000 metric tons of spent fuel and more than half of our state directors moved to the decommissioning. We need to reset the process. S1234 will not solve the problem and we oppose in its current form. For more than 50 Years Congress has offered and passed a bill that would restart the yucca licensing process. Or kick open a door in nevada, utah or nipsco. S1234 severs meaningful links between storage and disposal and excludes nevada from the consents process it sets up this will not work. Such efforts have failed and tennessee, kansas, nevada, utah, and everywhere else. Other tends to restart litigation and controversy. The likely result is a continued stalemate that we have been in. Seven years ago a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission described why past attempts failed. They asserted that we cannot keep doing the same thing. Congress must create a process that allows a host date to demonstrate consent, or for that matter, nonconsent. Rather than spending more valuable time on the specifics of why this wont work. It is all there in the written. Put before you are durable, meaningful reset of how we can manage and dispose of Nuclear Waste. How we can really achieve consent. The solution can be summed up simply. Give vpn the states power under wellestablished bimetal statutes so that they can set the terms for how much and on what conditions they can host a disposal site. Radioactive waste to stranded sites across the country, and it will remain so, because the Atomic Energy act treats it is a privilege to polluted. It preempts the regulatory of the epa and the states. Exempting reactivity from hazards waistline sizable portions of the clean water act. It ignores the vital role that states playing addressing other environmental pollutants. Senator manchin talked about a mechanism that can drive by in. Our government is at its strongest when each players rolls respected. As an example, years of wrangling over what standard should be set for cleanup at a massively contaminated Nuclear Weapon sites. Such as those in washington or South Carolina. It is made exponentially worse by doe selfregulatory status which they Atomic Energy act ordains with these exemptions. The same is true with commercial spent fuel, were any state that is targeted to receive Nuclear Waste looks to be on the hook for the burden of the nation spent fuel. Public acceptance and state consent of sites will never be willingly granted unless and until power on how, when, and where waste is disposed of is shared, rather than decided by the federal fiat. Theres only one way consent can happen consistent with our cooperative federalism. Specifically congress can remove the examination from the bedrock of environmental laws. The Hazardous Waste and clean water laws must include full authority over Nuclear Facility so that the epa and the states can asserted direct regulatory 30. Removing these exemptions will not magically solve the puzzle and create a final repository, i think it can work faster than what we have now. Is it will open a path forward that respects each estate rather than offering at the latest for sacrifice. Texas and new mexico events of the last several weeks demonstrate this. Why will the plan work . And why the better chance than s1234 . The state can say no, it can also say yes. A consent to terms on how will receive the waste, and importantly not be on the hook for the entire burden. A steak and protect the citizens they environment, limit what comes into the state. 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 that fundamental sharing of power can result in Public Acceptance of solutions. We have seen these 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 garnered the consent of 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 way as every other pollutant, with epa delegated states taking the lead under the fan the national and bimetal statutes. Thank you for having me here today. Matt forte answering questions. Now will go to the views from the Idaho National lab with dr. Wagner. Its an honor to be here with you today chairman murkowski, Ranking Member manchin and members of the 20. I thank you for sponsoring this legislation and the persistent effort to make progress on this critically important issue for the nation in general and Nuclear Energy in particular. Currently, oversee the Nuclear Energy Research Development demonstration efforts. Including research and Development Related to spend nuclear fuel storage, transportation and disposable. Throughout my career i have been intimately involved with the technical issues around spent nuclear fuel storage. Working in the private sector as well as the nuclear revelatory commission and the department of energy on his issues. Including leading a doe program to implement the Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas Nuclear future which involved laying the groundwork for implementing interim storage as well as the associated transportation to support that. We are a leader in the effort to maintain and expand the lives of Americas Nuclear reactor fleet. Visa safe, efficient, and highperforming systems produce 20 nations electricity, more than half of our carbon free electricity. Thats more than solar, wind, hydro and geothermal combined. We also work with the energy for designs including micro reactors, small modular reactors and advance designs with a greater inherent research , as we heard on the april 30 discussion a strong and vibrant industry is a vital to United States environment, power grid reliability, security, economy and national security. Accordingly, we must address the major impediments to developing and employing advanced reactors. Congress to its credit has passed the two important pieces of legislation, the Nuclear Energy innovation compel these act and the Nuclear Energy is innovation and modernization act, and reduce a third referred to earlier yucca. Now time to address the waste issue. 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 a safe and secure operations by the public and private sectors. We do not have a spend nuclears fuel safety crisis in this country. We do however have issues caused by the lack of sustained, coherent approach for Nuclear Waste, not having a final disposition solution. This is resulting in longer than anticipated storage as you all know, and the National Laboratories and industry in coronation within nuclear revelatory commission are proactively identifying and addressing the associated potential technologies with the situation. More worrisome than the relatively minor technical risks of the storage, are the socioeconomic and Community Impacts resulting from the on site storage at primly shut down reactor sites. The cost which is been referred to multiple times this morning of approximately 2. 2 million per day for taxpayers, which will only increase until the government begins to take possession of the spent fuel. It will also increase as additional existing plants are shut down. Finally, the negative impact on Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy. Which was 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 this issue of how the world can we talk about new Nuclear Reactors when we have not addressed the waste issue . Because of all 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 identified in numerous studies, including the report referred to earlier. Finally i would like to note i encouraged that s1234 identifies defenserelated the spent fuel under Compliance Agreement as a priority. At the discretion the new administrator. Department of energy at the site is responsible for managing and storing a range of spent fuel, including defense related spent fuel. This bill would enable a meaningful storage opportunity for those materials. I appreciate the opportunity testify. I want to thank you for your attention to the important issue for our nation i look for dancer any of your questions. Thank you dr. Wagner and thank you each of you for being here this morning and for what you are 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, that is where we are unfortunately around the country. 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. It is not like this is a cased of a 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 siding, they have a consentbased approach. Mr. Nesbitt you recommended 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 do . Is there geologic formations that are different than ours, and that gives them a leg up . Is it more that they do with 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 anybody here on the panel. Mr. Nesbitt . First of all it is not the geology. United states is blessed with a vast number of different geological media which is all suitable for repository development. They have advantages, they have disadvantages. In a way it may be a problem that we have so many options available to us in other countries. They are smaller and they really have to concentrate on one option. The other thing i would like to point out is that in those countries it up in six successful so far and what you would call consentbased 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 finland. It is been a challenge in the United States citing waste facilities and typically the hangup is at the state level. I would agree with a lot of what mr. Nesbitt just said. I hope the Committee Notes that. That one we call for my written testimony a return to the usgs that started some superb work. Looking at the vast, over 36 dates and doesnt the places around the country that have potential. I would urge the committee to reflect on the fact that number one, there is no country that has fully cited spent nuclear fuel and highlevel ways. Sweden and finland are farther down the road, but for precisely the reason that mr. Nesbitt just pointed out. They dont have the system that we do, of the committee, state, and federal government. They dont have that layer, and if you want to solve a consistent with our environmental laws, weve always taken a court of the state. 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 give me a range . Thank you for the question. At my sides as you will see my written testimony. Is approximately 30 million annually combined between the three sides to maintain those facilities and the Corporate Structure associated with it. So what is happening on the site right now . I mean in terms of the workers that are there that are insuring a level safety whats costing 30 million . Well, the interesting part of our company madam chairman is that we are also managing a corporation. Not just the storage of the spent fuel or sides. I think you just looked at spent fuel storage, the cost would be closer to 6. 5 million per side. But as the court found in our cases, our corporation single asset utilities wouldve gone out of business have the government performed. Not only is the damage including the cost of safely and securely storing the fuel, but also managing the corporations and remain in existence until such time as the government performs. So 6. 5 million per side on average . On average. So in order to transport the spent fuel canisters, do you anticipate upgrades will be required to the sites as you look forward . Well, i would expect across the nation madam chairman. That there would be upgrades required. Depending on the facility, it would depend on the significance of that. For instance, the department of energy has been doing studies, preplanning studies for d in the touring visa sides. They had looked at the transportation challenges, that are independent of any the sides. Including the shut down once, including my three. Each of these sites is unique in those challenges. So for instance, at maine yankee, there would be minimal upgrades required at the site itself. D inventory reports have looked broadly at the transportation route. I realized the department of energy and others have focused on that issue. It should continue to be a focus. The entire transportation pathway needs to be analyzed. I think it is sitespecific, i am certain almost every state in the nation would have to have some level of upgrade to start remove the material from their sites. I think its important to understand that let me turn to senator manchin i think finding a solution to our nations Nuclear Waste impasse is critically important and youve all brought so much expertise to the table and i appreciate it very much. Instead of asking the question the beginning of my time, im going to ask the senators and shes been leading this effort and has more skin in the game than any of us sitting here. I would like for her to explain what she is trying to achieve, and how can we help . Thank you Ranking Member manchin thank you for this opportunity, i know it is rare and madam chairman, the recommendation provided by the Blue Ribbon Commission, i believe they provide a blueprint to follow. Particularly when employing a consentbased site. Im asking the state of nevada be included in the framework of the legislation. To be treated equally and fairly alongside the other statement that is all were asking, i would like to ask you to work with me as this bill proceeds. You have my insurance on that, all of you expressed in your Opening Statement said the Site Selection has to have a buyin so that the state can say yes or no. And i think thats important. I would like to go back, i want to understand the economics of what we are dealing with. You get paid for storage and didnt take responsibility regarding a depositories that 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. We go through the process. You just said that you are suing and receiving 30 million when your actual cost is 16. 5 million. Im sorry, i am trying to be clear, i think i confused you. The differentiating between the cost to safely and securely store, or the cost that we incur. Thats the total cost. The classier incurring right now, youre incurring that caused by keeping on site . Yes, we have an onsite storage component to our litigation. Is it safe . Steve feel it is safe . It is safe. Since it is safe and youre able to do, there is no urgency and maybe congress has been dragging its feet for 30 years because its not a critical mass. Mr. Wagner you might want to talk on that . Would you consider that its a safe storage . What these corporations are doing . Yes. Your point is exactly right. It is going to be safely stored, securely stored and so the public is not print. Thats kind of a bit of a crux of the problem, we dont have a crisis per se in terms of safety or security as a utility and the private sector has done an outstanding job in terms of safety and security i am told that some of these plans coming off line were talking about Climate Change and decarbonization and bill gates raise the bar very high. Saying if you think its bad now wait for 510 years we are going to zero. Were not going more nuclear, energy is going to last. Is because when youre running out of room . Your no place to store it . Center, no, it is not because theyre 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 along the lines of what was suggested i would urge you. I think its a footnote 3. The actual waste issue, honestly senator, has not and is not what is holding up Nuclear Powers ability to compete in the market. What is holding up Nuclear Powers ability to compete in the market, arts gigantic upfront capital cost. The South Carolina 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 new Nuclear Power is a banishing. When asked this question. The existing Nuclear Power that we have been decommissioned that is gone offline, could they have been restored . Could have been basically improved upon . The plants in the marketplace right now, that youre talking about. Theyre not shutting down relative to used fuel, used fuel is a necessary issue that we need to address. Why are they shutting down qwest it cost more to build more Nuclear Plants recognize the carbon free attribute of nuclear. There is no value to carbon free nuclear. In the marketplace there is not. There should be and that would help. Are any of these plans in controlled dscs overall they are merchants . I think we have gone to the doe asking with some stability in that. Before i turned to senator alexander, i want to respond to senator cortez and ask a direct question. No that i do understand the importance of this issue to you, your delegation and your constituents and i want to be very clear that i am very open to working on this bill with n you with senator manchin and any other senators that are interested and 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 policy. I am aware the language you have offered with the language and that you believe it should improve the bill. Know that i look forward to discussing the 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 return to senator alexander. Thanks to the witnesses. Let me get down to it i think the crux of the problem is. We have a world concerned about Climate Change and the effect of carbon omissions on Climate Change and 60 of the u. S. Electricity that is carbon free is Nuclear Power. 11 Nuclear Plants are closing by 2025. Most of them will close over the next several years for variety of reasons. One of the reasons is we have no way 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 and a new repository. There are a couple of private interim storage sights. Therefore places to put this waste that we are talking about. We collected 40 million from ratepayers to store and we are paying 2 1 2 Million Dollars a day in damages because we are not doing what the law is to do yet we have four places, four tracks we could follow to do something. We could have a Yucca Mountain open, we could build a new Yucca Mountain. We could have a public interim site or we could approve a private interim site. Now the reason we 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 . If we cant agree in congress to proceed with Yucca Mountain that we should stop trying to build a new Yucca Mountain consent based, a new public interim site consent based or approving a new private site . We need a longterm storage answer as well as a shortterm. My question is if we cant do Yucca Mountain should we stop doing anything else . Should we stop trying anything else . I think we have spent an awful lot of money on yucca and i think it should move forward. Emac that is not my question. If we cant do Yucca Mountain that 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 think the country should get a return on the 15 billion. My question is if we cant do Yucca Mountain should we stop trying any other solution . We should not stop trying. But we should complete the licensing. I agree we should keep trying and we laid out a pathway in our testimony. That is the issue in the appropriations process. I believe we should finish Yucca Mountain. What happens is the senate wont agree to fund the next years funding of Yucca Mountain which is only to determine whether it is 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. We ought to try all four tracks, that is what the Blue Ribbon Commission said. Let me go to the private side. I think the private site is most likely to be open first, even if we were to move ahead with Yucca Mountain. Ms. Korsnick the language of the bill that is proposed has language that was written for Yucca Mountain which says this act shall not affect any proceeding or application for license or permit ending before the commission on the day of enactment of the act. It said we are sidestepping Yucca Mountain and moving ahead with these permanent repository and public interim sites. But today that might affect the two pending private site. 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 from new mexico and texas for a private site . That is how we read it but there are already pending applications and they would be excluded. Does anyone else have an opinion . That is right senator. You asked the right question. Texas and new mexico would be barred from the consent process clearly by the terms of the bill. I and from your testimony you think they should be . That would put us in the same stalemate that has put us here. Ms. Korsnick, you thought that private sites ought to have priority, is that correct we think they should have priority. The challenges they dont want to be the de facto longterm storage which keeps it connected to a longterm storage answer. My own view is that the private sites are our best and fastest option. They should have priority and we should consider whether the consent based provisions which apparently do not now apply to them should, and if they do whether that would slow down the private sites which hold so much promise. Thank you for your time. I truly appreciate your commitment to working and pushing all of Us Toward Solutions here. Senator heinrich . You mentioned that the market right now just doesnt value carbon free Nuclear Power. Has nei endorsed putting a price on carbon as a way to build that value into the market . We have 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 at the federal level . We have had conversations around it. But you havent taken a position on that . From a member perspective there are different views. I get that. I am asking what your position as an organization is. Has nei endorsed putting a price on carbon at the federal level . Not an explosive tax on carbon. But value on carbon, yes. It is not a complicated question. Why shouldnt the pending sites because of the consent based approach when we know that not using the 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 . Know i am asking why shouldnt pending applications also be part of a consent based approach . It was simply reflecting that as written since it says it is a pending application that needs to be evaluated. 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 consent based process replication. Madam chair, i guess i am a little frustrated because we have been doing the same thing over and over for a long time and not getting somewhere. I have spent enough time at a Nuclear Reactor when i was getting my engineering degree that im quite proud of the work i did in one of the Larger Research reactors in the country. But i think we have heard local input, state input, consent called just the politics. And i think that is a mistake. The problem is we have 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 it is without consent and you have a consolidated Storage Facility that is filled with waste and we never build the permanent site, what recourse is the state going to have if a permanent disposable facility is never built . I think we owe it to this conversation to answer those questions before we expect somebody to take possession in what would be a permanent, what could effectively be a permanent situation. I want to enter a couple letters into the record. I have a letter from the governor of new mexico and from the state land commissioner of new mexico. Both objecting to interim storage and i would just ask consent that they be included in the record. Mr. Fettus, what should consent looks like . It should look like Regulatory Authority as simple as that. To the extent there has been acceptance in new mexico of the geological repository, the only operating one of the world. Why do we have consent . It is a little complicated and it is not nearly the consent that needs to be there and it is not the full Regulatory Authority. But the state has Hazardous Waste authority and the state can shut the place down and set terms which it can operate after it had a fire and an explosion to shut it down and contaminated for several years. We reopened that facility which i will repeat is the only, only deep geological repository that has been successfully built that i am aware of in this country because of the state 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. Senator, if i could interject. I would just like to point out that i dont agree with mr. Fettus intertwining the concept of Regulatory Authority with consent. I think you can have consent. But i do. Fair enough. I think the Regulatory Authority that is present in the United States can be handled in a separate manner. I think consent goes back to contracts. 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 twoway contract. You pay money and you get something back. The waste removed from your site. If it wasnt for that contract then we would be in even a worse situation than we are today. Senator heinrich i just want to reiterate what i mentioned to senator cortez masto. When we introduced this legislation we did so knowing we were laying down a market for conversation. Quite honestly we need to restart this. I appreciate the points 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 view this bill as the endall beall. But, we have to start or restart at some point. I think 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 we are talking about at todays hearing. The sheer volume currently in interim storage around the country and also the lack of 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. Ms. Korsnick i have a question for you. Doctor wagner mentioned avril small reactors. How much more efficiently with small reactors used fueled in reactors in past decades . And can you describe how the new forms of generating Nuclear Energy could possibly change our need for Nuclear Waste storage Going Forward . As you look forward there are a variety of types of module reactors that can be built. Some small module 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 it used fueled today. In any solutions we put in, we should remind ourselves that we want it to be retrievable. There is 95 still good energy in what we call used fuel. It is just in a different form. Some of these reactors that are being looked at for tomorrow will be able to harvest that energy. And we will be able to use it far below that 95 threshold you described . Thats correct. Hello what they go . They should be able to use the majority of that good energy. I would say you will be down to maybe 45 that is left that would need to be stored. That brings up another topic. I dont know if that plays into what happens then, could it be reprocessed or recycled . Is there another means of dealing with our need to have a disposal site for spent fuel . Could it be addressed through recycling or reprocessing . It is my understanding that other countries that have relied on Nuclear Energy recycle their waste and that the u. S. Has even developed the technology to do so here in the United States in a way that is deemed safe and clean. Can you describe the process of how nuclear fuel is recycled and the history of why this process has been banned in the United States . It goes back to when we said there is 95 still good energy in what we call used fuel. It is transformed. Instead of being uranium 235, it is turned into uranium 238 or plutonium 239. Those isotopes can still release energy. But not in the current way in our current light water reactors. In recycling what you do is you essentially take the fuel apart and you isolate what is good and can be used again so that uranium, plutonium, and it can then be mixed and you can use it in current reactors. That is called mocks fuel or you can use it for other types of reactors. Again, it closes the fuel psych or cycle if you will. You are left with the small amount that is not useful in a fuel. France as an example re processes their fuel and they turn it into glass and you store that in her class. So the glass is inert. It is not emitting. It is radioactive but it is not useful for fuel. It is stored in accordance in a deep geologic situation but it will be very small amounts. It reduces the overall volume of what was produced. Why wouldnt we do that . In the United States we have chosen not to. We have chosen the fact and this was made in the Carter Administration. The fact of reprocessing they look at it as potential proliferation even though there are many processes and things you could put in place to ensure it is done without any proliferation concerns. That is why the United States doesnt currently go for reprocessing. If that decision was made in the Carter Administration which was 40 years ago or more, what has changed since then that might cause us to need 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 we have proven on a lot of fronts that we have the capability of managing significant things. The government manages plutonium on a regular basis. It obviously can be done and can be done safely. Thank you very much. Senator cortez masto. First i would like to enter and a record of an analysis of this bill and a statement expressing concerns of this bill by my nevada colleague senator jackie rosen. I am sorry, senator alexander had to leave. I do agree with him. I think we need a comprehensive approach. I think we need to safely store spent nuclear fuel but we need a comprehensive approach for the future. Here is the one thing i am seeking. 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. That is all i am looking for is similar opportunities, particularly with this bill. It creates an equal consent process for all states except for nevada. Let me highlight for the record section 306e requires a potential host state to veto or approve a site before they are fully informed of the site impact prior to initiating a review licensing process. That leaves Yucca Mountain as the default full repository. Section 506 a gives parity to all other states yet allows Yucca 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 70,000 metric ton limit waste to be stored at a repository. If no state wants to be a host this guarantees all the waste goes to Yucca Mountain. My request is that we all be treated equally. I appreciate the conversation today. That is 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 and comments i have heard today. First of all, mr. Fettus let me ask you this. If we are to move forward in a comprehensive approach and i think we have all agreed we do need that approach, what is the best way to rebuild the american peoples confidence in federal governments ability to provide safe, long term storage of highlevel Nuclear Waste . I think you have targeted the right issue and i think that is confidence. I would also put it as trust. We certainly support your idea of getting everybody treated equally under consent. We would take it a step farther in that if we just keep the Current System of trying to keep it as consent, everyone will just say no because the entire burden is on. That is what we are trying to build is a process where state and the epa can have trust and confidence and say yes in our process. That is the specific point of our testimony. Ms. Korsnick would nei support the new Nuclear Waste Administration Act as created in this if the nwa walked away from the Yucca Mountain project and demonstrated that a new repository project could be done more efficiently and rapidly than Yucca Mountain . Yes or no. I guess i would reflect to say that we believe that nevada does have a say in the process by continuing with the conversations. That wasnt my question. 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 be done more rapidly with all the analysis that has already been done on yucca. If you found such a magic place, yes we could support it. We have shown that walking away from Yucca Mountain could save billions of dollars over the life of the facility. This is the challenge i have had. We have had a stalemate over the last 32 years. And we have offered the opportunity to come in and find a solution and i think you have that today. But unfortunately what i see from the industry is the same old playbook and not willing to even admit theres an opportunity to move forward. Theres not even a willingness to talk about potential new technology that can be utilized to address the safe storage and that is my concern. We need time for everyone to come together and move forward on this issue. We are happy to have those conversations. Thank you. Senator heinrich. I joined this committee 11 years ago. We were talking about this then. Unfortunately the discussion today doesnt sound a whole lot different than it did 11 years ago. Maybe your bill will get us there. Let me say, thank you for inviting mr. Wagner here. He is really the appropriate person to have here which i will address in a second. I was also sad senator alexander left. He left tennessee and moved to idaho and worked at oak ridge for 17 years and. You are lucky alexander didnt hear that. He will hear it. Anyway, it is appropriate that he be here. Because the Idaho National laboratory of course is the birthplace of Nuclear Energy in america and in the world. We still have the three light bulbs that we lit with 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 nuclear arms business we became a waste site for a lot of the waste that was developed during the cold war. My point is this. And about the 1970s the state of idaho was unhappy with the department of entergy energy because they were not properly addressing in our belief that the waste should be handled properly. As a result of that we in idaho sued the department of energy and entered into a consent for cleanup at the Idaho National lab. All of us who were following that stood shoulder to shoulder and behind that agreement and have executed that agreement. The department of energy has now embraced the agreement. There has been a lot of turnover with the people involved and everything. The bottom line is this. We have been very successful at the Idaho National lab as far as cleanup is concerned. We have addressed virtually every problem there successfully. We are not done yet, is that correct mr. Wagner . We are a long ways down the road. Absolutely. It is important and we have had thousands of 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. We have proven you can deal with Nuclear Waste and it can be cleaned up and it can be put into storage. Some semipermanent and some temporary. But it has been done. It is discouraging after sitting here all these years and not really having moved the ball very far down the field. We have done that in idaho. And this is a serious problem. My good friend from new mexico say we have ignored the politics. Gosh, i would really disagree with that. It becomes a political issue every time there is a Prudential Campaign and nevada is in play, that becomes a political issue and it is also true here. I have seen it over the years since the senate race was developed in nevada. There has to be a better way of doing this. And i thank you for holding this hearing and just as doctor wagner has done in idaho and as we have done in idaho, i think there is a solution. But we are going to have to come together to do it and hopefully this bill will start the conversation. Thank you so much. We really dont want this to be dij vu all over again. We have been three congresses now. And in the meantime whether it is yankee, it doesnt make any difference where you are, we havent been able to address the longerterm issues that must be addressed. And folks are looking to us for that legislative direction. And we have an obligation to do it. Just because it is hard and politically charged, or just because it is expensive, 2. 2 million per day that is just going out the window isnt helping anybody. Madam chairman you hit on a good note about the fact that we have an obligation to do this. It is discouraging to see that the Nuclear Energy business is going backwards as described by everyone here. Not only in america and all over the world. People are backing away from Nuclear Energy and plants are closing eerie some have reached the end of their life and some that havent. At the same time there is this tremendous push to get carbon out of the air and quit discharging carbon out of the air. Solar and wind are great generators, but they just dont deliver the load. At some point in time the carbon fuel runs out. And nuclear will be there. It may not be in this century, but future human beings on the planet are going to rely very heavily on nuclear and it is up to us to resolve this bottleneck that is causing so many problems. I appreciate that. I think we all agree that nuclear should be a strong part of our mixed. But as we are seeing plants and facilities that are being shut down, what that then does to the workforce is it dissipates. And we lose the leadership that we once had. We once used to lead when it came to manufacturing of nuclear components. We have basically ceded that and in so many different areas. We cant lose the workforce along with that. Lets go to senator king. Thank you. I experienced and saw a similar thing happen in hydro. Major hydro developments were pretty much done in the 20s. And when we got back into hydro in the 80s a lot of the expertise was gone. A lot of the engineers, there were few firms that really knew how to do it. A lot of the technology was stuck in almost a century old. I find this one of the most difficult issues and i can argue it both ways. Mr. Fettus you present an appealing plan. State based, consent based. I havent finished yet. Dont get excited. State based, consent based, getting rid of exemptions, treating it like other pollutants. However, what if every state says no . Which i think is not unlikely. I lived through in the 80s and effort to even discuss a low Level Nuclear site in maine. And the outcry was unbelievable. What if every state says no . Where are we then . The same 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 pfs site, we actually have a consolidated interims Storage Facility that is licensed in this country that will never receive a grandma voice and the community is well aware of that and it is 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 it is not just about politics. Politics are an expression of the public will. I dont like that someone says we will not let politics block these things. That is the public speaking. I couldnt agree more. We have to take account of that. The way we have done that remarkably in this country with all kinds of different controversial issues are through our bedrock environmental statutes where we have a strong epa that sets a strong foundational floor of protective standards and states have delegated programs whether it is air, water, or something else. If you build a widget factory and you have a set of methyl ethyl dust that gets emitted from your factory. The state can protect its citizens, its environment, its waterways and whatever. Assume for a moment, hypothetical we cant find a state that says yes, we all say no. We are back where we are now. We have 80 temporary site. We have one in maine costing us 10 million per year. Costing the ratepayer through the federal government 10 million per year. That is the fallback. You dont have a countdown clock in front of you. Im running out of time you can do it if you can do it fast. We have a vastly higher chance of having states get to yes if they dont have to take the entire burden. It also solves some transportation issues. They can do regional. Regional is better than one national anyway because of transportation. If the transportation moves to nevada, chicago, kansas city. Almost every congressional district. That would be two or three trains a week for years. To take care what weve got. Yep. Okay. Senator if i can interject. The mac part of the problem with consent is who can sense . If you look at the Current Situation in nevada, the people who live closest to the repository have expressed their political consent for the facility. The lady who sit next to me knows more about it. 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 followed that conundrum today. Understand. What if everyone says no . I dont think that is totally unlikely. Let me ask a technical question. Why is it that we are talking about now forever and always deep holes, mines. We have the sites around the country like in maine yankee that you all have set our safe. Why not use an interim technology instead of having to solve it forever. Something that will allow technology to develop over the next 20 or 30 years and still be safe at a more centralized site. It bothers me that we have 80 sites. I dont think that is secure. There are a couple of things. If you dont have a permanent solution, the ability to condense a particular location as we talked about at this hearing if the main yankee site is safe, why not a similar site, everyone is telling me it is safe. As an interim step until we figure out i dont understand why we have to go from 80 temporary to permanent. Isnt there a step in between . That is what consolidated interims storages. The challenges no one wants to sign up for consolidated interim storage. You mentioned new mexico. The governor wrote a letter. The last governor was in support of interim storage and the Current Governor not. The challenge is because they dont want to become a long term repository. Until there is an idea of a longterm repository, anybody that raises their hands for the consolidated interim storage is de facto. These temporary site are now the de facto longterm sites. Senator, the actual problem we also face in the Obama Administration tried to look at the for hold this bozo in south dakota and it turned into an absolute debacle where this is red state south dakota and it gets precisely to the reasons we have articulated today which is that when you are outside of the major functions, the normal functioning of environmental law, states have no control. So south dakota erupted just as new mexico has, just as nevada has been fighting for 35 years. When you dont fix the institutional framework to allow the process to get to yes, we are never going to solve this. I think it is important to recognize that a private company did conduct deep drill hole test successfully. I think what that points to is the need to get the management of the Waste Program away from the department of energy and put it into a single purpose focused organization that is 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 we are going to proceed except Yucca Mountain is still on a different track that doesnt require consent. Madam chairman, thank you this is a very important hearing. Thank you. Im going to turn to senator manchin. I just want to have clarification because something is not making a lot of sense to me. Youre telling me we are not filled up on site right now. Wherever the Nuclear Plants are they are still able to keep storage. We can continue to expand onsite storage as needed. We are not a critical mass. I always thought we were. I was led to believe we have to do something immediately. We are at several sites. I would like to add however if you have sites like mine where the reactor is fully decommissioned and all the spent fuel has been generated and yet we sit there loaded and ready to be transported. Im going to get to that next. Now you are talking about going to interim sites. That doesnt make any sense to me at all. An interim site has to be transported again to a permanent site. Senator, i would like to add. In my testimony i pointed this out. I would like to note the distance difference between perceived and actual risk. Transportation of Nuclear Material is an area where perceived risk is orders of magnitude greater than perceived risk. It looks like you are creating a Business Model for the interim. Since we have to get to permanent. The advantage of interim is economies of scale. It is just a timing issue. If you decided on a longterm repository site today, by the time you license it, it would still be another 3 to 5 years just to license it today. All of the analysis has been done. There are additional hearings that have to happen. If we are not at capacity why would we have an interim site . That is just to get your license. It will be another decade to build it. You already have 15 years if you wanted to go today. 35 billion is what your obligation is today. In 15 years it will be closer to 50 billion. You have to manage the liability that you are building on a daily basis. The best way to manage that liability is interim storage. Once you start taking the fuel offsite, eventually that Judgment Fund comes down because you dont have to pay the judgment fee because you have taken the fuel in an interim state. Mac how far along are we on interim sites . We are nowhere. If we start today with interim or permanent, it is the same. There are two sides that have applications. But whether they will go forward or can truck those cites is an open question. There are applications. But as senator heinrich entered into the record there will be ferocious pushback for all the reasons i articulated today. I couldnt agree more with the lack of wisdom with pursuing interim site that will become a de facto repository that doesnt solve what you are trying to solve which is the longterm trajectory of how to solve this. So the advantage of an interim site is that if you provide security and monitoring at one location versus dozens of locations, there are economies of scale advantages for doing that if you are doing it for long period of time. That is correct. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for having this important hearing. I can say for the state of washington theres probably no more important discussion than the cleanup and disposal of highlevel Nuclear Waste. For a state that did what it was asked of us and the people that were there in the development of hanford to the people who have done their best to clean up, we want to get answers to this. I have been listening to most of the hearing in and out of other things. But i agree with senator alexander that moving forward is a very necessary and positive thing. And i would say count me in the camp of the belief that consensusbased approaches are more likely to generate quicker results than the legal and long process that we have seen continue to play out. And that is even to say if you pass legislation, it doesnt mean you have cleared legal hurt is that continue to stymie us in these debates. So, one of the things that senator alexander and others have referred to in some witnesses is the Blue Ribbon Committee and their discussion. Our former colleague the late pete, a member of that. One of the thing i liked about the Commission Recommendations as they thought that separating commercial and defense waste and dealing with that separately might be one of those nearterm opportunities to make more progress. Mr. Fettus or anybody else have a thought on continuing to look at that as a path forward . I think that is a secondary issue senator. It is not secondary to us. We are the ones waiting. I forgot to put the big moniker out here. This is the largest Nuclear Waste cleanup site in the entire world. It is complex and hard. We are making progress, but we need to get the highlevel waste out. Lets come up with a process of moving the defense waste out. The complexity of senator feinsteins concerns on the commercial side take a long time to figure out. Just like hanford is cleaning up some easy to clean up things and getting to harder things, why cant we move forward on defense . The challenge with defense waste getting to a repository will be the same as the challenge with commercial spent nuclear fuel. If you dont have the statutory and regulatory process that can allow consent in getting to yes, you wont solve it. We are saying the same thing. I want a consent process. Im just saying streamline defense so it can get faster as you deal with these others . If you can get all the waste out of the tanks get it vitrified and get it ready, that would be great. This is a day to day task for us in the state of washington. We are 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 the environmental director. I will tell you as we fight every time on some idea that is shortchanging the cleanup process or an idea, we are desperate to move defense waste in a way that people are saying we wanted and we will take it and we want to clear ideas and see if we can move forward. Thank you. Senator lazo. I want to thank you for holding this important hearing this morning. This congress and committee has discussed exciting and innovative ways to discuss Climate Change. We have discussed Carbon Capture technologies and advanced Nuclear Power and Nuclear Energy. In several hearings witnesses have stressed that Nuclear Energy is an essential part of our clean energy portfolio. If we are serious about addressing Climate Change we must be serious about preserving and expanding the use of Nuclear Energy. We cannot do it without Nuclear Energy. The lack of Nuclear Waste management programs limits the use and expansion of Nuclear Power. In may i shared an Environment Public Works Committee hearing on my discussion draft legislation that would complement senator murkowski and senator alexanders Nuclear Waste legislation. Eight states right now have new bands 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. Im glad this committee is holding this hearing to address these challenges. Ms. Korsnick and mr. Nesbit, american ratepayers have paid 15 billion to site, study, and design a repository for the Yucca Mountain site. With this funding 200 million was to the state of nevada to develop their own scientific and technical analysis. 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 to have their hearing. The process will require that it goes through the judges and through the licensing process. For all of this money that has been expended, lets understand the science and licensing process and work ourselves through it. In the future we might need another longterm repository. Lets learn everything we can and understand the science and the licensing process for the one that is so far along. Following up on that mr. Nesbit, you know that the Yucca Mountain licensing review is valuable. It is valuable to inform safety regulations for different repository site. Is it also important to complete the licensing process to build trust . I believe with everything that ms. Korsnick said. There are other reasons why it is beneficial to move forward 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 it isnt the right way to do it then we need to find it. We need to go to the process to demonstrate the ability to license a geological repository for used feel fuel and we will learn a great number of lessons from that. Having invested 15 billion already, i think it only makes sense to get a little more return for that huge investment. The only other thing i will say along those lines is it is the law that we do that. And i think that if we demonstrate that we are going to follow the law here, if we change the law and do Something Different later than people believe we will follow the law there, too. Back to you ms. Korsnick, like senator murkowskis bill, my draft allows partner with private companies to store vent fuel on an interim basis. The draft requires interim Storage Program to proceed at the same time as the Nuclear Regulatory commissions review of the Yucca Mountain license application. Do you support the requirement that interim storage is connected to tangible action of interim repository storage . We think it enables that interim storage because people will see you have this path for longterm answer and im happy to participate in your shortterm answer because i understand this pathway exist. Mac finally to doctor wagner. The Idaho National lab is a leader in developing advanced nuclear technologies. It is also the proposed site in the nations first small module reactor that will provide power to the intermountain west. Advanced Nuclear Reactors can increase safety, decrease cost, and decreased Nuclear Waste. 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. There are a variety of concepts that can significantly increase fuel utilization. There are also different concepts that closed the fuel cycle to reprocessing. There will always be of some small amount of material that requires deep geological repository. Thank you. I was going to ask a question about what is the number. How many additional Storage Facilities, longterm repositories do we need. As i am thinking about that, we dont know because of what you have said mr. Wagner moving forward. What will the future of nuclear bring to us in terms of advanced nuclear and the prospect for less waste . We have talked about reprocessing. I think we know what we know today but the innovation that i think is out there is still evolving if you will. The view into the deep boreholes, we may be looking at yucca as this is the design for what we need 20 years ago. But is that the design that we need Going Forward. So, i think we need to factor that into the calculus. The question for those of you who have looked at the legislation that we have laid down here 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 the Administration Needs to move forward on . Do we need to do more . We have been talking about this whole consent based process and the interim and moving to permanent, we 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. Martin . Yes, senator if i could. Madam chairman, a couple things i want to reflect on in your question. I have this conversation with marias predecessor six or seven years ago. When the myocytes and the other decommissioning Plant Coalition cites where the poster children of this problem. We operated the plant, decommissioned the plant and we are waiting. I told him at that point in time it was lest focused on both at nei and the industry than today, but i did tell him on the path we were at then and potentially the path now more than 50 of our Nuclear Fleet will be in the same condition i am in before we solve this problem if we keep trying the same thing we have been trying for the last 20 years. I dont think he believed me. But if he was watching it today with the number of plants that have shut down or announced shutdown, my estimate will not be far off, even if we get moving from here. So, it is a clear problem in a clear issue. I think senate 1234 although we have comments and we made recommendations on changes is a good starting point for us to Work Together to figure out how to resolve this one. But we have been doing for the last 20 years is not going to work. And i would also like to acknowledge senator king and his question about are we really thinking about this the right way . I think that needs to be asked. I know there are scientists and others that may have a difference of opinion here, but i do think we have to challenge ourselves. Did we really plot the right course with our regional plan for a repository . And is there an alternative way to think about this by consolidating the waste. Looking at either reprocessing or other technical advancements. Are there options other countries are looking at. Take the blinders off and look at this more holistically. Senator, i would like to add a couple things. One is the American Nuclear society does support continued research into advanced Nuclear Energy systems and advanced Waste Management techniques. There are private companies out there that are working this area as well. I think the question of where that needs to reside, whether in your bill or other legislation is a good question. I think 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 i think they need to continue that work. Mr. Fettus . The Blue Ribbon Committee the offramp is past time for the offramp on recycling of spent fuel in this country. It is both dangerous and security concerns. It creates more waste and it will not solve the waste problem. No country has used it to solve their waste problem. And most of all it is economical and drc identifies it that it likely never will be. Doctor wagner you want to comment to that . I would just comment that we dont currently recycle because it is not economical. One of the many benefits talked about with respect to consolidated interim storage is that whether in time it becomes economical with substantial growth in Nuclear Energy or other technologies for which disposal and design of repositories come into play a consolidated interim Storage Facility allows you to make progress to move forward on this issue while some of those other things may or may not come to be other options for the material. We just had a boat start. I would like to allow my colleagues an opportunity for a last word if they would like. Senator tran 19 . Thank you madam chair. Mr. Nesbit thank you for being here. These arguments are the same arguments that have been made for the last 30 years. You make an argument of Yucca Mountain being utilized to learn from science and that is why it should be moved forward. I think we should learn from Yucca Mountain and there are no barriers that make it safe. If we were to learn from the science of Yucca Mountain which would require 40 more miles of tunnel to dig mcconnell to bury the canisters which by the way the same canisters that are utilized for Yucca Mountain in the study cant be utilized because the industry doesnt use the same type of canisters but it is so hot once it is toward and it leaks like a sieve because 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 in that facility once the canister is there until 90 years later and it cannot be placed by man so you have to build the robotics to put the titanium drip shield to protect the water that goes into the canisters that would go to the aquifer below, is that the science you are saying you would learn from that you should not have in any other repository . What i was referring to was completing the licensing process and having the concerns such as you just expressed evaluated by a panel of experts and ruled on in a manner that we can learn from them if indeed we go on to develop other repositories elsewhere. Why do we need that if we already have that information . We spent 19 billion on the fivemile exploratory tunnel to see daddy the geology and hydrology. We know because it is a volcanic tough and that theres fractures in the rock we know it will leak. That is why the drip shields are part of your plan for the canisters that will be placed there. We have we already have the information that shows it is not safe so why are we wasting another 30 years with 218 contentions by the state and lawsuits against your department, against the department of energy instead of looking forward in a comprehensive approach and utilizing the science to help us understand moving forward and the new technology that is out there. That is all im looking for. I would love the industry to come to the table and work with us on that. The key question at Yucca Mountain isnt whether it is built in volcanic tuft but whether it can or cannot comply with very conservative Environmental Standards that were laid down to protect the health of the public and that is the question that would be resolved in a licensing hearing before fair, impartial, qualified judges . I disagree. But now that i have more time, let me add more to this. I think for purposes of science and i would ask the scientist here, with the intent to decrease any unexpected opportunities with respect to science, you want a place that is safe that you will decrease any vulnerabilities with respect to the deep geological site instead of adding to vulnerabilities by man mage alleged safety barriers, barriers. You are going to decrease those vulnerabilities and isnt that what you are really looking for for any type of site . A deep geologic site , i dont know if you have a response to that. I could not agree more. The idea behind any geological depository is defined geologic media that can isolate for the late time. Its dangerous. The problem with Yucca Mountain project has repeatedly run into is whenever it ran into the technical challenges that you so accurately described, the response was to weaken the standard to allow the site to be licensed. We dont look at the upcoming atomic safety and licensing board proceeding. If it were to ever go forward as a fault exercise in having the state having a thursday if i could add because were talking about drip shield, we know that there was an analysis done in 2008 and they found that the repository was capable of meeting the regulatory requirements without the drip shield, that they had suspicion drip shields were designed as an additional redundant layer of protection. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. Drip stills are there. Thats the point. You were supposed to be reducing those types of additional redundancies are you supposed to be having the natural redundancies there and then adding them as necessary. Again i am all for moving forward. I think we have to have a solution here. I think we have to be smart about it. Its going to be there for millions of years for generations to come for our children grandchildren we have to do right by them. We have to be coming together particularly in this country to address this issue so thank you madam chair. 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 defy the skeptics and to change the status quo which quite honestly has been going on for far too long. I dont want senator rich to be sitting here in this committee 5 years from now in a similar hearing and saying i remember back in 2019 we were talking about it and it was the same it was when i first came to the committee. We have an obligation, weve got good folks working on things so lets try to address this very longstanding problem with that the committee stands adjourned. Cspans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up friday morning, were getting your reaction to the Second Democratic president ial debate. Join the conversation all morning with your phone calls emails Facebook Comments and tweets. Be sure to watch washington journal on sunday morning at nine eastern as we mark the 50th anniversary of the Cuyahoga River fire, an event that shed light on Water Pollution and helped form the clean water act. Friday lawyers and legal scholars review the Supreme Court noteworthy decisions from the most recent term. Live from the American Constitution Society starting at 9 30 a. M. Eastern here on c span three. Later the Washington Council of lawyers host a discussion with journalists to review the Supreme Court term and how it was covered by the media. Live it 1230 eastern also here on cspan three. You can also follow live online at cspan. Org or listen live on the three the free cspan radio app. Former special Counsel Robert Mueller at the house intelligence and judiciary committees on wednesday, july 17 to testify in open session about his report into russian interference in the 2016 election. Watch live coverage on cspan3 online at cspan. Org or listen on the free cspan radio app. Up next Surgeon General dr. Jerome adams on federal efforts to stem opioid use and abuse. Dr. Adams was a speaker at the Pew Charitable trust and washington d. C. Where he highlighted different ways to curb and best combat deaths attributed op