U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–996 PDF 2017

H.R. lll, THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 26, 2017 

Serial No. 115–26 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, prepared statement ........................................................................ 122 

WITNESSES

Dean Heller, a United States Senator from the State of Nevada ........................ 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Ruben J. Kihuen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada ....... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada ................. 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Jacky Rosen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada .............. 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Joe Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina .... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Edward F. Sproat III, Former Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, Department of Energy ................................................................. 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 156 

Anthony J. O’Donnell, Chairman, Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues—Waste 

Disposal, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners ............. 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 159 

Edwin Lyman, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Global Security Program, Union of 

Concerned Scientists ............................................................................................ 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 162 

Steven P. Nesbit, Chairman, Back-end Working Group, United States Nuclear 

Infrastructure Council ......................................................................................... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 165 

Mark McManus, General President, United Association of Union Plumbers, 

Pipefitters, Welders, and Service Technicians ................................................... 88 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 

Page

IV 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Discussion Draft, H.R. lll, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Acts 

of 2017,1 submitted by Mr. Shimkus 

Letter of April 24, 2017, from Judy Treichel, Executive Director, Nevada 

Nuclear Waste Task Force, et al., to House Members, submitted by Ms. 

Titus ...................................................................................................................... 123

Letter of April 26, 2017, from Geoff Freeman, President and CEO, American 

Gaming Association, to Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Tonko, submitted by Ms. 

Titus ...................................................................................................................... 131

H.R. 456, the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act, submitted by Ms. Rosen . 132 

Southern Nevada Map of Yucca Transportation Route, submitted by Ms. 

Rosen ..................................................................................................................... 135 

Letter of April 26, 2017, from Matthew McKenzie, Nuclear Program Director 

and Senior Scientist, and Geoffrey Fettus, Senior Attorney, Nuclear Program, National Resources Defense Council, to Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Tonko, 

submitted by Mr. Tonko ...................................................................................... 136 

Letter of April 21, 2017, from Governor Brian Sandoval, Nevada, to Mr. 

Shimkus and Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ....................................... 141 

Letter of April 21, 2016, from Senator Dean Heller to Mr. Shimkus, submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus .................................................................................................... 143 

Letter of April 24, 2017, from Dan Schinhofen, Chairman, Board of County 

Commissioners, Nye County, Nevada, to Mr. Walden, et al., submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus .................................................................................................... 145 

Letter of April 24, 2017, from Steve Curtis, Past President, American Nuclear 

Society, Nevada Section, to Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........... 147 

Editorial of November 21, 2016, ‘‘Trump, Congress should open $15B Yucca 

Mountain,’’ Albuquerque Journal, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........................ 148 

Editorial of April 11, 2017, ‘‘Revive Yucca Mountain: Illinois has more nuclear 

waste than any other state, all of it in temporary storage,’’ Chicago Tribune, 

submitted by Mr. Shimkus .................................................................................. 149 

Article of March 21, 2017, ‘‘Trump’s budget could help get rid of the nuclear 

waste along the San Onofre coastline,’’ by Rob Nikolewski, Los Angeles 

Times, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ..................................................................... 152 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20170426/105877/BILLS115pih-DiscussionDraftofHR——— 

theNuclearWastePolicyAmendmentsActof2017.pdf. 

(1) 

H.R. lll, THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2017 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, McKinley, Barton, 

Murphy, Blackburn, Harper, Olson, Johnson, Flores, Hudson, 

Cramer, Walberg, Carter, Walden (ex officio), Tonko, Ruiz, Peters, 

Green, DeGette, McNerney, Dingell, and Matsui. 

Staff present: Grace Appelbe, Legislative Clerk, Energy and Environment; Ray Baum, Staff Director; Karen Christian, General 

Counsel; Zack Dareshori, Staff Assistant; Wyatt Ellertson, Research Associate, Energy and Environment; Adam Fromm, Director 

of Outreach and Coalitions; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, 

Energy and Environment; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor, 

Energy; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; 

Christopher Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, 

Energy; Evan Viau, Staff Assistant; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor 

for External Affairs; Everett Winnick, Director of Information 

Technology; Andrew Zach, Professional Staff Member, Environment; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; David Cwiertny, Minority Energy and Environment Fellow; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority 

Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; 

Jessica Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member Services Coordinator; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Matt 

Schumacher, Minority Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Director; 

and Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Subcommittee on Environment will now come 

to order. Can we have someone close the back door, and Members 

please take your seats. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 

minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Good morning, and welcome to our hearing to receive testimony 

on the discussion draft titled the Nuclear Waste Policy AmendVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
2 

ments Act of 2017. For over 50 years, the Federal Government has 

funded activities to fulfill its obligations for permanent disposal of 

nuclear waste. In 2008, after decades of scientific research, engineering design, and technical review of the Yucca Mountain site, 

the Department of Energy achieved a major milestone when it submitted the Yucca Mountain Repository license application to the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review. 

Another milestone was achieved in 2014, when the NRC’s independent scientific review of the license application found that the 

site is expected to meet all regulatory requirements up to 1 million 

years. This meant that the NRC’s technical staff found that the 

system, DOE, and its National Laboratory’s design could protect 

the public by preventing radiation at the site from surpassing natural background levels for 10,000 years, and from surpassing EPA 

standards for 1 million years. 

The NRC analysis determined the expected annual release is 

about equal to a cross-country airplane flight, and less radiation 

than we all receive from working here in the Capitol. Despite the 

positive safety assessments, the process toward the next legal milestone, adjudication and final NRC license decision had already 

stopped because the previous administration terminated, and I 

would say illegally, DOE’s Yucca Mountain program. 

In response to the situation, the committee heard from scores of 

expert witnesses over the past 6 years about challenges and opportunities to advance our Nation’s nuclear waste management policy. 

This discussion draft reflects what we learned through those hearings, oversight activities, and related work. However, it is just that, 

a discussion draft, and today we start the process of taking input 

from all stakeholders on this draft. 

The discussion draft amends certain provisions of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act to provide for a favorable path forward to dispose 

of spent nuclear fuel for our legacy, to end our legacy defense material. Key provisions in the draft will, number one, address issues 

identified by the NRC to successfully adjudicate the pending license application for the Yucca Mountain project and permit certain supporting infrastructure support activities to move forward. 

Two, remove the existing requirement that Nevada waive its 

right to disapprove of the process in order to enter an agreement 

with the Department of Energy to mitigate potential impacts associated with the repository. 

Three, provide the Department of Energy authority to move forward with a temporary fuel storage facility, including the ability to 

enter into contract with a private entity for that purpose, while assuring that these interim efforts do not compete with resources to 

complete the permanent repository licensing. 

Four, strengthen leadership within the Department of Energy to 

manage the multigenerational infrastructure project, and clarify 

that the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is the 

sole, statutorily designated office to manage activities under the 

law. 

Five, reform a broken financing system to protect ratepayers and 

ensure that previous investments for nuclear waste disposal activities will be available when needed. 

3 

And six, protect our Nation’s priority national security programs 

by ensuring previous appropriations to dispose of defense nuclear 

waste are taken into account. 

A brief note on Nevada’s concerns. On Friday, Governor Sandoval 

reasserted the State of Nevada’s long-established opposition to 

Yucca in a letter to the committee. I recognize the State has filed 

over 200 contentions on the Yucca Mountain license application objecting to certain provisions of DOE’s proposals. I believe it is important and right that Nevada make its case in public before the 

appropriate body, and have its legal and technical challenges adjudicated impartially. To do this, the discussion draft would enable 

the resumption of the licensing process and provide the opportunity 

for the State’s technical objections to be adjudicated in the NRC 

process. This would benefit all parties involved, and could, in fact, 

strengthen the ultimate license for repository. Also, in keeping with 

our practice of listening to Nevada stakeholders, today on a Members panel, we welcome the testimony of two new Nevada representatives, Mr. Kihuen and Ms. Rosen. 

The committee also welcomes back Representative Titus, who we 

heard from last July on this important issue. And I look forward 

to hearing from my former colleague in the House, Dean Heller, 

who is now the State’s senior Senator. We will also hear from Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who will speak to a discussion draft provision that reflects language from his bill, H.R. 433, 

the Sensible Nuclear Waste Disposition Act. 

Let me also welcome all the witnesses on the second panel. In 

particular, Ward Sproat, who will outline critical steps for the program. Mr. Sproat served as Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management during a critical time, and successfully 

led the Department’s efforts to complete and submit the repository 

license application. 

Maryland Public Service Commissioner Tony O’Donnell is here 

on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to represent the American ratepayers. As we will hear, 

ratepayers have given DOE over $40 billion to pay for this 

multigenerational capital infrastructure project, and yet, the Federal Government has not fulfilled its legal obligations. Until Congress addresses perpetual problems with the Nuclear Waste Fund, 

project management challenges will remain. 

Our goal here is to identify the right reforms to ensure we can 

fulfill the Government’s obligation to dispose of our Nation’s nuclear material. We have the perspectives today to help us do just 

that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Good morning and welcome to our hearing to receive testimony on the discussion 

draft titled, ‘‘The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017.’’ 

For over 50 years, the Federal Government has funded activities to fulfill its obligations for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. In 2008, after decades of scientific 

research, engineering, design, and technical review of the Yucca Mountain site, the 

Department of Energy achieved a major milestone when it submitted the Yucca 

Mountain repository License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 

review. 

4 

Another milestone was achieved in 2014, when the NRC’s independent scientific 

review of the license application found that the site is expected to meet all regulatory requirements up to a million years. This meant that NRC’s technical staff 

found that the system DOE and its national laboratories designed could protect the 

public by preventing radiation at the site from surpassing natural background levels 

for 10,000 years—and from surpassing EPA’s standards for a million years. The 

NRC analysis determined the expected annual release is about equal to a crosscountry airplane flight and less radiation than we all receive from working here in 

the Capitol. 

Despite the positive safety assessments, the process toward the next legal milestone—adjudication and final NRC license decisions—had already stopped, because 

the previous administration terminated DOE’s Yucca Mountain Program. 

In response to this situation, this committee heard from scores of expert witnesses 

over the past 6 years about challenges and opportunities to advance our Nation’s 

nuclear waste management policy. This discussion draft reflects what we learned 

through those hearings, oversight activities and related work. However, it is just 

that: a discussion draft. And today we start of process of taking input from all 

stakeholders on this draft. 

The discussion draft amends certain provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

to provide for a favorable path forward to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and our legacy defense material. Key provisions in the draft will: 

1. Address issues identified by the NRC to successfully adjudicate the pending license application for the Yucca Mountain Project and permit certain supporting infrastructure support activities to move forward; 

2. Remove the existing requirement that Nevada waive its right to disapprove of 

the process in order to enter into an agreement with the Department of Energy to 

mitigate potential impacts associated with the repository; 

3. Provide the Department of Energy authority to move forward with a temporary 

fuel storage facility, including the ability to enter into a contract with a private entity for that purpose, while assuring that these interim efforts do not compete with 

resources to complete the permanent repository licensing; 

4. Strengthen leadership within Department of Energy to manage a 

multigenerational infrastructure project and clarify that the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is the sole statutorily designated office to manage activities under the law; 

5. Reform a broken financing system to protect ratepayers and assure that previous investments for nuclear waste disposal activities will be available when needed; and, 

6. Protect our Nation’s priority national security programs by assuring previous 

appropriations to dispose of defense nuclear waste are taken into account. 

A brief note on Nevada’s concerns. On Friday, Governor Sandoval reasserted the 

State of Nevada’s long established opposition to Yucca in a letter to the committee. 

I recognize the State has filed over 200 contentions on the Yucca Mountain license 

application objecting to certain provisions of DOE’s proposal. I believe it is important and right that Nevada make its case in public, before the appropriate body, 

and have its legal and technical challenges adjudicated impartially. 

To do this, the discussion draft would enable the resumption of the licensing process and provide the opportunity for the State’s technical objections to be adjudicated 

in the NRC process. This would benefit all parties involved and could in fact 

strengthen the ultimate license for a repository. 

Also, in keeping with our practice of listening to Nevada stakeholders, today on 

a Members panel we welcome the testimony of two new Nevada Representatives, 

Mr. Kihuen and Ms. Rosen. The committee also welcomes back Representative 

Titus, who we heard from last July on this important issue, and looks forward to 

hearing from my former colleague in the House, Dean Heller, who is now the State’s 

senior Senator. We will also hear from Congressman Wilson of South Carolina, who 

will speak to a discussion draft provision that reflects language from his bill H.R. 

433, the Sensible Nuclear Waste Disposition Act. 

Let me also welcome all the witnesses on the second panel, in particular Ward 

Sproat, who will outline critical steps for the program. Mr. Sproat served as the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management during a critical time 

and successfully led the Department’s efforts to complete and submit the repository 

license application. 

Maryland Public Service Commissioner Tony O’Donnell is here on behalf of the 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to represent the American 

ratepayers. 

As we will hear, ratepayers have given DOE over $40 billion to pay for this 

multigenerational capital infrastructure project and yet the Federal Government 

5 

has not fulfilled its legal obligations. Until Congress addresses perpetual problems 

with the Nuclear Waste Fund, project management challenges will remain. 

Our goal here is to identify the right reforms to ensure we can fulfill the Government’s obligation to dispose of our Nation’s nuclear material. We have the perspectives today to help us do just that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. My time has expired. The Chair now recognizes 

the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know this is an issue 

about which you are passionate, so I welcome the opportunity to 

hear more views on this discussion draft. I also want to welcome 

our colleagues, Representatives Titus, certainly Kihuen, and Rosen, 

and Wilson for joining us this morning. Welcome also and thank 

you to Senator Heller for joining us from the Senate side. 

Mr. Chair, I appreciate you accommodating Mr. Kihuen’s request 

to hold a member panel. Last year, we heard from some of our Nevadan colleagues, including Ms. Titus, at nuclear waste hearing. 

Since then, we have welcomed two new members from the Nevadan 

delegation to the House, and it is important for us to hear their 

views on this very important issue. 

Similarly, since our last hearing, we have had a change in administration. President Trump’s initial budget proposal includes a 

$120 million effort to restart licensing activities for the Yucca 

Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, and to initiate a robust interim storage program. Clearly, this is a change in policy from the 

previous administration which had not requested funding for the 

Yucca license application for a number of years and began to develop a consent-based approach. It is, indeed, important to get this 

administration’s feedback on this bill, as well as a better sense of 

its policy on the future of America’s nuclear waste. 

I also want to highlight a concerning trend. This is the third legislative hearing this year in this subcommittee where we have not 

had a witness or feedback from the administration. We need to 

hear from them and should not rush forward without having a better understanding of their position. Today, there are over 72,000 

metric tons of waste, which is as a number expected to grow to 

139,000 metric tons by 2067. More and more reactors are shutting 

down. Many of them are going through decommissioning early. 

There is no question our Nation has serious nuclear waste management challenges. As we will hear, some of these are political, 

but there are also technical and transportation issues. 

I understand these are very difficult challenges, but if we continue to ignore the problem, taxpayers from every State will pay 

the price. In December of 2015, CBO testified before this subcommittee on the Federal Government’s liabilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Courts have determined that DOE has 

breached contractual obligations under this statute. DOE was 

scheduled to start removing waste by 1998. After the Government 

missed this deadline, utilities began suing for damages, which have 

been paid from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund. At the time of our 

previous hearing, those payments totaled $5.3 billion, which has 

6 

only continued to grow. DOE estimated that if it could begin to accept waste within the next 10 years, liabilities would ultimately 

total $29 billion. 

So, I understand the urgency of this issue, and I understand the 

Chair’s genuine desire to help communities dealing with waste and 

protect taxpayers from any further need to make payments from 

the Treasury, but I am not sure that the continued strong linkage 

between Yucca and an interim solution is the best option to limit 

further taxpayer liability. 

The draft before us takes a number of steps to solve our Nation’s 

nuclear waste problems, some of which, I think, are positive, but 

many provisions will not bring us to a solution any quicker. The 

bill authorizes interim storage that can be operated by DOE or a 

private contractor, but it prohibits any interim projects from moving forward until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes a 

final decision on a construction authorization for a permanent repository. We know there are companies interested in pursuing interim storage, but this link may create unnecessary uncertainty to 

their financing and business model. It would be possible for us to 

consider the merits of interim storage in a long-term repository on 

separate but parallel tracks. 

Also, I know many Members, many Members, care about States’ 

rights, and those from the West are especially sensitive about 

water rights. This bill would declare the construction of a nuclear 

waste repository a beneficial use of water. I find this troubling. It 

is not an issue we need to consider at this time. 

There are many members on this committee, on both sides of the 

aisle, that would like to see a fair outcome that acknowledges these 

challenges, finds workable solutions, and protects the American 

taxpayers. But ultimately, if you have confidence in the new administration—and, frankly, I do not, but there are many on the 

majority side that do—you should trust them to move the ball forward on a long-term, nuclear waste repository. 

Regardless of the text before us today, a permanent solution will 

take many years and be mired by litigation. In the meantime, we 

may want to examine the steps Congress can take to start resolving the issue now. I am not wholly convinced that this draft, as 

currently written, would accomplish that. With that, I thank you, 

Mr. Chair, and I look forward to this morning’s discussion, again, 

welcoming our colleagues. And with that I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know this is an issue you are passionate about, so 

I welcome the opportunity to hear more views on this discussion draft. 

I also want to welcome our colleagues Reps. Titus, Kihuen, Rosen, and Wilson for 

joining us this morning. And Senator Heller for making the trip from the Senate 

side. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you accommodating Mr. Kihuen’s request to hold a 

Member Panel. Last year we heard from some of our Nevadan colleagues, including 

Ms. Titus, at a nuclear waste hearing. 

Since then, we have welcomed two new Members from the Nevadan delegation 

to the House. It is important for us to hear their views. 

Similarly, since our last hearing, we have had a change in administration. 

7 

President Trump’s initial budget proposal includes a $120 million effort to ‘‘restart 

licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and to initiate 

a robust interim storage program.’’ 

Clearly, this is a change in policy from the previous administration, which had 

not requested funding for the Yucca license application for a number of years and 

began to develop a ‘‘consent-based’’ approach. 

It is indeed important to get this administration’s feedback on this bill as well 

as a better sense of their policy on the future of America’s nuclear waste. 

I also want to highlight a concerning trend. 

This is the third legislative hearing this year in this subcommittee where we have 

not had a witness or feedback from the administration. We need to hear from them 

and should not rush forward without having a better understanding of its position. 

Today, there is over 72,000 metric tons of waste, which is expected to grow as 

a number to 139,000 metric tons by 2067. More and more reactors are shutting 

down—many of them are going through decommissioning early. 

There is no question our Nation has serious nuclear waste challenges. As we will 

hear, some of these are political, but there are also technical and transportation 

issues. 

I understand these are very difficult challenges, but if we continue to ignore the 

problem, taxpayers—from every State—will pay the price. 

In December 2015, CBO testified before this subcommittee on the Federal Government’s liabilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

Courts have determined that DOE has breached contractual obligations under 

this statute. DOE was scheduled to start removing waste by 1998. 

After the Government missed this deadline, utilities began suing for damages, 

which have been paid from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund. 

At the time of our previous hearing, those payments totaled $5.3 billion, which 

has only continued to grow. 

DOE estimated that if it could begin to accept waste within the next 10 years, 

liabilities would ultimately total $29 billion. 

So I understand the urgency of the issue. And I understand the Chair’s genuine 

desire to help communities dealing with waste and protect taxpayers from any further need to make payments from the Treasury. 

But I am not sure that the continued strong linkage between Yucca and an interim solution is the best option to limit further taxpayer liability. 

The draft before us takes a number of steps to solve our Nation’s nuclear waste 

problems. Some of which I think are positive, but many provisions will not bring 

us to a solution any quicker. 

The bill authorizes interim storage that can be operated by DOE or a private contractor, but it prohibits any interim projects from moving forward until the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission makes a final decision on a construction authorization for 

a permanent repository. 

We know there are companies interested in pursuing interim storage, but this 

link may create unnecessary uncertainty to their financing and business model. 

It would be possible for us to consider the merits of interim storage and a longterm repository on separate but parallel tracks. 

Also, I know many Members care about States’ rights. And those from the West 

are especially sensitive about water rights. 

This bill would declare the construction of a nuclear waste repository a beneficial 

use of water. I find this troubling. It is not an issue we need to consider at this 

time. 

There are many Members on this committee, on both sides of the aisle, that would 

like to see a fair outcome that acknowledges these challenges, finds workable solutions, and protects the American taxpayers. 

But ultimately, if you have confidence in the new administration—and, frankly, 

I do not, but there are many on the majority’s side that do—you should trust them 

to move the ball forward on a long-term nuclear waste repository. 

Regardless of the text before us today, a permanent solution will take many years 

and be mired by litigation. 

In the meantime, we may want to examine the steps Congress can take to start 

resolving the issue now. I am not wholly convinced that this draft, as currently written, would accomplish that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this morning’s discussion. With that, 

I yield back. 

8 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walden, for 

5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman not only for holding this 

hearing, but also for your diligent work on this matter for many, 

many years. I am glad that you are moving forward on this. It is 

an important task, and I want to welcome our colleagues from Nevada and South Carolina for being here as well. We look forward 

to hearing your testimony. I know it is important to have a member panel, and so we welcome what you have to say. 

Just this year, an Oregon-based nuclear technology company, 

NuScale, submitted a new design for a small modular reactor to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review and approval. It is 

a first-of-a-kind design that could operate more efficiently than existing plans. It would provide future optionality in design and construction for utilities to meet energy demand. However, while we 

look forward to advanced nuclear technology development, it is long 

overdue that we solve this waste issue. Again, when it comes to the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as you know, the Government established a fee tied to the generation of nuclear energy in order to finance the cost of multigenerational disposal programs. Along with 

33 other States, Oregon ratepayers fulfilled their financial obligations under the law, paid the Department of Energy $160 million 

to dispose of that commercial spent fuel. 

The Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, located in northwest Oregon, 

stopped producing electricity in 1993 with the expectation that 

DOE would then begin to remove the spent fuel in 1998, as required by Federal law. However, that has never happened. And 

since the plant’s decommissioning activities were completed in 

2007, only spent nuclear fuel remains stranded at that site. That 

hampers any redevelopment efforts surrounding that site. That 

story is repeated across the Nation in States and communities 

awaiting DOE to fulfill its obligations and dispose of spent fuel. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and Secretary Perry for 

taking the time at different times to go out to Yucca and review 

that. I commend you for looking at interim storage as well, and I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Nuclear energy is and must remain a vital component of our Nation’s diverse, reliable, and clean electricity portfolio. Numerous companies are seeking to develop new 

nuclear technologies to power our Nation’s homes and factories for another generation. 

Just this year, an Oregon-based nuclear technology company, NuScale, submitted 

a new design for a small modular reactor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

for review and approval. This first-of-a-kind design could operate more efficiently 

than existing plants and would provide future optionality in design and construction 

for utilities to meet energy demand. However, while we look forward to advanced 

nuclear technology development, it is long overdue to solve our Nation’s nuclear 

waste disposal challenge. 

Thirty-five years ago, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act into law. 

This law was the culmination of decades of experience by the Federal Government 

9 

to develop a policy to dispose of high-level radioactive waste and commercial spent 

nuclear fuel permanently. Some of the material was created during the Manhattan 

Project and through the Cold War at the Hanford site, a vital national security facility located on the Columbia River about 40 miles north of my district. Today, after 

years of cleanup activity and with more work remaining, this nuclear material still 

sits on a vibrant waterway waiting to be transported to the Yucca Mountain repository in the Nevada desert. 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also established a fee tied to the generation of nuclear energy in order to finance the costs of a multigenerational disposal program. 

Along with 33 other States, Oregon ratepayers fulfilled their financial obligations 

under the law and paid the Department of Energy over $160 million to dispose of 

commercial spent nuclear fuel. 

The Trojan nuclear power plant located in northwest Oregon stopped producing 

electricity in 1993, with the expectation that DOE would begin to remove the spent 

fuel in 1998, as was required by law. However, that never happened and since the 

plant’s decommissioning activities were completed in 2007, only spent nuclear fuel 

remains stranded at the site, hampering any redevelopment efforts surrounding the 

site. This story is repeated across the Nation, with States and communities waiting 

for DOE to fulfill its obligations and dispose of the spent fuel. 

The Federal Government has recently been at an impasse in efforts to advance 

our Nation’s nuclear waste management program. The consequences of this impasse 

are significant and worsen our Nation’s fiscal health. The costs to the American taxpayer to pay for the Federal Government’s delay in opening the Yucca Mountain repository have nearly doubled to $30 billion since 2009 and that figure continues to 

escalate rapidly. 

A thoughtful and deliberate legislative process produces good legislation. This 

subcommittee has received testimony from over 30 witnesses to develop and inform 

this discussion draft. Subcommittee Chairman Shimkus led a trip to the Yucca 

Mountain site with our colleagues to see firsthand the remote site adjacent to the 

isolated Nevada National Security Site. The committee also sent numerous oversight letters to the Department of Energy to seek information regarding approaches 

to managing our Nation’s nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. While the previous 

administration was kicking the can down the road and avoiding this difficult issue, 

we were working towards a solution. 

The time to fix this problem is now, and today’s hearing on the discussion draft 

will initiate the process of receiving feedback from stakeholders on legislative language. I welcome the testimony this morning and look forward to providing a path 

forward to solve this significant national challenge. 

Mr. WALDEN. I would now like to yield a minute to my colleague 

from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, and then I will yield to Mr. Barton the remaining time after that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am appreciative that each of you are here today before us. This is an issue 

that we have looked at previously, and will return to. Nuclear 

power does play an important component part in TVA’s overall 

electric generation capability, and because of that, we in Tennessee 

are, indeed, concerned about this issue. And I know that more than 

30 years ago, Congress has started the process of grappling with 

this issue. And while you can do on-site storage, and that is safe, 

there needs to be permanent storage. So for those of us that do rely 

on electric power generation coming from nuclear power, we appreciate the discussion and the ability to look at how we move forward 

with safe, reliable nuclear power in this country. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. I yield the balance of my time to the former chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s see a show of 

hands in the audience of people who have been born since 1982. 

Raise your hand if you have been born since 1982. Now this is a 

pretty graybeard audience, Mr. Chairman. But in 1982, I was a 

White House fellow in the Department of Energy, and I played a 

very minor, minor role in the drafting of what we now call the NuVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
10 

clear Waste Policy Act of 1982. It was my job as a White House 

fellow to work with the technical staff in the Department of Energy, and then explain to the Secretary of Energy, the late Jim 

Edwards of South Carolina, what we were trying to do. 

So, I had to read the language, understand from the technical 

staff, and then try to explain to him what we were doing. That was 

35 years ago. And at that point in time, we thought by now we 

would, somewhere, be storing high-level nuclear waste permanently. That obviously has not happened for a lot of reasons. The 

amendments that you are discussing today, Mr. Chairman, the 

2017—my phone is ringing. 

Mr. WALDEN. They didn’t have those in 1982, I would point out. 

Mr. BARTON. They sure didn’t. Didn’t have the internet. Al Gore 

hadn’t invented it yet. In any event, the legislation that we are 

going to discuss today, Mr. Chairman, finally cuts the Gordian 

Knot, and I want to commend you and the full committee chairman 

and everybody that has worked on this. For the first time, it will 

allow interim to have a chance to be certified as we look at the permanent repository. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BARTON. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the phone 

call. This is an excellent piece of legislation. I totally support it, 

and we are finally going to solve it under the leadership of this 

committee and this Congress. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The chairman thanks the gentleman. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

welcome our colleagues here today on this panel and also the next 

panel also. This is such an important issue, and I think for all of 

us here, it really does need a solution, so we are hoping that we 

can move toward that. In my local public utility, the Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District, maintains the decommissioned Rancho 

Seco Nuclear Power Plant. So I have been interested in spent nuclear fuel management issues for many, many years now. 

I support a comprehensive, long-term strategy for nuclear waste 

disposal that includes an important role for consolidated interim 

storage. Regardless of the status of permanent repository, an interim storage facility is a necessary step in the right direction for 

the management of our Nation’s nuclear waste. We have private 

consolidated interim storage applicants that want to take spent 

fuel. I believe we can move forward with the interim storage process, while at the same time, addressing the issues surrounding a 

repository. 

Regardless of the path we choose, it is important that spent fuel 

from decommissioned plants receive first priority under a waste 

management program. I would like, and all of us here would like 

to move forward on this, and I believe with the discussion that we 

have today, and we have been having, we are going to be moving 

forward. But I believe we also should understand that we have a 

11 

lot of decommissioned nuclear power plants waiting right now, and 

we would like to move ahead with some interim-type storage so 

that some of these sites can actually be used for other purposes. 

So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing 

here today. And I would like to ask my colleagues on my side if 

there is anyone who would like the rest of the time? If not, I yield 

back. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. We now conclude with Members’ opening statements. The Chair would like to 

remind Members that pursuant to committee rules, all Members’ 

opening statements will be made part of the record. 

Now we want to thank our witnesses and first panel for joining 

us today. I will recognize you each when it is time for you to speak, 

and your full statement can be submitted for the record. Now it is 

my pleasure to introduce my friend, sometime combatant, the senior Senator from the State of Nevada, Dean Heller. Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Senator HELLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And to the ranking 

member, thank you also. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Are you close to the mic? 

Senator HELLER. Yes, it is on. Let me just get a little bit closer. 

I want to thank the committee also and for the diverse testimony 

that we heard already here, and I am very appreciative of the opportunity to be here with most of the colleagues of our delegation. 

I think it sends a pretty strong message. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, since 1987, Yucca Mountain’s 

Nuclear Waste Repository has been a thorn in Nevada’s side. Due 

to political antics, not science, Nevada quickly moved to the Federal Government’s number one targeted location to permanently 

store all of the Nation’s nuclear waste. Our State has been fighting 

this misguided proposal ever since, and we are not finished. 

Although I recognize the role that nuclear power plays in our Nation’s long-term energy strategy, and the need to properly store expired nuclear fuel, I remain strongly opposed to any effort to reinstate Yucca Mountain. This ill-conceived project would not only 

cause significant harm to the well-being of my home State, it also 

poses a national security risk that is too great to ignore. So, Mr. 

Chairman, my position remains the same. It is that Yucca Mountain is dead. 

It is time to move past failed proposals of the past and look for 

solutions to the future. Mr. Chairman, while we both disagree on 

the issue of Yucca Mountain, we are in agreement that it is in the 

best interest of our Nation that a program to dispose of and to 

store spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste be implemented as soon as possible. 

I appreciate your commitment to ensure that progress is made on 

this issue. However, I do not believe the bill that is before the committee today is the solution. Rather, I believe it would only lead to 

more litigation on this issue, wasting more taxpayer dollars while 

usurping States’ air and water permitting authority. Governor 

12 

Sandoval has made it clear that the State of Nevada will contest 

over 200 elements of any application process. 

Rather than attempting to force this project on the people of Nevada, a State that currently does not have any nuclear power 

plants of its own, taxpayer dollars would be better spent identifying viable alternatives for the long-term storage of nuclear waste 

in areas that are willing to house it. 

Before I discuss the issue of consent-based storage, I would like 

to first address the bill that is before us today, and I have a test 

that I usually perform when evaluating legislation. It is called 

‘‘More, Higher, Less.’’ Does the bill more competition, higher quality at less cost? And let me address each of these categories with 

respect to the bill that is before us today. 

Does this bill provide more competition? Instead of allowing the 

consent-based siting, this bill would make Yucca Mountain the only 

repository. It also eliminates the current requirement for progress 

on a second repository. This legislation does, however, allow for 

more Federal Government control over State permitting authority, 

usurping the State of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, the preemption of 

the State water laws and the States’ authority to issue air permits 

is simply jarring. Let me repeat that. The preemption of State 

water laws and States’ authority to issue air permits, in my opinion, is absolutely jarring. 

Next, does this bill provide higher quality? Not to Nevadans. By 

eliminating the current capacity elimination of 70,000 metric tons 

of heavy metal, this legislation would allow for the unlimited disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Furthermore, by allowing the EPA administrator to change the repository radiation protection standards before final licensing by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you run the risk of eroding standards that were put in place to protect public health. 

And finally, by allowing thousands of nuclear waste shipments to 

Yucca Mountain, you create a higher national security risk, ignoring recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences 

and the Blue Ribbon Commission. 

Will this bill provide less cost? The Federal Government has already spent decades, wasted billions of dollars, to design and permit Yucca Mountain without any, without any rational hope that 

Nevada will consent to the project. And Nevada never will. The 

State of Nevada will contest any license application. This means 

years, years of litigation, while progress remains stalled on how to 

dispose of spent nuclear waste. But it doesn’t have to be that way. 

I come to the table with a bipartisan solution supported by members of my delegation that join us today. I want to thank Congresswoman Titus, Congressman Kihuen, and Congresswoman Rosen for 

partnering with me to introduce the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act. Our legislation would allow for the construction of a nuclear waste repository only if the Secretary of Energy has a secure 

written consent from the Governor of the host State, affected units 

of local government, and affected Indian Tribes. This is consistent 

with the consent-based siting initiative to site waste storage and 

disposal facilities initiated by the Department of Energy in the late 

2015. 

13 

Identifying communities that are willing to host for long-term repositories, rather than forcing it upon States, is the only viable solution to our Nation’s nuclear waste problems. I encourage the subcommittee to focus its efforts on that worthwhile initiative. Failing 

to do so would just squander more time and resources that would 

be better spent pursuing viable solutions to this important public 

policy challenge. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Tonko, thank you again for 

the opportunity to appear before you, and I stand ready to partner 

with you, to find a viable solution to this problem once and for all. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heller follows:] 

14 


Testimony of Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) 

Wednesday, Apri126, 2017, at 10:00 am 

Before the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Hearing Entitled: "H.R._, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017." 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you at today's hearing. 

As the Senior Senator from Nevada, nothing is more important to me than the well-being 

of my home state and of all Nevadans. 

Since 1987, the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository has been a thorn in Nevada's 

side. 

Due to political antics, not science, Nevada quickly moved to the federal government's 

number one targeted location to permanently store all of the nation's nuclear waste. 

Our state has been fighting this misguided proposal ever since, and we're not finished. 

Although I recognize both the crucial role nuclear power plays in our nation's long-term 

energy strategy and the need to properly store expired nuclear fuel, I remain strongly 

opposed to any efforts to reinstate Yucca Mountain. 

I believe this ill-conceived project would not only cause significant harm to the wellbeing of my home state and all Nevadans, but it also poses a national security risk that is 

too great to ignore. 

My position remains clear: Yucca Mountain is dead and should remain dead. It's time to 

move past failed proposals of the past and look to solutions of the future. 

Mr. Chairman, while we both know that we disagree on the issue of Yucca Mountain, we 

are in agreement that it is in the best interest of our nation that a program to dispose of 

and store spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste be implemented as soon as 

possible. 

I appreciate your commitment to ensure that progress is made on this issue; however, I do 

not believe the bill that is before the committee today the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act of 2017 - is the solution. 

Rather, I believe it is heavy-handed, federal government-only proposal to reinstate Yucca 

Mountain while making false promises to the residents of Nevada. 

1 
15 


With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe this is a solution to our nation's 

nuclear waste problem. In fact, I believe it would only lead to more litigation on the 

issue, wasting more taxpayer dollars while usurping states' air and water permitting 

authority. 

Governor Sandoval has made clear the State of Nevada will contest over 200 elements of 

any license application, which would likely take years to resolve and cost the federal 

government over $1.6 billion. 

Rather than attempting to force this project on the people of Nevada- a state that 

currently does not have any nuclear power plants of its own it is clear taxpayers' dollars 

would be better spent identifying viable alternatives for the long-term storage of nuclear 

waste in areas that arc willing to house it. 

Before I discuss an alternative viable solution to this problem, I would like to first 

address the bill that is before us today. 

I have a test- or an entrepreneurial standard- that I usually perform when evaluating 

legislation. I call it the "More, Higher, Less test." Does this bill provide more 

competition, with higher quality, at less cost? 

Let me address each of these categories with respect to the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act of 2017. 

Does this bill provide more competition? Instead of allowing for consent-based siting for 

willing communities, this bill would make Yucca Mountain the only repository. It also 

eliminates the current requirement for progress on a second repository. 

This legislation does, however, allow for more federal government control over state 

permitting authority usurping the State of Nevada. 

The pre-emption of state water law and states' authority to issue air permits is jarring to 

say the least and should be of concern to the members of this subcommittee. 

Particularly in a region where water is a scarce and precious resource. 

With that, I ask does this bill provide a higher quality? Not to Nevadans. In fact, by 

eliminating the current capacity limitation of70,000 metric tons of heavy metal, this 

legislation would effectively allow for the unlimited disposal of spent nuclear fuel and 

high-level radioactive waste. 

2 
16 


Furthermore, by allowing the EPA Administrator to change the repository radiation 

protection standards before final licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you 

run the risk of eroding standards that were put in place to protect public health. 

Finally, by allowing thousands of nuclear waste shipments to Yucca Mountain, you 

create a higher national security risk by completely ignoring recommendations made by 

the National Academy of Sciences and the Blue Ribbon Commission for stronger safety 

and security measures. 

This is a risk that is not just felt by the people of Nevada, but also businesses within the 

state. Las Vegas continues to serve as a world class tourist destination, and any attempt 

to reinstate the repository will have significant economic impact on this industry and 

visitors to the state. 

Finally, will this bill provide less cost? I strongly believe that it will only serve to 

continue to waste taxpayer dollars on a failed project. 

The federal government has already spent decades and wasted billions of dollars to 

design and permit Yucca Mountain without any rational hope that Nevada would consent 

to the project- and Nevada never will. 

As I said earlier in my testimony, Governor Sandoval has made clear that the state of 

Nevada will contest any license application. This will mean years of litigation while 

progress remains stalled on how to dispose of spent nuclear waste, but it doesn't have to 

be that way. 

I come to the table with a bipartisan solution supported by the members of my delegation 

that join us today. 

I want to thank Congresswoman Titus (NV -1 ), Congressman Kihuen (NV -4 ), and 

Congresswoman Rosen (NV -3) for partnering with me to introduce the Nuclear Waste 

Informed Consent Act. 

Our legislation would allow for the construction of a nuclear waste repository only if the 

Secretary of Energy has secured written consent from the governor of the host state, 

affected units of local government, and affected Indian tribes. 

This legislation is consistent with the consent-based siting initiative to site waste storage 

and disposal facilities initiated by the Department of Energy (DOE) in late 2015. 

This open process ensures that a state has a meaningful voice in the process and that no 

state will be forced to accept nuclear waste against its own will. 

3 
17 


Identifying communities that are willing hosts for long-term repositories, rather than 

forcing it upon states that have outright opposed such a site for decades, is the only viable 

solution to our nation's nuclear waste problem. 

Taxpayer dollars are better spent securing safe and viable alternatives for the long-term 

storage of nuclear waste, especially in a community that is willing to house it. 

I encourage this subcommittee to focus its efforts on that worthwhile initiative. 

Failing to do so would just squander more time and scant federal resources that would be 

better spent pursuing viable solutions to this important public policy challenge. 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Once again, I stand ready to partner with you to find a viable solution to this problem 

once and for all. 

4 
18 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We thank the gentleman. Now we will turn to— 

now, we are always having this debate. We called your staff to 

make sure we had the pronunciation right. We were told Kihuen. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. KIHUEN. That is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Very good. This is the first time we have had 

a chance to meet, so I am glad to welcome you, a Member of Congress representing the 4th District of Nevada, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUBEN J. KIHUEN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. KIHUEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 

Member Tonko and subcommittee members, for this opportunity to 

testify before today’s subcommittee hearing, and I am grateful that 

you could accommodate my request despite the short notice, so 

thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

I was disappointed to learn that the committee had scheduled a 

hearing on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 2017, especially considering that there was no representation from our State in this committee. As I mentioned in my letter, Yucca Mountain is in my district, and my constituents and all Nevadans have the right to have 

their voices heard. 

They deserve to be part of the conversation, especially when it 

concerns their safety and their security. To Nevadans, it seems like 

the other people are just trying to pawn off their problems by 

dumping nuclear waste in our beloved State. For many Nevadans, 

this just feels like de ́ja` vu, and is reminiscent of the passage of the 

1987 law often correctly referred to as the Screw Nevada Bill, that 

halted the study of possible repository sites elsewhere in the country over the vociferous objection of the State. Now, as in 1987, the 

idea that Nevada should be of use as nothing more than a dumping 

ground for the rest of the country’s nuclear waste is opposed by 

most Nevadans, an overwhelming majority of most Nevadans. 

Democrat and Republican alike, Nevadans do not want this project 

to move forward in their State. 

Yucca Mountain is located less than 100 miles northwest of Las 

Vegas, a metropolitan area of more than 2 million people, more 

than three times the entire population of Nevada when this bad 

idea was first passed in 1987. 

The proposed nuclear waste repository site at Yucca Mountain 

would pose a real threat to the economy of southern Nevada. Our 

economy relies on tourism. With nearly 43 million people visiting 

Las Vegas in 2016, any accident involving nuclear waste in the 

area would lead to a massive, massive loss in visitors, which, in 

turn, would have severe ripple effects through the entire Nevada 

economy. 

Many of you may not know this, but the area around Yucca 

Mountain is seismically active, and an aquifer runs beneath the 

proposed repository site. Additionally, placing a large amount of 

nuclear waste in an unsuitable site, a site like Yucca Mountain, 

could lead to numerous potential health issues. Substandard care 

or the mere passage of time could lead to leaking and leaching of 

nuclear material into the aquifer. 

19 

Rather than waste millions more on unnecessary nuclear waste, 

we should look for ways to invest these funds in Nevada more strategically. Plenty of Nevadans are still out of work. Imagine what 

this money could do to help grow our economy. I have toured Nevada’s 4th Congressional District on multiple occasions, and every 

time I visit, I see firsthand the need to invest in infrastructure 

projects that could create jobs. Dumping money into this project is 

a poor use of Federal funds. 

Nevadans are strongly opposed to the construction of this project. 

As a State with no nuclear energy facilities, it is exceedingly unfair 

that Nevada is asked to serve as a dumping ground for the rest of 

the country’s waste at the great risk of our citizens. 

I ask each of you in the committee to consider this: If this project 

was proposed in your district, near your family and threatened 

your constituents’ lives and jobs, would you support it? If the answer is yes, then let’s find a place in your district. If the answer 

is no, as it surely is, you cannot, in good conscience, vote to send 

a country’s nuclear waste to my district. I urge the committee to 

vote no and keep this project dead and buried as it should be. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kihuen follows:] 

20 


Summary: 

Written Statement 

Prepared for the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

For Subcommittee on Environment Hearing on Apri1261

h, 2017 

By 

Rep. Ruben J. Kihuen, NV-04 

• Yucca Mountain is in Rep. Kihuen's district, his constituents and Nevadans deserve a 

voice in the process 

• Nevadans are strongly opposed to storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain 

• This legislation threatens the safety and economy of Southern Nevada 

• No one on the committee would want this in their district 
21 


Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, and Ranking Member Tonko, for the opportunity to testify 

before today's subcommittee hearing and I am grateful that you could accommodate my request 

despite the short notice. 

I was disappointed to learn of that the committee had scheduled a hearing on the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Amendments Act of 2017, especially considering that there was no representation from 

our great state on this committee. As I mentioned in my letter, Yucca Mountain is in my district 

and my constituents- and all Nevadans- have the right to have their voices heard. They deserve 

to be part of the conversation, especially when it concerns their safety and security. To 

Nevadans, it seems like other people are just tryir:g to pawn off their problems by dumping 

nuclear waste in our beloved state. 

For many Nevadans, this just feels like deja vu, and is reminiscent of the passage of the 1987 

law, often correctly referred to as the "Screw Nevada Bill," that halted the study of possible 

repository sites, elsewhere in the country, over the vociferous objections of the state. Now, as in 

1987, the idea that Nevada should be used as nothing more than a dumping ground for the rest of 

the country's nuclear waste is opposed by most Nevadans. Democrat and republican alike, 

Nevadans do not want this project to move forward in their state. 

Yucca Mountain is located less than 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, a metropolitan area of 

more than 2 million people, more than 3 times the entire population of Nevada when this bad 

idea was first passed. 
22 


Statement by Rep. Ruben J. Kihuen 

The proposed nuclear waste repository site at Yucca Mountain would pose a real threat to the 

economy of southern Nevada. Our economy relies on tourism, with nearly 43 million people 

visiting Las Vegas in 2016. Any accident involving nuclear waste in the area would lead to a 

massive loss in visitors, which in turn would have severe ripple effects through the entire Nevada 

economy. 

Many of you may not know it, but the area around Yucca Mountain is seismically active, and an 

aquifer runs beneath the proposed repository site. Additionally, placing a large amount of nuclear 

waste in an unsuitable site like Yucca Mountain could lead to numerous potential health issues. 

Substandard care or the mere passage of time could lead to leaking and leaching of nuclear 

material into the aquifer. 

Rather than waste millions more on unnecessary nuclear waste, we should look for ways to 

invest these funds in Nevada more strategically. Plenty of Nevadans are still out of work. 

Imagine what this money could do to help grow our economy. I have toured Nevada's fourth 

Congressional District on multiple occasions. Every time I visit I see first-hand the need to invest 

in infrastructure projects that could create jobs. Dumping money into this project is a poor use of 

federal funds. 

Nevadans are strongly opposed to the construction of this project. As a state with no nuclear 

energy facilities, it is exceedingly unfair that Nevada is asked to serve as the dumping ground for 

the rest of the country's waste at great risk to our citizens. 
23 


I ask each of you on the committee to consider this: if this project was proposed in your district, 

near YQill family and threatened YQill constituent's lives and jobs, would you support it? 

If the answer is yes, then let's find a place in your district. If the answer is no, as it surely is, you 

cannot in good conscience vote to send the country's waste to my district. 

I urge the committee to vote no and keep this project dead and buried as it should be. 
24 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes Congresswoman Titus, the first one who corrected 

me on how to pronounce Nevada versus ‘‘Ne-vah-da.’’ And I always 

get it right after that. So with that, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I Ranking 

Member Tonko and members of the committee. I unfortunately was 

born in 1982, and I think I have been working on this project ever 

since. As you well know, Yucca Mountain has been an issue of 

major importance for three decades dating back to 1982 when 

President Reagan first signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The 

Screw Nevada Amendments of 1987 made the matter even more 

pressing by singling out Yucca Mountain as the primary focus for 

a permanent repository. In the years that have followed, I, along 

with my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican here in Congress, along with the Governor’s Office, the State legislature, Tribal 

and local government leaders, have together, with business leaders, 

been leading the fight against Yucca Mountain. We have been 

united and with just rare exceptions, in vehement opposition to 

this proposal. 

And it is not just Nevada that is going to be adversely affected. 

Any waste coming to the site will have to travel through virtually 

every congressional district in the country, coming very close to 

homes, schools, churches, farms, and factories. 

Just yesterday, I received a letter signed by over 80 organizations from across the country in opposition to the repository at 

Yucca Mountain, along with a letter from the American Gaming 

Association, expressing opposition. And with your permission, Mr. 

Chairman, I ask that these letters be entered into the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. Over the years, as you know, billions of 

dollars have been wasted on this boondoggle, and still, we are no 

closer to a solution. I agree with my colleagues that this is bad for 

Nevada in general. But let’s look at some of the specifics of the legislation before us. It wasn’t until the Obama administration assembled the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s nuclear future that 

included some of the most respected experts in the field, that we 

released a list of recommendations that could be used to guide us 

in this area. One such recommendation, which goes to the heart of 

the matter, is adopting a consent-based process by which repositories are sited. That is why I recently reintroduced H.R. 456, the 

Nuclear Waste consent Act, along with my colleague in the Senate, 

Senator Heller, and here in the House. This legislation codifies the 

Blue Ribbon recommendation that siting of a repository be done not 

just in consultation with host States, Tribes, local governments, but 

with their approval. 

I was surprised to see, Mr. Chairman, that you adopted the 

framework of this legislation in Section 143 of the draft before us 

with regards to interim sites. They are now called monitored retrievable storage. If we are to be successful in addressing the conVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
25 

cerns of communities like yours where nuclear power plants are located, we should also have this same consideration going forward 

with permanent sites. The draft bill should afford the same consent-based provision that you are offering interim sites to permanent storage facility. 

Other ways that this bill goes in the opposite direction from recommendations, the bill removes language from the original law 

that requires progress, progress on a second repository, thereby dictating that Nevada will be the sole site for dumping of the waste. 

If that is not bad enough, it removes the cap of 70,000 metric tons 

of nuclear waste, making way for us to take as much as you can 

possibly find or generate, an unlimited source. This is a significant 

change, which calls into question the entirety of the licensing and 

safety evaluation for the project. As NRC references in a number 

of different provisions, including the license application, this repository does not take into account unlimited increases in dangerous 

waste, as is being proposed in this bill draft. 

And finally, as you have heard from the Senator, this is very important, especially to those of us from the West, you need to be concerned about Section 202. That is the section that usurps the 

State’s right to control its own water. Now, I know many of you 

were opposed to the Waters of the West rule that came under the 

Obama administration, railing against it as Federal overreach and 

outrageous power grab, and yet, that is exactly what this bill does, 

takes that power to control water away from the States. 

These are just some of the serious issues that we have been addressing for decades in Nevada. I ask that you give them consideration yourselves as you attempt to move forward to solve this solution. Nevada has done its share. We have still got the scars from 

the mushroom clouds and the atomic tests in the 1950s as we developed nuclear weapons. We didn’t produce this waste. We don’t 

want it. We don’t deserve it. We don’t have any nuclear plants, and 

we will continue to fight it. So keep it where it is, and let’s look 

for some reasonable solution. And I thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Titus follows:] 

26 


Testimony of Congresswoman Dina Titus 

Nevada- 1 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Hearing Entitled: "H.R._, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017" 

April 26, 2017 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, members of the Subcommittee, I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. Yucca Mountain has been an issue of major 

importance to Nevadans for three decades, dating back to 1982, when President Reagan signed 

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (P.L.97-425). The 'Screw Nevada' amendments of 1987 made the 

matter even more pressing. In the years that have followed, I, along with my colleagues, both 

Democrat and Republican, in the Nevada Delegation, Governor's Mansion, State Legislature, 

tribal, and local government together with leading business interests in our state have been 

unified, with rare exceptions, in vehement opposition to this failed proposal. 

Prior to arriving in Congress, I spent a good bit of my time in the classroom as a 

professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, teaching, researching, and 

publishing on the politics of nuclear weapons and waste in Nevada. Accordingly, I realize many 

do not know about or appreciate the significant contributions and major sacrifices that Nevada 

made during the Atomic Age. More than I ,000 nuclear detonations occurred near downtown Las 

Vegas, where the mushroom cloud could be seen rising over the desert. Since then, billions of 

dollars have been paid to residents in Nevada, Utah, Arizona and other states who contracted 

illnesses caused by exposure to radiation from the nuclear tests of the 20'h century. I give this 

history lesson not only to highlight the contributions that Nevada made to atomic development 

but also to remind you that they told us we were safe then, and they're telling us we're safe now. 

Members of Congress may board a plane to my District and then be shuttled out a few miles to 

the desert north of town for a photo op where they see the dry and desolate moonscape where 

Yucca Mountain is located. But they should not be fooled by such a superficial look at lands 

Nevadans love and want to protect. 

Southern Nevada is not a wasteland. It is home to unique desert habitats, rare and 

endangered species of plants and animals, iconic wildlife like Big Horn Sheep and Desert 

Tortoises, and cultural resources from Native American tribes dating back thousands of years. 

Such a quick visit also ignores the fact that beneath the surface are major fault lines and a series 

of underground wells and water systems that feed farms, ranches, and communities in the 

surrounding areas. One also tends to forget that any waste coming to the site will have to travel 

through virtually every Congressional district in the country to reach its destination, right near 

homes, schools, churches, and factories. 

Over the years, billions of dollars have been wasted on this boondoggle and still we are 

no closer to a solution. It was not until the Obama Administration assembled the Blue Ribbon 

Commission on America's Nuclear Future that some of the most respected minds on this topic 

released a series of recommendations to guide us forward. One such recommendation, which 

goes to the heart of the matter, is adopting a consent-based process by which repositories are 
27 


2 

sited. That is why I recently reintroduced the H.R. 456, the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act 

along with my colleagues from Nevada here in the House as well as in the Senate. This 

legislation codifies the Blue Ribbon recommendation that the siting of a repository be done not 

just in consultation with host states, local, and tribal communities, but with their approval. I was 

surprised to see the Chairman adopt the framework of my legislation in Section 143 of the draft 

bill with regards to interim sites, or as the bill refers to, "monitored retrievable storage." Mr. 

Chairman, if we are to be successful in addressing the concerns of those communities like yours 

where nuclear power plants are located, we should also value the concerns of those where it 

could be deposited. This draft bill should afford the same consent-based provisions to any 

permanent storage facility. Yet it goes the opposite direction. 

In fact, this bill removes language from the original law that requires progress on a 

second repository dictating that Nevada be the sole site for the dumping of the nation's nuclear 

waste. If that weren't bad enough, the bill removes the cap of 70,000 metric tons of nuclear 

waste, making way for an unlimited waste stream to the Nevada site. This is a significant change 

which calls into question the entirety of the licensing and safety evaluation for this project. As 

the NRC notes in their Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the Department of 

Energy's license application, the Environmental Impact Statements of2002 and 2008, and Safety 

Analysis Reports do not account for the unlimited increases in dangerous waste that are being 

proposed by the Chairman's bill. 

Every member, especially those of us from the West, should also be very concerned 

about what the Chairman's bill does in Section 202. This section usurps the state's rights to 

control its water. I know many of my colleagues took great pride in opposing the Waters of the 

United States (WOTUS) Rule under the Obama Administration, railing against it as "federal 

overreach" and an "outrageous power grab." I'm not sure how you can support such a clear 

violation of state's rights. 

These are serious issues that we have been dealing with for decades. I ask you to 

remember that Nevada has done its part in the development of U.S. nuclear energy and we 

continue to carry those scars decades after the mushroom clouds dissipated. We did not produce 

this waste. We have no nuclear power plants. Keep it where it is, or adopt our consent-based bill 

so places that want it, can have it. 

I again urge my colleagues on this Subcommittee to concentrate efforts on ways to move 

forward, not backwards, so we can make real progress towards resolving this problem. Thank 

you. 
28 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. The Chair now recognizes 

another new Member of Congress, the Honorable Jacky Rosen from 

the 3rd District. Ma’am, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Ms. ROSEN. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking 

Member Tonko, members of the subcommittee. I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to testify, and I am here to make one thing 

clear, that Nevadans wholeheartedly oppose become being the Nation’s nuclear dumping ground. In 1987, Congress amended the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act and targeted Yucca Mountain, located 

less than 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas as the sole site for our 

Nation’s geological repository. For over 30 years, the State of Nevada and local communities, including the constituents that I represent, have rejected this project on safety, public health, and environmental grounds. In fact, the State has filed 218 contentions 

against the DOE’s license application, challenging the adequacy of 

DOE’s environmental impact assessments. Numerous scientific 

studies have deemed Yucca Mountain unsafe, based on the fact 

that the site is seismically active and sits above an aquifer. The repository may not be able to prevent radioactive contamination for 

groundwater for over 1 million years. That is a Federal safety requirement. 

Yucca Mountain would require transporting over 70,000 metric 

tons of radioactive waste, many of those routes right through my 

district, through the heart of Las Vegas, a city that attracts 43 million visitors annually, and generates $59 billion to our economy, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. 

Severe transportation accidents, they threaten the health and 

safety of tourists and individuals who live along these proposed 

routes and would cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damage 

in cleanup costs and related economic costs. 

We are talking about shipping a total of nearly 9,500 rail casks, 

which is equivalent to 2,800 trains, or 2,650 truck casks over 50 

years, which is bad enough. But eliminating the second repository, 

your bill, increases those numbers to 6,700 trains, and over 5,000 

trucks. This translates to roughly one to three trains, or one to two 

truck shipments through Nevada per week every week for 50 years, 

from 76 shipping sites across the country. All those trucks would 

use the I–15 corridor, known to be one of the most dangerous highway systems in the country, according to the Nevada AAA. Do you 

honestly believe that shipping over 5,000 truck casks of high-level 

nuclear waste over a span of 50 years won’t result in at least one 

radiological accident? 

And in the event of a radiological release, it is said to be nearly 

impossible to determine the range of exposure, let alone the longterm health effects for those facing exposure. Cancer, genetic defects, asthma, they have all been related to radiation. The victims 

of such negligent policy won’t be your constituents, Mr. Chairman, 

but rather the ones who live in our districts. These are our friends, 

our neighbors, our children. 

And yet, while any legislation must include and implement the 

National Academy of Science’s safety and security recommendaVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
29 

tions, such as shipping older fuel first and full-scale testing of the 

casks, this bill fails, it absolutely fails to fulfill such requirements. 

Any plan addressing nuclear waste storage must be based on scientific analysis, as well as trust and agreement among affected 

parties. In 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future issued its final report on nuclear waste storage, recommending a consent-based process for choosing a site. I am proud 

to be an original cosponsor, along with my colleagues, of the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act—a bill supported by the entire 

Southern Nevada delegation—that would prohibit the dumping of 

nuclear waste in a State without its consent. 

I request that the text of this bill and two other documents I 

have to be entered into the official record of this hearing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. ROSEN. Your Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act ignores 

the environmental, safety, and security concerns of Nevadans who 

would be forced to store nuclear waste that they had no role in creating. I urge the subcommittee to stop wasting billions in taxpayer 

dollars by resurrecting a project that has been dead for over 30 

years, and instead identify viable alternatives for long-term repository in areas that are proven safe, and whose communities consent 

to storage. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosen follows:] 

30 


Testimony of Congresswoman Jacky Rosen (NV -03) 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Hearing Entitled: "H.R. _, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 20 17" 

April 26, 20 17 

Major points: 

The majority of Nevadans reject the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository plan 

because it poses a threat to the health and safety of Nevadans and tourists. 

Numerous scientific studies have deemed the site unsafe for nuclear waste disposal based 

on the fact that Yucca Mountain is seismically active and sits above an aquifer. 

Severe accidents from transporting the nuclear waste threaten the health and safety of 

tourists and individuals who live along proposed routes, and would cause hundreds of 

millions of dollars in cleanup costs and related economic losses. 

This bill unfortunately eliminates the current requirement for progress on a second 

repository - placing the entire burden on Nevada. 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act allows the EPA and NRC to change environmental 

protection standards and technical requirements before final licensing. 

Any plan addressing nuclear waste storage must follow a "consent based" process. 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify at today's hearing. I am here today to make one thing clear: that Nevadans 

wholeheartedly oppose becoming the nation's dumping ground for nuclear waste. 

In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and targeted Yucca Mountain, located 

less than I 00 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the sole site for our nation's geological 

repository. For over 30 years, the state of Nevada and local communities have rejected this 

project on safety, public health, and environmental grounds. In fact, the state has filed 218 

contentions against the Department of Energy's (DOE) license application, challenging the 

adequacy of DOE's environmental impact assessments. 

Numerous scientific studies have deemed Yucca Mountain unsafe based on the fact that the site 

is seismically active and sits above an aquifer. The repository may not be able to prevent 

radioactive contamination of groundwater for one million years -the limit adopted by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Using Yucca Mountain as the nation's dumping ground would require transporting over 70,000 

metric tons of radioactive waste, much of it through my district, and through the heart of Las 

Vegas, a city that attracts over 43 million visitors annually and generates 59 billion dollars in 

revenue according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. 
31 


Severe transportation accidents threaten the health and safety of tourists and individuals who live 

along the proposed waste transportation routes, and would cause hundreds of millions of dollars 

in cleanup costs and related economic losses. 

We're talking about shipping a total of9,495 rail casks, which is equivalent to 2,800 trains, or 

2,650 truck casks over 50 years. That translates to roughly 1-3 trains or 1-2 truck shipments 

every day on our Nevada highways over 50 years from 76 shipping sites across the country, 

through the I-15 corridor, known to be one of the most dangerous highway systems in the 

country, according to the Nevada AAA. 

Do you truly believe that shipping over 2,600 truck casks of high-level nuclear waste over a span 

of 50 years won't result in at least one radiological release? 

In the event of a radiological release, it is said to be nearly impossible to determine the range of 

exposure; let alone all of the long-term health effects for those facing exposure. Cancer, genetic 

defects, and asthma have all been linked to radiation. 

It is my understanding that any legislation must include and implement the National Academy of 

Sciences' safety and security recommendations, such as shipping older fuel first and full-scale 

testing of the casks. This bill ignores to fulfill such requirements. 

This bill proposes a radical change in the nation's approach to nuclear waste management. The 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act calls for two repositories to ensure regional equity and address 

technical redundancy. This bill does away with that by eliminating the current requirement for 

progress on a second repository - placing the entire burden on Nevada. 

I also oppose Section 60l(a) and (b) of the bill because they allow the EPA and NRC to change 

the rules in the middle of the game. Section 60l(a) would allow the EPA to change 

environmental protection standards before NRC final licensing - essentially inviting the EPA to 

gut the groundwater protection standards. Section 60l(b) would allow the NRC to change the 

repository technical requirements and criteria- essentially inviting the NRC to gut their technical 

requirements. 

Any plan addressing nuclear waste storage must be based on scientific analysis as well as trust 

and agreement among affected parties. In 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's 

Nuclear Future issued its final report on nuclear waste storage, recommending a "consent based" 

process for choosing a site. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Nuclear Waste 

Informed Consent Act, a bill supported by the entire Southern Nevada Delegation that would 

prohibit the dumping of nuclear waste in a state without its consent. 

This bill ignores the environmental, safety, and security concerns of Nevadans who would be 

forced to store nuclear waste that they had no role in creating. I urge this Subcommittee to stop· 

wasting billions of taxpayer dollars by harping on Yucca Mountain, and instead identify viable 

alternatives for the long-term repository in areas that are proven safe and consent to siting. 
32 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. The Chair 

recognizes my colleague from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. WILSON. Chairman John Shimkus, Ranking Member Paul 

Tonko, thank you for having me here today. I am grateful to have 

the opportunity to testify before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. I was grateful to serve as the former 

Deputy General Counsel to the Department of Energy during the 

Reagan administration, serving with Secretary Jim Edwards. I 

know the Department has very competent personnel, and we are 

fortunate with the new leadership of Secretary Rick Perry. 

In January, I introduced the Sensible Nuclear Waste Disposition 

Act, and I appreciate that it has been included in the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017. The Sensible Nuclear 

Waste Disposition Act is a commonsense legislation that simply requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission make a licensing 

decision one way or another about Yucca Mountain before the Department of Energy can consider other options for long-term disposal. I appreciate the concerns of Nevada. I am also hopeful that 

we recognize that there should be a national perspective when it 

comes to managing and storing nuclear waste. 

Today there are currently 121 communities across 39 States that 

are grappling with the limitations of storing nuclear waste while 

our country lacks a permanent geological repository. Communities 

in my home State of South Carolina, adjacent to our neighbors of 

Georgia, also in the chairman’s State of Illinois, the ranking member’s State of New York, and the home State of a majority of the 

members of this committee, all store nuclear material. Each of the 

121 communities has been forced to store nuclear waste while they 

wait for the Federal Government to honor its promise by providing 

permanent storage at Yucca Mountain. Ms. Matsui has made an 

excellent, good new point. These sites can be redeveloped for better 

use. 

While the nuclear material is currently being safely stored across 

the country, we are in desperate need of a long-term viable solution. Having a single permanent repository for high-level nuclear 

waste is critical for our national security. Right now, in the absence 

of a permanent repository, nuclear material is stored all over the 

United States, making it difficult and costly to secure. Having a 

single location, 1,000 feet underground, is far more effective and secure for the environment with one location instead of 121 sites 

across the Nation. 

Additionally, competing the licensing process for Yucca Mountain 

is fiscally responsible. The Federal Government has dedicated enormous resources to completing the nuclear storage facility at Yucca 

Mountain. American taxpayers have invested over $3.7 billion into 

Yucca Mountain. Additionally, energy utility ratepayers from 

across the country have contributed over $30 billion to the Nuclear 

Waste Fund that can only be used toward the construction and operation of Yucca Mountain, with citizens from South Carolina, Illinois, New York, having put each State over $1 billion into the acVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
33 

count. Starting over with another project would cost billions for 

taxpayers and ratepayers alike, and would take decades to complete, leaving 121 sites across the country as de facto dumping 

grounds for nuclear waste. 

We have a duty to work toward a permanent repository for nuclear waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act does an 

excellent job of strengthening the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and advancing our shared goals of protecting National security and promoting our national environment cleanup mission. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. Thank 

you for your time and attention, and the balance of my testimony 

is being submitted for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:] 

34 


Congressman joe Wilson 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

April 26, 2017 

Chairman John Shimkus, Ranking Member Paul Tonko, thank you for 

having me here today. I am grateful to have the opportunity to testify before 

Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Environment. 

In January, I introduced the Sensible Nuclear Waste Disposition Act and 

appreciate that it has been included in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendment 

Act of 2017. The Sensible Nuclear Waste Disposition Act is common-sense 

legislation that simply requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission make 

a licensing decision, one way or the other, about Yucca Mountain before the 

Department of Energy can consider other options for long-term waste. 

I appreciate the concerns of Nevada, while I hope we recognize a 

national perspective when it comes to managing and storing nuclear waste. 

Today, there are currently 121 communities across 39 states that are 

grappling with the limitations of storing nuclear waste while our country 

lacks a permanent geological repository. Communities in my home state of 

South Carolina, in the Chairman's state of Illinois, the Ranking Member's state 

of New York-in the home states of the majority of members of the committee 

all store nuclear material. Each of the 121 communities has been forced to 

store nuclear waste while they wait for the federal government to honor its 

promise by providing interim storage at Yucca Mountain. 
35 


Congressman joe Wilson 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

April26, 2017 

While the nuclear material is currently being safely stored across the 

country, we are in desperate need of a long-term, viable solution. Having a 

single, permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste is critical for our 

national security. Right now, in the absence of a permanent repository, 

nuclear material is stored all over the country-making it difficult and costly 

to secure. Having a single location, 1,000 feet underground, is far more 

effective and secure for the environment with one location instead of 121 

across the nation. 

Additionally, completing the licensing process for Yucca Mountain is 

fiscally responsible. The federal government has dedicated enormous 

resources to completing the nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain. 

American taxpayers have invested over $3.7 billion into Yucca Mountain. 

Additionally, energy utility ratepayers from across the country have 

contributed over $30 billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund which can only be 

used towards the construction and operation of Yucca Mountain, with citizens 

from South Carolina, Illinois, New York, and more each having over $1 billion 

invested. Starting over with another project would cost billions from 

taxpayers and ratepayers alike, and would take decades to complete-leaving 

121 sites across the country as de facto dumping grounds for nuclear waste. 

2 
36 


Congressman Joe Wilson 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

April26, 2017 

In 2010, the previous Administration halted the licensing process for 

Yucca Mountain for political reasons. We should not allow political reasons to 

continue to impede progress. Rather, we should allow the facts to speak for 

themselves, like the fact that officials in Nye County, Nevada, where Yucca 

Mountain is located, support the repository. Countless, non-partisan, factbased studies have determined that the underground geological repository of 

Yucca Mountain far exceeds the highest safety ratings. 

I am confident that the rigorous, fact-based, non-partisan examination 

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will result in a favorable result for 

Yucca Mountain's license. I am equally confident that the thoroughness of the 

process will allay the technical and scientific concerns of my colleagues from 

Nevada. I urge the Committee to pass the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments 

Act of2017, to ensure we see the licensing process on Yucca Mountain to 

completion before abandoning it for any other alternative. The federal 

government should finish what they started-or, at the very least-should 

make an official decision on Yucca before spending billions of dollars on a 

duplicative facility. 

In addition to making progress on a permanent repository, the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Amendments Act should consider amending the way we classify 

3 
37 


Congressman joe Wilson 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment 

April26, 2017 

nuclear material by updating our standard to classify waste by composition 

rather than point of origin. This would expand the Department of Energy's 

ability to designate waste that was previously only eligible for Yucca Mountain 

to other disposition sites. While that doesn't eliminate the urgency of 

completing Yucca Mountain, it does expedite the environmental cleanup 

mission at dozens of defense nuclear facilities across the country. I am grateful 

that my constituent, Aiken County Council Member Chuck Smith testified in 

support of the reclassification of nuclear waste before the subcommittee in 

2015. 

We have a duty to work towards a permanent repository for nuclear 

waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act does an excellent job of 

strengthening the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and advancing our shared goals of 

protecting national security and promoting our national environmental cleanup mission. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today, and 

thank you for your time and attention. 

4 
38 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. So I want to 

thank you all for your testimony. As you may know, it is committee 

practice not to ask the Members questions following their statements. So let me thank you again for taking the time to present 

your important perspectives today, and we will sit the second 

panel. Thank you very much. 

We would ask our new guests to find a seat so we can get the 

door closed and start with our second panel as soon as possible. 

We want to thank the second panel for appearing with us today. 

I will introduce you one at a time when your time to speak comes 

up. Your full statement is submitted for the record. You will have 

5 minutes. We will be very lenient on that as long as you don’t go 

2 or 3 minutes over. And with that, I would like to first recognize 

the Honorable Ward Sproat. I mentioned him in my opening statement. Former Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management at the Department of Energy. I always beat on my 

staff not to do acronyms, OCRWM, and make sure we know what 

that really means. So we have worked together numerous times. It 

is great to have you. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SPROAT. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let’s try to pull the mic closer. Make sure the button is on. 

STATEMENTS OF EDWARD F. SPROAT III, FORMER DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; ANTHONY J. O’DONNELL, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR ISSUES 09WASTE DISPOSAL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY 

COMMISSIONERS; EDWIN LYMAN, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

GLOBAL SECURITY PROGRAM, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; STEVEN P. NESBIT, CHAIRMAN, BACK–END WORKING GROUP, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE 

COUNCIL; AND MARK MCMANUS, GENERAL PRESIDENT, 

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF UNION PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS, 

WELDERS, AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. SPROAT III 

Mr. SPROAT. Thank you very much for your invitation to address 

the committee this morning about the proposed legislation. I would 

like to make it clear to the committee that the opinions I am going 

to express this morning are strictly my own. In no way should they 

be construed as representing my current employer, and are based 

on my experience in running the Office of Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management at the Department of Energy from 2006 

through the beginning of 2009. 

I appeared before this committee back in July of 2006, 11 years 

ago, and at that point in time, I made a commitment to the committee to submit a quality license application for Yucca Mountain 

by June 30 of 2008. I actually delivered that to the NRC on June 

3 of 2008, after the work of several thousand very qualified, very 

smart people, both in the Department of Energy and the National 

Labs who had worked for a very long period of time to put that license application together. 

39 

The subsequent review by the NRC staff took almost 7 years, 

and culminated with the issuance of the last of their five volumes 

of their safety evaluation report, or their SER, in January of 2015. 

Their review, the NRC staff’s review, concluded that the design 

met all the technical requirements, including the million year 

postclosure radiation release requirement that was set by the EPA. 

However, in their evaluation, there were two issues left that they 

said need to be addressed before the staff could recommend to the 

full commission that a construction license for Yucca Mountain be 

granted. One was permanent land withdrawal, because the Department could not show that at some time in the future, public access 

to the site would be available. And the second was water. And in 

terms of the State of Nevada, water engineers not permitting the 

Department permits to make water withdrawals at the site. 

So the next step in the NRC licensing process is to litigate the 

well over 200 contentions that have been filed by the interveners 

in front of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Both the NRC 

and the Department of Energy must be adequately funded to litigate those contentions in front of the ASLB, and we would expect 

that period of time to be at least 2, probably 3 to 4 years for that 

litigation to occur before all the contentions can be adjudicated, appealed, and a final decision made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on granting a construction permit or not on the Yucca 

Mountain license application. 

The other key thing that is very, very important on moving forward is the Department of Energy, as the applicant, must be a 

willing applicant to vigorously defend the license application, and 

I think it would be pretty safe to say that over the past 8 years, 

the past administration was not willing to do that. 

So I would like to move on and just quickly address a couple of 

things about the issues that need to be addressed with modifying 

and amending the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. First of all, one of the 

first key issues is access to the Nuclear Waste Fund, and this issue 

arose a number of years back when the receipts being collected 

from the utilities around the country were classified as mandatory 

receipts, but the appropriations for the Department to build the repository are classified as discretionary. As a result of that mismatch between mandatory receipts and discretionary appropriations, any appropriations for the repository is scored as negative 

against the budget. So that needs to be fixed. 

The issue of permanent land withdrawal, we have already talked 

about a little bit. The issue of water permits at the site, we have 

talked a little bit about. I just want to give you one quick vignette. 

When we were trying to drill a small well at the site to understand 

the seismic aspects of the site, we needed water to cool the drill 

bits, and the State of Nevada withheld those permits. So that is 

one of the issues of why the issue of water rights is in this legislation. 

The other issue that needs to be addressed is transportation. Regardless of whether we are talking about an interim storage site, 

a permanent repository, every site is going to need to address the 

issue of transportation. When you have high-level waste at 121 

sites in 39 different States, it doesn’t matter whether you have 

local consent or not if you are not able to get the material there, 

40 

which means that getting consent across those various political 

boundaries is going to be a challenge without some kind of clear 

Federal direction on their ability to direct that transportation to 

occur. 

So in conclusion, it has been 35 years since the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act has been passed, and right now, we are probably within 

3 to 4 years of finally getting a decision on whether or not the repository at Yucca Mountain is licensable or not. Providing the necessary funding to the Department and to the NRC to finish the 

hearings and finish the licensing process, I think is really the right 

next step. To me, starting over at this stage of the game, being this 

close to getting a final NRC decision, makes no sense at all given 

the past history of this project and how long it has taken. 

And I guess finally, the last point I would like to make, is regardless of the outcome of the NRC licensing process, new legislation is going to be needed in order to address the problems that I 

have outlined in order to get the spent nuclear fuel and high-level 

nuclear waste from those 121 sites in 39 States to a central repository at some point in time in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sproat follows:] 

41 


Statement of Edward F. Sproat III 

Former Director (RW-1) 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

April26, 2017 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am very pleased to have been requested to 

appear before the Committee and offer my thoughts on the issues that need to be addressed in 

order to progress the Nation's high-level radioactive waste program. The opinions I will be 

presenting are based on my more than 40 years of experience working in the nuclear industry 

both domestically and internationally, and while serving as the Director of the Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) in the Department of Energy from June 2006 to 

January 2009 in particular. My comments and opinions presented to the Committee are strictly 

my own and should in no way be construed as representing those of my current employer. 

I appeared before this Committee in July 2006, almost eleven years ago, and committed to 

submit the License Application for the construction of the Yucca Mountain High-Level 

Radioactive Waste Repository by the end of June 2008. On June 3, 2008, I delivered the 

application to the offices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). That submittal started 

the formal licensing process for the repository as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982. In January 2015, the NRC staff issued the last of the five volumes of their Safety Analysis 

Reports (SERs) which marked the completion of their review of the application. They essentially 

found that the repository design meets all of the stringent design criteria, both during operation 

and after closure. Two issues were identified that would need to be addressed before the staff 
42 


could recommend to the Commission that a construction license should be granted to tbe 

Department of Energy: 1) the Federal land on which the repository is to be sited has not been 

withdrawn permanently from public use by Congress and 2) the State of Nevada Water Engineer 

will not grant the Department the water withdrawal permits needed to build and operate the 

repository. Both of these issues must be addressed. 

The next step in the licensing process that must proceed before the NRC can rule on the 

application is the adjudication of the numerous contentions that have been filed by several 

intervenors, the primary one of which is the State of Nevada. It is expected that the adversarial 

hearings which would take place before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) would 

take two to three years to conclude before all of the contentions would be ruled upon. An appeals 

board would then hear any appeals by the parties. The final decision rests with the NRC 

commissioners. It will be at that point that we will know whether or not the Department will be 

allowed to build the repository at Yucca Mountain by the regulatory authority charged with 

making that decision. 

So in terms of immediate next steps, the Department and the NRC would need to be funded to 

begin the hearing process to defend the License Application. The Department would need to reassemble key members of its licensing team to write testimony and appear as experts witnesses. 

It would also need outside legal counsel who are experienced in nuclear regulatory law and 

litigation before the ASLB. A pre-requisite to all of this is that the Department must be an 

applicant that is willing and able to strongly defend its license application. That has not been the 

case over the past eight years. 
43 


Beyond the licensing process, there are issues which must be addressed by Congress in order to 

move forward with the Nation's high-level radioactive waste program, regardless of the outcome 

of the Yucca Mountain licensing process. These issues were identified and addressed in 

legislation that was proposed in 2006 and again in 2007 by the Bush Administration. That 

legislation was never acted upon and those issues are still relevant today and must be addressed 

by Congress. A brief summary of those issues follows. 

Availability of the Nuclear Waste Fund 

The ability of the Department to execute the long-term high-level radioactive waste program has 

been hampered, if not totally stopped, because it does not have access to funding from the 

Nuclear Waste Fund as was envisaged when the Fund was created by the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act. In short, contributions to the Fund from the nuclear industry have been classified as 

Mandatory Receipts while the distributions from the Fund have been classified as Discretionary, 

subject to annual appropriations and budget scoring. This has had the effect of creating a varying 

and diminishing funding stream that makes it virtually impossible for the Department or any 

organization to execute a long-term capital program with any kind of schedule or cost certainty. 

Permanent Land Withdrawal 

As stated earlier in this testimony, the NRC staff found that without permanent withdrawal of the 

one hundred forty seven thousand (147, 000) acres of the Yucca Mountain site from future public 

use, the Department cannot demonstrate permanent control of the repository site. Congressional 

action is needed to withdraw the land. 
44 


Water Permits 

As also stated earlier, the NRC staff found that the Department was unable to obtain, and the 

State of Nevada was unwilling to grant the necessary water withdrawal permits to the 

Department to allow construction and operation of the repository. Nevada has declared that the 

repository is not in the public interest and, therefore, will not grant the necessary permits. 

Congress will need to declare that water use at and for the repository is in the public interest. It 

should also be noted that the Department has historically applied to the State of Nevada for 

Water Permits as a courtesy to show good faith and a willingness to engage with the State where 

Yucca Mountain is concerned. The Department does not apply for Water Permits at the Nevada 

National Security Site and could also by Administrative decision of the Secretary of Energy 

determine that they do not need to apply for Water Permits for Yucca Mountain. Either way, it is 

important to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Transportation 

Regardless of whether we will have a single central repository, a separate defense waste 

repository, or multiple interim storage sites, in all cases the spent nuclear fuel and high-level 

waste that currently reside at one hundred twenty one (121) sites in thirty nine (39) states need to 

be transported from those locations. There are hundreds of local jurisdictions that will be on 

those transportation routes and it reasonable to expect that some local and state authorities will 

attempt to block Department use of those transportation routes. Legislation is needed to clarify 

the Department's authority under the Atomic Energy Act to use federal Department of 

Transportation preemption if a local authority attempts to block a shipment. 
45 


Clarification of Federal Authority in Duplicative Regulatory Review Processes 

There are several pennitting actions that will be needed for the repository that are not under the 

jurisdiction of the NRC, but have been delegated to the states by various laws. For example, the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides the states regulatory oversight of 

waste types to be buried at disposal sites. Air emission pennits are also administered at the state 

level. These pennitting processes have the potential for additional local intervention and political 

influence that can stop repository construction and operation, even after the granting of the 

necessary licenses by the NRC. Legislation is needed to clarify federal authority over these 

permitting activities for the repository. 

In conclusion, in order for the Country to move forward with the permanent disposal of its highlevel radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, it needs three things: I) a licensed place to put it, 

2) the ability to move it from around the Country to that site, and 3) an organization that is 

adequately funded and has the requisite authorities so that it can be held accountable for the cost 

and schedule of executing the program in accordance with the law. Congress has the ability to 

address all three of these needs and it will need to do so in order for this national dilemma to be 

pennanently solved. Technically, developing a repository is a fairly straightforward project. 

Politically, it is complex. If Congress can find a way to enable the project to move forward 

without political interference, the country will finally see success. 

I look forward to answering any questions you might have regarding my testimony. 
46 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We thank you for your service to our country, and 

it is great seeing you again. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Anthony 

O’Donnell, chairman of the Nuclear Issues Subcommittee at the 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which is 

NARUC. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. O’DONNELL 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good 

morning and Ranking Member Tonko, both, and members of the 

Subcommittee on the Environment. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 

2017. My name it Tony O’Donnell. I am a commissioner on the 

Maryland Public Service Commission, and I also serve as chairman 

of National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, as 

you heard from the chairman, NARUC, Subcommittee on Nuclear 

Issues and Waste Disposal. 

As you know very well, this matter of the Nation’s high-level nuclear waste policy is a high-priority issue for NARUC and its members. The electricity consumers in the United States, often referred 

to as ratepayers in industry jargon, have paid more than $40 billion in direct payments and accrued interest into the Nuclear 

Waste Fund over the last 30 years. To date, we have virtually 

nothing, repeat, nothing, to show for this substantial tax on nuclear-generated electricity. In fact, the collection of the fee to pay 

for the Federal nuclear waste program is the only component of the 

program that has ever worked as intended. 

I am here today on behalf of NARUC to applaud the subcommittee for its leadership, and support your efforts to get this 

program moving once again. In our view, the discussion draft that 

is the subject of today’s hearing is a very positive and welcome step 

forward to put the program on solid footing, and to move the program to a point where decisions will be based on the merits of the 

work performed and not based on the politics of the moment. 

I would like to very briefly address what we believe are some of 

the highlights of the draft legislation and point out a couple areas 

of concern. 

We are very pleased that the draft aggressively addresses the 

threshold issue of licensing. The draft requires a final NRC decision approving or disapproving Yucca Mountain license application 

before other major provisions can be implemented. We commend 

the committee for making progress contingent on some decision on 

a permanent repository license. 

We are similarly pleased that the discussion draft addresses how 

the current funds in the Nuclear Waste Fund will be disbursed. 

The draft specifies that certain percentages of the amounts in the 

waste fund on the date of the enactment must be available to the 

Secretary on certain trigger dates. The specification that those 

funds be made available, quote, ‘‘without further appropriations,’’ 

end quote, is an excellent way to assure both confidence and 

progress in the program. 

Please note that NARUC members will need to see the actual 

percentages prior to providing unqualified support for that section, 

503. The discussion draft’s revised mechanism assures any fees collected going forward are immediately available to the Secretary for 

47 

the waste-related activities without additional appropriations. If 

the NWF fee is restarted, this provision is absolutely crucial. 

With regard to restarting the fee collection, we believe that expressly linking any restart of the NWF fee to a final NRC decision 

on licensing repository is, again, the right approach. The legislation 

would benefit from a specification that is part of the annual assessment of the need for, or level of, any fee. The Secretary included 

an analysis on whether the annual interest on the corpus is sufficient to cover the projected outlays for the repository and any other 

required disbursements. 

The draft contains a provision which NARUC supports, that a 

cost benefit analysis is a prerequisite for any nonfederally licensed 

storage facility. In Section 602 of the draft, the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is given a 5-year 

term. The subcommittee may wish to consider increasing the term 

length to provide greater stability in the program across successive 

administrations. 

Finally, one area that has raised definite concerns is Section 

301’s discussion of the requirement for DOE to take title to waste. 

The discussion draft should clarify and/or define what constitutes, 

quote, ‘‘delivery and acceptance,’’ end quote. The definition must 

assure that DOE cannot simply take title of waste in situ, that is 

where it is currently being stored, and claim they have met their 

contractual obligations. Additionally, the definition must make 

clear that any transfer of title to DOE includes removing the waste 

to a different NRC licensed storage facility. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony today, and I will be 

pleased to take any questions that the members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Donnell follows:] 

48 


Testimony on behalf of the 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

by 

The Honorable Anthony J. O'Donnell 

Commissioner, Maryland Public Service Commission 

Chairman, NARUC Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues-Waste Disposal 

before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

hearing on 

"H.R. _,the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 

2017" 

April 26, 2017 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

1101 Vermont Ave, N.W., Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone (202) 898-2207, Facsimile (202) 898-2213 

Internet Home Page http://www.naruc.org 

1 
49 


Summary for Testimony of the Honorable Anthony J. O'Donnell 

On Behalf of 

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

NARUC supports the policy direction the Discussion Draft is taking. There are some minor changes, noted 

below, that we would like to see made, however, this draft is very positive. 

The draft legislation requires a final Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decision approving or 

disapproving Yucca Mountain License before other major provisions can be implemented. NARUC 

strongly supports expeditious completion of the license review. We commend the Committee for making 

progress on the program contingent on some decision on the license. 

We are extremely pleased that the discussion draft in§ 503 (at pages 41-42) addresses how the current 

funds in the Nuclear Waste Fund will be disbursed. The draft specifies that certain percentages of the 

amounts in the waste fund on the date of enactment must be available to the Secretary on certain trigger 

dates. The specification at page 41 line 11 that those funds be made available "without further 

appropriations" is an excellent way to assure both confidence and progress in the program. 

The total of the percentages in revised § 503 must assure all the funds (and any subsequent accrued interest) 

are disbursed. The funds "in the waste fund on the date of enactment" will continue to accrue interest after 

the first trigger date. That means by the fourth trigger date there will be some funds remaining that would 

not be covered by including a percentage in all four provisions. To correct this problem, NARUC 

respectfully suggests, the fourth "trigger" should specify something like: "An amount equal to any 

remaining funds not previously disbursed of the amounts in the Waste Fund on the date of enactment, plus 

any accrued interest on those funds." This is a good approach. However, NARUC members will need to 

see the actual percentages prior to providing unqualified support for§ 503. 

The discussion draft's revised mechanism in§ 503, at page 42, lines 10-13, assures any fees collected going 

forward are immediately available to the Secretary for waste related activities without additional 

appropriations. If the NWF fee is restarted, this provision is absolutely crucial. 

With regard to restarting the fee collection,§ 501 at page 38, lines 9-18, that expressly link any restart of 

the NWF fee to a final NRC decision on licensing a repository is the right approach. 

The legislation would benefit from a specification, that, as part of the annual assessment of the need 

for/level of any fee, the Secretary include an analysis of whether the annual interest on the corpus is 

sufficient to cover the projected outlays for the repository and any other required disbursements. 

In section § 602 of the draft the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is given 

a 5-year term, the Subcommittee may wish to consider increasing the term length to provide greater stability 

in the program across administrations. 

NARUC supports the idea of a cost-benefit analysis as a pre-requisite for any interim storage facility. 

One area that has raised definite concerns is§ 301 's discussion of the requirements for DOE to take title to 

waste. The discussion draft should clarify/define what constitutes "delivery and acceptance". The definition 

must assure that DOE cannot simply "take title" of waste where it is currently being stored and claim they 

have met their contractual obligations. Additionally, the definition must make clear that any transfer oftitle 

to DOE includes removing the waste to a different NRC licensed storage facility. 

2 
50 


Good morning Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of 

the Subcommittee on Environment. Thank you for the opportunity to testifY today 

on the "Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017." My name is Tony 

O'Donnell, and I am a Commissioner on the Maryland Public Service Commission. 

I also serve as the Chairman of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC) Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues Waste Disposal. 

NARUC is a non-profit organization founded in 1889. Our members are the 

public utility commissions in all 50 States and the U. S. territories. NARUC's 

mission is to serve the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of 

public utility regulation. Our members regulate the retail rates and services of 

electric, gas, water, and telephone utilities. We are obligated under the laws of our 

respective States to assure the establishment and maintenance of essential utility 

services as required by public convenience and necessity and to ensure that these 

services are provided under rates, terms, and conditions of service that are just, 

reasonable, and non-discriminatory. 

State economic utility regulators are responsible for ensuring the safe, 

reliable, and affordable delivery of essential electric utility service in every State 

across the country. The success of the federal nuclear waste management program, 

funded by the consumers of electricity generated from the nation's nuclear power 

plants, is necessarily of keen interest. Both NARUC and its member commissions 

have dedicated tremendous resources to ensure that electricity consumers receive the 

services they have paid for. 

NARUC and its State Commission members were at the table in the 

negotiations that led to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). State 

3 
51 


regulators have always agreed that ratepayers that benefit from electricity generated 

by nuclear plants should pay for waste management and disposal, and they have. 

Since 1982, more than $40 billion in direct payments and interest have been paid 

into the U.S. Nuclear Waste Fund {NWF). Yet so far, ratepayers- and the countryhave almost nothing to show for it. 

This is a frustration I know many members of this Subcommittee, including 

Chairman Shimkus, share. 

The federal government missed the statutory deadline to start accepting 

nuclear waste in 1998. In 2002, the project site- Yucca Mountain, was approved by 

Congress, but since then efforts to block funding to complete the Yucca Mountain 

license review, in tandem with the U.S. Department of Energy's illegal refusal to 

pursue the license application at the NRC, stymied progress. Today, the United 

States is in the same situation we occupied 30 years ago when Congress decided 

Yucca Mountain should be the first site considered for a permanent repository. 

NARUC applauds this Subcommittee's tenacity and leadership on this issue. 

We welcome the "Discussion Draft" released last week as a very positive step 

forward to correct unanticipated, but serious, structure flaws in the nation's nuclear 

waste disposal policy framework. 

NARUC has not taken a position on all of the new provisions in the bill, but 

it is obvious that literally all of the new proposals are very likely to result in concrete 

action towards a permanent repository {and possible consent-based siting of nonfederally owned NRC licensed storage facilities). 

4 
52 


Electricity consumers have a multibillion dollar investment expended to 

characterize the Yucca Mountain site. We are very pleased that the draft aggressively 

addresses the threshold issue of licensing. The draft requires a final Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) decision approving or disapproving Yucca 

Mountain License before other major provisions can be implemented. NARUC 

strongly supports expeditious completion of the license review. We commend the 

Committee for making progress contingent on some decision on the license. 

Concerning what many NARUC members believe to be the most important 

issue - funding and fees, the draft clearly fixes one major flaw that has severely 

hampered progress on waste disposal: fee disbursement. 

We are extremely pleased that the discussion draft in § 503 (at pages 41-42) 

amends §10222(f) to specify how the current funds in the Nuclear Waste Fund will 

be disbursed. The draft specifies that certain percentages of the amounts in the waste 

fund on the date of enactment must be available to the Secretary on certain trigger 

dates. 

The specification at page 41 line 11 that those funds be made available 

"without further appropriations" is an excellent way to assure both confidence and 

progress in the program. 

Obviously, the total of the percentages in revised § 10222(f)(1), (2), (3) and 

(4) must assure all the funds (and any subsequent accrued interest) are disbursed. 

However, the funds "in the waste fund on the date of enactment" will continue to 

accrue interest after the first trigger date. That means by the fourth trigger date there 

will be some funds remaining that would not be covered by including a percentage 

5 
53 


in all four provisions. To correct this problem, NARUC respectfully suggests, the 

fourth "trigger" should specify something like: "An amount equal to any remaining 

funds not previously disbursed of the amounts in the Waste Fund on the date of 

enactment, plus any accrued interest on those funds." This is a good approach. 

However, NARUC members will need to see the actual percentages prior to 

providing unqualified support for § 503. 

The discussion draft's revised mechanism in § 10222(f)(5), at page 42, lines 

10-13, assures any fees collected going forward are immediately available to the 

Secretary for waste related activities without additional appropriations. 

If the NWF fee is restarted, this provision is absolutely crucial. 

With regard to restarting the fee collection, as I stated earlier, the § 501 

amendment of§ 10222(1)(4)(B)(ii)(I) at page 38, lines 9-18, to expressly link any 

restart of the NWF fee to a final NRC decision on licensing a repository is the right 

approach. 

NARUC has not taken a position on the timing or need to restart fee 

assessments. Some have pointed out that the current federal interest payments on the 

NWF corpus appear to be adequate to cover any yearly funding requirements. In 

any case, the legislation would benefit from a specification, that, as part of the annual 

assessment of the need for/level of any fee, the Secretary include an analysis of 

whether the annual interest on the corpus is sufficient to cover the projected outlays 

for the repository and any other required disbursements. 

6 
54 


NARUC has joined others in seeking a different management structure for the 

program. The Draft also makes some progress on this point in the § 602 amendments 

to§ 10224(b) at 44-45 by making the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management "responsible for carrying out the functions of the Secretary 

under this Act" and giving that Director a 5-year term. NARUC has not spoken 

directly to this framework, but the Subcommittee may wish to consider increasing 

the term length to provide greater stability in the program across administrations. 

NARUC also supports the idea of a cost-benefit analysis as a pre-requisite for 

any interim storage facility. The draft reflects that approach somewhat in § 102's 

amendments to § 10162 ( c)(2)'s requirement to change the prioritization of the type 

of waste included in a non-federally licensed storage facility "if the Secretary 

determines that it will be faster and less expensive to site, construct, and operate a 

facility authorized under subsection (b)(1), in comparison to a facility authorized 

under subsection (b )(2)." See discussion draft at page 6, lines 21-26. The 

Subcommittee should consider whether such a finding should also preclude the 

actual construction of such facilities, rather than just reducing the priority of moving 

DOE-owned civilian waste to a non-federally licensed storage facility. 

NARUC is still studying the draft, but one area that has raised definite 

concerns is§ 301 's amendment of§ 10143's discussion of the requirements for DOE 

to take title to waste. 

That section, at pages 27-28, as amended would read: 

Delivery and acceptance by the Secretary, of any high-level radioactive 

waste or spent nuclear fuel for repository or monitored retrievable 

storage facility shall constitute a transfer to the Secretary of title to such 

waste or spent fuel. 

7 
55 


The discussion draft should clarify/define what constitutes "delivery and 

acceptance". The definition must assure that DOE cannot simply "take title" of waste 

where it is currently being stored and claim they have met their contractual 

obligations. The definition must make clear that any transfer of title to DOE includes 

removing the waste to a different NRC licensed storage facility. DOE should not be 

permitted or have the ability to "fulfill" its obligation in this way. Electricity 

consumers have lived up to their part of the deal, the federal government ought to as 

well. 

We are still reviewing this draft and may have additional suggestions, but 

overall, it is a much welcome step forward. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me 

here today to testify on behalf of NARUC. We are pleased you have provided 

legislative language in draft form and we look forward to working with you, your 

staff and the other members and staff on this Subcommittee as the drafting of this 

legislation continues. 

8 
56 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back the time. Thank you 

very much. 

Now, I would like to turn to Dr. Edwin Lyman, senior scientist 

of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EDWIN LYMAN 

Dr. LYMAN. Yes. Good morning. And on behalf of the Union of 

Concerned Scientists, I would like to thank Chairman Shimkus and 

Ranking Member Tonko and the other distinguished members of 

the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide our views on this 

very important subject. 

UCS has more than 500,000 supporters united by a central concern that we need sound, scientific analysis to create a healthy, 

safe, and sustainable future. In addition, we are neither pro- nor 

antinuclear power, but we have served as a nuclear power safety 

and security watchdog for nearly 50 years. And in that respect, we 

believe it is critically important that spent fuel be managed safely 

and protected from a terrorist attack until it can be buried 

irretrievably in a geologic repository. But in addition, the sustainable nuclear waste strategy must also have broad public acceptance. 

So to this end, we appreciate the interest of the authors of the 

discussion draft in moving the ball forward in nuclear waste disposal, but we do disagree with the draft bill’s limited scope and its 

Yucca Mountain-centric approach. We need a comprehensive strategy that addresses all aspects of the problem, including security 

and safety of transportation and storage both at and away from the 

actual sites. And we do need to find—at least try to find—an approach for a repository siting that could facilitate local and regional 

cooperation rather than heighten already entrenched opposition. 

And I think we have already seen the discussion draft is going the 

wrong direction by attempting to resolve disputes by overriding 

State authority instead of promoting dialogue and cooperation. And 

the State of Nevada, predictably and justifiably, is crying foul. 

We strongly support the development of geological repositories 

for direct disposal of spent fuel. We do not have the geological expertise on staff to assess the technical suitability of Yucca Mountain or any other potential site. But with regard to political suitability, we do believe that the Blue Ribbon Commission report was 

correct that the process by which Yucca Mountain was selected was 

flawed and has contributed to the erosion of trust that caused the 

program to stall. 

And so we believe Congress needs to pursue a different and less 

adversarial approach that would be more likely to lead to selection 

of sites that are both technically suitable and publicly acceptable. 

And once such a process is in place, Yucca Mountain could and 

then should compete with other repository proposals on a level 

playing field. 

One cannot underestimate the technical problems associated 

with building repository to effectively isolate nuclear waste from 

the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. The foundation of such an effort is good science. And one of the best ways ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
57 

gress could improve the prospects for any repository is to fully support the scientific work needed to establish its technical basis. 

In the case of Yucca Mountain, there are nearly 300 technical 

contentions that would have to be adjudicated, and we think the 

viability of Yucca Mountain depends critically on their resolution. 

And we do note that technical members within DOE have no doubt 

moved on to other things since the Yucca Mountain was terminated. So DOE, even if it gets all the resources it needs now, it will 

take time to reconstitute that expertise and to attempt to successfully defend its application. 

A comprehensive strategy for waste management must address 

safety and security of spent fuel at reactor sites. Even if Yucca 

Mountain received a license tomorrow, there would be a lot of 

spent fuel at reactors for many decades to come. 

So we believe, in principle, it can be managed safely and securely 

at reactor sites, but the NRC has failed to take steps needed to remediate a very dangerous situation that exposes millions of Americans to needless risk, and that is the potential for fires and dangerously overloaded spent fuel pools. An earthquake or terrorist attack could cause a pool to lose its cooling water, releasing a large 

fraction of radioactive contents into the environment. The impact 

on the American economy would be profound, more than likely far 

worse than the estimated 200 billion damages caused by the much 

smaller release of radioactivity from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. 

These consequences could be greatly reduced if nuclear plants 

transferred more of their older spent fuel to dry storage casks onsite, but the NRC has refused plans to do so insisting that the current risk is tolerable, and the industry will not voluntarily spend 

the money to do so if they are not forced to do so. So we urge Congress, as part of any nuclear waste management reform package, 

to address this risk either by requiring or creating strong incentives for plants to move more of their spent fuel to dry cast storage, 

and this requirement would also add good jobs in the dry cast storage construction industry. 

The risk does not go down to zero even after the fuel has moved 

to dry casks. They have to be protected adequately from sabotage. 

And I would note that the NRC has suspended a rulemaking which 

would address additional vulnerabilities for sabotage of dry casks 

either in transit or in storage that need to be addressed. 

With regard to consolidated interim storage, we do believe that 

a strong linkage needs to remain between licensing a repository 

and allowing consolidated interim storage to go forward because of 

the potential for derailing the momentum for geological repository. 

So we note that the discussion draft in allowing the DOE to move 

forward, even if NRC says no to Yucca Mountain, would be the 

wrong outcome and that there would be no other alternatives. So 

we believe we need to start looking for new geological disposal 

sites, and the time is to start looking for them now. 

And I am already going over, so I will just conclude. 

We think the U.S. can afford to allow the NRC to take its time 

in reviewing the safety of Yucca Mountain and to locate and characterize other possible repository sites provided that plants thin 

out their high-density spent fuel pools and other necessary upVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
58 

grades are carried out. So there is no urgent need to rush forward 

with a less than optimal solution for the long term. 

Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to answer 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lyman follows:] 

59 


Testimony of Dr. Edwin Lyman 

Senior Scientist, Global Security Program 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

"HR_, The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017" 

Bt;fore the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

U.S. House of Representatives 

April26, 2017 

1 
60 


SUMMARY OF UCS TESTIMONY 

• Nuclear waste disposal presents both political problems and technical problems. The best 

way to tackle the political problems is to first ensure that the technical problems are 

resolved to the greatest extent possible by using rigorous, peer-reviewed science. 

• The best way to break the nuclear waste logjam is to create a new process for repository 

site selection that is more equitable than the flawed process that led to the selection of 

Yucca Mountain. Once a level playing field is established, Yucca Mountain then should 

compete with other candidate sites. 

• The benefits of adding consolidated interim storage facilities to the waste management 

system may not outweigh the risks, either for spent fuel from operating reactors or from 

shutdown reactors. 

• UCS believes that spent fuel can be managed safely at reactor sites for decades, provided 

that the unacceptable risk of spent fuel pool fires is reduced by expediting transfer of 

spent fuel to dry casks, and that the security of dry cask storage is enhanced. 

• Congress should not micromanage the NRC's procedures for evaluating and adjudicating 

amendments to repository applications that could have a significant impact on repository 

safety and security. 

2 
61 


Good morning. On behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, I would like to thank Chairman 

Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and the other distinguished members of the Subcommittee 

for the opportunity to provide our views on the future of nuclear waste management and disposal 

policy in the United States. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has more than 500,000 supporters, united by a central 

concern: that we need sound scientific analysis to create a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. 

UCS is neither pro- nor anti-nuclear power, but has served as a nuclear power safety and security 

watchdog for nearly fifty years. Combating the threat of global climate change is one of our 

priorities, and we have not ruled out an expansion of nuclear power as an option to help reduce · 

greenhouse gas emissions-provided that it is affordable relative to other low-carbon options and 

that it meets high standards of safety and security. These considerations apply as well to the 

management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, which contains long-lived, highly radioactive 

fission products and weapon-usable plutonium. It is critically important that spent fuel be 

managed safely and protected from terrorist attack until it can be buried in a geologic repository. 

But a sustainable nuclear waste disposal strategy must also have broad public acceptance. 

To that end, we appreciate the interest of the authors of the discussion draft of the bill that is the 

subject of today' s hearing to move the ball on nuclear waste disposaL However, we disagree 

with the draft bill's limited scope and its Yucca Mountain-centric approach. The U.S. needs a 

comprehensive strategy that addresses all aspects of this problem, including the safety and 

security of spent fuel transportation and spent fuel storage, both at and away from reactor sites. 

3 
62 


And it needs to at least try to find an approach for repository siting that could facilitate local and 

regional cooperation, rather than heighten already entrenched opposition. In contrast, the 

discussion draft goes in the wrong direction with a heavy-handed attempt by the federal 

government to resolve disputes by overriding state authority instead of promoting dialogue and 

cooperation. The state of Nevada, predictably, is already crying foul. While it may be unrealistic 

to hope for an all-inclusive "consent-based" siting approach, as first proposed by the 2012 

Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, there is surely a way to 

develop a process that at least is perceived by all stakeholders as fair, even though they might not 

all agree with the outcome. 

UCS strongly supports the development of geologic repositories for direct disposal of spent fuel. 

However, we do not have the geological expertise on staff to assess the technical suitability of 

the Yucca Mountain site, or for that matter, any other potential site in the United States. With 

regard to political suitability, we concur with the assessment of the 2012 Blue Ribbon 

Commission (BRC) Report that the process by which Yucca Mountain was selected was flawed 

and contributed to the erosion of trust in the program that caused it to stall. Congress should 

pursue a different and less adversarial approach that will be more likely to lead to selection of 

sites that are both technically suitable and publicly acceptable. Once a process is in place, Yucca 

Mountain could then compete with other repository proposals on a level playing field. 

Many people believe that nuclear waste disposal is only a political problem, and not a technical 

problem. In fact, it is both. One should not underestimate the technical challenges of designing 

4 
63 


and building a repository that will effectively isolate nuclear waste from the environment for 

hundreds of thousands of years. The foundation of such an effort is good science. One of the best 

ways that Congress could improve the prospects for a geologic repository is to fully support the 

scientific work needed to establish the technical basis for its safety and security. 

In the case of Yucca Mountain, there are nearly three hundred technical contentions that would 

have to be adjudicated before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board. These contentions raise many important safety and security issues, and the 

viability of Yucca Mountain depends critically on their resolution. However, technical staff 

members within the Department of Energy (DOE) with expertise on these issues have no doubt 

moved on to other things since DOE terminated the Yucca Mountain project in 2010. Even if the 

DOE gets all the resources it needs now, it will take time to reconstitute the expertise it will need 

to successfully defend its application against these technical contentions. 

A comprehensive strategy for nuclear waste management must also address the safety and 

security of spent fuel storage at reactor sites. Even if Yucca Mountain were to receive a license 

tomorrow, constructing the repository and transportation infrastructure will take time, and large 

quantities of spent fuel would likely remain at many reactors for decades to come. Also, for all 

operating reactors, there will be a need to store recently discharged spent fuel on site. 

5 
64 


While spent fuel in principle can be managed safely and securely at reactor sites, the NRC has 

failed to take steps to remediate a dangerous situation that exposes millions of Americans to 

needless risk: the potential for fires in dangerously overloaded spent fuel pools. If an earthquake 

or a terrorist attack were to damage a spent fuel pool at aU .S. reactor, causing it to rapidly lose 

its cooling water, the spent fuel could heat up and burn, releasing a large fraction of its highly 

radioactive contents into the environment. The consequences of such an event would be truly 

disastrous. A recent Princeton University study calculated, using sophisticated NOAA computer 

models, that a spent fuel pool fire at the Peach Bottom nuclear plant in Pennsylvania could 

heavily contaminate over 30,000 square miles with long-lived radioactivity and require the longterm relocation of nearly 20 million people, for average weather conditions. Depending on the 

wind direction and other factors, the plume could reach anywhere from Maine to Georgia. The 

impact on the American economy would be profound, and likely far worse than the estimated 

$200 billion in damages caused by the much smaller release of radioactivity from the damaged 

Fukushima Daiichi plant. 

The consequences of such a fire would be greatly reduced if nuclear plants thinned out their 

spent fuel pools by transferring the older fuel to dry storage casks. Yet the NRC has refused to 

require nuclear plants to do so, insisting in the face of all evidence that the risk is tolerable. And 

the industry will not voluntarily spend the money to buy additional dry casks, despite their 

modest cost in relation to the potential economic damages from a pool fire. 

6 
65 


To this end, we urge Congress, as part of any nuclear waste management reform package, to 

address the unacceptably high risk of a spent fuel pool fire by either requiring nuclear plants to 

thin out their densely packed spent fuel pools by expediting transfer to dry cask storage, or by 

creating strong incentives for nuclear plants to do so on their own, such as a reduction in future 

Nuclear Waste Fee assessments. This requirement would have a valuable side benefit by adding 

good jobs in the dry cask storage construction industry. 

While the risk of a large radiological release is greatly reduced when spent fuel is moved from 

high-density pools to dry casks, it does not go down to zero. One must also be concerned about 

sabotage attacks on dry casks, whether in storage or in transit. Indeed, during security reviews 

that it ordered following the 9111 attacks, the NRC discovered ways to sabotage dry casks to 

cause significant radiological releases. Accordingly, it began developing new requirements for 

protecting dry cask storage facilities-both at reactor sites and at centralized sites-from 

sabotage. However, in 2015 the NRC delayed development of these new requirements for at least 

five years, citing resource constraints. Any new nuclear waste legislation should contain 

provisions to ensure that these vulnerabilities are promptly addressed. 

We note that the discussion draft would expand the DOE's authority to build and/or store waste 

at consolidated monitored retrievable storage facilities, either DOE-owned or privately owned, 

although from our reading it would not allow use of the Nuclear Waste Fund for such activities. 

UCS remains unpersuaded that such facilities are useful additions to a comprehensive waste 

management strategy, and in fact may even be detrimental. The argument for consolidating spent 

fuel from shutdown reactors is more compelling than for fuel from operating reactors, but for 

7 
66 


either case UCS has yet to see an analysis demonstrating that the benefits of interim storage 

clearly outweigh the additional costs and risks associated with siting and licensing new storage 

facilities and the extra transportation that would be required. An alternative that might be more 

desirable would be to arrange to ship spent fuel from each shutdown reactor to the nearest 

operating reactor that has the space to accommodate it, thus eliminating the need to license 

greenfield facilities, capitalizing on existing infrastructure and reducing transport distances. 

Congress should provide benefits to any reactor site that was willing to accept spent fuel from 

other sites. 

One of the biggest disadvantages of consolidated interim storage facilities is that they could 

derail efforts to develop geologic repositories and hence would become de facto permanent 

disposal facilities. This is the reason why the Nuclear Waste Policy Act imposed tight constraints 

on monitored retrievable storage (MRS). In this regard, we note that the discussion draft would 

weaken the NWPA's critical linkage between an MRS facility and a geologic repository by 

allowing the DOE to move forward on multiple monitored retrievable storage facilities after the 

NRC makes a decision on Yucca Mountain, even if that decision were to deny construction 

authorization. Thus the draft would allow the DOE to give up on the search for a geologic 

repository should the NRC reject Yucca Mountain, and to focus only on interim storage. This 

would be the wrong outcome, for both environmental and security reasons. There need to be 

alternative sites for geologic disposal, and the time to start looking for them is now. 

Spent fuel left indefinitely in a retrievable storage configuration will eventually become an 

attractive material for terrorists seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. Spent fuel contains 

8 
67 


plutonium which can be extracted by reprocessing. However, for many decades after removal 

from a reactor, spent fuel is highly radioactive and very difficult for terrorists to steal and 

reprocess. But as the fission product cesium-137 decays away over time and the spent fuel 

becomes less radioactive, it will be easier to steal and reprocess, making the plutonium it 

contains more accessible. Under the NRC's rules, after the radiation dose rate from spent fuel 

decreases below a certain threshold (1 00 rem per hour at 3 feet), physical protection measures for 

spent fuel would have to be increased to the same strict standard that applies to separated 

plutonium. This would require a significant security upgrade for spent fuel in retrievable storage. 

Some commercial spent fuel will reach this point as soon as seventy years after being removed 

from the reactor. This is one reason why the nation must focus on the goal of building a geologic 

repository for spent fuel and making it irretrievable as soon as it is safe to do so. Once spent fuel 

is sealed within a deep underground facility, it will be much harder for terrorists to steal. 

Section 122 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which would allow a repository to remain 

retrievable "for the purpose of permitting the recovery of the economically valuable components 

of ... spent fuel," e.g. for reprocessing, has always been problematic. UCS has long opposed 

reprocessing because it separates plutonium and other materials that could be used in nuclear 

weapons, greatly increasing the risks of nuclear terrorism and proliferation, yet provides no 

benefits for radioactive waste management. In fact, reprocessing actually worsens the 

radioactive waste disposal problem by increasing the complexity and volume of nuclear wastes 

requiring geologic disposal. And it costs a lot of money to boot. 

9 
68 


Section 122 of the NWPA is a relic of the thoroughly discredited notion that the plutonium and 

uranium in spent fuel may be economically valuable energy resources. In fact, separated 

plutonium is far more expensive than low-enriched uranium to use as reactor fuel, and it is 

highly unlikely that this will change in the foreseeable future. U.S. taxpayers may have to spend 

upwards of $30 billion if the DOE decides to go forward with a plan to use 34 metric tons of 

excess weapons plutonium as reactor fuel, because nuclear utilities would never pay for it. And a 

repository would still be needed for the spent plutonium fuel in any event. The only customers 

willing to pay for spent fuel would be terrorists seeking the plutonium it contains. 

In light of this, we do not support Section 406 of the discussion draft, which would provide for 

sharing "any economic benefits derived from the retrieval of spent nuclear fuel pursuant to this 

section" with the State and affected local entities. This provision contributes to the erroneous 

impression that the spent fuel sent to a repository could become a windfall for the host 

community, and could encourage efforts to maintain the repository in a retrievable condition, 

which as explained above would be a bad idea on security grounds. 

Another part of the discussion draft that we are concerned about is Section 203, which would 

modify the application procedures for Yucca Mountain. Specifically, the proposed changes 

would remove the current statutory cap on the allowable nuclear waste quantity of 70,000 metric 

tons of heavy metal. In addition, they would require the NRC to consider a DOE application to 

amend a construction authorization "using expedited, informal procedures" and to make a 

decision on the amendment application within 18 months. Presumably, these provisions would 

force the NRC to make a quick decision no matter how significant the proposed changes to the 

10 
69 


repository. For instance, upon receiving a construction authorization for a 70,000 metric ton 

facility per its current application, the DOE could then immediately request an amendment to 

triple the capacity, and the NRC would have to expedite its evaluation. But such a capacity 

increase would be a radical change to the Yucca Mountain design, and could have a major 

impact on the repository's performance, raising new safety issues that would require extensive 

analysis. Congress should not be in the business of imposing arbitrary constraints on the length 

of time that the NRC-an independent agency- can take to conduct reviews and the hearing 

procedures it uses. 

The United States can afford to allow the NRC to take its time in reviewing the safety of Yucca 

Mountain and for the DOE to locate and characterize other possible repository sites. Provided 

that nuclear plants thin out their high-density spent fuel pools by expediting transfer to dry casks, 

and other necessary upgrades are carried out, spent fuel can be stored safely and securely at 

reactor sites for many decades. There is no urgent need to rush forward with a less-than-optimal 

approach for the long term. 

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer your questions. 

11 
70 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now turns to Mr. Steven Nesbit, chairman of the 

Backend Working Group at the Nuclear Infrastructure Council. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN P. NESBIT 

Mr. NESBIT. Good morning. On behalf of the United States Nuclear Infrastructure Council, I thank you for the opportunity to appear and offer testimony on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments 

Act of 2017. 

I appear before you today discouraged by the country’s lack of accomplishments in the area of used fuel management over the past 

three-and-a-half decades but encouraged by the opportunity to 

make real and lasting progress over the coming months and years. 

Let me start by emphasizing the urgent need to successfully 

manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle in this country. The 

used fuel impasse is costing U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. In 

addition to the mounting costs, failure to bring closure to the back 

end of the nuclear fuel cycle adversely impacts nuclear energy as 

a vital component for reliable, affordable, and clean electricity and 

energy independence, jobs, exports, and competitors. 

Speaking from the standpoint of my employer, Duke Energy Corporation, nuclear power has been a remarkable success story for 

our customers in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Energy 

operates 11 nuclear power reactors in these two States, and these 

nuclear plants generate about half of the electricity the company 

provides to its Carolinas’ customers reliably, economically, and 

with minimal environmental impacts. Used fuel management, however, continues to be a costly and time-consuming burden for Duke 

Energy and other utilities, as described in more detail in my written remarks. 

While nuclear power plants store used fuel safely and securely, 

extensive onsite storage of used fuel is a distraction from the 

plant’s primary mission of producing electricity, and it has cost 

U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars to date with tens of billions to follow. There is an imperative need for action. 

In a recent issue brief—it is attached to my testimony—the 

United States Nuclear Infrastructure Council made six recommendations on how to break the used fuel logjam. In particular, 

USNIC believes the Government should carry out its mandate 

under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and complete the initial licensing process for geological repository at Yucca Mountain. 

Yucca Mountain is located in a remote arid region of the country 

on federally owned land, and its suitability for disposal of used fuel 

has been confirmed by decades of scientific study involving the Nation’s national laboratories and most recently a favorable safety 

evaluation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is time to follow the law and complete the regulatory review of Yucca Mountain. 

USNIC applauds the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 

2017 as a significant positive step toward a more effective and sustainable used fuel management program for the country. Let me 

highlight some key points. 

The discussion draft provides for necessary Federal actions to 

support completion of the licensing process at Yucca Mountain. It 

71 

encourages a dialogue with the State of Nevada and its citizens 

about impact assistance and benefits that might be made available 

in return for hosting a geological repository. It provides a legal 

framework for a consolidated interim storage program for used nuclear fuel. It addresses funding, perhaps the most challenging aspect of this issue facing the Federal Government. 

The draft legislation establishes a framework for accessing the 

existing balance in the waste fund as well as preserving future receipts, if any, for the purpose for which they were collected. 

Finally, the discussion draft reestablishes and strengthens the 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, or OCRWM, 

within the Department of Energy as the entity responsible for fulfilling the Government’s obligations related to used fuel management. Of course, simply reestablishing OCRWM requires no authorizing legislation. And I would be remiss if I did not point out 

that DOE should act immediately to do so. 

In addition, Congress should appropriate funding to DOE and 

the NRC to restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process, another 

action already authorized by Federal law. 

In closing, I want to reiterate my thanks to your subcommittee 

for considering this important issue, and in particular, to Chairman Shimkus for his unswerving advocacy for an effective Federal 

program to manage used fuel and high-level waste in a manner 

that is consistent with Federal law. It has been said many times 

that used fuel disposal is a political problem, not a technical one. 

Nevertheless, it is an issue that must be addressed, and the nuclear industry which has consistently fulfilled its obligations under 

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act stands ready to work with the Government to do so. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nesbit follows:] 

72 


Testimony of Steven P. Nesbit 1 before the House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Environment 

on the Subject of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017 

April 26, 2017 

Summary 

Mark Twain famously said, "Everybody talks about the weather, but no one does 

anything about it." Used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) management is in 

real danger of replacing the weather in that quote. Fortunately, both the new administration and 

Congress appear to be ready to take on this important issue and put it back on the right track. 

Action is sorely needed. In the short term, Congress should appropriate money to 

complete the Yucca Mountain licensing process and the Department of Energy (DOE) should reestablish the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) to carry out the 

program to store, transport and dispose of used nuclear fuel and HLW. 

Beyond these immediate actions that require no authorizing legislation, Congress should 

enact reforms to the country's HL W management framework. The United States Nuclear 

Infrastructure Council (USNIC) proposed six key elements for a rejuvenated program: 

(I) developing the Yucca Mountain geologic repository, (2) initiating a consolidated interim 

storage program, (3) addressing management and funding reform, (4) providing value for host 

communities, (5) preparing for transportation and (6) carrying out appropriate research and 

development. Most of these elements are captured in the discussion draft of the Nuclear Waste 

I am giving this testimony on the behalf of the United States Nuclear Infrastructure Council, for which I serve 

as chair of the Back-end Working Group. I am an employee of Duke Energy Corporation. 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24/17 
73 


Policy Amendments Act of 2017, and I look forward to a thorough dialog on this important 

legislation. 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24/17 2 
74 


Written Statement 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee, on 

behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council (USNIC), I thank you for the opportunity to 

appear and offer testimony on the discussion draft of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act 

of2017. USNIC is the leading U.S. business consortium advocate for nuclear energy and 

promotion of the American supply chain globally. My employer, Duke Energy Corporation, is 

the second largest operator of nuclear power plants in the United States and is a long-standing 

member of USN! C. My personal experience in the field of used fuel dates back to 1992 when I 

worked several years for the management and operating contractor for the DOE's OCRWM in 

Las Vegas, Nevada, in support of the Yucca Mountain Project. I later supported OCRWM's 

design of a generic centralized interim storage facility for used nuclear fuel. In 2006 and 2007, 1 

directed used fuel management activities for Duke Energy, and since 2009, as the Director of 

Nuclear Policy and Support, I have represented Duke Energy on several organizations, including 

USNJC, the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition and the Nuclear Energy Institute, that are heavily 

engaged in used fuel policy issues. I also chair the American Nuclear Society Public Policy 

Committee, which is responsible for the nuclear professional society's position statements on 

used fuel and other matters of nuclear policy. 

I appear before you today discouraged by the country's lack of accomplishments in the 

area of used fuel management over the past three and a half decades, but encouraged by the 

opportunity to make real and lasting progress over the coming months and years. 

Let me start by emphasizing the urgent need to successfully manage the back end of the 

nuclear fuel cycle in this country. It has been more than 34 years since enactment of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act (NWPA); more than 19 years since the federal government failed to meet its 

S. P. Nesbit4/24/17 3 
75 


statutory and contractual obligation to begin removing used fuel from nuclear power reactor 

sites; more than eight years since DOE submitted the Yucca Mountain license application to the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review; and more than seven years since the 

previous administration defunded the repository program and vacated OCRWM. This impasse is 

costing U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. As of September 30, 2016, the government had paid 

$6.1 billion in damages as a result of lawsuits and settlements, and the current government 

estimate of remaining federal liabilities is approximately $25 billion2 (based on arguably 

optimistic assumptions about when DOE will begin to remove used fuel from reactor sites). 

In addition to these mounting costs, failure to bring closure to the back end of the nuclear 

fuel cycle adversely impacts nuclear energy as a vital component for reliable, affordable and 

clean electricity- and energy independence, jobs, exports and competitiveness. Some members 

of Congress have balked at funding new nuclear technology development based on the lack of a 

disposal pathway for used fuel. After the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down its Waste 

Confidence Rule, the NRC placed a two-year moratorium on issuing new nuclear plant licenses 

and license renewals. A number of states have a ban or restrictions on the construction of new 

nuclear energy facilities in large part due to the lack of a disposition pathway for used fuel. 

Globally, as noted by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, the continued 

stalemate is damaging America's international standing on issues ofnuc1ear safety, 

nonproliferation and security. 

Speaking from the standpoint of my employer, Duke Energy Corporation, nuclear power 

has been a remarkable success story for our customers in North Carolina and South Carolina. 

W c operate II nuclear power reactors in these states, with a total generating capacity of I 0, 719 

OAI-FS-17-04, "Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Fund's Fiscal Year 2016 Financial Statement Audit," 

Note 9, DOE Office of the Inspector General, December 2016. 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24117 4 
76 


megawatts-electric. These II reactors typically generate half of the electricity we provide to 

customers in the two Carolinas, reliably, economically and with minimal environmental impacts. 

We also maintain the permanently shut down Crystal River nuclear power reactor in Florida that 

served customers more than 30 years. 

Used fuel management, however, continues to be a costly and time-consuming burden for 

Duke Energy and other utilities. Nuclear power reactors typically shut down for refueling every 

one and a half to two years, and at that time used fuel assemblies are discharged for on-site 

storage. Initially, the used fuel is stored in on-site pools, and when the pools approach capacity, 

some of the fuel assemblies are transferred to on-site dry storage. Duke Energy stores more than 

8,000 metric tons of used fuel, with more than 15,000 used fuel assemblies in pool storage and 

more than 8,000 assemblies in dry storage. The company has six independent used fuel storage 

installations (ISFSis), including one under development at Crystal River. More than 280 used 

fuel storage casks or canisters reside at these ISFSis. In addition, in the 1970s through the 2000s, 

Duke Energy transported more than 5,000 used fuel assemblies from plant to plant, often across 

state lines, to address a lack of storage space in the used fuel pools at our older plants. With 

respect to the industry as a whole, at the end of2016, there were more than 78,000 metric tons of 

commercial used nuclear fuel in storage (nearly 49,000 metric tons in pool storage and nearly 

30,000 metric tons in dry storage). This corresponds to more than 275,000 used nuclear fuel 

assemblies in storage (more than 172,000 in pools and more than 103,000 in dry storage). There 

arc 74 nuclear plant sites storing used fuel, of which 15 have no operating nuclear power 

reactors. 

While nuclear power plants store used fuel safely and securely, extensive on-site storage 

of used fuel is a distraction from the plants' primary mission of producing electricity. Indefinite, 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24/17 5 
77 


large scale on-site storage was not a choice Duke Energy wanted to make and it is not a 

permanent solution for used fuel. In accordance with contracts signed pursuant to the NWPA, 

Duke Energy and its predecessor companies have collected from their customers and paid more 

than $2.5 billion3 into the Nuclear Waste Fund since 1983. However, the federal government 

missed its 1998 deadline to begin removing used fuel from reactor sites, and still has not begun 

to fulfill its statutory and contractual responsibilities under the NWPA. For some of our plants 

Duke Energy successfully sued the federal government on multiple occasions for partial breach 

of contract and was awarded damage payments by the courts. For the other plants Duke Energy 

entered into a settlement agreement under which it receives damage payments annually. To date, 

the federal government has reimbursed Duke Energy more than $400 million for used fuel 

storage costs that would not have been incurred had the government managed used fuel as agreed 

in its contracts. This story is repeated at nuclear power plants around the country, including a 

number of utilities maintaining shutdown sites like Crystal River. As noted earlier, as of 

September 30,2016, the federal government had paid $6.1 billion in compensation for damages. 

It is clear that productive action on used fuel is long overdue. There is an imperative need for this 

country to effectively manage its commercial used fuel, and the centerpiece of this program must 

be the development of a geologic repository to enable ultimate disposal of the material. 

Next, I would like to summarize the recommendations of USNIC for breaking the used 

fuel logjam. USNIC developed the issue bricf"Charting a Path Forward" in February 2016 and 

revised and updated the document in March 2017, stating that "Urgent action by the Congress, 

the Trump Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Energy Secretary 

Rick Perry is required to re-establish the basic foundational elements of a comprehensive 

This amount does not include interest. 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24/17 6 
78 


program for used nuclear fuel and high-level waste storage and disposal." A copy of the USNIC 

issue brief is attached to my testimony. 

The issue brief describes six key elements: (I) developing the Yucca Mountain geologic 

repository, (2) initiating a consolidated interim storage program, (3) addressing management and 

funding reform, (4) providing value for host communities, (5) preparing for transportation and 

(6) carrying out appropriate research and development. In particular, USNIC believes the 

government must carry out its mandate under the NWPA and complete the initial licensing 

process for a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Yucca Mountain is located in a 

remote, arid region of the country on federally owned land, and its suitability for disposal of used 

fuel has been confirmed by decades of scientific study involving the nation's national 

laboratories and, most recently, a favorable safety evaluation by the NRC4• The evaluation found 

the repository capable of meeting stringent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

requirements for waste isolation for at least I million years. Yucca Mountain site 

characterization and licensing have been carried out at considerable expense to electricity 

customers and taxpayers, and the directly affected unit of local government, Nye County, 

Nevada, supports the development of a repository at the site provided it meets applicable public 

health and safety standards. It is time to follow the law and finish the job. 

USNIC applauds the discussion draft of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 

2017 as a significant positive step toward a more effective and sustainable used fuel management 

program for the country. The draft legislation addresses many of the elements identified by 

USNIC in its issue brief. Importantly, the draft legislation would provide a statutory basis for 

desirable changes to the program, rather than attempting to make such fundamental changes 

The NRC is the country's independent agency charged with the protection of public health and safety in matters 

related to nuclear materials and radiation. 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24/17 7 
79 


pursuant to executive branch whim. Below I highlight what USNIC sees as some of the key 

points in the discussion draft. 

First, the draft legislation provides for necessary federal actions to support the 

development of Yucca Mountain as a repository for used nuclear fuel and HLW. These actions, 

such as land withdrawal and ensuring water rights, are consistent with the intent of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act and necessary for the completion of the initial licensing process. 

Second, the draft legislation would encourage a dialog with the State of Nevada and its 

citizens about impact assistance and benefits that might be made available in return for hosting a 

geologic repository. USNIC believes Yucca Mountain should ultimately be a "win" for both 

Nevada and the nation, but this will only happen if a constructive dialog occurs. 

Third, the draft legislation provides a legal framework for a consolidated interim storage 

program for used nuclear fuel that includes the ability to contract with private entities aligned 

with communities amenable to hosting an interim storage site. USNIC believes this kind of 

cooperative venture offers the best pathway for successful implementation of a consolidated 

storage program. USNIC shares the position of most organizations that the consolidated interim 

storage program should be focused first on removal of used fuel from shutdown plant sites with 

no operating reactor. 

In addition, the draft legislation addresses funding reform, perhaps the most challenging 

aspect of this issue facing the federal government. Ultimately, the entity responsible for 

managing used fuel and HL W must have access to the resources necessary to perform the job. 

Because of complex accounting constraints, there are major obstacles to accessing the 

considerable balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund. These obstacles must be overcome. Nuclear 

power plant operators, like Duke Energy, have a simple view- electric customers and nuclear 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24/17 8 
80 


operating companies paid the government a significant amount of money for a service, and they 

should expect to get that service without having to pay two or three more times for the same 

thing. This viewpoint is shared by many state regulators, consumer advocates, and other public 

and private stakeholders with whom I have had the opportunity to work on used fuel issues. The 

draft legislation establishes a framework for accessing the existing balance in the fund, as well as 

preserving future assessments, if any, for the purpose for which they were collected. USNIC is 

concerned because annual appropriations in the past have not proven to be a reliable mechanism 

for funding the HL W program. There will undoubtedly be considerable dialog on the appropriate 

mechanism and associated funding controls. 

Finally, the draft legislation would re-establish OCRWM within DOE as the entity 

responsible for carrying out the government's responsibilities related to used fuel management, 

and would modify the NWPA so that the OCRWM director would have a five-year term and 

would be required to have project management qualifications to fill the position. USNIC 

endorses the re-establishment of OCR WM in the near-term, and concurs that qualified, effective 

and stable leadership is an absolute requirement for program success. OCRWM's 

accomplishments in the 2000s under the leadership of Ward Sproat underscore this point. 

Ultimately, a separate, politically independent, but accountable, federal corporation-type 

organization5 to carry out this important, long-term national mission in a sustainable manner may 

be warranted. 

I would be remiss not to mention a couple of other attributes of the discussion draft 

which, though perhaps not as significant as the ones highlighted above, would, if enacted, make 

a positive contribution to the country's framework for used fuel and HL W management. The 

Legislation along those lines was introduced by both Senator Voinovich and Congressman Upton in 2010. 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24/17 9 
81 


draft legislation would place a hold on the development of a defense waste6 repository until a 

decision is made on the initial licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository. USNIC supports this 

aspect of the draft legislation, which would essentially suspend the 2015 decision by the previous 

administration to pursue separate repositories for commercial used fuel and defense waste. As 

documented in a recent Government Accountability Office report7, that decision was not 

adequately justified. Moreover, it was taken without formal consultation with stakeholders and, 

consequently, should not be allowed to stand. In addition, the discussion draft would task the 

EPA and the NRC with reviewing their generic repository regulations and determining if these 

regulations should be revised. In my opinion, the current generic regulations of both agencies are 

out of date and, in some cases, inconsistent with today' s knowledge and international norms. The 

nation would be well served if both agencies were to revise their generic repository regulations 

in line with their more modern Yucca Mountain-specific regulations. 

The discussion draft of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017 would make 

important and desirable changes to the country's framework for waste management. However, 

there is no need to wait for enactment of this legislation before taking any action. There are two 

things the government should do immediately that do not require authorizing legislation. First, 

the executive branch should re-establish OCRWM within DOE as the responsible entity for 

fulfilling its obligations under the NWPA. Successfully completing the licensing process will 

require a dedicated federal entity. Moreover, this action would send a strong signal that the 

current administration is committed to carrying out the law related to nuclear waste. Second, 

This term actually goes beyond used fuel and HLW produced as a result of national defense activities. It 

encompasses all government-owned used fuel and HL W, including research reactor used fuel, foreign reactor 

fuel and associated HL W from its processing, etc. 

GA0-17-174, "Benefits and Costs Should Be Better Understood Before DOE Commits to a Separate 

Repository for Defense Waste," Government Accountability Office, January 2017. 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24/17 10 
82 


Congress should appropriate funding to the DOE and the NRC to restart the Yucca Mountain 

licensing process. Resolving more than 200 contentions will be a challenging endeavor after 

seven years of shutdown, but one that can be successfully accomplished with competent 

leadership and adequate funding. Accordingly, rebuilding the Yucca Mountain Project 

infrastructure to support licensing should begin without further delay. 

In closing, I want to reiterate my thanks to your subcommittee for considering this 

important issue and, in particular, to Chairman Shimkus for his unswerving advocacy for an 

effective federal program to manage used fuel and HL W in a manner that is consistent with 

federal law. It has been said many times that HLW disposal is a political problem, not a technical 

one. Nevertheless, it is an issue that must be addressed and the nuclear industry, which has 

consistently fulfilled its obligations under the NWPA, stands ready to work with the government 

to do so. 

I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you again for the opportunity to 

speak. 

S. P. Nesbit 4/24117 11 
83 


Issue 

U.S. NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE COUNCIL (USNIC) 

USNIC Backend Working Group Issue Brief 

Charting a Path Forward 

March 2017 

Today, the Nation's nuclear waste management program stands at an impasse, largely due to 

universally recognized political reasons. As a result, there is no available disposal pathway for the 

Nation's growing inventory of both commercial and defense used nuclear fuel and high-level waste. 

Currently, used fuel and high-level waste (HLW) from both commercial and defense activities 

remain in safe storage at 121 sites in 39 states. U.S. spent fuel inventories now exceed 75,000 metric 

tons at 99 operating reactors and 14 shutdown sites. 

It has been more than 30 years since enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA); more than 

18 years since the federal government failed to meet its statutory and contractual obligation to begin 

removing used fuel from nuclear energy reactor sites; more than eight years since the license 

application review process by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) began; and more than 

six years since the Obama Administration defunded the repository program and vacated the Office of 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). 

This impasse is costing U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. The current estimate of federal liabilities is 

approximately $25 billion and growing an $11 billion increase since the Obama Administration 

first moved to terminate the Yucca Mountain project. In addition to these mounting costs, failure to 

bring closure to the backcnd of the nuclear fuel cycle adversely impacts nuclear energy as a vital 

component for reliable, affordable and clean electricity- and energy independence, jobs, exports and 

competitiveness. Some members of Congress have balked at funding new nuclear technology 

development based on the lack of a disposal pathway. For two years, after the U.S. Court of Appeals 

struck down its Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC placed a moratorium on new nuclear plant licenses 

and license renewals. Ten states have a ban or restrictions on the construction of new nuclear energy 

facilities in large part due to the lack of a disposition pathway for used fuel. Globally, as noted by 

former President Obama's own Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC), the 

continued stalemate is damaging America's international standing on issues of nuclear safety, 

nonproliferation and security. 

Urgent action by the Congress, the Trump Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

under Energy Secretary Rick Perry is required to re-establish the basic foundational elements of a 

comprehensive program for used nuclear fuel and high-level waste storage and disposal. 
84 


USNIC Backend Working Group Recommendations 

The U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council's Backend Working Group was established in 2012 to 

follow matters related to used fuel management and encourage actions to resolve the impasse over 

the Nation's nuclear waste management program. 

It is crystal clear that decisive, swift and tangible action is needed to re-establish a comprehensive 

program to address the federal government's statutory and contractual obligations for disposition of 

growing inventories of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste- as well as to provide a path forward 

for the back end of the fuel cycle for currently operating reactors and pave the way for new nuclear 

energy plants required for U.S. energy independence, jobs, exports, made-in-America clean energy 

leadership and national security. 

The USNIC Backend Working Group believes that Congress and DOE should address needed 

program reforms through the adoption of an omnibus approach that advances the Yucca Mountain 

project, develops supportive consolidated interim storage capabilities as needed, assures the 

availability of associated transportation infrastructure, and aligns organizational focus and resources 

behind the effort while looking to recycling and advanced reactor technologies that can optimize the 

fuel cycle. 

Specific features of this multi-faceted approach include: 

Yucca Mountain Repository Project. As a cornerstone to any comprehensive program, the NRC 

environmental and safety review of the DOE Yucca Mountain license application must be 

completed, culminating in a final agency decision to authorize (or not) construction of the 

repository. This action should include immediate action to re-establish the DOE waste 

management organization (OCRWM); re-cngagement by the DOE in the NRC Yucca Mountain 

review; and enactment of legislative provisions for (i) securing the necessary land withdrawal 

and water rights and (ii) providing benefits to local and state governments in return for hosting a 

repository. The 2015 Presidential decision to develop a repository other than Yucca Mountain 

for waste resulting from defense activities should be reversed unless and until there is a formal 

opportunity for stakeholder input and the benefits of a separate repository are clearly shown to 

outweigh the costs. 

Consolidated interim storage. While completing Yucca Mountain licensing, consolidated 

interim storage solutions should be pursued, with an emphasis on existing private-sector 

initiatives. Consolidated storage is not a substitute for a permanent geologic repository but it 

does offer potential advantages as part of an integrated used fuel management system. First 

priority for consolidated storage spent fuel acceptance should be given to used fuel currently 

residing at sites with no operating reactor. Consistent with the NWP A, any tangible federal 

action related to consolidated storage should not pre-empt completion of licensing of the Yucca 

Mountain repository. 

Management and funding reform. Over the medium term, this action should include the 

establishment of a separate, politically independent but accountable federal corporation-type 

organization which is mission-based and structured to execute all necessary steps and activities to 

develop, license, construct, operate and decommission nuclear used fuel and high-level waste 

2 
85 


storage facilities and permanent repositories. In addition, the Nuclear Waste Fund1 must be 

restructured so that access to both the fund's assets and annual receipts are available for 

expenditure by the new entity, subject to appropriate congressional oversight. 

Transportation planning and execution. Near-term work should focus on assuring the 

availability of necessary infrastructure and capabilities (railcars, rail spurs/alternatives, etc.) to 

move used fuel and high-level waste. To the maximum extent practicable, the private sector 

should be utilized to implement these activities consistent with the current provisions of the 

NWPA. 

Research, development and demonstration. Continued work must enable advanced reactor and 

back end technologies that offer the promise of improved economics, enhanced safety, maximize 

utilization of energy resources and optimization of waste management and disposal. 

Assuring shared value for host communities. The development of facilities for management and 

disposal of used nuclear fuel and HLW represents a significant investment in nuclear 

infrastructure and provides a unique platform for economic development and future research 

development and demonstration. As a committed partner in assuring the successful siting and 

operation of these facilities, the federal government should provide the necessary resources for 

impact assistance along with tailored incentives that support the long-term mission of nuclear 

waste storage and disposal sites and their value to the host community. 

Background and Discussion 

Upon taking office the Obama Administration sought to terminate the Yucca Mountain Project for 

which the DOE had submitted a license application to the NRC in 2008. The Administration's 

actions contravened the will of the legislative branch of the federal government, as expressed first in 

1987 when Congress designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the only candidate site for the 

characterization as the nation's permanent geologic repository for used fuel and HL W, and then 

again in 2002 when a large bipartisan majority in Congress overrode a State of Nevada veto of the 

site selection consistent with the NWPA, as amended. 

In 2010, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced the establishment of the Blue Ribbon 

Commission on America's Nuclear Future. In March 2010, Secretary Chu stated that Yucca 

Mountain is not a "workable option" for a geologic repository, and subsequently the DOE made a 

motion in the NRC Yucca Mountain licensing proceedings that the Yucca Mountain license 

application be withdrawn with prejudice. Significantly, the DOE lawyers defending the DOE 

withdrawal motion conceded that the application was neither flawed nor the site unsafe. The 

NRC licensing board denied the motion- a decision that was subsequently upheld by a vote of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

After receiving recommendations from the BRC in 2012, a year later in January 2013, the DOE 

released a "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 

Radioactive Waste". The Administration's strategy recommended a consent-based approach to siting 

The Nuclear Waste Fund is the government's accounting of money paid by nuclear power plant operators for 

management and disposal of used fuel pursuant to the NWPA (i.e., nuclear waste fees), plus accumulated 

interest on the balance, minus expenditures. 

Utilities are currently storing used fuel safely and securely at reactor sites using a combination of underwater 

3 
86 


and developing both pilot and larger-scale consolidated storage facilities2 for used fuel to be available 

in 2021 and 2025, respectfully. The strategy also called for the siting and development of a geologic 

repository other than Yucca Mountain for the disposal of used fuel and HLW with an operational 

date beginning in 2048. However, following the release of the strategy in 2013, the Obama 

Administration made no concrete progress. In March 2015 former President Obama issued a 

memorandum to Secretary of Energy Moniz documenting the president's finding that" ... the 

development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste resulting from atomic 

energy defense activities only is rcquired.''3 In December 2015 DOE solicited public input on how to 

implement" ... a consent-based siting process to establish an integrated waste management system to 

transport, store, and dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel and high level defense radioactive 

waste." In December 2016, DOE released its proposed framework for consent-based siting, but no 

implementing actions have been undertaken. 

During this time, the federal courts rebuked the Obama Administration's policy in three separate 

actions. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the NRC's revision of the Waste Confidence 

Rule, which codified NRC's confidence, that nuclear spent fuel storage and disposal facilities would 

be available when needed. The Court remanded the rule back to the NRC, which responded by 

initiating a new rulemaking on Continued Storage supported by a new generic environmental impact 

statement. The NRC also placed a moratorium on the issuance of new reactor and independent spent 

fuel storage installation licenses and license renewals until the NRC completed action on the new 

rule. The NRC's licensing moratorium on new nuclear plant licenses lasted over two years until the 

NRC implemented the Continued Storage Rule which held that used fuel could be stored safely 

indefinitely on reactor sites or at one or more consolidated storage facilities. The new rule was 

challenged again in the U.S. Court of Appeals, but this time the court supported the NRC's new rule 

and associated environmental impact statement. 

In addition to action on the Continued Storage Rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued in 2013 a writ 

of Mandamus compelling the NRC to continue the Yucca Mountain license application review as 

long as there is available congressionally-appropriated funding. Separately and also in 2013, the U.S. 

Circuit Court ordered the DOE to reduce the nuclear waste fee 4 to zero, unless and until either the 

DOE implements the NWPA and therefore continues with the Yucca Mountain Project, or Congress 

passes an alternative nuclear waste management program. 

As a result of the Court's writ of Mandamus, the NRC early in 2015 issued a Safety Evaluation 

Report (SER) that found a Yucca Mountain geologic repository as designed and presented in the 

DOE license application was safe and met the NRC's long-term performance standard for isolating 

the spent fuel and high-level waste from the biosphere. In 2016 the NRC issued a supplement to the 

Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement addressing impacts on ground water which found, 

Utilities are currently storing used fuel safely and securely at reactor sites using a combination of underwater 

storage in purpose-built pools and dry storage in robust shielded containers. Consolidated storage refers to 

collecting used fuel and storing it at one or a few locations, rather than scattered around the country at dozens of 

reactor sites. 

The Obama memorandum reversed a 1985 finding by DOE and President Reagan that there was no need to 

develop a separate defense repository. The 2015 decision was made with no fonnal solicitation of stakeholder 

input and no justification from a cost/benefit perspective. 

The nuclear waste fcc was established by the NWP A and consisted of an ongoing levy on nuclear power reactor 

operators to cover the government's costs associated with managing and disposing of used nuclear fuel. A fee of 

$0.001 per net megawatt-electric of nuclear electricity was assessed until DOE reduced the fee to zero in 2014 

in compliance with the court ruling. 

4 
87 


similar to the SER, that any radiological doses from the ground water pathway would be small and 

well within regulatory limits. 

Since DOE terminated its work on Yucca Mountain in 2010, the House of Representatives has 

repeatedly, by large bipartisan majorities, voted to provide funding to the NRC and DOE to complete 

the NRC Yucca Mountain licensing process. The Senate has not voted to fund the Yucca Mountain 

project5

, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has supported provisions for consolidated storage, 

including consolidated storage at private-sector sites. Under the fiscal year 2017 stop-gap funding 

resolution, neither Yucca Mountain nor consolidated storage received funding. 

With regard to authorization legislation, S.854, "The Nuclear Waste Administration Act of2015" 

was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 

the 114 th Congress. Sponsored by the leadership of both the Senate Energy and Appropriations 

Committees, S.854 is generally modeled after the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission 

and is essentially identical to S.l240 introduced in the !13th Congress. The bill would establish a 

new federal agency to implement the nation's nuclear waste management program, institute funding 

reform providing that agency with increased access to money in the Nuclear Waste Fund, and 

authorize a consent-based siting process for both consolidated storage facilities and geologic 

repository sites. 

In the House, there has been no comparable authorizing legislation introduced, though legislation 

remains under active development and is anticipated in 2017. Targeted proposals introduced in the 

115'h Congress include H.R. 433, a measure limiting development of a separate repository for 

defense waste, and ll.R. 474, the reintroduction of"The Interim Consolidated Storage Act" 

authorizing a private consolidated storage initiative with priority given to used nuclear fuel located 

on sites without an operating nuclear reactor. 

While the nuclear waste management program has been stymied for years in the executive and 

legislative branches of government, it cannot be allowed to remain so indefinitely. The Court 

decisions discussed herein highlighted the failures of the government to discharge its duties and 

responsibilities, and responsible congressional leaders are pushing for action in both appropriations 

and authorization bills that would get the country's nuclear waste storage and disposal program 

moving again. It is time for the new Administration to join with Congress and re-establish the 

Nation's leadership role in the safe, peaceful and responsible use of nuclear energy. 

For further information contact Caleb Ward: caleb.ward@usnic.org 1202-332-8845 

### 

The USNIC Backend Working Group is a project of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council 

(www.usnic.org), the leading business consortium for new nuclear energy and promotion of the U.S. 

supply chain globally. The views above represent a consensus of the USNIC's Backend Working 

Group and the Council, but do not necessarily represent the specific views of individual member 

companies and organizations. 

Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, an adamant opponent of the repository, used his influence as 

Majority Leader through 2012 and Minority Leader thereafter to prevent Senate votes on Yucca Mountain 

funding. Senator Reid retired from the Senate at the end of2016. 

5 
88 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman returns the balance of his time. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mark McManus, the general president of the United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters, Welders, 

and Service Techs of the United States and Canada. 

Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thanks for being here. 

STATEMENT OF MARK MCMANUS 

Mr. MCMANUS. Good morning. Chairman Shmikus and Ranking 

Member Tonko and members—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let’s do that again. Shimkus. 

Mr. MCMANUS [continuing]. Shimkus and Ranking Member 

Tonko—not Tomko—Tonko and members of the Subcommittee on 

the Environment. Thank you. Thank you for your invitation to appear before the committee today to discuss the state of the nuclear 

energy industry and the economic impacts to our country. 

My name is Mark McManus, and I serve as general president of 

the United Association of Union Plumbers, Pipefitters, Welders, 

and Service Techs. We represent 340,000 of the hardest working, 

highly trained men and women in the piping industry. When it 

comes to nuclear power, our members are at the forefront ensuring 

we deliver safe, clean energy to consumers. However, the nuclear 

industry is in dire crossroads in America. To remain viable, we 

must recognize nuclear energy as a key component to our energy 

future and be actively committed to its overall success. 

This hearing could not have come at a more important time. 

With many recently announced closures and other plants on life 

support, the time to act is now. As the best method of generating 

electricity without producing greenhouse gases, expanding nuclear 

power must be a top priority. In fact, most scientists agree that the 

world cannot sufficiently battle climate change without serious 

commitment to expanding our nuclear fleet. 

Nuclear power currently makes up roughly 20 percent of the energy mix in the United States. Our current fleet, which stands at 

99 reactors, is facing severe difficulties due to intense pricing pressures from natural gas. Natural gas alone, while less carbon intensive than coal, is simply not enough to meet our overall reduction 

goals. To be successful, it is critical that we not only keep our current fleet of nuclear reactors open, but we also expand the nuclear 

power industry in the United States. 

Consider the following: One, nuclear power produces 70 percent 

of our carbon-free electricity today. In contrast, wind and solar 

produce only 2 percent of the electricity and only 6 percent of our 

carbon-free electricity. Nuclear energy also produces none of the air 

pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels. 

Two, American nuclear reactors operate all day, all night, every 

hour on the hour, making nuclear a most reliable source of electricity. Renewable energy is intermittent with power available only 

when the wind blows or the sun shines, which is only about a third 

of the time. 

Three, according to the National Academy of Sciences, nuclear 

energy can produce electricity at or below the cost of wind, solar, 

or coal with carbon capture. Renewable sources may seem cost effective, but only because they are subsidized with billions in Government subsidies. At the current rates, the Government and taxVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
89 

payers would have to pay 170 billion to subsidies for the 186,000 

wind turbines necessary to equal the outfit of 100 nuclear reactors. 

Nuclear power is also vitally important to the American economy 

and job creation. The vast majority of nuclear reactors generating 

carbon-free power in the United States have been successfully 

maintained by the United Association members and our union contractors. 

Each nuclear facility in our country employs 400 to 700 workers 

per 1,000 megawatts of power capacity. A new reactor like AP1000 

currently under construction in Georgia will employ thousands of 

our members for nearly a decade. When construction is complete, 

our members will handle the refueling and maintenance of these 

plants for 60 to 80 years. This is truly a long-term employment. 

The same can also be said for the next generation of reactors. 

Small modular reactors, SMRs, are in various stage of developments. As it stands now, the first SMR that will be deployed in the 

United States is a reactor being built by NuScale for the Utah municipal authority on the Idaho National Lab site. This project includes the installation of over 150,000 linear feet of piping, 2,500 

pieces of equipment, and 4,500 valves. These numbers represent 

thousands upon thousands of man-hours for our members. This offers them the opportunity to provide for their families and sustain 

the middle-class life they worked so hard to have. 

The economic benefits reach beyond the project construction and 

maintenance. Consider the tax revenue generated for the local 

schools, hospitals, and impact on local businesses that rely on the 

workers and their families’ patronage. These projects create valuable communities for our citizens. 

When a nuclear plant closes, it jeopardizes the ancillary jobs and 

the economies that support the plant. Communities that are left 

devastated are much like when we saw the auto manufacturing 

plants close. The nuclear industry needs your assistance. It is no 

secret that the Westinghouse bankruptcy has cast a cloud over the 

future of nuclear power in the United States. 

Over the next month or two, we hope to have a clearer picture 

on the long-term ramifications. But even before the Westinghouse 

situation, the United States was rapidly losing ground to countries 

like China and India who are outpacing us on development. As is 

happening with infrastructure in our country in general, we are 

falling behind others civilized countries. We must do more to become a world leader in this industry. 

Hearing all this makes nuclear energy sound like a no-brainer. 

So why are we falling behind? Why won’t we push forward? Why? 

Because despite of the environmental benefits and job creations, we 

see reactors closing. Short answer is politics and public 

misperception. 

Yucca Mountain is a prime example. It has been 30 years since 

Congress designated Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a secure site for 

our Nation’s nuclear wastewater. Since then, $11 billion later, 

Yucca Mountain sits empty. Yucca Mountain is in a remote section 

of Mojave Desert and the secure storage facility is located 1,000 

feet underground. 

A case study released by the NRC in 2014 concluded that the design met all the agency’s requirements. They stated the proposed 

90 

repository and design will be capable of safely isolating used nuclear fuel to the higher radioactivity waste for 1-million-year period 

specified in the regulations. 

There are currently 79,000 tons of existing nuclear waste in 

America right now. It is stored in smaller facilities scattered across 

the country. These facilities are much less secure and much more 

less permanent than the long-term solution of Yucca Mountain. 

Each one of these smaller sites, 34 in all, require constant maintenance and vigilance from safety to security. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You have to wrap it up pretty quickly. 

Mr. MCMANUS. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, United Association—I believe the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 2017 offers a great 

first step in revitalizing the nuclear energy and putting people back 

to work. 

On behalf of the United Association, I apologize for going over 

my time. Thank you for hearing me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McManus follows:] 

91 


Written Testimony Submitted to the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on the Environment 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017 

Mark McManus, General President 

United Association Union of Plumbers, Pipefitters, Welders and Service Techs 

of the United States and Canada 
92 


Mark McManus, General President, United Association 

Submitted April24, 2017 

Good Morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, Subcommittee Chairman 

Shimkus and Subcommittee Ranking Member Tonko and members of the Subcommittee on 

Environment. Thank you for your invitation to appear before the committee today to discuss 

the state of the nuclear energy industry and its economic impact on our country. 

My name is Mark McManus and I serve as General President of the United Association 

of Union Plumbers, Pipefitters, Welders and Service Technicians. We represent 340,000 of the 

hardest working, most highly-trained men and women in the piping industry. When it comes to 

nuclear power, our members are at the forefront ensuring we deliver safe, clean energy to 

consumers. 

However, the nuclear energy industry is at a dire crossroads in America. To remain 

viable, we must recognize nuclear energy as a key component of our energy future, and be 

actively committed to its overall success. This hearing could not come at a more important 

time. With many recently announced closures and other plants on life support, the time to act 

is now. 

As the best method of generating electricity without producing greenhouse gases, 

expanding nuclear power must be a top priority. In fact, most scientists agree that the world 

cannot sufficiently battle climate change without a serious commitment to expanding our 

nuclear fleet. 

Nuclear power currently makes up roughly 20% of the energy mix in the United States. 

Our current fleet, which stands at 99 reactors, is facing severe difficulties due to intense pricing 

pressure from natural gas. Natural gas alone, while less carbon intensive than coal, is simply not 

enough to meet our overall reduction goals. To be successful, it is critical that we not only keep 

our current fleet of nuclear reactors open, but that we also expand the nuclear power industry 

in the United States. 
93 


Consider the following: 

Mark McManus, General President, United Association 

Submitted April24, 2017 

1. Nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity today. In 

contrast, wind and solar power provide only 2 percent of our electricity and only 6 

percent of our carbon-free electricity. Nuclear energy also produces none of the air 

pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels. 

2. America's nuclear reactors operate all day and night, every hour on the hour, 

making nuclear our most reliable source of electricity. Renewable energy is intermittent, 

with power available only when the wind blows or the sun shines -which is only about 

a third of the time. 

3. According to the National Academy of Sciences, nuclear energy can produce 

electricity at or below the cost of wind, solar or coal with carbon capture. Renewable 

sources may seem cost effective, but only because they are subsidized with billions in 

government subsidies. At current rates, the government and taxpayers would have to 

pay $170 billion to subsidize the 186,000 wind turbines necessary to equal the output of 

100 nuclear reactors. 

Nuclear power is also vitally important to the American economy and job creation. The 

vast majority of nuclear reactors generating carbon-free power in the United States have been 

successfully maintained by United Association members and our union contractors. 

Each nuclear facility in our country employs 400 700 workers per 1,000 megawatts of 

power capacity. A new reactor like the AP1000, currently under construction in Georgia, will 

employ thousands of our members for nearly a decade. When construction is complete, our 

members will handle the refueling and maintenance on these plants for 60 - 80 years. This is 

truly long-term employment. 
94 


Mark McManus, General President, United Association 

Submitted April24, 2017 

The same can also be said for the next generation of reactors. Small Module Reactors 

(SMR) are in various stages of development. As it stands now, the first SMR that will be 

deployed in the United States is the reactor being built by NuScale for the Utah Municipal 

Authority on the Idaho National lab site. This project includes the installation of over 150,000 

linear feet of piping, 2,500 pieces of equipment and over 4,500 valves. These numbers 

represent thousands upon thousands of man hours for our members. This offers them the 

opportunity to provide for their families and sustain the middle-class life they have worked so 

hard to achieve. Many good paying jobs depend on the vitality and success of the nuclear 

industry. 

The economic benefits reach beyond project construction and maintenance. Consider 

the tax revenue generated for local schools and hospitals, or the impact on local businesses 

that rely on the workers and their family's patronage. These projects create viable communities 

for our citizens. When a nuclear plant closes, it jeopardizes the ancillary jobs and economies 

that support the plant. Communities are left devastated much like we saw when an auto or 

manufacturing plant closed. 

The nuclear industry needs your assistance. It's no secret that the Westinghouse 

bankruptcy has cast a cloud over the future of nuclear power in the United States. Over the 

next month or two, we hope to have a clearer picture of the long-term ramifications. But even 

before the Westinghouse situation, the United States was rapidly losing ground to countries like 

China and India, who are outpacing us in the deployment of new nuclear power generating 

facilities. As is happening with infrastructure in our country in general, we are falling behind 

other civilized countries. We must do more and become a world leader in this industry. 

Hearing all of this makes nuclear energy sound like a no-brainer. So why are we falling 

behind as other countries push forward? Why, despite all the environmental benefits and job 

creation, do we see reactors closing? The short answer is politics and public misconception. 

Yucca Mountain is a prime example, 
95 


Mark McManus, General President, United Association 

Submitted April24, 2017 

It has been 30 years since Congress designated Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a secure 

site for our nation's nuclear waste. Since then, and $11 billion dollars later, Yucca Mountain sits 

empty. 

Yucca Mountain is in a remote section of the Mojave Desert and the secure storage 

facility is located 1,000 feet underground. A study released by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission in 2014 concluded that the design met all the agency's requirements. They stated, 

the "proposed repository as designed will be capable of safely isolating used nuclear fuel and 

high-level radioactive waste for the 1-million-year period specified in the regulations." 

There is currently 79,000 tons of existing nuclear waste in America. Right now, it is 

stored in smaller facilities scattered across the country. These facilities are much less secure 

than the more permanent, long-term solution offered by Yucca Mountain. 

Each of these smaller sites, 34 in all, require constant maintenance and vigilance. From a 

safety and security standpoint, this is a haphazard approach to nuclear waste storage. Unlike 

the nearly impenetrable Yucca Mountain, the 34 smaller storage sites, scattered across the 

country, create an unnecessary risk of environmental disasters and terrorist attacks. They also 

place a burden on the national deficit. The federal government has had to subsidize these 

facilities that have been forced to store the spent fuel 

billion. 

a cost expected to approach $25 

In closing, I believe the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 2017, offers a great first step in 

revitalizing the nuclear energy and putting people back to work. The United Association of 

Union Plumbers, Pipefitters, Welders and Service Technicians looks forward to working with 

congress in a bi-partisan way to ensure this critical industry remains viable in providing energy 

to consumers, reducing greenhouse gases and creating thousands of jobs for American 

workers. It is with great confidence that I can guarantee that our members are standing by, 

ready and willing, to build and maintain these plants to secure America's clean energy future. 
96 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

I want to thank you all for your testimony. And I will move to 

the question-and-answer portion of the hearing and recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

First of all, Ward, I want to thank you for coming. I know you 

are retiring May 4th. I know you jumped through hoops to make 

sure you were here. I personally appreciate it. Again, thank you for 

your service. 

Let me turn to you, Mr. Sproat. During your tenure as the director of DOE’s Yucca Mountain office, you oversaw the development 

of a project scheduled for, and I quote, ‘‘Best case scenario to get 

the repository open and operational.’’ In 2006, you testified before 

Congress that certain provisions included in this discussion draft 

were critical to moving forward expeditiously. 

Will you please—I know you mentioned this in your opening 

statement—will you please clarify which of these provisions are the 

most critical to successfully move forward with the repository? 

Mr. SPROAT. I would say, Mr. Chairman, the very first or top priority is about getting the issues associated with the nuclear waste 

fund fixed. You are talking about a major capital project that will 

stretch over decades. And anybody who has been involved in running a major capital project, whether it is building a repository, 

building a power plant, knows that the first thing you need is to 

be able to hold somebody accountable for the costs and schedule 

that is needed to deliver that project is a source of funding that is 

predictable so that you can actually plan the project to meet that 

source of funding. 

So getting the issue around the nuclear waste fund and the mismatch between the mandatory receipts and discretionary appropriations, I would say, is probably the top priority. Because without 

getting that fixed—when I went back and looked at some of my 

older testimony in front of the Senate Budget Committee about 

what we anticipated we would need during peak construction of the 

repository, it was between 11⁄2 to 21⁄4 billion dollars a year during 

that peak construction period where we are buying canisters and 

building a repository. And at $750 million a year of receipts in the 

nuclear waste fund when the Government was collecting those receipts, that had to be made up out of the nuclear waste fund. So 

I would say that would be number one. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate that. And just going off script, so we 

are talking about a big infrastructure plan for the country, and the 

President has mentioned $1 trillion. Well, this could be 100 billion 

over 100 years. 

Mr. McManus, that would probably employ a lot of your members, don’t you think? 

Mr. MCMANUS. I do think so, and I think it is much needed, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Again, back to Mr. Sproat. Section 503 of the discussion draft 

would make certain portions—and this is kind of what you were 

talking about—the balance of the corpus of the nuclear waste fund 

available for DOE if the Department reaches certain milestones 

over the course of the 120-year construction, operation, decommissioning, and postdecommissioning monitoring phases. 

97 

Mr. O’Donnell, how would this approach benefit your ratepayers? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. 

Clearly, it will give confidence and continuity to the program. In 

other words, it won’t be up to the whims of when these funds will 

be available. But it will give the Secretary the discretion and the 

program the confidence that it is going to be funded going forward. 

And I think that is essential to the central component from 

NARUC’s perspective on this draft legislation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And we haven’t seen, historically, how political 

whims have derailed projects before, have we? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I know that is a rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. Sproat, how would this provision assist with DOE’s ability 

to properly plan and budget for certain milestones for a 

multigenerational capital infrastructure project? 

Mr. SPROAT. I don’t profess to fully understand the intent of the 

wording, but I will say that in terms of maybe some of the implications of trying to implement it, the very first thing it would be is 

reestablishing the revenue coming in from utilities. And one of the 

things I would like to point out to the committee is that when we 

we, the Department, looked at the adequacy of the nuclear waste 

fund the last year I was there in 2008, we concluded that the nuclear waste fund corpus and its earnings through interest would be 

adequate to build and operate the repository. It would not be adequate to build and operate the repository and interim storage assuming even at that point in time that the Department had full access to the corpus and the revenue coming into the fund. So it is 

one thing for the committee to consider in terms of adequacy of the 

fund going forward. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am going to sneak one more in, and I am going 

to shorten it. 

In 2007, the Department of Energy submitted a legislative proposal that intended to clarify whether RCRA applied to the disposal material on Yucca Mountain. Why is this clarification necessary? 

Mr. SPROAT. The reason that clarification is necessary is that— 

and by the way, I am no expert on RCRA—but, however, in talking 

with Department attorneys and some of my experiences post employment with the Department, EPA has basically delegated an 

amount of regulation to the States, I think appropriately so, for 

regulating what gets buried and how various materials are disposed of in their State. In this case, the RCRA would allow the 

State of Nevada to regulate the burial of material at the site. And, 

for example, the waste canisters and the waste packages that are 

evaluated as part of the NRC license application where they have 

determined there is adequacy to meet the design of their repository, the State could make a determination that those materials 

won’t be allowed to be buried in their State. 

So that issue of RCRA and the State ability to regulate various 

aspects of the buried material and the operation of the repository 

is something, I think, at least needs to be recognized and addressed 

appropriately. 

98 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. And RCRA, for the laymen, 

is Resource Conservation Recovery Act. I don’t like to use acronyms, but I tried to be quick. 

So the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

It is my understanding that there are over 200 contentions with 

the Yucca license application. Does anyone on our panel have an 

estimate on how long or expensive it will be to resolve these issues? 

Are we talking years? What kind of dollar amounts? 

Mr. SPROAT. Mr. Tonko, based on my experience in the commercial nuclear sector where I was involved with licensing one of our 

nuclear power plants back in the 1980s where we had, I think, 

probably—I forget the exact number—it was maybe about 16, 17 

contentions, and that litigation in front of the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board took a little over a year. 

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that with these number 

of contentions—and the licensing board has the ability to combine 

those contentions together. They don’t need necessarily to be litigated each one individually, but I would expect—and I think in my 

written testimony I said two to three. It could be as many as four, 

depending on how that—because not only does the Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board make an initial determination, there is an appeals board also if any of the parties want to appeal that before it 

goes to the Commission. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Anyone else? Dr. Lyman? 

Dr. LYMAN. Sorry. Yes. I was involved in a few NRC adjudications, and there was one that took 10 years to resolve two contentions. I just thought I would put that in. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Mr. O’Donnell? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Thank you, Ranking Member Tonko. I think it 

is also important to note at this juncture that there is a cost that 

needs to be factored in of inaction. And the cost of inaction comes 

in from the judgment fund payments. About $800 million a year 

coming out of the judgment fund payments. Up to this point, DOE 

has already paid $6.1 billion in damages, and that is the cost of inactivity. So the cost of inaction is very tremendous, about $21⁄2 million a day, and that is important to note. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Mr. Nesbit, did you want to say something? 

Mr. NESBIT. Mr. Tonko, I would like to agree with Mr. Sproat. 

And I would add that several years to resolve this number of contentions I don’t think is unreasonable. I don’t think you should expect that any repository anywhere would not have contentions. So 

it is not like going somewhere else would save the time. 

Moreover, we need to reestablish the infrastructure at the Department of Energy to be, as Mr. Sproat puts it, a willing applicant. And that is why I strongly recommend that we immediately 

reestablish the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

So I am hearing a number of years before construction and then 

transportation can even begin. And that may not fully take into acVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
99 

count, I would believe, the State of Nevada’s continued opposition, 

potential litigation, and appropriations issues here in Congress. 

So with that, Dr. Lyman, given the timeframe to construct the 

long-term repository, waste will continue to accumulate at given 

sites. Should more be done to enhance safety at spent fuel pools? 

Dr. LYMAN. Yes. Thanks for the question. As I said in my written 

testimony, we don’t think that the NRC is doing enough to assure 

the safety and security of spent fuel at reactor sites and also at 

consolidated interim storage sites, should they be built. 

One issue I raised was the potential for a spent fuel pool fire, 

which is a result of the dense packed storage policy at U.S. plants 

which, in part, is a legacy of the failure to go forward with a U.S. 

plan to take title and take spent fuel away from sites, but nonetheless, does not require that option to be mitigated, because you can 

expedite a transfer by taking most of the inventory of fuel out of 

the spent fuel pools, you can greatly reduce the risk of the spent 

fuel pool fire. And so that is one issue that I raised. 

And there is no question that spent fuel will be onsite for many 

decades, especially since some reactors may be getting license extensions for up to 80 years. And as long as they operate, they are 

going to need onsite spent fuel storage. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, with its given powers, can NRC require greater 

safety procedures, or is it something that Congress should consider 

legislating? 

Dr. LYMAN. Well, NRC to date has not—they have considered 

these issues and not taken any action. So, really, it is up to Congress. At this point, until the composition of the Commission 

changes and their direction changes, there is room for some congressional action on this I think. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. 

Mr. Nesbit, Duke Energy has paid 2.5 billion from customers into 

the nuclear waste fund. And Duke Energy has also been paid out 

significant sums from the Federal Government. Obviously, we don’t 

know the specifics, but generally speaking, given the option for interim storage, would Duke Energy or utilities in similar situations 

consider it a potential alternative while the Government continues 

to work on a long-term solution? 

Mr. NESBIT. We support consolidated interim storage. We think 

that the country should move forward with that, and particularly 

focusing on fuel that is currently stored at shutdown plants. Because those plants do not have the—if it were not for the used fuel 

onsite, they wouldn’t have to maintain the infrastructure in terms 

of security, safety, emergency planning, radiation protection, et 

cetera. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I yield back. In fact, I have exhausted 

my time, so—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes Congressman Joe Barton, former full 

committee chairman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. And I have handed both my phones to my staff so 

I won’t be interrupted. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Good job. 

Mr. BARTON. It was her suggestion, so I have to give her the 

credit. 

100 

Mr. Sproat, what would happen, in your opinion, if we were to 

reopen—and I am not advocating this—but if we were to reopen 

the site selection process for a permanent repository? Would we 

have a different outcome? 

Mr. SPROAT. Mr. Barton, that is a very good question. I will just 

tell you, my own personal opinion is the answer to your question 

is no, we won’t. If you go back and take a look at the history—and, 

by the way, the staff put together a very good history on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and its evolution and the activities that followed attached to the hearing notice. And we have attempted at 

least once, I think twice, going to various States and looking for a 

willing host community. We went to I think it was 31 or 32 Governors that turned us down back in the 1970s or early 1980s, and 

then we had the nuclear waste negotiator whose job it was to negotiate a willing site, and they failed also. 

My personal opinion, based on what happened about that history 

as well as what happened with privatized spent fuel storage, was 

that you could have a willing host community. Nye County in Nevada have said they want the repository. However, the surrounding 

units of Government and the surrounding States, because any 

place we are going to place a site, material is going to be transported through those local government jurisdictions will have a 

say. And quite frankly, I think the political opposition will occur if 

not in the host community, in the surrounding host communities 

and the transportation routes no matter where we put it. 

Mr. BARTON. So it is really not feasible, in your opinion, to reopen the permanent site selection process? Personal opinion. 

Mr. SPROAT. Unless the Commission rules that the Yucca Mountain site cannot be licensed under the current regulatory regime, 

then we have to do something else. 

Mr. BARTON. The staff brief—the majority staff brief for this 

hearing says that the Yucca Mountain site has passed all technical 

and safety reviews and has been found safe to store high-level nuclear waste for a million years. Is that correct? 

Mr. SPROAT. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. What is the half-life of high-level nuclear waste, radioactive half-life? 

Mr. SPROAT. Depending on—why don’t you ask Dr. Lyman that 

question? No. Depending on the radionuclides we are talking about, 

it varies quite a bit. But if you went and took a look at the license 

application and some summaries of it, you will see a distribution 

of what the projected radioactive releases from the repository are 

out to a million years. And as I think Chairman Shimkus talked 

about at the very beginning, it was less exposure than a crosscountry airline flight. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, a million years puts it beyond my tenure in 

this Congress. I mean, we are—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We can only hope. 

Mr. BARTON. Love that love you just gave me, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to ask Mr. O’Donnell this question: How many sites 

do you think will vie for the temporary repository if this bill becomes law? How many States? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Barton. I really don’t know. It would be hard for me to anticipate 

101 

how many States might. I know that there are States that have interests. We have seen that. So—— 

Mr. BARTON. One is my State. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Of course. And there is your neighboring State 

as well, in New Mexico, I believe. So there is some interest out 

there, but it is hard for me to predict how many others may decide 

it is in their interest moving forward. 

Mr. BARTON. Is your association supportive of this pending legislation that requires, for the temporary repositories, that the States 

have to affirm that they will accept it? 

Mr. MCMANUS. We believe that those provisions for the temporary facilities are good. And we also believe that forward 

progress on any other opportunities to go forward are contingent on 

the licensing decision at the NRC, and NARUC believes it is very, 

very important. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy. I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the topic coming up in the subcommittee today. 

It is interesting to hear that representatives from Nevada testify, 

obviously, nuclear fuel, what we do with it affects a lot of congressional districts around the country. Just on the edge of San Diego 

County is the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, one of the 

more recently shutdown locations. We have about 3.6 million 

pounds of spent fuel in need of safe storage. I think my constituents assert, and I agree, that the current property is not optimal. 

I also understand that our options to move it are limited. 

I know that one of the ways to improve the situation is with the 

preferred location interim storage that allows us to consolidate 

some of the onsite storage. Seventy-eight sites in 34 States with 

spent fuel waiting, many in substandard storage with a number 

of—growing number of nuclear facilities shutting down. Since 2012, 

nuclear plant owners have closed or announced the closure of 14 

facilities, that includes San Onofre, which hasn’t produced electricity since 2012. 

So moving spent fuel from these sites, especially shutdown sites, 

is not a new idea, but obviously in need of some new momentum, 

probably. So I had a couple of questions. And maybe, Mr. Sproat, 

jumping ahead to when Yucca Mountain would be open, say. There 

is obviously a capacity issue already with it. There is probably not 

enough space in Yucca Mountain to deal with a lot of the waste 

that we are dealing—we are talking about moving. How would you 

prioritize what gets put in? A number of factors you might look at 

to weigh areas with the most fuel, largest concentration of people 

in the surrounding region, most dangerous environmental hazards, 

facilities that have already shut down, have been waiting the longest, nature of the field. How would you decide what gets in and 

what doesn’t? 

Mr. SPROAT. Mr. Peters, actually, within—and my memory here 

is a little vague. I can’t remember whether it is in the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act or whether it is in the implementing regulations 

in the Department of Energy, but there is something called the 

102 

queue. And it has been in the law from the very beginning, which 

is oldest fuel gets moved first. 

Mr. PETERS. OK. 

Mr. SPROAT. And when the liability of the Federal Government 

for not complying with the spent fuel removal contracts that all the 

utilities signed, that contract required the beginning of moving of 

that fuel in 1998 from the oldest plants first. The courts have held 

that the liabilities that the Government has is based on when that 

fuel should have moved based on the plant spot in the queue. 

Mr. PETERS. OK. 

Mr. SPROAT. So, in terms of the format and the regulations, I 

guess I would say, regarding what gets moved first, that has already been determined in terms of oldest fuel first. So San Onofre 

1 would be very high in that queue, for example. 

Second point I would just like to make about the capacity of the 

repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act set a limit of 72,000 metric tons heavy metal for that repository. But when the Department 

did the environmental impact statement, we evaluated a higher 

level, and my notes said it was 120,000 metric tons. So the license 

application is submitted based on what the law currently says is 

the legal limit. However, in terms of the EIS, the environmental 

impact statement, we evaluated 120,000 metric tons, ,which 

showed we could take more if that was permitted by law. 

Mr. PETERS. Thanks for your help. 

I had another question that no one is raising. Maybe a little out 

of my comfort zone here, but I understand that the next generation 

nuclear we have talked about a little bit purports to be more effective at spending more of the fuel, leaving less residual behind to 

dispose of. Is there any chance that the material we are talking 

about disposing of today would be useful in that next generation 

process? 

Mr. SPROAT. There is—it is very interesting. That topic keeps 

coming up over and over again over the past couple of decades 

about taking the spent nuclear fuel and reprocessing it and generating more fuel. I will tell you my personal opinion based on what 

I know. 

Number one, it doesn’t make economic sense. The business case 

for doing that doesn’t exist. It is very expensive. And, number two, 

the older fuel at this stage in the game probably doesn’t have 

enough residual energy in it to make it worthwhile anyway. So, 

while it is—I would believe—I think a number of people would say 

it is scientifically and engineering possible to do that, I don’t think 

it makes any economic sense. 

Mr. PETERS. When you say it doesn’t make economic sense, are 

you comparing it to the use of new fuel? I understand that. But are 

you considering the costs that we are incurring to get rid of it? Is 

that part of the calculus? 

Mr. SPROAT. Yes, it is. Because even if you were to follow the reprocessing process and reprocess some of that fuel, you still have, 

in some cases, some high level but a lot of medium level of radioactive waste left over that has to be disposed of. So it doesn’t all 

disappear. 

Mr. PETERS. Right. OK. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

103 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes my vice chairman, Mr. McKinley, from 

West Virginia, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe you can follow 

up back on that line of questioning. I visited the recycling facility 

in La Hague in France, and they told us there that the cost of the 

recycling was very expensive and would require substantial subsidization if we were to—if we were to embark on that. It is costing 

the French Government quite a bit of money to do that. But I know 

the technology there is very, very expensive to do that. So thank 

you for that. 

But I also just want to congratulate our chairman on this. I am 

a Scotch Irishman. We are pretty stubborn on some things. But I 

thought this guy is even more stubborn than I am because he has 

endured this for the last 6 years that I have been in Congress, 

pressure. He has wanted to talk about this. He has wanted to be 

able to move this and advance this ball down the pike, but because 

of the previous administration we weren’t able to do it. And I admire the chairman for his not blinking. Because if nothing else, he 

has been able to educate a whole new group of Congressmen that 

have come in in the last 6 years to understand the merits of this 

program. So I really do admire him for being able to do that. Because, you know, we know, facts are stubborn things, and I think 

we are going to follow the science as we go down through this. 

So, Mr. Sproat, if I could ask a question, as you have just—my 

comment is that our country lost a substantial amount of time in 

getting this—getting the licensed decision on Yucca Mountain after 

the administration shut the program down. Some opponents of the 

Yucca Mountain project suggested it will be too time consuming or 

costly to resume this licensing process. Do you agree with that? 

Based on your experience, would you expect it to be cheaper to continue or we start all over again? 

Mr. SPROAT. Well, the way I view it, Congressman, is we have 

a 35-year-plus investment in this process that the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act laid out and specified how this whole process was to 

evolve. And we are now within 3 or 4 years of concluding it. And 

when I talk about that, I mean getting a final decision from the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on acceptability of the Yucca 

Mountain site and design. 

There is no way, I believe, that that is going to be more expensive than starting over again at this stage of the game. I just—I 

can’t be convinced of that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Won’t we—in this process, if we advance this, if 

there are questions, isn’t that the purpose of the licensing decision 

process to find out, to ferret out any issue that we need to address? 

Isn’t that what this is all about? 

Mr. SPROAT. It absolutely is. And the license application for 

Yucca were in three-ring binders about this wide and the five safety evaluation reports that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff 

issued where they evaluated the design is probably about this big. 

So, in terms of the amount of time and effort spent by some people 

a lot smarter than me who figured out and evaluated all the technical issues associated with the repository, that is a huge investVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
104 

ment, and I believe is worth a final determination by the NRC of 

whether or not to move forward or not. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Just to finish it now. 

So, Mr. O’Donnell, do you believe it would be cheaper and 

quicker to complete the licensing process and follow where the 

science leads us or the issues, or do you think we should start all 

over again? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Congressman, I appreciate the question. Clearly, I don’t think we should start over again. The ratepayers in this 

country have already made a substantial investment, $40 billion, 

for this process to continue. And as a commissioner and regulatory 

commissions across this country, all 50 States, the District of Columbia and the territories, that is what we do. We get presented 

with an application. We take a look at that application and allow 

it to have the due process and make that decision on the merits 

of that case. That is what we do day in and day out. That is how 

our system works. And yet in this particular process where the 

ratepayers have paid $40 billion, that due process is being denied 

because the application is not allowed to go forward through a 

merit-based evaluation, and that should stop. We should not restart this process. Thank you. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Nesbit, the same question to you. Your thoughts? 

Mr. NESBIT. I do not think there is any way it would be quicker, 

faster, and cheaper to start over and start looking around for another site. Not on this planet, sir. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. I am just thinking from a common sense 

thing, finish the job, find out what the facts are. The facts will lead 

us to the final decision. And I don’t think we should be intimidated, 

and I hope we stay with the science rather than let politics come 

into play. Let the science lead us, get the decisions, and then we 

can make a decision. If it leads properly, that is fine. 

Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Spoken like a true engineer. So thank you. The 

gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and the 

ranking member for holding this hearing. 

I have had the opportunity over a number of years ago to go with 

the Chair to Yucca Mountain. I also, last fall, went and visited our 

South Texas nuclear plant that—we have two nuclear plants in 

Texas, and interim storage is sitting there on those properties. 

Decisions were made in the 1980s that none of us ever were a 

part of. But like my colleague from West Virginia, somewhere 

along the way we have to do something. And I know in Texas we 

already have an interim storage—potential facility for interim storage in West Texas. So that is the frustration that we have, that, 

you know, we have this 72,000 metric tons of spent nuclear energy 

held at plants both active and retired across the country today. 

Mr. Nesbit, does the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council support 

the development of interim storage facility? 

Mr. NESBIT. Yes, we do. We think that interim storage is a component of an integrated used fuel management program for the 

105 

country that could be very beneficial. However, we think the primary focus of that program needs to be on a geologic repository for 

ultimate disposal of the material. 

Mr. GREEN. Well—and I don’t disagree, because the bill would 

actually prohibit going forward on interim storage, I understand, 

without some decision on the permanent storage. But somewhere 

along the road, we have to have both. You can’t ride a bicycle— 

well, I guess you could ride a bicycle with one wheel, but we need 

to have both of them. 

What are the advantages of opening interim storage facilities 

provide? 

Mr. NESBIT. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. GREEN. What is the advantage of opening an interim facility? 

Mr. NESBIT. I think the primary advantage would be to allow the 

consolidation of used fuel from shutdown plants, and I am referring 

to those sites around the country where the reactor is shut down 

and no longer producing power. And in many cases, there is nothing there except a dry storage facility for used fuel. It really doesn’t 

make sense to maintain safety, environmental, radiation protection 

infrastructure at these scattered sites around the country. We do 

it, we can do it safely. But it really makes sense to consolidate the 

material in one place so we can maintain it there a lot more cheaply. And I think the ongoing cost to the U.S. taxpayer would be 

much lower. 

Mr. GREEN. And I agree that opening an interim facility should 

not preempt the completion of the licensing of an underground permit repository. An interim facility cannot become the de facto permanent repository like the sites are now, as you said. 

Do you believe that the licensing and opening of an interim facility can be contingent on licensing of Yucca Mountain? 

Mr. NESBIT. That is a decision for the Congress when it authorizes the legislation. I would like, personally, to see—I think we can 

walk and chew gum at the same time, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Mr. McManus, I want to welcome you to the panel. Coming from 

Houston, I obviously have both the pipefitters and the plumbers 

local. But when I visited the nuclear power plant in South Texas, 

it was mostly IBEW members. I assume there were plumbers and 

pipefitters on the site in almost all of the nuclear power plants. 

Mr. MCMANUS. Yes, I think we have jurisdiction on about 90 percent of the nuclear power plants in the United States. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. About how many members of the plumbers, 

pipefitters or the UA work in the nuclear industry? 

Mr. MCMANUS. It varies from outage to outage. We have 340,000 

members. About 60 percent of our man-hours are on the energy 

sector in the country, and they break out the nuclear industry per 

power plant, 400 permanent, 500 permanent jobs on average from 

there. 

Mr. GREEN. And those are permanent jobs at the power plants? 

Mr. MCMANUS. Permanent jobs. New construction of a nuclear 

power house would probably peak out at about 2,500 to 3,000 members on the construction of new nuclear power plant. 

Mr. GREEN. And the average wage at those plants for—— 

106 

Mr. MCMANUS. Well, it certainly varies from South Texas to 

northern, central California to New England. I would say the average wage would be $60 an hour, everything in. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I know our committee also has jurisdiction over 

pipelines. And we had some issues about there were temporary jobs 

to build pipelines. These are not temporary jobs? 

Mr. MCMANUS. Temporary jobs built the Golden Gate Bridge and 

the Empire State Building. And where we are sitting here today, 

sir, it built every hospital. Our members are proud to work on temporary jobs. We take it as a badge of honor. We move from one job 

to another job. So the issue of temporary jobs is something I am 

passionate about, my membership is passionate about. Temporary 

jobs built this country, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. I agree. And, of course, after they finish one pipeline, 

they can go to another pipeline. 

Mr. MCMANUS. Absolutely. 

Mr. GREEN. I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Murphy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad my friend, 

Mr. Green of Texas, pointed out—by the way, we are also temp employees. We are just on a 2-year contract, some more than others. 

Some more temporary than others is what it comes down to. 

Anyway, thanks for being here. First of all, Mr. McManus, I 

want to thank you for being here. I have got Local 27 in Pittsburgh, some just great men and women who work there, and I am 

proud to know many of them. 

I want to talk about some of the aspects here if we don’t build 

nuclear power as well. Of course, we also have Westinghouse in 

Pittsburgh, which has its own problems right now. But nonetheless, we know its value. 

And what I want to talk about here is the economic impact of 

employment tax revenue, another aspect of maintaining and building power plants. I mean, a recent media story said that the termination of Yucca Mountain project resulted in a 2,500 job loss in Nevada, 14 million lost revenues for the host communities. But what 

is the impact upon communities then around the Nation, too, not 

only with regard to building and maintaining power plants, but if 

we are talking about dealing with spent nuclear fuel and preparing 

it and sending it around, do you have some ideas the impact of jobs 

on that are? 

Mr. MCMANUS. I would be guessing on direct numbers there, but 

every closure of a nuclear power plant or of Yucca Mountain is an 

economic impact on not only the construction workers that maintain, build, and look after the places, it is everything that is surrounding the community as well, from the barber shops to the 

downtown communities that we all live and grown up in, from 

Pittsburgh to New England. Yankee closed up in New England, 

and it is a devastating effect to the community, every one of the 

closures. 

Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate that. And also I appreciate your comments too with regard to the nuclear fuels 24/7. It doesn’t rely on 

107 

wind and solar as it goes on. And I want to make sure we are 

maintaining that. 

Anybody else want to comment on that economic impact of power 

plants and closures? 

Mr. Nesbit? 

Mr. NESBIT. Yes, sir. I will say that our plants are, basically, economic engines for their local communities. We provide a number of 

dependable, high-paying jobs. We spend a lot of money to run those 

plants. Most of the cost associated with running a nuclear power 

plant is in the people and money that goes back to the local communities in terms of not just tax dollars but businesses that support those plants and the workers there. So we spend hundreds of 

millions of dollars a year on O&M costs for those plants, and that 

money goes right back into the local communities. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I want to ask a little more technical 

question now with some members here. Maybe Mr. Nesbit, Mr. 

O’Donnell, or someone else can answer this. Refer back to section 

602 of the discussion draft which clarifies that the Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management is the sole office in the Department of Energy to carry out activities required by the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act. 

Following President Obama’s decision that Yucca Mountain was 

unworkable—and those are in his words—DOE closed that office 

and transferred all of the DOE responsibilities to the Office of Nuclear Energy, DOE’s office that manages civilian nuclear energy research and development activity. So for any of the witnesses, do 

you support reconstituting this office to a single dedicated office to 

manage DOE’s nuclear waste disposal activities, particularly in the 

near term while NRC’s review of Yucca Mountain’s license application is being completed? Who would like to comment on that? 

Mr. SPROAT. If I could, Mr. Murphy, the—I would—I do support 

that. I would say having run that organization for 21⁄2 years, it was 

made up of a number of people who spent a significant portion of 

their career trying to execute the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and 

trying to move forward with solving the spent nuclear—— 

Mr. MURPHY. By ‘‘execute’’ do you mean kill or execute—— 

Mr. SPROAT. Actually—no. To actually enable it, I guess is the 

right word to use. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. SPROAT. And a number of those people have moved on, but 

a number of those people are also still in the Department. And in 

order to successfully defend the license application and litigate the 

contentions in front of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that 

needs to be one organization with one purpose that is not divided 

among different loyalties and among different missions. It needs to 

be single focused to get the license application approved. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Mr. Murphy, may I add something to that? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, Mr. O’Donnell. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I think it is important to note that in my oral 

testimony and written testimony that the office was given a 5-year 

term. And NARUC is suggesting that the committee and the Congress may want to consider a longer term of office there as an insulator from the political whim so that should things change, we have 

108 

some continuity in this very important program that is in the Nation’s interest. 

Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back the time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the chairman for holding this, and 

I thank the panelists for testifying this morning. 

This is an important issue. I mean, I don’t care how you feel 

about nuclear power, but we need a comprehensive Federal policy 

to deal with this issue in the long run. 

I would like all the panelists to answer with a simple yes or no. 

Would you be able to support the current draft legislation with only 

minor modifications? 

Mr. Sproat? 

Mr. SPROAT. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. O’Donnell? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. That is a difficult question. I know you want yes 

or no, but we have not evaluated all—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Look at your staff behind you real quick. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. OK. The right answer is yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Dr. LYMAN. No, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. NESBIT. Speaking personally, yes. 

Mr. MCMANUS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Sproat, in answer to Mr. Peters’ question about the priority 

list for waste to be removed, should that list—you said that there 

is a priority list. Should that list be revised? 

Mr. SPROAT. Again, personal opinion, I would say no. And the 

reason I say no is because that, essentially, the Federal Government has contractual obligations to remove spent fuel from the oldest plants first, and that’s been in place for decades. And I think 

if we tried to modify that or change it at this stage in the game, 

that would open up another whole round of litigation that would 

be quite costly and just delay things. 

Mr. NESBIT. Mr. McNerney, could I add some clarification? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. 

Mr. NESBIT. We have contracts as utilities. We have contracts 

with the Department of Energy for the removal of the used nuclear 

fuel from our sites, and those contracts specify what Mr. Sproat referred to as the waste fuel. I do not believe that needs to be revised. And I will point out that the contracts contain a provision 

that allows the DOE, at its own discretion, to go pick up fuel from 

shutdown plants first if it deems it to be necessary and appropriate. So I think the current contracts are adequate in that regard. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

And I thank the chairman for the extra 2 minutes you are giving 

me here. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just keep going on this line of—these questions. 

109 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Sproat, you mentioned that the water 

rights, but that was with respect to getting water to cool drill bits. 

What about the water—I mean, I am from California. We have a 

little water contingent—you know, issues. What about the water 

rights for areas that are nearby nuclear waste sites? 

Mr. SPROAT. If I understand your question right, Mr. McNerney, 

this issue that I mentioned is strictly about at the Yucca Mountain 

site itself. In terms of if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, from 

a technical standpoint, determines that the design of the repository 

is adequate, the site is adequate, and it gives the Department permission to build the repository, today, the State of Nevada, you 

know, can tell the State water engineer not to grant any water permits to the Federal Government to allow that repository to be built 

or operated. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I guess I was just trying to make a point 

that we need to consider what is going to happen to water rights 

for people that draw water near repository sites. 

Mr. Lyman, you recommended gaining public support for storage 

sites. Absolutely obvious to me. How would you recommend—what 

steps would you take to get public support? And would that be— 

is there any chance or any hope of getting that support in the 

Yucca site? 

Dr. LYMAN. You called my bluff. Yes. Obviously, the how is difficult. The Blue Ribbon Commission had a proposal. The Department of Energy presented one. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have all come up with schemes by which you could 

have a process that would have a more formalized staged approach 

to getting consent. 

Now, I think probably it all comes down to benefits. And the 

question is, is everyone going to benefit who may potentially be at 

risk from this? And the answer may be a quantity of benefits which 

may be, you know, unsustainable in the future, but we need to do 

at least something for the spent fuel that has already been generated and then decide whether this is an approach that is going 

to work for the future. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So I mean, complete utter transparency has got 

to be part of it. 

Dr. LYMAN. Yes. Certainly, there has to be a framework in place 

where the technical aspects of the repository are considered independently. So you need site-independent technical criteria as a prerequisite so that at least any community will know that the process 

is not being gamed to force something just because that is what is 

available. And I think that is the situation we have now. 

Yucca Mountain is the only site that has undergone, you know, 

enough characterization, that has gone through part of the licensing process, and that has a lot of momentum behind it, but it also 

has a lot of technical flaws and there are unresolved technical 

issues. And so we don’t want to see that political pressure short 

circuiting the consideration of those technical issues. That is one 

thing, actually, which this discussion draft would seem to do in 

some of its provisions. 

So you need to start with the science, with technical criteria, and 

you need to have multiple candidates. To put all the eggs in the 

Yucca Mountain basket could be a problem if you get to the end 

110 

of the process and the NRC says no, and then you are left with no 

other candidates. That is why we think there need to be alternatives starting now. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired, long expired. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I take back my compliment for giving me 

those extra 2 minutes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I still got a minute and a half more. 

So the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all 

for your time today. 

Mr. Nesbit, I think I want to come to you and kind of pick up 

on what Mr. McNerney was talking about with transportation. You 

know, with TVA, we have loved watching and really appreciated 

the work that has gone into Watts Bar 2. And I had the opportunity to visit that facility just as it was finished. And, of course, 

we know that it was project number one coming into this century. 

But talk to me just a minute about what your assessment is of 

the situation surrounding future transportation of the spent fuels 

in the cask. I know there is concern that has been raised, but we 

look at this and say there has to be a solution. And so we have 

touched on transportation. Let’s just kind of close that loop, if you 

will. 

Mr. NESBIT. Thank you very much for the question. There are a 

couple of things I would like to say. First of all, if you are going 

to solve the issue of what you ultimately do with nuclear waste, 

you have to transport the material. So simply being opposed to 

transportation of nuclear waste for some ephemeral reason is not 

grounds for opposing Yucca Mountain. 

I heard a lot of concerns expressed about transportation this 

morning. I want to point out that transportation of used nuclear 

fuel is one of the safest endeavors in the history of mankind, and 

I don’t say that lightly. Used fuel is transported in strong, robust 

waste packages that are designed to withstand a number of things: 

Impact, fire, immersion. They are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and by the Department of Transportation. 

There is careful planning and security involved with all shipments. 

From the experience of my company, Duke Energy Corporation, 

we have transported more than 5,000 used fuel assemblies between 

our sites in the 1970s through the 2000s. We transported—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Hold on just a minute. Reiterate that number 

again. 

Mr. NESBIT. Over 5,000 used fuel assemblies. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Without incident. 

Mr. NESBIT. Without incident. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Mr. NESBIT. We transported them across State lines. We transported them by rail. We transported them by truck. We did not 

have a problem doing it. And that just reflects the larger worldwide 

experience. 

There has been extensive transportation of used fuel and highlevel waste around the world, particularly in Europe. It has happened for decades. No one has ever been hurt as a result of radiVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
111 

ation released during transportation of this material. So I think it 

is important that we put that into context. 

We should also note that the number of transportation activities 

in any given year for Yucca Mountain is not that large. It is in the 

hundreds. It is not this great transportation campaign that will be 

taking over the entire country or something like that. 

But you don’t have to take my word for it. There have been a 

couple of very important studies that put transportation risk in 

context. In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences did a report 

that is called ‘‘Going the Distance: The Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States.’’ 

More recently, in 2016, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory published a report, ‘‘A Historical Review of the Safe Transport of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel.’’ Both of those showed that this is an endeavor that 

can be done safely and securely. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. O’Donnell, I wanted to see if you could touch on section 402, 

and the better agreements and how the modifications made in section 402 will incentivize stakeholders to better work with the Federal Government in the Yucca Mountain project. And then as you 

touch on it, talk about how you support those changes or do not 

support those changes, what your approach to it is. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I am trying to get to 402, so I apologize for that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. It is the benefits agreement. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. OK. We did not take a position on that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. We didn’t testify on it, and we are still evaluating. Because we have a short window to evaluate a lot of the aspects of this, we haven’t evaluated that piece yet. So I would be 

glad to make sure that we get our position—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Why don’t you submit that to me in writing. 

Mr. Nesbit, I am coming back to you then. How about the Nuclear Infrastructure Council, do you support the provision? 

Mr. NESBIT. The U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council believes 

that ultimately the Yucca Mountain repository should be and can 

be a win-win for the State of Nevada, the local residents around 

the repository, the nuclear power industry, and the Nation as a 

whole. I will point out, as has been mentioned earlier, that the 

county around Yucca Mountain, Nye County in which the repository resides, favors the development of a repository there as long 

as it meets the regulatory requirements for safety and environment. 

I think that the legislation makes constructive changes to the 

benefit structure in allowing an open dialogue between the Federal 

Government, the States, and the counties, and I think that should 

facilitate that win-win that we are looking for. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back. 

If I may, just to talk about the benefits package, what this really 

is is an effort to open the door again to the State of Nevada because they previously said no. So, under the current law, they don’t 

get any benefits. They can’t negotiate the benefits. So what we are 

doing in this language, saying even though you said no, we are still 

112 

willing to negotiate with you on benefits for the State of Nevada. 

So just to make sure we clarify what that provision is. 

And I would like to turn to my colleague from Texas, Mr. Olson, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. And welcome to our experts. 

Yucca Mountain is a 20-year story of raw politics, State versus 

State, Republican versus Republican, Democrat versus Democrat. I 

support Yucca Mountain for one simple reason: Yucca Mountain 

ensures that America is more secure from attacks by terrorists 

with radioactive weapons. 

It doesn’t have to be a big thermonuclear explosion, a mushroom 

cloud. It can be a simple dirty bomb, a conventional bomb that 

scatters radioactive material across a city like Houston, Texas. 

As you all mentioned, we have 130 sites across America that 

high-level radioactive waste is stored. That sounds like a lot, but 

I have been told if you had that waste on a football field, it would 

go from goal line to goal line, 100 yards, sideline to sideline, 53 and 

a third yards, and 10 feet high, 3 and one-third yards. Look 

around. That is probably enough waste to fill two rooms this size. 

This is not some big pile. It is bad stuff, but not some massive pile 

of radioactive waste. 

I worry, as I mentioned, about terrorists picking out the weakest 

site of these 131 sites and grabbing that material and hitting my 

home. And that is why I support Yucca Mountain. Now, that is my 

wish. Let’s talk about what is happening right now. 

My first question is for you, Mr. McManus. For every piece of red 

tape that holds employers back, there is also the problem of lack 

of certainty. Can you talk about why it is important for us to get 

a path to permanent storage of spent fuel? Why do this now? 

Mr. MCMANUS. Why do it now? As you opened up, Congressman, 

it has been 20 years’ worth of a political football. If not now, the 

question is when. Uncertainty is one of the biggest challenges of 

any construction industry, builder, owner, end user, for performance of work. 

I also agree with your comments about the safety and the security of the Nation. So the red tape that we see on regular construction jobs, from the pipelines to this, is always a hampering of the 

industry. I congratulate the administration, the current administration, to try to cut through some of the red tape. Quite frankly, 

if not now on Yucca Mountain, when? 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, sir. 

My next question is for you, Mr. Nesbit. Your group supports the 

development of an interim storage option. As you know, as the 

chairman knows, there are some Texans and others who want that 

option. Under current law, can we give a contract for a non-Federal 

entity to serve as an interim storage facility? Does this discussion 

draft give you that authority? 

Mr. NESBIT. Sir, it is my understanding that it does. And the 

U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council supports the use of private entities to the maximum extent possible in the management of used 

fuel and high-level waste. 

Mr. OLSON. This bill, Title I says we can’t go forward with that 

until we have a final decision on Yucca Mountain license. Is that 

correct? 

113 

Mr. NESBIT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. Great. Again, I support Yucca Mountain. As I mentioned, I was in the Navy for 9 years. And they teach you if you 

are fighting defensively and protecting a sacred part of your infrastructure, you want your forces concentrated and you want to control the battlefield. So that means Yucca Mountain is the best place 

to do that. We have our forces there. Instead of 130 places all 

across the country, right there, one big repository. And the terrain, 

we control all the terrain. Again, as I mentioned, I am so concerned 

about this material getting in bad people’s hands and having some 

sort of radiological attack on our towns. 

One more final question about interim permits. While waiting for 

Yucca Mountain to be actually—the license approved first, how will 

those delays impact these interim storage facilities? Good, bad? 

How long will they wait for their permits? Any idea? 

Mr. Nesbit? 

Mr. NESBIT. It is hard to tell, because for the past 6 years, the 

country has been doing essentially nothing in the realm of used 

fuel management. We believe at U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council that both a repository at Yucca Mountain and consolidated storage are desirable elements of an integrated program, and we think 

that they will be additive. We think that one will help the other 

if both are pursued with vigor. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity and thank our panel for joining us today. 

Section 203(h) of the discussion draft makes the EPA the sole 

permitting authority for air quality permits exclusively within the 

defined Yucca Mountain site withdrawal area, and only for the purpose or support of activities to site, construct, or to operate a repository. 

So, Mr. Sproat, will you describe what sort of activities that EPA 

would permit within the designated site? 

Mr. SPROAT. Within any major construction site, whether it is 

the repository or any other major construction site, there are a 

number of air permits that are required, whether you are running 

a—and they are called source permits. So, if you are running a 

boiler for steam, whether you are emitting exhaust from a diesel 

generator, all of those require air permits, source air permits. And 

in most cases, those are provided by the State. 

So in this case, the State of Nevada would have the ability to 

block air permits needed for both the construction and the operation of the repository. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, but I asked you about the EPA. So what 

would the EPA do? If the State holds that authority, what does the 

EPA do? 

Mr. SPROAT. I believe the reason that wording is in there is because under current regulations today, those air emission permits 

are regulated at the State level. And what this legislation is saying 

is, for the repository site itself, that is to be regulated by the Federal Government. 

114 

Mr. JOHNSON. So is the EPA still obligated to conduct the same 

review of all permitting documentation as Nevada would be? 

Mr. SPROAT. Yes. And those emissions would have to meet all of 

the same guidelines that would be normally required. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Section 202 of the discussion draft names the 

Yucca Mountain project beneficial to interstate commerce and in 

the public interest. This provision was previously proposed by the 

Department of Energy due to the State of Nevada objecting to providing access to water at the Yucca Mountain site. 

So, Mr. Sproat, again, will you please provide some context regarding how much water is necessary and what sort of activities 

the water is used to support. 

Mr. SPROAT. It has been a long time, Congressman, and I certainly can’t remember the exact quantities of water. But in the environmental impact statement that the Department submitted for 

the repository, those quantities are in that analysis. But as I mentioned before in I think my opening statement, the reason this was 

in here was because—and where I became personally aware of 

some of the difficulties associated with the State permitting was 

that, as part of putting the license application together, we needed 

to do an exploratory drill of the subsurface to be able to do the seismic analysis for the buildings. And we needed water, a very, very 

small quantity of water to cool the drill bits, and the State water 

engineer was basically directed from the Governor’s office not to 

give it to us. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. So how did DOE manage the operations previously when Nevada turned off the spigot? 

Mr. SPROAT. We basically trucked water in. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You trucked it in, OK. 

Does the State of Nevada issue water permits for the Nevada 

National Security Site or other Federal facilities, such as military 

bases located in the State, that you know of? 

Mr. SPROAT. I have been told they do not, but I don’t know that 

personally myself. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Based on your experience at the Department, 

would enactment of this language that we are talking about today 

help satisfy the NRC’s requirement that the Department has access 

to the required level of water for repository operation? 

Mr. SPROAT. I believe it would. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

All right, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 38 whole seconds. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The chairman thanks you. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the panel for taking your time today for this 

really important discussion. 

Mr. Nesbit, why shouldn’t the country develop a separate defense 

repository or deep borehole disposal? 

Mr. NESBIT. Thank you for the question. It is one that is raised 

by the fact that in 2015, the previous administration made a determination that, in fact, the country should do that. I look at these 

things rather simplistically because I am an engineer. We have a 

fair amount of material that needs to be disposed of, used nuclear 

115 

fuel, but also high-level waste residing at defense sites around the 

country, including the Savannah River site in the State of South 

Carolina. 

And there are many different kinds of waste, but the challenge 

so far in this program has been to find a site to dispose of it in 

a geologic facility. If you were to develop separate repositories for 

different kinds of materials, then that would just compound the difficulty of finding multiple sites. Deep borehole disposal has been 

hypothesized. It has not been carried out, so there is no regulatory 

structure to cover it. So it would require an extensive program to 

qualify that method as well, so that would be additional cost. And 

ultimately, I think what makes sense is if you are going to dig a 

big hole in the ground and put waste there, you might as well 

make it big enough for everything. 

Mr. HUDSON. It makes sense to me too. 

Mr. Sproat, kind of tie this all together for me. What should DOE 

be doing to restart this Yucca Mountain project? 

Mr. SPROAT. At this stage of the game, it is extremely important 

to be able to, number one, reassemble a small group of experts, 

both from the national labs as well as the designers of the repository as well as the key Department staff as well as some outside 

legal counsel that is very familiar with NRC regulatory law, and 

to bring that team together and begin the adjudication of the contentions in front of the NRC. 

And that would require, basically, adequate funding to the Department to do that, to bring those people back together. In a lot 

of cases, those people either moved on or retired. But I can tell 

you—I know a number of them personally—they would be more 

than happy to come back on a part-time basis and defend the work 

they have done and they spent the majority of their career doing. 

So that is really what needs to happen next. 

Mr. HUDSON. I appreciate that. 

For the panel, in addition to DOE, are there steps that should 

be taken by the EPA and the NRC? What would be the next steps 

to get us jump-started? I would open it up to anybody that wants 

to jump in. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I will take a stab at your previous question first, 

and that is, there is an additional benefit to a combined repository, 

because it reduces the burden paid by the ratepayers. So the ratepayers in your district and across this country have already paid 

$40 billion, and having DOE and a combined facility actually helps. 

With regard to the next step, NARUC believes that this particular discussion draft is the most important next step before us. 

It is a very good first step and it moves the ball forward. So, from 

our perspective, we believe this is the right way to head. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I appreciate that. 

Dr. LYMAN. Can I throw in one thing? 

Mr. HUDSON. I am about to run out of time. I am sorry. I want 

to get one more question in to Mr. O’Donnell. 

Dealing with section 501, adequacy of Nuclear Waste Fund, current law requires the Secretary of Energy to conduct a fee adequacy analysis to evaluate the estimated program cost required by 

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. NARUC successfully challenged 

DOE’s most recent analysis which resulted in the DC Circuit Court 

116 

of Appeals prohibiting further collection of the annual fee. Do you 

believe that DOE must conduct a new fee adequacy assessment 

prior to resumption of the fee collection? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. We do. And we believe that that analysis on the 

corpus of the money that is already there ought to determine and 

instruct whether a new fee is necessary or the interest from that 

corpus can pay for the activities going forward. And additionally, 

if you do need a new fee, at what level it should be set. And we 

don’t understand how you could ever set a new fee or start a new 

fee without analyzing it. 

Mr. HUDSON. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Nesbit, back to you. Should the statutory requirement for 

DOE to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis remain? 

Mr. NESBIT. Yes, absolutely. Any project should have an up-todate and maintain total life-cycle cost analysis. 

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Sproat, you conducted the life-cycle cost analysis for Yucca Mountain project. Will you describe the role of that 

analysis and the Department’s assessment of the adequacy of the 

Nuclear Waste Fund? 

Mr. SPROAT. It is a fundamental input to that fee adequacy assessment. And the one thing I would like to point out is, so when 

we did that, the last one that I am aware of in 2008 had a number 

of assumptions regarding the number of plants that would life extend and when the repository construction would start that are no 

longer valid, so it needs to be redone. 

Mr. HUDSON. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to say the ultimate solution to a lot of these issues 

is to continue basic research investment in newer technology, including small nuclear reactors, reactors that haven’t even been 

thought of, also in terms of reprocessing. I think nuclear energy is 

an essential component of a clean energy future, particularly because, as Mr. McManus pointed out, it provides base load power on 

a low emissions basis. 

Prior to asking my questions regarding funding for our Nation’s 

nuclear waste management disposal program, I would like to make 

a point. And I think this follows onto something Mr. Nesbit said 

earlier, and that is that every day the Federal Government does 

not act increases the long-term cost on the American taxpayer for 

nuclear waste disposal. Last year, the American taxpayers paid out 

over $2 million every single day because the Federal Government 

is allowing spent nuclear fuel to sit scattered around the country. 

Now I would like to discuss a couple reforms to move forward 

and fix this problem, and they follow Mr. Hudson’s questions from 

a minute ago. The first one, Mr. Sproat, your testimony notes that 

DOE does not have access to funding from the Nuclear Waste 

Fund, as envisioned when the fund was created by the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act. 

Title V of the discussion draft, the current discussion draft, seeks 

to address this challenge by allowing the fees to be used as offsetVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:56 Aug 28, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYASKOK071317\115X26NUCLEARPOLICYP
117 

ting receipts, which would permit Congress to more easily prioritize 

nuclear waste management activities in a budget-constrained environment, while preserving the portions of the previously collected 

fees for DOE activities over the life cycle of the Yucca Mountain 

project. 

So three questions real quickly. Are the provisions, these provisions an important improvement from the existing funding mechanism? 

Mr. SPROAT. Yes. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And what further recommendations would you 

make to ensure necessary and proper financial resources are available to the Department? 

Mr. SPROAT. Whatever the legislation that is required to be able 

to give the Department access to the corpus of the fund as well as 

the interest being generated on the fund in a manner that meets 

the construction, the optimum construction expenditure profile, 

needs to be figured out how to do that. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. O’Donnell, let me ask you this: In your view, would the current discussion draft help enable a program to properly fund nuclear waste management activities? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. It certainly would, Congressman. By determining that the Secretary shall have available on dates certain certain portions of the fund, that is tremendously important. It gives 

continuity and it tells you that the money is going to be there. The 

milestones are defined. And NARUC wants to look at the percentages on those milestones, but we do believe that, without further 

appropriations, the language is an improvement in this draft discussion, and we think that you are heading in the right direction 

here. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. 

Mr. Nesbit, same question. In your view, would the current discussion draft help enable a program to properly fund nuclear waste 

management activities? 

Mr. NESBIT. I believe it would, sir. I do not couch myself as an 

expert on the intricacies of congressional funding, but I think that 

this would be an improvement 

Mr. FLORES. There are several Members of Congress that don’t 

either. Not me, I am a CPA, I got it. 

The discussion draft removes activities to support a centralized 

interim storage facility from unauthorized use of the Nuclear 

Waste Fund. How would opening up the Nuclear Waste Fund to 

pay the cost associated with an interim storage facility potentially 

impact the overall adequacy of the fund? 

Mr. SPROAT. What I can say is, based on the fee adequacy study 

that we did back in 2008, with the assumptions that went into 

that, in terms of the revenue stream and the interest rates that the 

fund would generate—— 

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SPROAT [continuing]. We had enough—the fund at that point 

in time under those assumptions was adequate to design and build 

and operate the repository and get it to closure. Nothing else. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Thank you to the panel for testifying today, and 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

118 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the former vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to each of you for being here today on this very important topic. 

And so, Mr. Sproat, how close did I come on pronunciation there? 

Mr. SPROAT. Perfect. 

Mr. HARPER. All right. Look, I am sure you have visited the 

Yucca Mountain site on a number of occasions and viewed that. Is 

that safe to assume? 

Mr. SPROAT. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. HARPER. Will you please describe the ownership and management of lands identified in the withdrawal description around 

the Yucca Mountain site. 

Mr. SPROAT. Right now, the Yucca Mountain site is part of the 

national security area that was part of the Nevada test site. And 

so the Department of Energy has responsibility for managing that 

site. 

The issue that I mentioned in my opening testimony that was 

one of the issues that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff 

identified is that as under the regulations for the repository, the 

Secretary of Energy needs to show that that land cannot be used 

any time in the future for other public use, that it will be isolated 

from public use going forward, which means that land needs to be 

permanently withdrawn from public use by the Congress, and that 

hasn’t been done yet. 

Mr. HARPER. So just so that I am clear then, the land withdrawal 

didn’t just transfer land from a few Federal agencies to the Department of Energy. Is that correct? 

Mr. SPROAT. I can’t speak to the legal aspects of land withdrawal 

and how that works, but what I can say is that what I do remember is that it requires an act of Congress to permanently withdraw 

that land from future public use. 

Mr. HARPER. Got it. The discussion draft would assure that the 

land withdrawal sections are effective if the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission approves the issuance of the construction authorization for the repository. Do you believe that this will fulfill the necessary NRC requirements to demonstrate DOE’s permanent ownership of the Yucca Mountain site? 

Mr. SPROAT. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER. All right. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield 

back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Carter, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you for being here. It is certainly an important 

subject, certainly something that all of us need to be concerned 

with. 

I know we are concerned in the State of Georgia. You see, our 

ratepayers have paid over a billion dollars, over a billion dollars 

into the Nuclear Waste Fund to dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel, yet the Department of Energy hasn’t fulfilled its legal 

119 

obligations and hasn’t been disposing of my State’s spent fuel. So, 

you know, I am going home and my constituents are asking me, 

where did our billion dollars go? What are we getting out of it? And 

quite honestly, I don’t know what to tell them, except we are not 

getting anything out of it. And they are tired of it, just like I am. 

I mean, you know, we want to do our part, but when we are told 

we are going to get something and we don’t get it, then obviously 

we are upset about it. 

Upstream from my district—I represent the entire coast of Georgia. I start in Savannah and go all the way down to the Florida 

State line. Upstream from my district is the Savannah River plant, 

and that is where, of course, we have the storage of nuclear waste 

that is created as a byproduct of our Nation’s national defense program. And under the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 

the American taxpayers have specifically paid for a portion of the 

Yucca Mountain project to dispose of this Department of Energy 

waste. 

I want to ask you, Mr. O’Donnell, if I could, when President 

Obama reversed this, and whenever the policy to dispose of defense 

waste in a single repository with commercial spent fuel, as we have 

talked about during this time, that kind of put at risk almost $3.7 

billion in investment that we had. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I would agree with that. And I would say that 

that investment from the Department of Energy helps mitigate the 

exposure and the burden needed to be carried by the electricity 

consumers in this country. And so it is a positive contribution to 

the infrastructure, and putting that at risk increases, in my opinion, the liability and exposure of the electricity ratepayers in the 

country going forward. And NARUC is very concerned about that. 

Mr. CARTER. And I am assuming, and I think correctly so, that 

all of you have read the proposed draft and that you are familiar 

with section 205. So section 205, which tells us that we will be able 

to do that, or at least the Department of Energy will not have to 

separate the two. 

What kind of ramifications, Mr. O’Donnell, do you think that will 

have? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. One thing it will do is it will make clear that 

it is the policy of the United States, through the Congress, that 

combining these facilities going forward is a possibility and that it 

is restated in the law, which is to be disregarded at all of our peril. 

Mr. CARTER. And the impact that that would have on ratepayers. 

Again, I allude to what I led off with, and that is that I am having 

to answer to these people. They want to know where their billion 

dollars went, billion with a B. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I agree. NARUC agrees strongly. We know the 

Georgia Legislature recently passed resolutions in this regard, and 

that is very important. And NARUC is in strong agreement with 

you, Congressman, that we need to move forward and we need to 

realize the benefits that the ratepayers have already paid for, in 

my State, in your State, in all of our States. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Nesbit, real quickly, he just mentioned a resolution that the Georgia State Senate passed just last month dealing 

with this. Your group that you represent, how do you feel about the 

205 provision? 

120 

Mr. NESBIT. We are very much in favor of it. I think it is a winwin for both the customers of nuclear-generated electricity, the burden that they bear, and the taxpayers who bear the burden of funding the disposal of so-called defense waste. Very much in favor. 

Mr. CARTER. All right. I want to shift gears real quick with the 

minute that I have got left. 

Mr. McManus, I know that you have somewhat of a different approach, because you look at the economic and the jobs that come 

out of this and the economic impact and the economic well-being 

of your members. And, as you know I am sure, the industry is 

doing a lot of work down in Georgia. And I wanted to just get your 

input on the thousands of jobs that these construction sites, that 

they generate. And what kind of jobs are they? Are they highly 

skilled, highly paid jobs? 

Mr. MCMANUS. They are highly skilled jobs. The United Association, we spend $250 million a year every year. So in 4 years, that 

is a billion dollars in training, all privately funded from our own 

union, to have the changing technology of going forward. That is 

just not only apprenticeship training; that is continuing journeyman training of the new technologies coming. So we are highly 

skilled. These are good middle class, middle-of-the-road-paying jobs 

that people can sustain a family, sustain a lifestyle in the good 

State of Georgia. And Georgia is a fantastic State for us concerning 

nuclear power. 

Mr. CARTER. Absolutely. And thank you. 

And I yield, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Walberg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the panel. I wish I could have heard more. Due 

to a markup, I couldn’t be here for the whole time. But having a 

nuclear power plant in my district that sits on the shores of Lake 

Erie storing spent fuel now in casks, this is of great interest to me 

for many reasons. 

Mr. Nesbit, section 503 of the discussion draft would make certain amounts of money available to DOE for activities associated 

with Yucca Mountain construction, operation, decommissioning, 

and postdecommissioning activities. 

Does the NIC support this model as a way to assure DOE has 

funding available for the 120-year capital infrastructure? 

Mr. NESBIT. The U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council hasn’t conducted a thorough evaluation of this particular aspect of the legislation, but it appears to be a positive step forward in terms of assuring that the money will be available to carry out the various 

phases of this very long project. 

Mr. WALBERG. That being the case, would you describe how current operating nuclear power reactors budget to assure that funding is available over the course of a reactor and to pay for certain 

decommissioning activities? 

Mr. NESBIT. Yes. We have requirements to set aside moneys in 

what we call the decommissioning fund, a certain amount each 

year to make sure that we are funded to a level such that when 

we do ultimately shut the plant down, we will be able to carry out 

121 

the decommissioning activities, dispose of the radioactive materials, 

et cetera. 

The one part of the equation that we can’t handle when it comes 

to decommissioning is the disposal of the used fuel, and that is 

what we look to the Federal Government for. 

Mr. WALBERG. OK. Mr. O’Donnell, section 501 of the discussion 

draft would limit the amount collected by the Federal Government 

to 90 percent of the appropriated level for nuclear waste management activities. Is this modified collection method an improvement 

from the existing statute? And secondarily, does NARUC have additional recommendations to modify the fee collection? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Two things. We do believe it is an improvement 

because it more closely matches the collection with the appropriations, as Mr. Sproat testified to earlier, and we think that is a good 

direction to head. 

In terms of additional fee collection conditions, we would simply 

say—and I recall this in my testimony. You will see where I say 

that we think an evaluation of the ability of the interest on the corpus that has already been collected to fund the activities is essential before any new fee or any fee level is set. We have to understand how that works before we can set the fee level. So we believe 

strongly in that, and I hope that helps your understanding. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

And we want to thank our panel. 

Seeing no other Members present—for what purpose does the 

gentleman—— 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, if I could please respectfully ask for unanimous consent for a letter dated April 26, 2017, from NRDC be submitted for the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I have a whole list here. I was going to thank 

our panel before I adjourn. 

I also would like to ask unanimous consent for the following letters: The letter to Representative Titus from the American Gaming 

Association; a letter from Governor Brian Sandoval; a letter from 

Senator Dean Heller; a letter from Board of County Commissioners 

in Nye County, Nevada; a letter from the Nevada section of the 

American Nuclear Society; editorial by the Albuquerque Journal 

Editorial Board; editorial by the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board; 

article from the Los Angeles Times, March 2017. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Pursuant to the committee rules, I remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record. If you get those, I would ask you to submit 

those back to the committee within 10 business days. Without objection. 

Again, we want to thank you all for, obviously, spending a lot of 

time with us this morning. 

And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

122 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on draft legislation to 

amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). 

Unfortunately, we are having yet another legislative hearing without any Executive Branch witnesses—appointee or career—to provide perspective on how this legislation would be implemented. This is now the sixth legislative hearing this year 

in our committee, and not one has had agency witnesses to discuss the legislation 

under consideration. The glacial pace at which President Trump is nominating individuals for agency positions is historically slow and it’s impeding our ability to get 

the detailed perspective we need from the agencies that implement the legislation 

in our jurisdiction. 

It has been 30 years since Congress significantly revised the NWPA. Unfortunately, during that period little has been accomplished to address the disposition 

of the spent nuclear fuel that is a byproduct of electricity generation at nuclear 

power plants. At the same time, ratepayers have seen their contributions to the nuclear waste fund used more for debt reduction than storage or disposal, while taxpayers have had to foot the bill for damages stemming from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) failure to take title to waste. 

I believe we must find a long-term solution to the issue of nuclear waste. With 

more and more nuclear power reactors scheduled to shut down in the coming years, 

surrounding communities are realizing that the nuclear waste currently sitting in 

dry casks and spent fuel pools at these sites will be stored there indefinitely when 

the plant closes, absent a workable national solution. 

In New Jersey, the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station is scheduled to shut 

down in 2019. It will soon stop providing power, but will continue to provide a home 

to spent nuclear fuel long into the future unless we come together to fix this program. I know that many of my colleagues here today face similar circumstances in 

their communities. 

Without a functioning Federal nuclear waste program, we are failing both the 

ratepayers who have paid into the waste fund over several decades, and the taxpayers who are paying damages through the Judgment Fund administered by the 

Justice Department. 

These factors, coupled with the increase in plant retirements, underscore the need 

for interim storage solutions to bridge the gap until a permanent repository is licensed and constructed, wherever that may be. I commend Chairman Shimkus for 

producing the draft before us yet I worry that it does little to move interim storage 

forward. By explicitly stating that interim storage cannot be approved until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes a final decision on a permanent repository, I 

fear that we are not providing certainty for interim storage or permanent disposal. 

In fact, under the bill as currently drafted, it is difficult for me to see how any private entity could obtain financing to construct interim storage. 

I also have a specific concern with section 202 of the discussion draft, which undercuts the basis used by the State of Nevada to deny DOE’s water rights application for the Yucca Mountain site. For many years, the Federal Government has 

given deference to State water rights laws, but this provision seems to strong-arm 

Nevada by deeming the water use at the site to be beneficial and in the public interest. I don’t see any need for Congress to insert itself at this time into what is surely 

a legal matter. 

My concerns aside, I do appreciate having a proposal from the chairman. Most 

of us here today can agree that we need a solution to address the storage and disposal of our Nation’s spent nuclear fuel. I remain committed to working with my 

colleagues and stakeholders to develop a workable solution for our country’s nuclear 

waste program and look forward to hearing from our witnesses, particularly my colleagues. 

123 


April 24, 2017 

Dear House Member, 

We the undersigned are writing to express our objections to and our concerns about 

plans and efforts of members of Congress and the Trump Administration to legislate and 

fund a restart of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing proceeding for the 

Department of Energy's (DOE) Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository 

proposal. While it is a critical priority to solve the vexing problem of high-level nuclear 

waste disposition, legislation cannot overcome the physical, technical and scientific problems 

inherent in the Yucca Mountain proposal. Yucca Mountain should be terminated, not 

restarted. 

Yucca Mountain is a failed project, having already cost electric utility ratepayers and 

taxpayers about $15 billion, including oversight costs of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and state and local government. 

At present, the Yucca Mountain site is physically and functionally disassembled and nonoperational; it is a hole in the ground. To attempt a restart of Yucca Mountain would indeed 

be starting all over. All the necessary mechanical and administrative capacities would have to 

be developed from square one, and of course, paid for. Why spend significant time and 

money on what is a failed geological site? The Yucca Mountain project should be 

terminated. 

The defining politics for Yucca Mountain took place in 1987, when Congress 

legislatively stopped the scientific site selection process and chose instead the politically 

weak and geologically deficient site in Nevada. Yucca Mountain, a facility that would be 

required to perform for at least one million years, is made of porous volcanic tuff rock 

located in an area of both seismic and volcanic activity, and over an important underground 

aquifer! 

It is fantasy to think that congress can now 'pay the utility bill' and flip an imaginary 

switch to put Yucca Mountain back in business. The license application and environmental 

impact statement face a significant legal backlog of contentions challenging site suitability 

1 
124 


and waste transportation issues. Yucca Mountain is an illusion of a solution. Why spend 

time and money going down a dead end? 

The Yucca Mountain proceeding was suspended in 20 I 0 due to lack of appropriations 

from the Nuclear Waste Fund to both the NRC and the DOE to continue the adjudicatory 

process. To date, no further appropriations for this activity have been approved by Congress, 

but in compliance with the 2013 Order from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has spent nearly all of its remaining Nuclear 

Waste Fund carry-over money from appropriations approved prior to FY 2011 completing 

tasks necessary to prepare for a possible resumption of the adjudicatory process should 

additional funds become available. 

This year marks 30 years since the passage, in 1987, of the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act that truncated the science-based site screening and selection process of the 

1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act and simply declared Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the only 

candidate site for development of the first national high-level nuclear waste repository. The 

Amendments Act also terminated the mandated second repository site selection program. 

Because only 28 of the current members of the Senate and House were in office at the 

time of that vote, the deeply troubled history of Yucca Mountain is known by only a few of 

the current legislators, whose decisions will impact generations to come. 

In 2002, by overriding Nevada's Notice of Disapproval, Congress approved, and the 

President signed into law, a resolution directing that Yucca Mountain be developed as a 

nuclear waste repository if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a license. Six years 

later, in 2008, the DOE submitted its Yucca Mountain repository license application. 

The State of Nevada and numerous other entities filed Motions for Intervention, 

resulting in an unprecedented 299 admitted contentions for adjudication. It is estimated that 

this adjudication will require more than 400 days of hearings, with the entire hearing process 

lasting an optimistic minimum of 4 to 5 years. Both the DOE and the NRC have estimated 

that the hearing process will cost their agencies $1.66 billion and $330 million respectively 

(about $2 Billion total), should the licensing process be resumed. 

2 
125 


If a Construction Authorization is granted by NRC and then successfully defended 

against the inevitable legal challenges, construction and operation of the repository, including 

transportation of waste from nuclear power reactors nationwide to Yucca Mountain, was 

estimated by DOE in 2008 to cost about $96 billion. Duration of national waste transport 

could be up to 50 years, and repository closure is planned for 100 years after first 

emplacement of waste. Site construction would involve 40-plus miles of underground waste 

emplacement tunnels, in addition to the S-mile access tunnel built in the 1 990s for site 

investigations, and earthquake-protected surface facility buildings for waste receipt and 

handling. 

Additionally, a 300-plus mile rail line from the Union Pacific mainline to Yucca 

Mountain would need to be constructed across mountainous terrain at an estimated cost of 

over $2 billion to begin waste receipt by rail as planned. The rail line would require 

acquisition of both private and federal land rights-of-way. Congressional land withdrawal 

legislation for the site also would be required before the NRC can grant the repository 

license. Yucca Mountain is on Western Shoshone land. The Native Community Action 

Council, an admitted party to the license proceeding, has challenged US federal ownership of 

the Yucca Mountain site, because such use ofthe land is a violation of the Shoshone 1863 

Treaty of Ruby Valley. 

Regulations also require that water rights for the repository operation and fire 

protection be acquired, in this case from the State of Nevada, which has denied the DOE's 

previous application for these rights. 

In sum, a Congressional directive to the NRC and the DOE to restart the licensing 

proceeding for Yucca Mountain might, after great and uncertain expenses, and an unknown 

number ofycars of technical arguments and legal challenges, result in a forced license for a 

facility that never can be built and operated. Reasons for these conclusions could include a 

prudent lack of commitment to highly uncertain costs over an unprecedented and uncertain 

I 00 year project period, or a myriad of other known or yet to be foreseen obstacles and 

challenges. 

3 
126 


Such a directive would only add further decades of delay and cost to the already spent 

decades of uncertainty in meeting the ultimate goal of the nation to safely resolve the matter 

of disposition of the high-level radioactive wastes from commercial power generation and 

federal nuclear weapons production. Geologically, Yucca Mountain is not the solution to our 

radioactive waste problems, no matter how much money might be spent. 

Questions or replies may be sent to these 80 organizations in care of Alfred Meyer, 

PSR New York: Alfred.c.meyer@gmail.com. 

Sincerely, 

Judy Treichel, Executive Director 

Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force 

Las Vegas, NV 

Ian Zabarte, Principal Man 

Western Bands Shoshone Nation 

NEWE SOGOBIA 

John Coequyt, Director Federal and International Climate Campaign 

Sierra Club 

Washington DC 

Timothy Judson, Executive Director 

Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

Takoma Park, MD 

Damon Moglen, Senior Adivisor 

Friends of the Earth 

Washington DC 

Tyson Slocum, Director 

Public Citizen's Energy Program 

Washington, DC 

Jeff Carter, Executive Director 

Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Washington, DC 

Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Director 

Clean Water Action 

Washington, DC 

Mary Hanson Harrison, President 

Tom BK Goldtooth and Manny Pino 

Indigenous Environmental Network 

Bemidji, MN 

Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste 

Specialist 

Beyond Nuclear 

Takoma Park, MD 

Lea Foushee and George Crocker 

North American Water Office 

Lake Elmo, MN 

Jay Coghlan, Board President 

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 

Santa Fe, NM 

David Krieger, President 

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 

Santa Barbara, California 

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, United States Section 

Boston, Massachusetts 

4 
127 


David Kraft, Executive Director 

Nuclear Energy and Information Center 

Chicago, IL 

Karen Hadden 

SEED Coalition 

Austin, TX 

Mali Lightfoot, Executive Director 

The Helen Caldicott Foundation 

Asheville, NC 

Ralph Hutchison, coordinator 

Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance 

Oak Ridge, TN 

John McFadden, CEO and Don Safer, Board Member 

Tennessee Environmental Council 

Nashville, TN 

Garry Morgan, Executive Committee Representative 

Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team and Mothers Against Tennessee River 

Radiation (BEST/MATRR) 

Scottsboro, Alabama 

Stephen Brittle, President 

Don't Waste Arizona 

Phoenix, AZ 

Marylia Kelley, Executive Director 

Roger Herried and Don Eichelberger 

Abalone Alliance Safe Energy 

Clearinghouse 

San Francisco CA 

Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 

Livermore, CA 

Robert M. Gould, MD, President 

San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Physicians for Social Responsibility 

San Francisco, CA 

Jane Swanson and Linda Seeley 

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Robert Dodge MD, President, Board of Directors 

Donna Gilmore 

San Onofre Safety 

Orange County, CA 

Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles (PSR-LA) 

Los Angeles, CA 

Bradley Angel, Executive Director 

Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice 

San Francisco, CA 

Mary Beth Brangan, Executive Director 

Ecological Options Network, EON 

Bolinas, CA 

Paul Frey, President 

Frey Vineyards Winery 

Redwood Valley CA 

5 
128 


Gene Stone 

Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE) 

San Clemente, CA 

Humberto Lugo mark! Lopez, Executive Director 

IV AN Statewide Network 

California/Mexico Border Region 

East Yard Communities for Environmental 

Justice 

Commerce, CA 

Janice Schroeder, Core Member 

West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs 

Berkeley, CA 

Ellen Rosser, President Judith Mohling 

World Peace Now 

Point Arena, CA 

Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center 

Boulder, CO 

Nancy Burton, Director 

Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone 

Waterford, CT 

Glenn Carroll, Coordinator 

Nuclear Watch South 

Atlanta, GA 

Maureen McCue, MD 

Iowa Chapter PSR 

Oxford, lA 

Maureen K. Headington, President 

Stand Up/Save Lives Campaign 

Burr Ridge, IL 

Lisa Crawford, President 

Rani Gereige, MD, Chapter President 

Florida Physicians for Social 

Responsibility 

Tampa, FL 

CeeCee Anderson 

Georgia WAND 

Atlanta, GA 

Beatrice Brailsford 

Snake River Alliance 

Boise, Idaho 

Terry Lodge, Convener 

Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy 

Toledo, OH 

Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety & Health, Inc. 

Harrison, OH 

Charles K. Johnson, Director Joint Task Force on Nuclear Power 

Oregon and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Portland, OR 

Deb Katz 

Citizen Awareness Network 

Shelburne Falls, MA 

Diane Turco 

Cape Downwinders and MA 

Downwinders 

Harwich,MA 

6 
129 


Paula Sharaga 

Boston Downwinders 

Cambridge, MA 

Alice Hirt 

Don't Waste Michigan 

Holland, MI 

Carol Izant, Chair 

Alliance to Halt Fermi 3 

Livonia MI 

Vic Macks, Steering Committee 

MI Stop the Nuclear Bombs Campaign 

St. Clair Shores, MI 

Dr Terrence Clark 

Gwen L. DuBois MD , President 

Chesapeake Physicians for Social 

Responsibility 

Baltimore, MD 

MichaeiJ. }(eegan 

Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes 

Monroe, MI 

Jeremy V. Whitmore 

Great Lakes Environmental Alliance 

Port Huron, MI 

Jessie Pauline Collins, co-chair 

Citizens' Resistance at Fermi 2 (CRAFT) 

Redford, MI 

Physicians for Social Responsibility of Western North Carolina 

Asheville, NC 

Paul Gallimore, Director 

Long Branch Environmental Education Center 

Big Sandy Mush Creek, Leicester, NC 

Paula Gotsch, Co-Director 

GRAMMES - Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety 

Normandy Beach, NJ 

Don Hancock, Nuclear Waste Program Director 

Southwest Research and Information Center 

Albuquerque, NM 

Susan Gordon, Coordinator 

Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment 

Albuquerque, NM 

Leona Morgan 

Nuclear Issues Study Group 

Albuquerque, NM 

Joni Arends, Executive Director 

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety 

Santa Fe, NM 

Nuke Watch 

Santa Fe, NM 

7 
130 


Laura Cunningham, Executive Director 

Basin and Range Watch 

Beatty NV 

Alfred Meyer, President 

Barbara Warren 

Citizens' Environmental Coalition 

Cuddebackville, NY 

Physicians for Social Responsibility- New York Chapter 

New York, NY 

Susan Hito Shapiro 

PHASE - Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy 

Nanuet, NY 

David Hughes, President 

Citizen Power 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Yaira Robinson, Executive Director. 

Texas Chapter, Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Austin, TX 

Jerry Stein 

The Peace Farm 

Amarillo TX 79106 

Sarah Fields 

Uranium Watch 

Moab, UT 

Debra Stoleroff 

Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance 

Montpelier, VT 

Rep. Gerry Pollet, Executive Director, 

Mavis Belisle 

JustPeace 

Dallas Texas 

David Swanson, Campaign Coordinator 

RootsAction.org 

Charlottesville, VA 

Heart of America Northwest "The Public's Voice for Hanford Clean-Up" 

Seattle, WA 

David Kliegman 

Okanogan Highlands Alliance 

Tonasket, WA 

Steering Committee 

Physicians for Social Responsibility-Wisconsin 

Madison, WI 

Marybeth Gardam 

John LaForge Co-Director 

Nukewatch 

Luck, Wisconsin 

Corporations v Democracy National Issue Committee ofWILPF-US Section 

8 
131 


AMERICAN 

GAMING 

ASSOCIATION 

799 9th Street NW, Suite 700 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

April 26, 201 7 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman 

Energy and Commerce Subcommittee 

on Environment and the Economy 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Paul Tonko 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Commerce Subcommittee 

on Environment and the Economy 

2463 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko: 

MAIN LINE 202.552.2675 

FAX 202.552.2676 

www.amerlcangamlng.org 

Ahead of today' s House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy hearing 

on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017, I write to express the American Gaming Association's 

(AGA) vehement opposition to any legislation that revives licensing activities for Yucca Mountain as a 

nuclear waste repository. 

Yucca Mountain is located just 90 miles from the world's premier tourist, convention and entertainment 

destination in Las Vegas, Nevada, which welcomed nearly 43 million visitors last year. Over the past decade, 

the Greater Las Vegas area is one of the fastest growing in the U.S. with a population that now exceeds 2.1 

million people according to an estimate fi·om the U.S. Census Bureau. Any problems with the transport of 

nuclear waste to the site, or issues with its storage there, would bring potentially devastating consequences to 

the local, state and national economies. 

The gaming industry in Nevada alone supports 430,463 jobs, pays more than $18.7 billion in wages and 

generates $7.9 billion in federal, state and local tax revenues. This economic engine is a critical part of the 

broader U.S. gaming industry operating in 40 states-including Illinois and New York-where together 

casinos directly employ more than 30,000 people and generate nearly $2.5 billion in tax revenue to fund 

critical public works such as infrastructure, education and public safety. 

The AGA stands with the many concerned citizens, small business operators and bipartisan members of 

Congress in staunch opposition to any attempt to restart the repository licensing process and will work 

tirelessly to ensure that radioactive waste is never stored anywhere near the world's entertainment capital in 

Las Vegas. I hope we can work together to forge a more feasible solution that addresses both your concerns, 

and those ofNevadans. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Geoff Freeman 

President and CEO 

cc: The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Ranking Member, Energy and Commerce Committee 
132 


AUTH~NTICATED9 U !> VOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION 

GPO 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R.456 

To require the Secretary of Energy to obtain the consent of affected State 

and local governments before making an expenditure from the Nuelear 

Waste Fund for a nuclear waste repository. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

,TANUARY 11, 2017 

lVIs. TITUS (for herself, lVIr. Ku-ruEN, and Ms. HOSEN) introduced the 

following· bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to obtain the consent 

of affected State and local governments before making 

an expenditure from the Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste repository. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Hmtse of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Nuclear Waste In5 formed Consent Act". 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act, the terms "affected Indian tribe", "af8 fected unit of local government", "Commission", "high-
133 


2 

1 level radioactive waste", "repository", "spent nuclear 

2 fuel", and "unit of general local government" have the 

3 meanings given the tern1s in section 2 of the Nuclear 

4 Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101). 

5 SEC. 3. CONSENT BASED APPROVAL. 

6 (a) IN GENEHAh-The Secretary may not make an 

7 expenditure from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the costs 

8 of the activities described in paragraphs (4) and (5) of 

9 section 302(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 

10 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)) unless the Secretary has entered 

11 into an agTeement to host a repository ·with12 (1) the Governor of the State in which the re13 pository is proposed to be located; 

14 (2) each affected unit of local government; 

15 (3) any unit of g·cnerallocal government contig16 uous to the affected unit of local government if 

17 spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste will 

18 be transported through that unit of general local 

19 government for disposal at the repository; and 

20 ( 4) each affected Indian tribe. 

21 (b) CONDITIONS ON AGREEMENT.-Any agreement 

22 to host a repository under this Act23 (1) shall be in writing and signed by all parties; 

24 (2) shall be binding on the parties; and 

•HR 456 ffi 
134 


3 

1 (3) shall not be amended or revoked except by 

2 mutual agreement of the parties. 

0 

•HR 456 IH 
135 

136 


April 26, 2017 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman 

NRDC 

~ 

Subcommittee on the Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Paul D. Tonka 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on the Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: H. R. _"The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017 

Dear Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko: 

NRDC writes to express our concerns regarding the discussion draft of H. R. _"The Nuclear 

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017" (115th Congress, 1 ''Session). Upon initial review, 

this draft legislation would put our nation's nuclear waste storage policy on the wrong track 

yet again. Ignoring environmental concerns, state's rights and consent, and public review in 

order to force a solution that has proven to be unworkable. Rather than blindly charge 

forward at the cost of public safety and public resources, we urge Congress to take the 

careful course in building a publicly accepted, consent based repository program. 

In NRDC's judgment the Yucca Mountain project is certain to fail out of the NRC licensing 

process due to the geology and hydrology of the Nevada site that make it unsuitable for 

isolating spent nuclear fuel for the required time. Thus, this discussion draft will commit 

taxpayer money to wasteful interim nuclear waste storage projects and licensing and 

construction activities at Yucca Mountain, as well as the risk from unneeded transportation 

of high level radioactive waste, rather than focusing the necessary attention on developing a 

durable, publicly accepted and scientifically defensible repository program. 

NRDC's objections to the discussion draft include, but are not limited to, the following 

specific passages: 

pp. 3-4: The Secretary shall, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017, publish a request for information to help the Secretary 

evaluate options for the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with respect to one or 

more monitored retrievable storage facilities. 

Respectfully, this provision is premature. First, and most obviously from NRDC's 

perspective, immediately going forward with a consolidated storage proposal before 

working out the details of a comprehensive legislative path to solve the nuclear waste 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

1152 15TH STREET NW I WASHINGTON. DC I 20005 I T 202.289.6868 I F 202.289.1060 I NROC.ORG 
137 


problem (connecting the licensing of storage to the licensing of a permanent repository) 

entirely severs the link between storage and disposal, and creates an overwhelming risk 

that an interim storage site will determine or function as de facto final resting place for 

nuclear waste. Or, in the alternative and also just as damning, it sets up yet another attempt 

to ship the waste to Yucca Mountain irrespective of regulatory process, or revive the Private 

Fuel Storage site in Utah or even open up New Mexico's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 

facility for spent nuclear fuel disposal- the latter site designed and intended for nuclear 

waste with trace levels of plutonium, not spent fuel (and NRDC notes, a site that has already 

seen an accident dispersing plutonium throughout the underground and into the 

environment, contaminating 22 workers, and thus the site was functionally inoperable for 

years). All of this runs precisely counter to the core admonition of President Obama's Blue 

Ribbon Commission for America's Future ("BRC") that "consent" come first. 

pg. 6: the Secretary is authorized to-(1) site, construct, and operate one or more monitored 

retrievable storage facilities; and (2) store, pursuant to a cooperative agreement, Departmentowned civilian waste at a monitored retrievable storage facility for which a non-Federal entity 

holds a license described in section 143(1). (c) PRTORITY.-(1) IN GENERAL.-Exceptas 

provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall prioritize storage of Department-owned civilian 

waste at a monitored retrievable storage facility authorized under subsection (b )(2). (2) 

EXCEPTION.-(A) DETERMINATION.-Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the Secretary 

determines that it will be faster and less expensive to site, construct, and operate a facility 

authorized under subsection (b)(1), in comparison to a facility authorized under subsection 

(b)(2). 

In this provision, regrettably there are no safety, environmental or public acceptance 

criteria cited, only speed of siting and expense. This is precisely the formula that produced 

the failure of the Yucca Mountain process and made it, as the previous administration noted, 

"unworkable." Indeed, after nearly 60 years of effort, the federal nuclear waste program in 

this country has failed to deliver a final resting place for highly toxic, radioactive waste that 

will be dangerous for millennia. Over the years, there have been numerous efforts to 

attribute the failure of the repository program in singular fashion - to the Atomic Energy 

Commission (AEC), to the Department of Energy (DOE), to certain Senators, to Nevada 

governors of both parties, to several states that refused to entertain even hosting sites, to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Commissioners- and even to the public for 

failure to accept its part in disposing of nuclear waste. 

All of this is wrong. Failure cannot be laid at the feet of any one person or entity or the 

public. Rather, the reasons are multiple and some are detailed in the Final Report of the 

BRC. In brief, several agencies (including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

the DOE, the NRC, and the U.S. Department of justice (DO))) and Congress repeatedly 

pushed aside thorough, careful science, abused the fundamental framework of how 

significant decisions with environmental impacts are made in this country, and distorted 

the process for developing licensing criteria for a proposed repository. In each instance 

such action was done so as to push forward Yucca Mountain as an expedient solution, to 

weaken environmental standards rather than strengthen them, and always to ensure that 

site would be licensed, no matter the end result. 

We should not go down the road of failed expediency again. Rather, Congress should pursue 

a phased, adaptive, consent-based and science-based siting process as the best approach to 

gain the public trust and confidence needed to site nuclear waste facilities. Specifically, 
138 


Congress must finally end the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) exemptions from environmental 

law. Our hazardous waste and clean water laws must have full authority over radioactivity 

and nuclear waste facilities so that EPA and- most importantly- the states can assert direct 

regulatory authority. 

pp. 11-22 SEC. 201. LAND WITHDRAWAL, ]URISDICTION, AND RESERVATION and SEC. 202. 

WATER ACCESS 

This provision runs counter to state authority and likely leads to the same kind of stalemate 

that currently exists this day. NRDC expects that Nevada will ferociously object to this 

usurpation of its rights, and many other states and their representatives may do so as well 

as a terrible precedent for nuclear waste and broader issues of federalism. 

National decision making must take into account the needs and perspectives of states. 

Bedrock environmental laws reflect this fact. With the notable exceptions of the AEA (the 

organic act for nuclear power) and its progeny, the NWPA, there is federalist intention at 

the heart of environmental statutes and a role expressly reserved for the states. As 

examples, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Resource Conservation & Recovery Act 

(RCRA) allow states authority to implement those air, water, and waste programs, 

respectively, in lieu of a federal program. States that obtain "delegated" authority from the 

federal government must meet minimum federal standards (and the federal government 

retains independent oversight and enforcement authority). And generally, depending on 

state law, those delegated states can impose stricter requirements or different regulatory 

mandates. Nuclear waste should be no different, but under the AEA and the NWPA, it is 

different, it is a privileged pollutant. 

Rather, as stated above, it is our firm conclusion a new process must be created. It is our 

contention today and has been since 2009 that the NWPA's (and AEA's) misunderstanding 

of the importance of federalism is at the heart of the repository program's failure. This 

provision continues a long history of trying to force the matter to an unwilling state. 

Respectfully, we urge another course. 

pg. 24: At any time before or after the Commission issues a final decision approving or 

disapproving the issuance of a construction authorization for a repository pursuant to 

paragraph (1), the Secretary may undertake infrastructure activities that the Secretary 

considers necessary or appropriate to support construction or operation of a repository at the 

Yucca Mountain site or transportation to such site of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 

radioactive waste. Infrastructure activities include safety upgrades, site preparation, the 

construction of a rail line to connect the Yucca Mountain site with the national rail network 

(including any facilities to facilitate rail operations}, and construction, upgrade, acquisition, or 

operation of electrical grids or facilities, other utilities, communication facilities, access roads, 

and nonnuclear support facilities. 

Consistent with our observations above, this is premature and wasteful spending of 

taxpayer dollars on Yucca Mountain infrastructure prior to meaningfully restarting the 

licensing process. Recently the NRC has put the cost of completing the Yucca Mountain 

license application at $330 million. Efforts to revive this process would be at best 

problematic and likely waylay the process of developing a repository for years, if not 

forever. Briefly, there are hundreds of license contentions to be litigated at significant 

length and cost One contention in particular challenges DOE's design for titanium drip 
139 


shields that are intended to be placed on top of each of the thousands of waste canisters in 

Yucca Mountain's underground tunnels to deflect corroding water. Although DOE included 

the drip shields as part of the repository design, and NRC has accepted them for licensereview purposes, there is no plan to engineer, license, pay for, and much less install the 

shields until at least 100 years after the waste goes in. Quite simply, it seems fair to suggest 

Yucca's likely repository configuration will not meet NRC requirements. 

This and other issues are anticipated to be vigorously litigated by the State of Nevada, which 

has filed more than 200 contentions challenging DOE's license application for Yucca 

Mountain. To put such a hearing process in perspective, NRDC recently concluded five years 

of a NRC licensing proceeding where not one party- not industry seeking the license, not 

NRC Staff, nor the environmental intervenors -had any interest or took any steps to 

functionally prolong or delay the proceeding beyond the rare extension of a short period of 

time for filing a pleading (something all parties found appropriate and necessary at various 

points). And in the more than five years of this proceeding, only three contentions were 

fully litigated on their merits, not the more than 300 likely to be litigated for the Yucca 

license if the process were commenced. Any suggestion the Yucca licensing proceeding 

could easily restart and quickly move to a successful conclusion for permanent disposal is a 

fallacy. And when that inevitable litigation rightly waylays yet another effort at nuclear 

waste disposal the damage to the nation's prospects to ever developing a repository may be 

permanent. Rather than go forward with construction as this provision allows, we urge 

Congress to take the careful course in building a publicly accepted, consent based 

repository program. 

pp. 24-24: If the Secretary determines that an environmental impact statement is required 

under the National Environmental Policy Act of1969 with respect to an infrastructure activity 

undertaken under this paragraph, the Secretary need not consider the need for the action, 

alternative actions, or a no-action alternative. To the extent any other Federal agency must 

consider the potential environmental impact of such an infrastructure activity, the agency 

shall adopt, to the extent practicable, an environmental impact statement prepared by the 

Secretary under this subparagraph without further action. Such adoption satisfies the 

responsibilities of the adopting agency under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

and no further action is required by the agency. 

This provision conflicts with the well-established and necessary requirements National 

Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §4321, et seq. Doing so exacerbates the public interest 

community's (and that of Nevada) objection of the last two decades that the process of 

developing, licensing, and setting environmental and oversight standards for the proposed 

repository has been, and continues to be, rigged or weakened to ensure that the site can be 

licensed, rather than provide for safety over the length of time that the waste remains 

dangerous to public health and the environment. 

pg. 26: The Secretary of Energy may not take any action relating to the planning, development, 

or construction of a defense waste repository until the date on which the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission issues a final decision approving or disapproving the issuance of a construction 

authorization for a repository under section 114( d)(1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 

( 42 U.S. C. 1 0134( d)} (as so designated by this Act]. 

This provision fails to place in proper order what needs to be accomplished first to get the 

repository program back on track. Rather than tie matters to defense waste, Congress must 
140 


structure a new consent based process that not only takes into account the needs of the 

industry but also takes into account the need for public and state acceptance. 

pg. 27: It is the Sense of Congress that the Secretary of Energy should consider routes for the 

transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste transported by or for the 

Secretary under subtitle A of title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy Actof1982 (42 U.S.C.l0131 et 

seq.) to the Yucca Mountain site that, to the extent practicable, avoid Las Vegas, Nevada. 

This provision illustrates the difficulties faced in trying to force a project on an unwilling 

and non-consenting host state. Are other smaller cities along the routes in other states that 

will be affected by the avoidance of Las Vegas allowed to have a say in the matter? And if the 

NEPA process is truncated, is there any opportunity to have that say? As we noted above, 

lack of consent from an unwilling host state is a recipe for disaster in this country, whether 

the issue is nuclear waste or any other great public concern. 

pp 42-43: Not later than 2 years after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final 

decision approving or disapproving the issuance of a construction authorization for a 

repository under section 114( d)(l) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 ( 42 U.S. C. 

1 0134(d)) (as so designated by this Act), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency shall (A) determine if the standards promulgated under section 121(a) of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of1982 (42 U.S. C. 10141(a)) should be updated; and (B) submit to Congress a 

report on such determination. 

This provision has the matter precisely backwards. To avoid repeating failures of past 

decades and consistent with BRC recommendations, both the standards for site screening 

and development criteria must be in final form before any sites are considered. Generic 

radiation and environmental protection standards must also be established prior to 

consideration of sites. 

There are several other provisions that merit close attention, but this is our initial review. 

Overall, the discussion draft would put the nation's nuclear waste storage policy on the 

wrong track yet again. We look forward to discussing these issues with members of the 

Committee and working toward a feasible path forward. Thank you for your consideration 

of our views. 

Matthew McKenzie 

Nuclear Program Director and Senior Scientist 

Geoffrey F ettus 

Senior Attorney, Nuclear Program 
141 


ONE HUNDRED ONE NORTH CARSON STitEET 

CARSON CiTY, NEVADA 89701 

0fFlCE: 684-5670 

FAX No,, 684-5683 

555 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 5100 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 

0FFJCE: (702) 486-2500 

FAX No., (702) 486-2505 

(JJ)fftcr nf tqr ~nurrunr 

April21, 2017 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment 

and the Economy 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Paul Tonka 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Environment and the Economy 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko: 

As your House Energy and Commerce subcommittee meets next week to discuss the future of 

high-level nuclear waste storage in the United States, I write, as I have previously, to reiterate 

the firm and consistent position of the State of Nevada on the proposed Yucca Mountain 

Nuclear Waste Repository. 

My position, and that of the State of Nevada, remains identical to my previous letters to this 

committee in May 2015, January 2016 and April 2016: the State of Nevada opposes the 

project based on scientific, technical and legal merits. Furthermore, as a reminder to your 

committee members, as set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, only the Governor is 

empowered to consult on matters related to the siting of a nuclear waste repository. 

As the subcommittee knows, Nevada is host to two U.S. Air Force bases, a U.S. Naval Base, a 

U.S, Army Depot, the Nevada Nuclear Security Site (NNSS), and the Nevada Test and Training 

Range -- a total federal land withdrawal roughly the size of the State of Connecticut. Nevada is 

proud of this participation and contributions to national defense and security. 

Furthermore, it is important to remember Nevada has made historical contributions to nuclear 

energy as the host state for 928 nuclear tests - 100 of which were conducted above ground. As 

a result of this testing, the federal government has paid $1.9 billion over the past 25 years to 

innocent people in Nevada and individuals from neighboring states who were exposed to 

dangerous and deadly levels of radioactive material. 

Nevadans also believe our relationship with the federal government should be one where the 

state is seen as a valued partner; an ideal that often is not realized. The proposed siting of a 

national nuclear waste repository in Nevada provides a vivid example of the failure of this 

partnership when, in 1987, Congress substituted politics for science to amend the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act to limit the repository options to one state: Nevada. 
142 


The discussion draft that will serve as the focal point for this hearing is fundamentally flawed. 

While past federal legislation has unfairly and without scientific justification singled out Nevada 

as the only state where a proposed nuclear waste repository is being considered, the draft 

legislation before your committee goes much farther. It usurps Nevada's jurisdiction over the 

state's water resources, an unprecedented affront to all western states where water is a 

precious and scarce resource. Further, numerous provisions would truncate the final stages of 

the NRC licensing process in ways that would limit Nevada's ability to protect public health, 

safety and the environment. The transportation and benefits provisions are simply false 

promises that cannot be guaranteed or enforced. 

The proposed legislation ignores the primary recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission 

on America's Nuclear Future, a consent-based siting for a repository, and again singles out 

Yucca Mountain as the nation's only repository. No amount of monetary benefits can 

compensate for the coerced selection of an unsafe site. 

I note that the subcommittee, in reversing the statutory ban on interim storage, has recognized 

the importance of siting a facility in a consent-based manner. As the licensing process for 

storage sites in willing communities moves forward, I hope it will serve as an example that these 

decisions should be made in concert with the states, not forced upon the states by the federal 

government. If such a process had been embraced by the Congress when my predecessor, 

Governor Kenny Guinn, vetoed the selection of Yucca Mountain 14 years ago, we might today 

be closer to a long-term solution for the nation's spent nuclear fuel instead of simply repeating 

the exercise of wasting taxpayer money on an unsafe site. 

I request that you enter this letter into the hearing in doing 

so. 
143 


DEAN HELLER 

!202)224il244 

tlnitcd ~tat£5 ~mate 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman 

Energy and Commerce Subcommittee 

on Environment and the Economy 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Shimkus: 

WASHINGTON. DC 20510 

April21,2017 

FINANCE 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND 

URBAN AFFAIRS 

COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

As the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy prepares 

to hold a hearing on April 26, 2017, on your draft legislation, the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act of2017, I wish to reiterate my strong opposition to the defunct Yucca Mountain 

Nuclear Waste Repository and urge you to work with me on viable solutions to this important 

problem plaguing our nation. 

While I understand that you disagree with me on the issue of Yucca Mountain, we are in agreement 

that it is in the best interest of our nation that a program to dispose and store used nuclear fuel and 

high-level radioactive waste from civilian nuclear power generation, defense, national security, 

and other activities is implemented as soon as possible. I fully appreciate your commitment to 

ensure that progress is made on this issue, but I am highly concerned that your proposed legislation 

would not only significantly harm the state of Nevada but would infringe upon states' rights 

concerning air and water permitting authority. 

The pre-emption of state water law and states' authority to issue air permits in your draft legislation 

is jarring to say the least. In addition, the benefits provided to host communities are nothing more 

than unenforceable and illusory promises. Moreover, your legislation ignores the national security 

risk posed by thousands of nuclear waste shipments to Yucca Mountain. 

l have long said that I stand ready to partner with you on a viable solution that provides for consentbased storage for spent nuclear fuel and defense high-level waste. With that said, that solution is 

not forcing that burden on Nevada, a state that has never had a nuclear power plant. Rather, 

identifying communities willing to host a long•term repository instead of forcing it upon states that 

have outright opposed such a site, is the only viable long-term solution to our nation's nuclear 

waste problem. It is in the best interest of our nation that your subcommittee, and the Congress as 

a whole, focus on that consent-based process as opposed to the draft legislation that stands before 

it today. 
144 


Our nation cannot fully move forward with viable sustainable solutions for spent nuclear fuel and 

defense high-level waste until Congress moves past Yucca Mountain. I hope you will partner with 

me in supporting a consent-based approach so that we can progress towards viable long-term 

solutions for our nation's spent nuclear fuel. 
145 


Pahrump Office 

Nye County Government Center 

2100 E. Walt Williams Drive 

SuitelOO 

Paluump, NV 89048 

Phone (775) 751·7075 

Fax (775} 751-7093 

April24, 2017 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman 

The Honorable Frank Pallone 

Ranking Member 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chainnan 

The Honorable Paul Tonko 

Ranking Member 

Board of County 

Commissioners 

Nye County, Nevada 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Environment 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear: Congressmen Walden, Pallone, Shimkus and Tonko 

Tonopah Office 

Nye County Courthouse 

William P. Beko Justice Facility 

PO Box 153 

Tonopah, NV 89049 

Phone (775) 482·8191 

Fax (775) 482-8198 

On April 26th, the Subcommittee on the Environment will hold a hearing on a discussion 

draft bill, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 2017, We strongly support the effort 

and, in general, also strongly support the legislation. We believe the legislation and your 

hearing is a vital step in the process to solve the nation's nuclear waste issues. 

As you know, Nye County is the site county for the Yucca Mountain high level nuclear 

waste repository. We would be the most directly impacted if the repository was built. 

We want to know if it can be built and operated safely. That is why we strongly want to 

review the science and have the facts detennined by an independent agency of neutral 

professionals. When the State of Nevada suggests that the science is settled, that is 

simply not true. All the reports issued by the NRC, and the overwhelming majority of 

scientists that have researched the matter, suggest just the opposite-- that the repository 

can be operated very safely. We applaud the Committee in its attempt to have the 

decision on Yucca Mountain based on real facts and not politics. 

We also challenge any suggestion that all Nevadans oppose Yucca Mountain. Nine of 

the seventeen counties in Nevada have passed resolutions asking for resumption of the 

license proceeding. In other words, the political leadership of over half of Nevada's 

counties support a comprehensive review of the science behind the license application for 

Yucca Mountain. Further, the latest infonnal polls taken recently in Nevada show that 

roughly 60% of the respondents want to see the license proceeding completed. 

17.01l0DS Nye County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider 
146 


(Congressmen) 

(April 24, 2017) 

Page2 

To date, the State of Nevada has refused to even discuss a path forward to a resolution of 

a science based review. Your bill is an attempt to start a discussion with the State. The 

State can even receive benefits without forfeiting its right to present a scientific case 

against Yucca. That is a reasonable offer and we hope the State takes advantage of it and 

comes to the table. 

In short, we strongly agree with you that the license review process needs to be resumed, 

and that it be based on facts not politics. We applaud your efforts and look forward to 

working with you. 

Dan Schinhofen, 

Chairman 

DS/jr 

17-QIIODS Nye County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider 
147 


~·--Sffl;w, 

•I~ 

~""'*""'"'*""'S~· 

Nevada Section of the American Nuclear Society 

4672 Eel Point St 

Las Vegas, NV. 89147 

Chairman John Shimkus 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

April24, 2017 

Chairman Shimkus: 

I am writing to help clarify the record with respect to the implementation of the Yucca Mountain 

project in Nevada. I am a past president of the American Nuclear Society, Nevada Section and 

hold a master's degree in health physics. Basically, our members, who comprise the bulk of the 

active expertise in nuclear science in Nevada, cannot find any reason that Yucca Mountain is 

wrong for Nevada. It has been our experience that when the proper risk explanation is made to 

citizens, and compared to the potential benefits, that citizens of Nevada overwhelmingly 

support the project. 

If an education program that explains the basic technical approaches of Yucca Mountain could 

be mounted, there would be very few who would choose to oppose the project in the face of 

direct financial benefit, especially direct benefits to citizens similar to the Alaska pipeline project 

of the early 1970s, and long-term prosperity that Yucca Mountain promises. 

We feel that reprocessing should be a primary focus of spent fuel legacy. 

Finally, we see none of the objections put forward by the State of Nevada hold enough validity 

to stop the project for safety, security, or any other reason. 

We, therefore, urge this committee to move aggressively to proceed with Yucca Mountain and 

move to endorse reprocessing as the final approach to solving the nation's spent fuel issue. 

Past President 

American Nuclear Society, Nevada Section 
148 


412612017 Editorial: Trump, Congress should open $158 Yucca Mountain! Albuquerque Journal 

Editorials 

Editorial: Trump, Congress should open $15B Yucca Mountain 

By Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board 

Mnnday,Sonmlrer2lst,2016Jttl2:05am 

The most radioactive news to come out of President-elect Donald Trump's camp might not involve beauty 

contestants or entertainment reporters or birth certificates from Hawaii. 

It involves a hole in the Nevada desert. 

U.S. taxpayers have invested more than $15 billion over three decades for a final resting place for all of the spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste produced in the United States. And that investment has resulted in the 

most expensive and secure and empty underground parking garage in the form of Yucca Mountain, located in a 

remote part of Nevada between Las Vegas and Reno. 

The planned underground repository for spent nuclear fuel from power plants was taken off the table by now· 

retiring Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who made sure over his D.C. career there was not sufficient funding to process 

Yucca's Nuclear Regulatory Commission license application, or the political will to approve it. 

(Reid's former staffer, Gregory Jaczko, chaired the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2009-2012; the Office 

of the Inspector General found Jaczko withheld information from the four other commissioners on Yucca, then 

unilaterally shut down a crucial safety review of the facility. President Barack Obama's administration cut off 

funding for Yucca in 2010.) 

Utilities- or more accurately utility company customers- have already paid more than $21 billion into a fund for 

the yet-to-be realized long-term storage. The U.S. Department of Energy is fined hundreds of millions of dollars 

annually for not disposing of the waste as promised. More than a dozen reactors need to be safely 

decommissioned. Aging power plants need to be relicensed. And more than 70,000 metric tons of highly 

radioactive nuclear waste has piled up and is now parked in above ground pools across the country at various 

nuclear power plants never designed for long-term storage. 

Not exactly safe or desirable for material that takes thousands of years to degrade. 

Under Reid's direction, with Obama's blessing, the federal government has gone back on Congress' 1982 legally 

binding pledge that the U.S. government is responsible for disposing of the radioactive material, and on its 1988 

selection of Yucca Mountain as the storage destination. 

Under the new Senate leadership, with the Trump administration's direction, the federal government could- and 

should- finally make good on those promises. 

There are more than 70,000 safety reasons why. 

Trump advisers are reportedly actively discussing getting Yucca back online. 

Last week Reid declared efforts to revive Yucca Mountain are "doomed to fail" and threatened that trying is 

"going to be expensive and they'll get nothing for it." 

Nothing is what American taxpayers have received for their $15 billion spent to date- nothing, that is, except 

less-secure storage of nuclear waste. 

And congressional leaders and the incoming administration should change that. 

This editor;al first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is 

unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers. 

https·ffwww.abqiournal,com/893230/lrump-congress~shou!O.open-15b-yucca-mountain.html 111 
149 


Revive Yucca Mountain: 

Illinois has more nuclear waste than 

any other state, all of it in temporary 

storage 

By: Editorial Board 

,\I'RJL II, 2017, 5:1+ I'M 

It has been 30 years since Congress designated Nevada's Yucca Mountain as 

the secure site for the nation's nuclear waste. Since then, taxpayers have 

coughed up $11 billion creating a repository 1,000 feet underground that 

would keep the radioactive refuse permanently sealed off. As yet, it's still 

empty. But that could finally change. 
150 


Yucca Mountain is in a remote section of the Mojave Desert. But many people 

in Nevada didn't want the waste, no matter how safe or isolated the storage 

facility may be. It was the ultimate NIMBY project. One of those opponents, 

alas, was Harry Reid, who for 10 years was Senate Democratic leader and in a 

position to get his way. As president, Barack Obama gave Reid exactly what he 

wanted, closing down the entire effort. 

Obama's capitulation defied scientific evidence as well as common 

sense. A study released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2014 

concluded that the design met all of the agency's requirements. The "proposed 

repository as designed will be capable of safely isolating used nuclear fuel and 

high-level radioactive waste for the 1-million-year period specified in the 

regulations," the NRC said. That's right: 1 million years. 

But the technical merits of the facility were, regrettably, beside the point In 

2011, the nonpartisan federal Government Accountability Office found that 

the Obama administration's "decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain 

repository was made for policy reasons, not technical or safety reasons." 

Now that decision stands to be reversed, as it should be. Energy Secretary Rick 

Perry toured the facility in March, and President Donald Trump's budget plan 

includes $120 million to revive the project. With Reid finally retired and 

Republicans in control of Congress, now is the time to get it done. 

The 79,000 tons of existing nuclear waste, after all, have to be stashed 

somewhere. Right now, that somewhere consists of dozens of sites across the 

country, including the mothballed plant in Zion. Illinois has more of the spent 

fuel than any other state- including 1,000 tons at Zion, on the shore of Lake 

Michigan. 

These facilities are much less secure and permanent than Yucca Mountain is 

designed to be. And instead of confining the material to one tiny portion of 
151 


one state, they leave it scattered over 34 states, with each site requiring 

constant expense and vigilance. 

This haphazard approach makes no sense from the standpoint of safety 

or security. On the contrary, it creates unnecessary risk of environmental 

disasters and terrorist attacks - unlike the formidably impregnable Yucca 

Mountain. It has also wasted huge sums of money, because the federal 

government has had to pay those utilities that have been forced to store the 

spent fuel- a tab expected to approach $25 billion. And it stands in the way 

of expanding nuclear power, which ought to be a priority today as a method of 

generating electricity without producing greenhouse gases. 

Local opponents referred to the 1987 measure designating Yucca Mountain for 

the nation's nuclear waste as "The Screw Nevada Act." In fact, the danger to 

the state was pure fantasy, and the economic benefits were real. 

Yucca Mountain is the only viable alternative to the jury-rigged status quo. We 

hope the Trump administration and Congress will revive it. Because if they 

don't, we're all screwed. 

Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like 

this. Start getting full access to our signature journalism for just 99 

cents for the first four weeks. 

Copyright© 2017, Chicago Tribune 

A version of this article appeared in print on April12, 2017, in the News section of the Chicago Tribune with the headline 

"Revive Yucca Mountain - Illinois has more nuclear waste than any other state, all of it in temporary storage" - Today's 

ll2!2!!r I Subscribe 
152 


Trump's budget could help get 

rid of the nuclear waste along 

the San Onofre coastline 

By Rob Nikolewski 

March 21, 2017, s:oo AM 

A sense of momentum is building about finding a way to deal with the massive 

amounts of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, including Southern 

California's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 

Last week's Trump administration "skinny budget" proposal, which calls for 

boosts in defense spending but cuts in domestic funding and federal agencies, 

found $120 million for starters to "initiate a robust interim storage program" 

while also looking at reviving the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in 

Nevada. 

"These investments would accelerate progress on fulfilling the federal 

government's obligations to address nuclear waste, enhance national security 

and reduce future taxpayer burden," a note said in the section reserved for the 

U.S. Department of Energy. (The Energy Department's budget came in for a 

5.6% reduction.) 

A president's budget proposals are ultimately subordinate to what Congress 

decides. But David Victor, chairman of the SONGS Community Engagement 

Panel, said the appropriation for nuclear waste may be one of the only topics 

in the current political environment that can generate support from members 

of both parties. 
153 


There are 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste sitting along the coastline at the 

San Onofre plant, part of the z6.ooo metric tons of spent fuel at sites 

nationwide. 

"There's a lot of Trump's proposed budget that horrifies me, in particular 

around cutting funding for science and energy, but [long-term nuclear 

storage] is an area where I think the nation is now starting to make some 

progress," Victor said. 

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who has introduced a bill called the Interim 

Consolidated Storage Act, said he thinks the chances for funding the White 

House nuclear waste proposal are "extremely good." 

"You have an active group of members, some of whom are Democratic 

members, who have a vested interest" in moving legislation forward, Issa said. 

"And ... the fingerprints of whoever wanted to force it out would show all 

over." 

A $120-million appropriation is a tiny amount of money in relation to the 

entire federal budget, but supporters of consolidated interim storage said it 

would represent a show of resolve on the part of the federal government. 

"As a budget line item it's not a bad number at all," Issa said in a telephone 

interview from Washington. "It's sufficient to do the feasibility of these sites." 

Consolidated interim storage sites are designed to be built in isolated locations 

where multiple nuclear facilities could deposit their waste. 

Two potential interim storage locations have been discussed - one in western 

Texas and another in eastern New Mexico. 

A company in Andrews, Texas, has filed an application to accept s,ooo metric 

tons of nuclear material. The district is represented by Republican Rep. Mike 

Conaway, who has co-sponsored Issa's bill. 
154 


Getting the massive nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, located 

about 100 miles from Las Vegas, back on track assuredly would involve a 

battle on Capitol Hill. 

Democrats as well as Republicans from Nevada blasted the Trump proposal. 

"Washington needs to understand what Nevada has been saying for years: We 

will not be the nation's nuclear waste dump," said Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.). 

The federal government spent about $15 billion to build the facility at Yucca 

Mountain to house nuclear waste from sites across the country. But then-Sen. 

Harry Reid (D-Nev.) led the fight to shut the repository down, and in 2010 

President Obama suspended licensing for the site. 

Yucca Mountain was scheduled to open in 2017. 

While taking a tour of San Onofre last month with Issa, Rep. John 

Shimkus (R-Ill.), who is chairman of the House subcommittee that reviews 

nuclear sites, was asked if Yucca Mountain was coming back onto the 

bargaining table. 

"It's never been off the table," Shimkus said. 

Issa's bill would be paid for by using part of the federal government's Nuclear 

Waste Fund, which is worth upward of $40 billion and was funded by 

ratepayers in areas powered by nuclear plants. 

A 2014 court order stopped the federal government from taking fees from 

electricity customers because, with Yucca Mountain sidelined, the government 

had no place to send nuclear waste. 

"We're paying a lot of money for the privilege of not having a solution that we 

were obligated to have," Issa said. "It's not free. It's going to cost every 

taxpayer money until there's a working solution." 
155 


But even if Congress adopts a plan roughly similar to the White House 

proposal, there are a series of practical and regulatory hurdles to clear. 

For example, sites such as San Onofre, which closed in 2013, would still need 

to place some of their spent fuel into canisters. Then federal law would need to 

be changed to install a reliable funding mechanism for interim sites, and a 

strategy would need to be adopted in order to move the waste from one place 

to another. 

"There is still a long way to go," Victor said. "We could have troubles on any of 

those fronts, but I think what's encouraging is that on every single one of those 

fronts, we're starting to see progress." 

Millions of people live within 50 miles of San Onofre, which hasn't produced 

electricity since January 2012 after a steam generator leaked a small amount 

of radiation. 

Southern California Edison is the majority owner of the plant, which is in the 

process of being decommissioned. 

Edison officials said they were heartened by the news of $120-million 

proposal. 

"We are pleased to see funding proposed to restart the Yucca licensing 

process, and continue to also support interim storage proposals that would 

enable [Southern California Edison] to move San Onofre's used fuel to an offsite location," spokeswoman Maureen Brown said. 

Copyright© 2017, Los Angeles Times 
156 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Ward Sproat 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR .. NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ClCongre~~ of tbe Wn1teb ~tate~ 

~ou!ic of l\cprc!icntattbe!i 

COMMilTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--{)115 Majority {202)225-<2927 

Minority (202)225-3641 

May23, 2017 

725 North Center Parkway; K-1 04 

Kennewick, W A 99336 

Dear Mr. Sproat, 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, April 26, 

2017, to testifY at the hearing entitled "H.R._, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, June 7, 2017. Your responses should be mailed 

to Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Elena.Brennan@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

::t~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
157 


April 26, 2017 Hearing on "H.R._, the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act of 2017" 

Additional Questions for the Record from 

The Honorable .John Shimkus 

Responses of Edward F. Sproat Ill 

1. Your testimony noted that legislation should clarify the 

Department's authority under the Atomic Energy Act to use 

federal preemption if local authorities attempt to block a 

shipment. 

a. Would this preemption policy reduce or alter the safety 

requirements for nuclear fuel waste shipments? 

Answer: 

No. The department would still need to meet all regulatory 

requirements established by the Department of Transportation 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for all shipments. It is 

anticipated that local and state governments will be under 

political pressure to block shipments through their territories. 

The Department must have clear legal authority to transport the 

waste shipments on the chosen routes as long as these 

shipments are in compliance with the applicable federal 

regulations. 
158 


2. Section 602 of the Discussion Draft provides for a fixed-term 

appointment for the Director of DOE's Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management. How would this provision affect 

DOE's program management? Do you think five years is an 

appropriate length of time to provide continuity of leadership? 

Answer: 

Because the duration of the Repository Project will extend over 

several decades, continuity of leadership of the Program through 

the multiple changes in Administrations that will occur is vital to 

Program success. The proposed provision would allow the 

Director position to provide the needed continuity of leadership 

and avoid the prolonged vacancies in leadership that plagued the 

Program over many years. The proposed fixed term of five years 

is appropriate as it will provide qualified candidates with some 

certainty of longevity in the position. It has been extremely 

difficult to attract qualified individuals to take a position of 

uncertain duration. This provision will help address this concern. 
159 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

QJ::ongnfSfS of tbt Wntteb ~tattfS 

1$ou!le of ~cprcllcntatibcll 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

Mr. Anthony J. O'Donnell 

Commissioner 

Maryland Public Service Commission 

William Donald Schaefer Tower 

6 St. Paul Street; 16th Floor 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Dear Mr. O'Donnell, 

(202)225-2927 

(202) 225-3641 

May23,2017 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, Apri126, 

2017, to testify atthe hearing entitled "H.R._, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of20 17 ." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, June 7, 2017. Your responses should be mailed 

to Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Elena.Brennan@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

::i~ Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
160 


N A R u c 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

Commissioner Anthony J. O'Donnell response to Questions for the Record from the House 

Committee On Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment Apri126, 2017 

hearing on "H.R_, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017." 

Questions for the Record from Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus to Commissioner 

Anthony J. O'Donnell. 

Question 1: Section 301 of the discussion draft amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

to clarify that DOE may take title for shipment to a repository or an interim storage 

site, but maintains that is only applicable upon "delivery" to the Secretary. Your 

testimony raises concerns about DOE taking title to fuel, but then leaving it on site, is 

that right? 

Response: Yes. 

Question 1 (a). If the discussion draft is modified to assure this only applies when 

DOE actively receives the fuel, would that alleviate NARUC's concerns? 

Response: If by "actively receives the fuel", you mean clarifYing Section 301 to make 

clear DOE must actually remove "any high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear 

fuel" for immediate transport to a "repository or monitored retrievable storage, " then 

the amwer is yes. As I noted in my testimony: 

The discussion draft should clarifY/define what .constitutes "delivery and 

acceptance". The definition must assure that DOE cannot simply "take title" of 

waste where it is currently being stored and claim they have met their contractual 

obligations. The definition must make clear that any transfer of title to DOE 

includes removing the waste to a NRC licensed storage facility. 

Question 2. Section 602 of the Discussion Draft provides for a fixed-term 

appointment for the Director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management. How would this provision affect DOE's program management? Do 

you think five years is an appropriate length of time to provide continuity of 

leadership? 

Response: While NARUC has suggested some specific changes to the management 

structure for the federal waste disposal program, we have not taken a specific position on 

the amendments to§ J0224(b) that makes the Director of the Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management "responsible for carrying out the functions of the 
161 


Secretary under this Act" and gives that Director a 5-year term. In my opinion, while not 

peifect, both these provisions are an incremental improvement over the status quo. The 

bill's authors may wish to consider making the 5-year term longer to provide greater 

stability in the program across administrations. 

2 
162 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Edwin Lyman 

Senior Scientist 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR, NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ctrongre~~ of tbt itntttb ~tate~ 

~ou~>e of l\epre~>entatibe~> 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majonty {2{)2)225-2927 

Minority {?02)225-3641 

May23,2017 

Global Security Program 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

1825 K Street, N.W.; Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20006-1232 

Dear Mr. Lyman, 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, April 26, 

2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "H.R.~ the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, June 7, 2017. Your responses should be mailed 

to Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Elena.Brennan@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

Chairman 

JohnSt~ Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
163 


Elena Brennan 

Legislative Clerk 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Ms. Brennan, 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

1825 K St, NW Ste. 800 

Washington, DC 20006 

June 7, 2017 

Please find attached my responses below to the questions for the record of the hearing entitled 

"H.R. _,The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017," held by the Subcommittee on 

Environment on April26, 2017. On behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, I would like to 

thank the members of the Subcommittee once again for the invitation to testify. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Edwin S. Lyman 

Senior Scientist 

Union of Concerned Scientists 
164 


The Honorable John Shimkus 

l. The discussion draft includes the policy known as "linkage" that requires the 

completion of the Yucca Mountain licensing by the NRC as a means to assure that 

storage activities do not compete or supplant the requirement for permanent 

disposal. 

a. Does Union of Concerned Scientists support "linkage" as a policy mechanism to 

assure interim storage does not become de facto disposal? 

Yes. 

b. What other approaches to linkage could be pursued other than the policies 

proposed in the discussion draft? 

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) supports an approach to linkage similar to that 

embodied in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Siting of a DOE-owned or DOE-funded 

consolidated interim storage facility should be prohibited until a geologic repository site 

is established, and construction of an interim storage facility should not begin until the 

repository is licensed to operate. 

However, there are weaker linkages that may be sufficient in the context of a 

comprehensive national strategy for spent fuel management and disposal. Bills such as 

those introduced by former Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico would have linked 

development of an interim storage facility to substantial progress in the establishment of 

a geologic repository. There are interim milestones short of final repository licensing that 

could be considered, provided that they represent "substantial progress" with a high 

degree of assurance. The effectiveness of such milestones in preventing any interim 

storage site from becoming a de facto permanent site would depend on the details of the 

overall waste management strategy. 
165 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Steven P. Nesbit 

Director 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

cteongrt5'5' of tbe mntteb ~tate5' 

J!)ousc of l\epttsentatlbes 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 1202)2?5-2927 

1202)225-3641 

May 23, 2017 

Nuclear Policy and Support 

Duke Energy - EC07H 

526 South Church Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Dear Mr. Nesbit, 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Environment on Wednesday, April 26, 

2017, to testifY at the hearing entitled "H.R.__, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (l} the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, June 7, 2017. Yourresponses should be mailed 

to Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Elena.Brennan@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Chairman 

::t~ Subcommittee on Environment 

cc: The Honorable Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment 

Attachment 
166 


£'->DUKE 

~ENERGY. 

June 5, 2017 

Ms. Elena Brennan 

Legislative Clerk 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

526 S. Church Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

MamngAddress: 

EC07H I P.O. BoX 1006 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

704.382.5997 

Subject: Responses to Questions for the Record on Testimony Provided to the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce on April26, 2017 

Reference 1: Letter, Shimkus, John {U.S. House of Representatives) to Nesbit, Steven P. 

{Duke Energy Corporation), May 23, 2017 

In accordance with the request by Chairman Shimkus (Reference 1 ), please see the attachment 

for my responses to questions arising from the April26, 2017 hearing ''H.R._, the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017." 

If you have any questions on these responses, feel free to contact me at ••••• or 

Sincerely, 

Director, Nuclear Policy and Support 

Attachment 
167 


Attachment 

Responses to Questions for the Record on Testimony Provided to the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce on April 26, 2017 

Steven P. Nesbit 

Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council Back-end Working Group 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

1. If there were a monitored retrievable storage facility developed under this legislation, 

why do you propose to take shutdown plant fuel first? Would that require any special 

legislative language? 

Taking shutdown plant fuel first provides the biggest "bang for the buck." The presence of 

used nuclear fuel onsite requires shutdown plants to provide ongoing security, radiation 

protection and emergency planning services In order to comply with Nuclear Reactor 

Commission (NRC) regulations. The associated expenses are on the order of $10 million 

per site per year. Site operators typically recover those costs from the federal government 

through damage claims related to the Standard Contracts between the government and the 

operator for used fuel disposal. Once all used fuel is gone from the site, the site operator 

will no longer incur those ongoing fuel storage related costs, resuiting in fewer damage 

claims and hence monetary savings for the federal government. In contrast, operating 

plants must have security, radiation protection and emergency planning to support power 

operations. The cost of providing those services for used fuel is Incremental at operating 

plants and will not be significantly impacted by the removal of some of the used fuel being 

stored on site. Therefore, operating plants do not offer the same potential for federal 

government cost savings as shutdown plants. 

Beyond monetary savings, there are other significant advantages to removing shutdown 

plant fuel first. The offsfte shipments should go more smoothly because they will not 

interfere with ongoing plant operations. Moreover, removal of all used fuel from shutdown 

plant sites will enable termination of the NRC license and use of the site for other purposes 

once decommissioning is complete. 

No special legislative language would be required to take shutdown plant fuel first. The 

Standard Contract1 states "Notwithstanding the age of the SNF [spent nuclear fueij and/or 

HLW [high-level radioactive waste), priority may be accorded any SNF and/or HLW removed 

from a civilian nuclear power reactor that has reached the end of Its useful life or has been 

shut down permanently for whatever reason.• Thus, the Department of Energy (DOE) has 

the discretion to pick up fuel from shutdown reactor sites before taking fuel based on 

acceptances earned by used nuclear fuel that has been discharged longer but resides at 

operating plant sites. 

Code of Federal Regulations, Section 10, Part 961, Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear 

Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste. 
168 

Æ 


2. Why should the Department of Energy re-establish the Office of Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management? 

Rrst and foremost, DOE should re-establish the Office of ClviHan Radioactive Waste 

Management (OCRWM) to conform to the law (the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 

amended). Recognizing the importance of having a dedicated office singularly responsible 

and accountable for used fuel and high-level radioactive waste management, in the NWPA 

Congress directed DOE to establish OCRWM with a director appointed by the president. 

Congress did not direct nor did it approve the abolishment of OCRWM in 2010. 

Beyond that fundamental point, when OCRWM's functions moved to other parts of DOE, the 

ability to carry out the mission of managing and disposing of used fuel and high-level 

radioactive waste was significantly degraded. In order to function effectively within DOE and 

the federal government, the organization responsible for used fuel management should be 

exclusively focused on that mission. 

Finally, the mere act of reconstituting OCRWM wiU send a clear message to stakeholders 

that the federal government is once again serious about discharging its responsibilities in 

the area of nuclear waste management and disposal. 

3. Section 602 of the Discussion Draft provides for a fixed-term appointment for the 

Director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management How would this 

provision affect DOE's program management? Do you think five years is an 

appropriate length of time to provide continuity of leadership? 

A five-year term for the OCRWM director would benefit the program by Improving continuity 

of leadership. If a director were to serve his or her full term, it would avoid many instances 

of the disruption in leadership that is inherent in the presidential election cycle. Five (or six) 

years would be an appropriate term of service, provided a good director can serve multiple 

terms. To further improve continuity, consideration should be given to allowing the director 

to remain in service past term expiration until his or her successor is confirmed and in place. 

In the long term, the United States Nuclear Infrastructure Council supports • ... the 

establishment of a separate, politically independent but accountable federal corporation-type 

organization which is mission-based and structured to execute all necessary steps and 

activities to develop, license, construct, operate and decommission nuclear used fuel and 

high-level waste storage facilities and permanent repositories." With such an organization In 

place, the chief executive would not necessarily have a fixed term, but could be chosen by 

the board of directors and serve as long as his or her job performance was satisfactory. 

2