U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–643 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 116–29 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON A DISCUSSION DRAFT 

BILL, S. l, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2019 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 1, 2019 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIKE BRAUN, Indiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 1, 2019 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada ............. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Rosen, Hon. Jacky, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada ................................ 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

O’Connor, Timothy, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Xcel 

Energy ................................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 32 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 34 

Senator Braun ........................................................................................... 36 

O’Donnell, Anthony J., Commissioner, Maryland Public Service Commission .. 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 50 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 57 

Senator Braun ........................................................................................... 60 

Fettus, Geoffrey H., Senior Attorney, Climate and Clean Energy Program, 

Natural Resources Defense Council ................................................................... 61 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 79 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 85 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 92 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON A DISCUSSION 

DRAFT BILL, S. l, NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2019 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2019 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Cramer, Braun, 

Rounds, Boozman, Ernst, Cardin, Gillibrand, Markey, Duckworth, 

and Van Hollen. 

Also present: Senators Cortez Masto and Rosen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

This morning, we will receive testimony on discussion draft legislation that is titled The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 

2019. 

America launched the Manhattan Project to win World War II. 

The project was unprecedented in time and scale, and in urgency. 

It also produced nuclear waste, which our country is still managing 

75 years later. 

President Eisenhower launched the Atoms for Peace program in 

1953. This established the United States as the global leader for 

the peaceful civilian use of nuclear energy. America continues to 

generate the most nuclear power in the world. 

Radioactive material is also used for life saving medical procedures, for oil and gas production, and for numerous other industrial 

applications. With immense benefits of nuclear energy comes a responsibility to permanently and safely dispose of the byproduct material. 

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the Federal Government studied dozens of locations to identify a suitable nuclear waste disposal 

site. These sites were located in 36 States around the country, including several represented on this Committee, including Indiana, 

New York, South Dakota, Illinois, North Dakota, Alabama, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, and my home State of Wyoming. 

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Act 

formally established a comprehensive nuclear waste management 

policy. In doing so, Washington made a promise to the American 

2 

people. The Department of Energy would dispose of spent nuclear 

fuel by 1998. Ratepayers began paying Washington to fund this 

program. And over the last 35 years, ratepayers have paid more 

than $40 billion to keep their end of the deal. 

Maintaining our nuclear weapons deterrence and powering 

America’s submarines and aircraft carriers also creates nuclear 

waste. The Act also provided for the safe disposal of this material. 

From 1982 to 1987, the department conducted multiple in depth 

scientific and technical analyses of targeted disposal sites. The 

Yucca Mountain site, located on Federal Government owned land 

in Nevada, consistently ranked at or near the top of those scientific 

studies. The site is located adjacent to an 8,400 square mile area 

of U.S. Government owned land. The area is larger than the State 

of Massachusetts. 

In 1987, Congress selected the Yucca Mountain site to host the 

Nation’s first disposal site. After 15 years of detailed engineering 

and scientific work, President Bush formally recommended the site 

in 2002. The State of Nevada officially objected to the recommendation. With a bipartisan vote, Congress overrode the State’s veto. All 

of this followed the process established by the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act. 

In 2008, the Department of Energy submitted the Yucca Mountain license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 

Commission staff conducted its own technical analysis known as 

the Safety Evaluation Report. The five volume, 1,900 page independent report found the department’s Yucca Mountain design 

would meet all regulatory requirements. 

Today, Washington is over 20 years late in keeping its word. As 

a result, American taxpayers are footing the bill. Taxpayers pay 

over $2 million per day in legal costs. Cumulatively, taxpayers will 

be liable for over $35 billion. This number increases with every day 

that Washington delays. We can’t walk away from the law of the 

land. We can’t start over and let another 40 years pass to solve this 

challenge. 

The discussion draft before us today is a solution. It is nearly 

identical to the text of legislation passed by the House of Representatives last year by a vote of 340 to 72. Over 60 percent of 

the House Democrats voted for that bill. The draft makes critical 

reforms to our Nation’s nuclear waste management policy. 

It authorizes the Department of Energy to contract with private 

companies for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. It provides the 

State of Nevada the opportunity to present their scientific opposition to the use of the Yucca Mountain site to independent judges 

in a legal proceeding. It reforms the program’s financing mechanisms to protect ratepayers. And it allows host communities to 

partner with the Federal Government to receive benefits. 

Nuclear energy is an essential part of our energy portfolio. It is 

also critical to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. If we are serious 

about addressing climate change, we must be serious about preserving and expanding nuclear energy use. That means keeping 

our commitment to the 121 communities in 39 States where nuclear waste is located. Safely disposing of nuclear waste is a national problem and requires a national solution. 

3 

Just as our Committee did with legislation promoting advanced 

nuclear technologies last year, I would like to find bipartisan agreement to move legislation to get our nuclear waste program back on 

track. This morning’s hearing is the first step in that process. 

I will now turn to my friend and Ranking Member, Senator Carper, for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to our witnesses, it is a nice way to start our day. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. As you 

know, I think any actions dealing with our Nation’s spent fuel is 

something our Committee ought to discuss and should address. 

Our Nation’s nuclear power plants are currently storing their 

spent nuclear fuel in a way that most of us think is safe and reliable. I have been told that the technology we have to store spent 

nuclear fuel enables that fuel to be stored safety for anywhere between 50 and 100 years, maybe longer. 

Having said that, our nuclear reactors were not designed to keep 

spent fuel onsite forever. So as our reactors age and are decommissioned, it is imperative that we find an alternate resting place for 

our nuclear spent fuel. 

Almost 40 years ago, Congress passed, as we just heard, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to help find a final resting place for 

our Nation’s high level nuclear waste from our defense programs 

and from our nuclear energy reactors. Congress felt this action 

would move our country toward a deep mined geological nuclear 

waste repository. But after years of study and debate, we find ourselves at a dead end, with no functioning nuclear waste repository, 

and with nuclear spent fuel building up at our Nation’s nuclear 

power plants. I appreciate our Chairman’s bringing forth a discussion draft on how we can restart this critical conversation. 

Before Congress takes any actions on nuclear waste, however, we 

need to be sure that we are not going to repeat the mistakes from 

our past. If we don’t, our country may well find itself 30 years from 

now in the same dead end situation that we face today. 

I believe that one of the biggest mistakes we made in Congress, 

when I served in the U.S. House, was not obtaining consent from 

all parties on the location of a disposal site. Somehow, we have 

learned how to get communities across the country to compete for 

the siting of prisons in our Nation, but we have not yet learned 

how to get communities to compete for disposal of our nuclear 

spent fuel. 

As a recovering Governor, I believe that any actions we take on 

nuclear waste must include a consent based approach that fosters 

a meaningful partnership between Federal, local, and State leaders. We must also have open communications with the people who 

live and work in those communities. 

We don’t have to solve all the nuclear waste issues today. I know 

we are not going to. But I believe there are actions we can and 

must take to make much needed progress on this issue. My hope 

is that our Committee can find common ground on legislation with 

the input of our witnesses today to do just that. 

4 

I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday with Senator Rosen, and 

one of the things we talked about was a trip I took to France a 

number of years ago, not for tourism purposes, but to try to learn 

what they are doing in that country with their spent fuel. They 

don’t regard it as a waste product; they regard it as a resource. 

One of the things they try to do is derive additional energy from 

the spent fuel rods. Usually when we finish, we pull a lot of spent 

fuel rods out of nuclear plants in this country. They have plenty 

of energy left; we are just not going to harvest that energy. 

One of the things they are pretty good at in France, where they 

get 80 percent of their energy from carbon-free nuclear power, one 

of the things they are pretty good at is trying to get as much energy out of them as they can. 

My State is a little State. When I was privileged to be the Governor for 8 years, one of the toughest issues was siting prisons. We 

don’t have a lot of land; about 50 miles wide, 100 miles long. Most 

of our people live in the northern part of the State. Siting a prison 

for men, a prison for women, very difficult issue. 

What we found out is that other States were happy to have our 

inmates. It was a business opportunity for them. They built prisons, they operated them, some of them very well, some of them not 

so well. So I like to say—if somehow one of the toughest issues I 

faced as Governor, siting prisons—if other States are willing to say, 

hey, wait, wait, maybe your problem, that is something we would 

like to do for you, to help you with. We have to be smart enough 

to figure out how to do something like that with respect to spent 

fuel in this country. 

I think one of the big mistakes we made is when we passed legislation back in the 1980s that we talked about here today, we did 

not incent States to actually line up and say, you know, this could 

be good jobs. It’s a clean business, clean industry, and would actually help solve an immediate challenge for our Nation; we should 

be smart enough to incent other States to do that. I think we are 

going to have a second chance. We don’t always have second 

chances in life. I think we may have a second chance here, and we 

need to do it right and make sure that the incidents line up as they 

should. 

Thank you very much. 

We look forward to hearing from our friends. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

We would now like to invite the two Senators from Nevada to 

testify and share their views. We will first start with Senator Catherine Cortez Masto and then turn to Senator Jacky Rosen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso and 

Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to sit before you today, along with my Nevada 

colleague, Senator Jacky Rosen, to discuss the legislative draft before you, and our opposition to Yucca Mountain. 

I last sat at this table in October 2007—that was 12 years ago— 

as the Attorney General for the State of Nevada. At that time, I 

provided testimony before the Committee on this very topic. For 

5 

over 30 years, many in Congress have been trying to force a repository facility on Nevada, despite the fact that Nevada does not generate or consume nuclear energy, and that Yucca Mountain is a 

seismically and geologically unfit site to store this dangerous material. 

A vast majority of Nevadans opposed Yucca Mountain when the 

site was selected as the Nation’s sole repository back in 1987, and 

they continue to do so today. Over the years, this Committee has 

heard from both Republican and Democratic Governors and members of the Nevada congressional delegation, as well as environmental advocates and our State’s prominent travel, tourism, and 

outdoor recreation industries, all of whom are united in their opposition to Yucca Mountain. 

Today, I would like to dispel a few misconceptions. Many believe 

Yucca Mountain is settled science, that Yucca Mountain was selected through a reasoned and thorough process, or that Yucca 

Mountain is already equipped to receive nuclear waste. Well, they 

are wrong. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 

creating a structure for a final repository siting. This structure established a schedule for selection of a first repository to be made 

among three candidates in a western State, followed by the selection of a second repository from a set of five candidates in an eastern State, along with consideration of an interim site to be located 

at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

It also allowed all States to have a voice in this process by granting them a veto. And the amount of waste to be stored at the first 

repository was capped at 70,000 metric tons, as a compromise to 

ensure that not just one facility would be the recipient of the Nation’s waste, knowing that much more than this amount would ultimately be required for final repose in the future. 

But faced with political pressure, the Reagan administration indefinitely postponed the search for an eastern second repository 

site in 1986, unraveling a key compromise of the 1982 law. Then 

later in 1987, Congress dropped the scientific based compromise 

process; it nullified the selection of an interim site at Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, and arbitrarily designated Yucca Mountain as the sole 

site for a repository, despite strong opposition from the State of Nevada. 

I ask you to put yourselves in the shoes of Nevadans. Imagine 

having nuclear waste sent to your communities without your input 

or without a fair process. That is why Nevadans have been united 

in the fight to ensure that not an ounce of nuclear waste makes 

it to Yucca Mountain. 

Mr. Chairman, people often falsely think that Yucca Mountain is 

ready to receive waste. The Federal Government has spent $19 billion with little to show in result. There are no waste disposal tunnels, there is no waste handling facilities there, there is no monitoring infrastructure, no containment infrastructure, there is no 

railroad infrastructure needed for transporting waste into the site. 

All that exists at Yucca Mountain now is a 5 mile exploratory hole 

in the ground to study the geology and hydrology of the mountain. 

Yucca Mountain is also a national security threat. The Nevada 

Test and Training Range, which is directly adjacent to Yucca 

Mountain, is home to 75 percent of Air Force live munitions testVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:27 Jul 31, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36643.TXT SONYA
6 

ing, making it the largest air and ground military training space 

in the country. According to former Air Force Secretary Heather 

Wilson, if Yucca Mountain were to ever hold nuclear waste, it 

would directly impact the readiness of our military by harming the 

ability of our Nation’s military to train for combat. 

Yucca Mountain is a scientifically unsuitable site for a nuclear 

repository. It sits on fault lines. In 1996, a 5.6 magnitude earthquake damaged the Yucca Mountain project field operations center. 

Imagine what would happen if there was a stronger earthquake. 

Numerous studies have also found that the groundwater around 

the repository is at risk of contamination, affecting communities 

across Nevada and California. 

Mr. Chairman, all we are asking today is that Nevada is treated 

fairly, that it is treated the same as every other State. Congress 

should not and cannot shove nuclear waste down our throats. All 

States must be given parity in order to find a solution that works. 

That is why Senator Rosen and I have introduced alternative legislation that guarantees every State has a seat at the table. Our 

bill, Senate Bill 649, the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act, 

would require the Federal Government to obtain the consent of potential host States before moving forward. 

I would like to thank EPW Committee members Senators Booker, Gillibrand, and Sanders for co-sponsoring our legislation. The 

current bill before this Committee continues on an unworkable 

path that only delays the country from finding a solution to our nuclear waste dilemma. 

So why waste decades and billions of taxpayer dollars when we 

can work together to come up with a viable solution to our nuclear 

storage problem? I stand ready to work with the members of this 

Committee and the rest of my colleagues in the Senate to find a 

sustainable solution that ensures all parties have a voice in this 

process. So I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today. 

I would also like to submit for the record an analysis by Bob 

Halstead, who works with the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, 

and it is his overview and analysis of the discussion draft of the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019 and the concerns 

that we have as the State of Nevada with the current draft. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cortez Masto follows. The 

other referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

7 


36643.001

Witness Testimony of 

Senator Catherine Cortez Masto 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Legislative Hearing on a Discussion Draft Bill, the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act of 2019 

May 1, 2019 

Good Morning Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the 

Committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to sit before you today, along with my Nevada 

colleague, Senator Jacky Rosen, to discuss the legislative draft before you and our 

opposition to Yucca Mountain. 

I last sat at this table in October 2007, almost 12 years ago, as the Attorney 

General for the State of Nevada. At the time, I provided testimony before the 

Committee on this very topic. 

For over 30 years, many in Congress have been trying to force a repository facility 

on Nevada, despite the fact that Nevada does not generate or consume nuclear 

energy, and that Yucca Mountain is a seismically and geologically unfit site to 

store this dangerous material. 

A vast majority of Nevadans opposed Yucca Mountain when the site was selected 

as the nation's sole repository back in 1987, and they continue to do so today. 

Over the years, this committee has heard from both Republican and Democratic 

Governors and Members of the Nevada Congressional Delegation, as well as 

environmental advocates, and our state's prominent travel, tourism, and outdoor 

recreation industries- all of whom are united in their opposition to Yucca 

Mountain. 

Today, I would like to dispel a few misconceptions. 

Many believe Yucca Mountain is settled science. That Yucca Mountain was 

selected through a reasoned and thorough process. Or that Yucca Mountain is 

already equipped to receive nuclear waste. Well, they are wrong. 

1 
8 


36643.002

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, creating a structure for a 

final repository siting. This structure established a schedule for selection of a first 

repository to be made among three candidates in a Western state, followed by the 

selection of a second repository from a set of five candidates in an Eastern state, 

along with consideration of an interim site to be located at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

It also allowed ALL states to have a voice in this process by granting them a veto. 

The amount of waste to be stored at the first repository was capped at 70,000 metric 

tons as a compromise to ensure that not just one facility would be the recipient of 

the nation's waste, knowing that much more than this amount would ultimately be 

required for final repose in the future. 

But faced with political pressures, the Reagan Administration indefinitely 

postponed the search for an Eastern second repository site in 1986 -unravelling a 

key compromise ofthe 1982law. 

Later, in 1987, Congress dropped the scientific-based compromise process, 

nullified the selection of an interim site at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and arbitrarily 

designated Yucca Mountain as the sole site for a repository, despite strong 

opposition from the State ofNevada. 

Why did Congress reconsider after having reached a historic compromise only five 

years earlier? Because Nevada had, two first-term senators, Chic Hecht and Harry 

Reid, that proponents of the "Screw Nevada" bill thought could not stop their 

cunning motives. 

This historical context is key to understanding that political opportunism was used 

to scapegoat the State of Nevada. It is unconscionable. I ask you to put yourselves 

in the shoes of Nevadans. Imagine having nuclear waste sent to your communities 

without your input, without a fair process. I know you would not stand for this or 

any other attempt to trample over your state's right to say no. Most of you do not 

like when the federal government tries to interfere in local state issues, so why 

would you be in favor of treating Nevada any different? I cannot allow this. That 

is why I will continue to fight to ensure that not an ounce of nuclear waste makes it 

to Yucca Mountain. 

Mr. Chairman, people often falsely think that Yucca Mountain is ready to receive 

waste. That is far from the case. The federal government has spent $19 billion 

with little to show in result. There are no waste disposal tunnels. No waste 

2 
9 


36643.003

handling facilities. No monitoring infrastructure. No containment infrastructure. 

No railroad infrastructure needed for transporting waste into the site. All that exists 

at Yucca Mountain is a hole in the ground. 

And in order for Yucca Mountain to be operational, it would need to use Nevada's 

underground water supply through a state issued permit, and we will never issue 

one. 

Yucca Mountain is also a national security threat. The Nevada Test and Training 

Range, which is directly adjacent to Yucca Mountain, is home to 75 percent of Air 

Force live munitions testing, making it the largest air and ground military training 

space in the country. 

According to Former Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, if Yucca Mountain were 

to ever hold nuclear waste, it would directly impact the readiness of our military by 

harming the ability of our nation's military to train for combat. 

Yucca Mountain is a scientifically unsuitable site for a nuclear repository. Yucca 

sits on active fault lines. In 1996, a 5.6 magnitude earthquake damaged the Yucca 

Mountain Project field operations center. Imagine what would happen if there is a 

stronger earthquake. 

Numerous studies have also found that the groundwater around the repository is at 

risk of contamination, affecting communities across Nevada and California. 

Mr. Chairman, all we are asking today is that Nevada be treated fairly, that it is 

treated the same as every other state. Congress should not, and cannot, shove 

nuclear waste down our throats. 

All states must be given parity in order have a solution that works. 

That is why Senator Rosen and I have introduced alternative legislation that 

guarantees every state has a seat at the table. 

Our bill, S.649, the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act would require the federal 

government to obtain the consent of a potential host state before moving forward. 

We thank members of this committee- Senators Booker, Gillibrand, and Sanders, 

for co-sponsoring our legislation. 

3 
10 


36643.004

The current bill before this committee continues on an unworkable path that only 

delays the country from finding a solution to our nuclear waste dilemma. 

So why waste decades and billions of taxpayer dollars when we can work together 

to come up with a viable solution to our nuclear storage problem? 

I stand ready to working to the members of this committee and the rest of my 

colleagues in the Senate in finding a sustainable solution that maintains that all 

parties have a voice in this process. 

Thank you. 

4 
11 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, and without objection, 

that will certainly be submitted for the record. 

Senator Rosen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Senator ROSEN. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, everyone here on the Committee. 

I really appreciate the opportunity to testify here today, along 

with my senior Senator, Catherine Cortez Masto. Let me make one 

thing clear: Nevadans wholeheartedly oppose becoming the Nation’s nuclear dumping ground. 

For over 30 years, the State of Nevada and local communities 

have rejected the misguided Yucca Mountain project on safety, public health, national security, and environmental grounds. In fact, 

the State has filed over 200 contentions against the Department of 

Energy’s license application, challenging the adequacy of DOE’s environmental impact assessments. 

Nevada’s full bipartisan delegation opposes this bill, as do the 

previous Republican Governor, Brian Sandoval, and the current 

Democratic Governor, Steve Sisolak. I would like to submit for the 

record Governor Sisolak’s letter in opposition to Yucca Mountain, 

please. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator ROSEN. Thank you. 

As we have known for decades, numerous scientific studies have 

deemed Yucca Mountain unsafe, based on the fact that the site, as 

Senator Cortez Masto said, is seismically active and sits on an aquifer. Moreover, this particular legislation designating Yucca 

Mountain as the Nation’s dumping ground would require transporting over 110,000 metric tons—110,000 metric tons of radioactive waste. This number is 40,000 more metric tons than what 

was outlined in the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and much 

of it would travel by rail and road through the heart of Las Vegas 

and dozens of other major cities across this country. 

So let’s put this in perspective. We are talking about shipping 

roughly one to three trains or one to two truck shipments across 

this country every week for 50 years from 76 shipping sites. Every 

week for 60 years, three loads. That nuclear waste would be transported weekly through a total of 44 States, including many that are 

represented on this Committee today, Wyoming, Oklahoma, West 

Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, Idaho, and all the rest. 

It is hard to imagine that shipping over 5,000 truck casts of high 

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

radiological release somewhere in this country. Severe transportation accidents involving these shipments threaten the health and 

safety of tourists and individuals who live along the proposed 

routes all across this country and would cost billions of dollars in 

cleanup costs and related economic losses. 

So I ask the members here today: is this a risk you are willing 

to take? 

In addition, Yucca Mountain represents a serious challenge for 

our national security. The Yucca Mountain site is adjacent to the 

12 

Nevada Test and Training Range. That is the crown jewel of our 

Air Force. This Air Force training site provides the largest air and 

ground military training space in the contiguous United States, 

without interference from commercial aircraft. It is also home to 75 

percent of stateside Air Force live munitions. 

Military leaders have said the Yucca Mountain Project can directly impact our country’s ability to defend itself. And there are 

no nuclear waste transportation routes across the training site that 

would not impact these training exercises. So does it really make 

sense to transport and store our Nation’s nuclear waste right next 

to a military bombing range? Not only is this bill bad for the safety 

of millions of Americans and our national security, but this bill also 

proposes a radical change to our Nation’s approach to nuclear 

waste management. 

The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act from the 1980s calls for 

two repositories, one to ensure regional equity and the other to address technical redundancy. This bill does away with that by eliminating the current requirement for progress on the second repository, placing the entire burden on Nevada. And we don’t even 

produce nuclear energy. 

Finally, once again, this bill further takes away Nevada’s voice 

by moving forward with the Yucca Mountain project without a consent based process in place. Nevada does not want nor has ever 

wanted to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. What this bill 

is taking away from us is our founding principle of State self-determination and liberty and sending us to a place where all States are 

not equal under the law. 

As Senators, we are here to represent the voices of our constituents. I don’t think any Senator would think it is OK for other Senators to take away the voice of their State. 

So Nevada needs a voice in this process, period. This is nothing 

more than an attempt to take away Nevada’s States’ rights. So 

with all due respect, this Committee’s legislation ignores the environmental, safety, and security concerns of Nevadans who would be 

forced to store nuclear waste they had no role in creating. 

I therefore urge the Committee to stop wasting billions of dollars 

of taxpayer money by resurrecting a project that has been dead for 

over 30 years, and instead identify viable alternatives for the long 

term repository in areas that are proven safe and whose communities consent to that storage. 

I really appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rosen follows:] 

13 


36643.005

Testimony of Senator Jacky Rosen on Opposition to the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019 

Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing: 

May 1, 2019 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify at today's hearing. Once again, I am here to make one thing clear: 

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

For over 30 years, the state of Nevada and local communities have rejected the misguided Yucca 

Mountain project on safety, public health, national security, and environmental grounds. In fact, 

the state has filed over 200 contentions against the Department of Energy's (DOE) license 

application, challenging the adequacy of DOE's environmental impact assessments. Nevada's 

full bipartisan delegation opposes this bill, as do the previous Republican Governor Brian 

Sandoval and the current Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak. I would like to submit Governor's 

Sisolak letter in opposition to the Yucca Mountain project for the record. 

As we have known for decades, numerous scientific studies have deemed Yucca Mountain 

unsafe, based on the fact that the site is seismically active and sits above an aquifer. 

Moreover, under this particular legislation, designating Yucca Mountain as the nation's dumping 

ground would require transporting over 110,000 metric tons of radioactive waste- this number is 

40,000 metric tons more than what was outlined in the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act-- and 

much of it would travel by rail and road through the heart of Las Vegas and dozens of other 

major cities across the country. 

Let's put this in perspective: we are talking about shipping roughly 1 to 3 trains or 1 to 2 truck 

shipments across the country per week, every week for 50 years, from 76 shipping sites. That 

nuclear waste would be transported weekly through a total of 44 states including many 

represented on this committee today: Wyoming, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, Idaho 

and many other states. It is hard to imagine 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 release somewhere 

in this country. 

Severe transportation accidents involving these shipments threaten the health and safety of 

tourists and individuals who live along proposed transportation routes, and would cause billions 

of dollars in cleanup costs and related economic losses. I ask the Members who are listening to 

our testimonies today: is this a risk you are willing to take? 

In addition, Yucca Mountain represents a serious challenge for our national security. 

The Yucca Mountain site is adjacent to the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTIR), the 

"Crown Jewel" of the Air Force. This Air Force training site provides the largest air and ground 

military training space in the contiguous United States without interference from commercial 

aircraft. It is also home to 75 percent of stateside Air Force live munitions. 
14 


36643.006

Military leaders have said the Yucca Mountain project could directly impact our country's ability 

to defend itself. There are no nuclear waste transportation routes across the training site that 

would not impact their training exercises. Does it really makes sense to transport and store our 

nation's nuclear waste right next to a military bombing range? 

Not only is this bill bad for the safety of millions of Americans and our national security, this bill 

also proposes a radical change in the nation's approach to nuclear waste management. The 

original Nuclear Waste Policy Act from the 1980s 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, which 

does not even produce nuclear waste. 

Finally, once again, this bill further takes away Nevada's voice by moving forward with the 

Yucca Mountain project without a consent-based process. Nevada does NOT want- nor has 

EVER wanted- to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. This bill is taking us away from our 

founding principle of state-self-determination and liberty and sending us to a place where all 

states are not equal under this law. 

As Senators, we are sent here to represent the voice of our constituents. I don't think any Senator 

would think it is okay for other Senators to take away the voice of their state. Nevada needs a 

voice in this process. PERIOD. This is nothing more than an attempt to take Nevada's state 

rights away. 

With all due respect, this committee's legislation 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 therefore urge the Committee to stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars by 

resurrecting a project that's been dead for over 30 years, and instead identifY viable alternatives 

for the long-term repository in areas that are proven safe and whose communities consent to 

storage. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. 
15 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you to both of you. We appreciate 

your attendance and your participation and your thoughtful testimony. You are welcome to stay for the hearing. I know you have 

busy schedules. Thank you very much for being here with us today. 

I would like to now call our second panel of witnesses. That will 

be Mr. Tim O’Connor, the Chief Nuclear Officer of Xcel Energy; Mr. 

Anthony O’Donnell, the Maryland Public Service Commissioner on 

behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; and Mr. Geoffrey Fettus, who is the Senior Attorney for 

the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

As you are coming up, I would like to point out that a majority 

of Nevada counties have passed resolutions in support of completing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety review of the 

Yucca Mountain site. Nye County is the host community for the repository. That county has a long record of support for the program. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 

Nye County, Nevada, County Commissioner Leo Blundo. The letter 

requests Congress support the completion of the Yucca Mountain 

licensing proceeding. 

Without objection, that will be submitted into the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

16 


36643.007

Pahrump Office 

Nye Counly Government Center 

2100 EWalt Williams Drive 

Suite 100 

Pahrump, NV 89048 

Phone (775) 751-7075 

Fax (775) 751-7093 

April 30, 2019 

The Honorable John Bat1·asso 

Board of County 

Commissioners 

Nye County, Nevada 

Tonopah Office 

Nye County Courthouse 

William P, Beko Justice Facility 

PO Box !53 

Tonopah, NV 89049 

Phone (775) 482-8191 

Fax (775) 482-8198 

Chainnan, Committee 011 Environment and 

Public Works 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member, Committee 011 

Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

t.:nited States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear: Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

On behalf of the Nye County Commission, along with eight other Nevada counties (out of a total 

of seventeen) I strongly urge you to support the Senate bill to jump start the licensing hearing for 

the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. This position is in accordance with the law, 

supports the objective scientific studies on the safety of the repository and has the support of local 

governments in Nevada. It is the right thing to do. 

As you know, funding for the license process has been denied for nine years on purely political 

grounds. The overwhelming body of scientific studies done on the proposed repository have 

demonstrated that it can be built and operated safely. This includes the safety reviews done by 

the professionals at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Further, the funding we are 

requesting will be used to conduct further scientific reviews by the 'NRC. The opponents of the 

repository will have every opportunity to show that the repository is unsafe, if they can make that 

case based on facts. 

Despite the claims by the State of Nevada that everyone in the State opposes the license 

proceeding, nine of the rural counties that surround Yucca Mountain favor the resumption oft he 

license proceeding. Nye County-- the site county --has favored a full and fair review of the 

science by the NRC for years. We want decisions to be made on Yucca Mountain to be based on 

facts and science and not empty rhetoric and fear mongering. 

As long as Yucca Mountain is stalled, nuclear waste is gathering at existing and closed nuclear 

power plants all over the country. It is far better for the American public to have the waste stored 

safely in a remote desert mountain than to be in locations near population centers, lakes and 

rivers. 

d the resumption of the license proceeding for Yucca Mountain. 

LB/ 

19-016SLB Nye County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider 
17 

Senator BARRASSO. So I welcome our witnesses. I would like to 

remind you that your full written testimony will be made part of 

the official hearing today. Please try to keep your statements to 5 

minutes, so that we may have time for questions. I look forward 

to hearing your testimony. 

If we could start with Mr. O’Connor. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY O’CONNOR, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER, XCEL ENERGY 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. 

My name is Tim O’Connor, and I am the Senior Vice President 

and Chief Nuclear Office for Xcel Energy, a public utility holding 

company serving 3.6 million electric customers and 2 million natural gas customers. We are headquartered in Minneapolis, and we 

serve parts in eight western and midwestern States. 

I welcome the opportunity to share with you nuclear energy’s 

critical importance to the future of reliable, carbon-free generation 

and to discuss the importance of breaking the stalemate on used 

fuel policy, which has left used fuel stored at sites across the country in violation of the Federal Government’s obligation to take possession of the fuel for permanent disposal. 

Xcel Energy operates two nuclear plant sites in Minnesota, a 

total of three reactors. Our plants are Prairie Island and Monticello, which produce a combined output of 1,771 megawatts. We operate one of our plants next to the Prairie Island Indian Community—our neighbors, who have a long, deep history in the area and 

strongly oppose the continued presence of used fuel. 

Mr. Chairman, with me today is Cody Whitebear, a member of 

the Prairie Island Community, who is here with me today for this 

hearing. We partner frequently with the Prairie Island Indian 

Community to advocate for public policy that will result in moving 

used fuel as quickly as possible. Our nuclear plants have excellent 

operational records due to the hard work and dedication of hundreds of men and women who work onsite, including many veterans. 

These units generate electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

through extreme weather conditions such as the recent polar vortex. I also take great pride in the fact that these plants operate 

without producing any greenhouse gas emissions and play a key 

role in Xcel Energy’s carbon reduction strategy. We have already 

achieved a 38 percent system-wide reduction of carbon emissions 

from 2005 levels, but we aim to go much further. 

Our CEO, Ben Fowke, recently announced that we will reduce 

our carbon emissions 80 percent by 2030, and to be a goal of 100 

percent carbon-free by 2050. In order to do this while maintaining 

both affordability and reliability, we need zero carbon dispatchable 

resources like nuclear energy. 

However, the continued political stalemate around nuclear used 

fuel needlessly creates uncertainty about the future of this resource. While the nuclear energy industry has a long record of safely storing used fuel onsite, this situation is not what was promised 

to the communities we serve. As required under the Nuclear Waste 

18 

Policy Act, our customers paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund for 

decades a total of $452 million. Now the Nuclear Waste Fund balance sits at $41 billion, and customers nationwide, quite frankly, 

have received nothing. 

The Federal Government has obligated to develop a permanent 

repository and begin moving fuel by 1998. As we all know, the Federal Government has not lived up to its end of the bargain. On top 

of this, court orders require the Federal Government to reimburse 

utilities for ongoing costs associated with storing used fuel onsite. 

This adds to the Federal liability of $800 million a year for breaching its contractual obligation to take the used fuel. And as you 

said, that is an amazing $2.2 million per day. 

We urge Congress to appropriate the funding necessary to allow 

DOE and the NRC to adjudicate the licensing application for a permanent repository. DOE has demonstrated through comprehensive 

scientific environmental analysis that Yucca Mountain can safely 

serve as a permanent repository for used fuel. At the same time, 

we also support the development of consolidated interim storage. A 

consolidated interim storage project could act as a temporary solution for communities and plants all across the country that are currently storing used fuel. 

Moreover, the transportation of used fuel is safe, and again, is 

a well established practice. In fact, it has been safely transported 

across the U.S. for over 50 years. Nonetheless, the industry is still 

doing more to repair it. 

I am proud to announce that on May 21st, Xcel Energy will host 

an industry with NEI nuclear transport exercise at our Prairie Island facility that will discuss and validate the steps necessary to 

move fuel from a nuclear plant to an interim storage site. Organizations who are critical partners for the safe fuel transportation 

will participate and demonstrate their role. 

I can assure the members of this Committee that spent fuel has 

been and will continue to safely be transported. 

We applaud the Committee putting forward the discussion draft 

of legislation that would advance both permanent and interim storage. Not only would it restart the license application process for a 

permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, but it would simultaneously develop centralized interim storage. We strongly supported 

similar legislation when it was considered and approved by the 

House of Representatives during the last Congress. This bill recognizes the financial contributions made by electricity consumers 

across the Nation and assures that the nuclear waste fee is not 

turned back on until a decision is made on the Yucca Mountain license. 

We hope the Committee will consider this legislation this year. 

To conclude, while nuclear fuel is safe and secure at our plant 

sites, the fact that it remains in Minnesota rather than stored at 

a permanent repository is a political—not a scientific or engineering—failure, one that costs consumers and taxpayers millions of 

dollars every year. It is long past time for Congress to act. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Connor follows:] 

19 


36643.008

Tim O'Connor 

Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer 

Xcel Energy 

Tim O'Connor is senior vice president and chief nuclear officer for 

Xcel Energy. He is responsible for the Xcel nuclear strategic 

direction, business plans, finance, and operations in the various 

operating jurisdictions for the company. Currently that includes 

corporate, the operations of the Monticello and Prairie Island 

nuclear generating plants, as well as the decommissioning and 

nuclear fuel storage outside of Minnesota. 

O'Connor joined Xcel Energy in 2007 as site vice president at the Monticello plant. 

Between 2007 and 2012, the site was recognized by the Institute of Nuclear Power 

Operations for exemplary plant operations. In June 2012 he was appointed vice 

president of corporate engineering/nuclear regulatory compliance and licensing for the 

nuclear fleet 

He has over 34 years of commercial nuclear experience with both boiling water and 

pressurized water reactors. He has served as site vice president at Constellation 

Energy Group's Nine Mile Point station in New York, and has held vice presidential 

roles at the Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) for the Hope Creek and Salem 

plants. Other roles he held were with Exelon as plant manager at the LaSalle station, 

operations manager at the Dresden and Zion plants, and other senior management 

positions in maintenance, operations, and engineering. O'Connor held a position with 

the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) as a nuclear plant evaluation team 

manager on a reverse loaned assignment. 

O'Connor received his mechanical engineering degree from Marquette University in 

Milwaukee and has completed executive business programs with the Chicago Kellogg 

School of Business. O'Connor serves on the USA board of directors, chairman of EPRI 

and NEI industry high level waste management (nuclear fuel) committees, and the 

board of directors for the Monticello community Economic Development group. 
20 


36643.009

STATEMENT OF 

TIM O'CONNOR 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT At~D CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER 

XCEL ENERGY, INC. 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

HEARING ON 

THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2019 

MAY 1,2019 
21 


36643.010

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. 

My name is Tim O'Connor, and I am Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer for Xcel 

Energy, a public utility holding company serving 3.6 million electric customers and 2 million 

natural gas customers through four utility subsidiaries. Headquartered in Minneapolis, we serve 

parts of eight Western and Midwestern states, including Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, the Texas Panhandle and Southeastern New Mexico. 

I have 34 years of commercial nuclear experience at utilities across the country. I have a degree 

in mechanical engineering from Marquette University and currently serve as chairman of the 

Nuclear Energy Institute's Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee, chairman of the Used 

Fuel Working Group and a member of the Industry High Level Waste Management Committee. 

Xcel Energy is also a member of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, which represents the 

collective interests of member state utility regulators, state consumer advocates, radiation control 

officials, tribal governments, local governments, electric utilities, and other public and private 

sector experts on nuclear waste policy matters. 

I want to thank the members of the Committee for holding this hearing on an incredibly 

important topic for Xcel Energy, our customers, and our communities. I welcome the 

opportunity to share with you the value of nuclear energy on our system, its critical importance 

to our carbon reduction strategy, and how solving the used fuel challenge will help facilitate our 

vision for a reliable electric grid entirely run by clean energy. 

I. Xcel Energy's nuclear fleet. 

We operate three nuclear units on two plant sites in Minnesota, though all of our customers 

across the Upper Midwest portion of our service area benefit directly from the emissions-free 

power produced at these facilities. 

The first is the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, which has two pressurized water reactors 

with a total output of I, 100 megawatts. These units, which began operation in 1973 and 197 4 

respectively, have Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses to operate until 2033 and 

2034. 

2 
22 


36643.011

At Prairie Island, we are neighbors with the Prairie Island Indian Community, which has a long 

and deep history in the area. I will discuss our partnership with the PIIC, particularly with 

regards to used nuclear fuel, in more detail below. 

Our second facility is the Monticello Nuclear Generating Station, located 40 miles northwest of 

the Twin Cities. Monticello's single boiling water reactor has a capacity of 671 megawatts and 

is licensed through 2030. 

I am proud to report that these facilities have stellar operational performance due to the hard 

work and dedication of hundreds of men and women that work on site. The units generate 

electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except during refueling), even during the recent cold 

snap in the Upper Midwest when temperatures reached 30 degrees below zero. 

2. Xcel Energy's nuclear plants are critical to our carbon vision. 

I also take great pride in the fact that these plants operate without producing any greenhouse gas 

emissions and play a key role in Xcel Energy's carbon reduction strategy. We have already 

achieved a 38% system-wide reduction of carbon emissions from 2005 levels, but we aim to go 

much further. Our CEO, Ben Fowke, recently announced that we will reduce our carbon 

emissions 80% by 2030 and we were the first utility in the nation to announce a vision for a 

completely carbon-free system by midcentury. 

However, even as we become increasingly carbon-free, we must continue to provide our 

customers with affordable and reliable electricity. In order to do this we need the ability to 

provide zero carbon, dispatchable and firm resources like nuclear energy. Without our Prairie 

Island and Monticello nuclear plants it would be impossible to even achieve our 2030 emissions 

reduction goals. These facilities avoid 13 million tons of carbon emissions annually, which is 

the equivalent of removing two million cars from the roads. 

The continued availability of our nuclear facilities is key to a carbon reduction strategy that 

protects reliability and assures an atiordable energy system. Our aggressive emission reduction 

targets would be prohibitively expensive without the continued operation of zero carbon, 

dispatchable resources. We cannot reduce carbon effectively if we simultaneously have to 

replace our nuclear fleet. 

3 
23 


36643.012

3. The nuclear energy industry has a long record of on-site used fuel safety performance. 

One of the greatest challenges we face with continued operations of our nuclear plants is the 

spent fuel that is currently being stored on-site. This is not a question of safety. On-site storage 

is highly regulated and continuously monitored, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has 

confirmed on-site storage can be done safely for several decades if needed. The fuel is stored in 

heavy-duty steel and concrete containers that have been tested under extraordinary conditions. 

Our plants and on-site storage facilities also follow a "defense-in-depth" approach, meaning 

there are several independent layers of safety designed into processes, procedures and 

equipment. Those safety designs and oversight are backed up by our committed team of nuclear 

professionals. At Xcel Energy our workforce has a strong culture of safety, which is reinforced 

by the discipline and rigor our many military veteran employees carry with them. We execute a 

state-of-the art safety and security program that includes rigorous, continuous training. This 

Committee should feel confident in the safety of on-site storage as the nuclear energy industry 

has a long, proven track record of safuly storing used fuel at our plants. 

4. The failure of the federal government to accept our spent fuel is costing our customers 

hm1dreds of millions of dollars. 

Despite this comprehensive safety regime, the fact remains that the federal goverrunent has not 

lived up to its obligation under the law to remove nuclear spent fuel from our facilities. As laid 

out in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, our customers paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund for 

decades and in exchange, the federal government had the obligation to remove the spent fuel 

from the sites and properly dispose of it. Our customers lived up to their end of the bargain. Our 

Upper Midwest customers have contributed $452.1 million over time. But the 1998 deadline for 

the Department of Energy to begin to take title to the fuel came and went. That was 21 years ago 

and customers have received nothing in return for the $41 billion that sits in the Nuclear Waste 

Fund. Today we have about 1 ,500 metric tons of fuel being stored in concrete and steel casks. 

Additionally, under a Miunesota statute, our customers pay a fee to store spent nuclear fuel on 

site- $500,000 per cask per year at Prairie Island and $350,000 per cask per year at Monticello 

totaling $32.5 million in 2018. These payments, which were only supposed to be oflimited 

4 
24 


36643.013

duration until the DOE removed the fuel, go into a statewide renewable development account, 

and have cost our customers $360 million to date. 

And it's not just nuclear customers that are on the hook. All federal taxpayers now have 

substantial liability as well. Federal courts require the government to reimburse utilities for 

breaching its contractual obligation to take the spent fuel. This reimbursement is supposed to 

help offset the substantial costs of continually storing fuel on site. Taxpayers now pay up to 

$800 million annually, or almost $2.2 million per day. Xcel Energy alone received 

approximately $15 million from this fund last year. It is my understanding that this is one of the 

single largest liabilities out of the Department of Justice's Judgment Fund. This is mandatory 

spending, adding to the deficit, that is not subject to aunual congressional appropriations. 

The costs of inaction are staggering, and yet spent fuel remains in Minnesota and 39 other states. 

5. Local communities near the existing spent fuel storage installations are also concerned about 

the presence of spent fuel in their backyard. 

There is, of course, another cost to the continued political stalemate over spent nuclear fuel. You 

have heard about concerns from communities in Nevada regarding the Yucca Mountain site, and 

it is important to consider those concerns as we go forward. However, the federal govemment 

should also recognize that other communities have interest in the fate of spent fuel. Those 

communities are near our current plant sites, and see the fuel in their back yard every day. 

As I mentioned earlier, one of our nuclear facilities is located adjacent to the Prairie Island 

Indian Community. The tribe is our neighbor and an important stakeholder and partner on a 

number of important local issues, not the least of which is used fuel. They oppose the continued 

presence of used fuel near their community. We want to be a good neighbor and respect their 

wishes by removing the fuel, but the continued stalemate in Washington makes that impossible. 

Attached to my written testimony you will find a joint letter that Tribal Council President 

Shelley Buck and I sent to members of the Minnesota congressional delegation urging action on 

this issue. 

5 
25 


36643.014

6. Congress should allow the Yucca Mountain licensing process to proceed. 

I applaud this Committee for focusing on this issue to break the stalemate and solve the problem 

once and for all. We urge Congress to implement the law and appropriate the funding necessary 

to allow the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to adjudicate the 

license application for a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. At the same time, we should 

also move forward \Vith consolidated interim storage (CIS). 

Xcel Energy, like the Nuclear Energy Institute and the rest of the utility industry, is a strong 

supporter of completing the licensing process and opening Yucca Mountain. After billions of 

dollars, thousands of hours of review, and a comprehensive scientific, environmental and safety 

analysis, it is clear that Yucca would be a safe, permanent repository for the nation's spent fuel. 

At the very least, by allowing the licensing process to proceed, Congress would allow the state of 

Nevada and Nevada stakeholders to put forward their technical and policy concerns to the 

agency most capable of evaluating them: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Nevada would have every opportunity to adjudicate the contentions 

that have been filed at the NRC. The NRC has the authority and the expertise to evaluate them 

and balance those concerns against competing concerns arising from inaction. 

The NRC process is the best path to a well-reasoned, technically sound decision on the Yucca 

site. Based on my years of experience in the nuclear business, I support Yucca Mountain 

because the DOE has demonstrated that it is a safe, permanent solution to the problem of spent 

fuel. It is not clear to me that throwing out the current law and reopening the entire process of 

finding a permanent repository site, and losing many more years in tbe process, would yield a 

more appropriate site than Yucca Mountain itself. 

7. Congress should also encourage the development of interim storage sites. 

While moving forward on permanent storage, Xcel Energy believes that the time has come to 

also develop consolidated interim storage. A CIS project could act as a temporary solution for 

communities and plants that are currently storing fuel on concrete pads spread across the 

country, and allow the possible redevelopment of those sites. It would also allow the nation to 

6 
26 


36643.015

fulfill its commitment to electricity consumers while it awaits the opening of a permanent 

repository. 

Two such projects, near our Xcel Energy electric service territory in Texas and New Mexico, 

already have NRC applications pending. Their developers are undertaking a rigorous process to 

ensure their safety and financial viability, and like any CIS proposal, will be subject to NRC 

oversight. We encourage the NRC to stay on track with the licensing process which will allow 

the facilities to open and accept fuel in just a matter of years. 

In addition, we encourage Congress to take steps to authorize interim storage facilities and fund 

them from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is accumulating $1.5 billion per year in interest 

annually. We want a policy that moves fuel without delay. 

8. The transportation of spent fuel is safe. 

Moreover, the transport of this fuel is a safe and well-established practice. Used nuclear fuel has 

been safely and routinely transported across the U.S. for 50 years on railroads, barges, and trucks 

under the strictest of safety regulations. There have been over 3,000 shipments covering nearly 2 

million miles. In all of this experience, there has never been a release of radioactive material to 

the public. 

Xcel Energy has experience moving spent fuel ourselves; under a contract with General Electric, 

we moved 1,000 fuel assemblies from our Monticello plant to a facility in Morris, Jllinois in the 

1980s. We have also shipped used fuel from Colorado to Idaho. 

These rail shipments were done safely and without issue, and Xcel Energy is taking a leadership 

role to ensure we do so again when the time comes to move fuel again. We are exploring the 

latest railcar and cask technologies, and working with the scientific community, federal, state, 

and local regulators, and our industry peers to develop best practices. 

Additionally, on May 21, Xcel Energy will host an NEI nuclear transportation table top exercise 

that would simulate shipping casks across the country to an interim storage site. We have the 

participation of organizations that will be critical in partnering on safe fuel transportation, 

including utilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, public utility commissions as well as the 

Prairie Island Indian Community to name a few. Just this week we had a dry run, and I can tell 

7 
27 


36643.016

you that I am most impressed with the professionalism and preparation of everyone involved. I 

can assure the members of this Committee that spent nuclear fuel has been and will continue to 

be safely transported. 

9. Chairman Barrasso's discussion draft legislation is an important step forward in addressing 

the problems of spent fuel policy. 

Consistent with the principles outlined above, we appreciate the Committee's consideration of 

this discussion draft put forward at the hearing today. Like the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act of 2018 that passed the House of Representatives by a wide bipartisan margin 

last year, the discussion draft would restart the license application process for a permanent 

repository at Yucca Mountain. By providing funding for the adjudication process, the draft 

would enable the NRC to finish its job and complete the review of the facility. We also support 

the bill's approach to withdrawal ofland for the Yucca Mountain project. 

The bill recognizes the contributions made by electricity consumers across the nation and wisely 

takes action to ensure the nuclear waste fee isn't turned back on until a decision is made on the 

Yucca Mountain license application. The bill also respects the Standard Contracts between the 

nuclear generators and the federal government, which establish the terms and conditions under 

which the DOE will make available used fuel disposal services. 

The draft legislation includes important provisions to reach out to the community near the Yucca 

Mountain facility. The interests of those communities are important, and it is critical that 

Congress balance those interests with those of other communities, such as the Prairie Island 

Indian Community, concerned about spent fuel stored near operating plants. 

Together, these provisions would enable the NRC to fulfill its obligation to both the industry and 

nearby communities to assure that Yucca Mountain is safe, reliable, and available for spent fuel 

disposal. 

We also appreciate the draft legislation's approach to interim storage moving in parallel to a 

permanent repository. By directing the Department of Energy to contract with a non-federal 

entity to develop a CIS facility, the bill would help enhance this important step in the fuel 

management process. As I previously mentioned, there are two sound CIS proposals in our 

8 
28 


36643.017

backyard in the Southwest. This bill would help enable the development of those facilities as a 

first step toward a permanent spent fuel solution. 

To conclude, while nuclear spent fuel is safe and secure at our plant sites, the fact that it remains 

in Minnesota rather than stored at a permanent repository is a political, not a scientific or 

engineering failure that is costing consumers and taxpayers millions of dollars every year. Our 

communities are ready for the fuel to move and our electricity consumers alone have paid almost 

a billion dollars into the Nuclear Waste Fund. It is time for Congress to act. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Attachments: 

Letter from Prairie Island Indian Community and Xcel Energy 

Tim O'Connor biography 

9 
29 


36643.018

Xcel Energy· 

November 16,2018 

The Honorable Amy Klobuchar 

US Senate 

302 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Klobuchar and Smith: 

The Honorable Tina Smith 

US Senate 

309 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

We are writing to you today as the elected representatives of the Prairie Island Indian 

Community (PUC) and representatives of Xcel Energy to expt-ess our mutual support for 

immediate Congressional legislative action to resolve the Nation's spent nuclear fuel impasse. 

The Prairie Island Indian Reservation is located with the ancestral homeland of the 

Mdewakanton Dakota in southeastem Minnesota. The Reservation is located primarily on an 

island off of the Mississippi River, which is also called Prairie Island. The Mdewakanton, "those 

who were born of the wateJ'S," have lived on Prairie Island for countless generations. 

Xcel Energy owns the Prairie Island and Monticello nuclear plants and the Prairie Island plant is 

immediately adjacetlt to the Prnil'ie Island Indian Community. Xcel Energy has been storing used 

nuclear fuel at the plants in Minnesota since they began operating in the early I 970s. When the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) was passed, it was envisioned that the federal govermnent 

would begin accepting the used nucl.ear fuel at a ootionalrepository in 1998. As you know, that 

date has come and gone, with no future date on the horizon. To keep the plants operational, it 

was neeessat·y f<lr Xeel Energy to begin storing the used fuel in dry storage containers starting in 

1995. Xcel Energy is currently storing used fuel in the fuel pools and in 44 dry storage containers 

at the Prairie Island plant and 28 dry storage containers at the Monticello plant. Without a 

permanent or interim storage location, spent nuclear fuel will be indefinitely stranded at both 

sites. 

We strongly support bipartisan effotts in Congress to advance both a permanent repesitory and a 

Consolidated Interim Storage (CIS) location. This legislation should l'caffirm the eonunitment of 

the federal government to proceed with the review and detenniootion of the Yucca Mountain 

repository. 

10 
30 


36643.019

We encoW'age the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to complete its review of the 

Department of Energy (DOE) license application fur the repositoty. Adequate funds must be 

appropriated to both agencies to complete their review and adjudication of the Yucca Mountain 

license application, as required by the NWP A. 

The Nation's electric utility customers have already paid for the disposal ofthe used nuclear fuel 

through a $.001/kWh of nuclear-generated electricity fee into the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). 

Those customers have paid over $40 Billion (including interest) and Minnesota customers have 

paid in $940 Million, yet very little of the NWF has been used for the purpose for which it was 

collected. We support the approach that provides accesa to the NWP for the used fuel 

management program. 

It is imperative that we continue progress on used fuel transportation, which is needed regardless 

of whether the fuel is moved to Yucca Mountain, a Consolidated Interim Storage (CIS) facility 

or both. We would like to see additional funding for DOB to build, test and certify rail cars and 

license transportation casks and components. Allocating consistent financial and technical 

resources to tribal, state and local governments to prepare for the transportation activities is vital. 

We believe it is a critical time for the federal government to remove the used nuclear fuel from 

the plant sites, as mandated by the NWPA. It has been over 20 years since we passed the 

NWPA-mandated removal date of 1998. Nuclear fuel is piling up at communities across the 

United States including the Prairie Island Nuclear plant wbieh is just 600 yards away from PUC. 

There is no other community in the United States as close to a nuclear spent fuel storage facility 

than PUC. The reasons why spent fuel should be moved away from the tribe are self-evident. 

In summary, we believe it is important to support the legislation that makes progress toward 

resolving the Nation's used nuclear fuel issue. The NWPA is still the law of the land and we urge 

the Congress to act accordingly. 

As always, we would welcome any opportunity to further discuss our position. 

r 

uclear Officer 

X Bnergy 

414 Nicollet Mall 

Minneapolis, MN 55401 

II 

'.,) .· 

·J\tl(tlf\ 

Shelley Buck 

Tn'bal Council President 

Prairie Island Indian Community 

5636 Sturgeon Lake Road 

Welch, MN 55089 
31 


36643.020

Tim O'Connor 

Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer 

Tim O'Connor was appointed senior vice president and chief nuclear officer for Xcel Energy in 2012. 

He is responsible for the Xcel nuclear strategic direction, business plans, finance and operations in 

the various operating jurisdictions for the company. Currently that includes corporate, the operations 

of the Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear generating plants as well as the decommissioning and 

nuclear fuel storage. 

O'Connor joined Xcel Energy in 2007 as site vice president at the Monticello plant. During the period 

of 2007 to 2012 the site was recognized by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations for exemplary 

plant operations. In June 2012 he was appointed vice president of corporate engineering/nuclear 

regulatory compliance and licensing for the nuclear fleet. In September 2012 he was named acting 

Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer and then made permanent in February 2013. 

He has over 34 years of commercial nuclear experience with both boiling water and pressurized 

water reactors. O'Connor, over that period, held a variety of leadership positions in very complex 

situations. 

He served as site vice president at Constellation Energy Group's Nine Mile Point station in New 

York; vice presidential roles at the Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) for the Hope Creek and 

Salem plants. Other roles were with Exelon as plant manager at the LaSalle station and operations 

manager at Dresden and Zion plants as well as other senior management positions in maintenance, 

operations, and engineering. O'Connor held a position with the Institute of Nuclear Power 

Operations (INPO) as a nuclear plant evaluation team manager on a reverse loaned assignment. 

O'Connor received his mechanical engineering degree from Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI 

and has completed several executive business programs with the Chicago Kellogg School of 

Business and GAP International. O'Connor serves on the USA Board of Directors, is Chairman of 

the NEI NSIAC and a member of the Industry High Level Waste Management (Nuclear Fuel) 

Committees. O'Connor is on the executive advisor group for the DOE - Light Water Reactor 

Sustainability program. O'Connor also serves as a Board of Directors member for the Minneapolis 

St. Paul Jeremiah charitable organization. 

12 
32 


36643.021

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on a Discussion Draft Bill, S._, Nuclear Waste 

Policy Amendments Act of 20 19" 

May 1, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. O'Connor 

Chairman Barrasso: 

1. Please briefly describe the regulations and safety precautions governing the transportation 

of spent nuclear fuel. 

A: The transportation of spent nuclear fuel is governed under NRC's regulations at I 0 CFR 

Part 71. These regulations require used nuclear fuel to be transported in robust containers 

called casks, which are designed to prevent the release of radioactive material. For every ton 

of used fuel, transport casks typically use about seven tons of material for protective 

containment, radiation shielding, and impact absorption. Transport casks are designed, tested 

and licensed by the federal government to withstand potential punctures, fires, water 

immersion and drops. These precautions have resulted in the safe completion of over I ,300 

spent fuel shipments in the U.S. over the past 50 years. 

a. Section 603 of the discussion draft authorizes Nuclear Waste Fund money to 

assist in transportation of spent nuclear fuel to the repository. Would this 

provision improve public confidence in transporting spent nuclear fuel? 

A: Yes. This assistance would better enable state and regional entities to maintain a welltrained workforce of used fuel transportation experts. It is always a positive for the public to 

have local authorities in whom they can trust to help assure the safety of these activities. 

2. The discussion draft prohibits the Secretary of Energy from restarting the nuclear waste 

fee until the Commission approves or denies the Yucca Mountain license application. Do 

you support this provision? If so, why? 

A: Yes I support this provision. Until there is a decision on a repository, there is no need to 

restart the fee. The nuclear waste fund balance currently sits at $41 billion and earns over a 

billion and a half dollars per year in interest. This amount is more than sufficient to provide 

for the shipment of spent fuel to interim sites until a decision on a repository can be made. 

3. Section 604 of the discussion draft establishes a fixed-term for the Director of the Office 

of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Do you support legislation that would 

increase continuity in the management of a nuclear waste program? 

A: Absolutely yes. One of the biggest problems this Office has faced in the past is that it is 

charged with a very long term mission, yet its leadership and direction can change 

significantly with every election. It is virtually impossible to successfully execute a project 

over a decades-long scale- as would be the case with any repository- without stable and 

consistent leadership. 

Page 1 of 6 
33 


36643.022

4. The discussion draft reforms the financing mechanism to limit fee collections to an 

amount not greater than 90 percent of what is appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. 

This will assure fees are only collected if Congress appropriates money for a nuclear 

waste program. 

a. How will this provision impact your ratepayers? 

A: This provision would help protect our customers from unnecessary future fees 

being imposed on the cost of electricity. Electricity customers nationwide have 

already contributed to a $41 billion balance in the nuclear waste fund. This 

provision would prevent customers from having to continue to pay into the fund 

without getting a return on their investment. 

b. Do you support this provision? If so, why? 

A: I strongly support this provision for reasons set forth above. 

5. The number of operating nuclear power plants is expected to drastically decrease in the 

next four years. What will happen if Congress and the Department of Energy further 

delay reconstituting a nuclear waste program and a significant number of power plants 

shut down? 

A: There have already been too many years of delays; the federal government needs to honor 

its legal commitment and move fuel to a repository. I believe that nuclear energy is key to 

transitioning toward a carbon-free electric grid that is affordable and reliable. Further delays 

in solving the used fuel challenge makes that vision more difficult to achieve. 

6. Title IV of the discussion draft authorizes the Secretary of Energy to negotiate a benefits 

agreement with the State of Nevada, as well as counties. Do you support providing state 

and local benefits for hosting an interim storage facility or repository? 

A: Yes, any locality hosting one of these facilities should benefit economically from doing 

so. This is a key reason that 9 of 17 Nevada counties support continuing with the Yucca 

Mountain licensing process. 

7. Section 202 of the discussion draft amends the existing deadline in the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to complete the review of the 

Yucca Mountain license application. Do you support updating this statutory deadline? Is 

so, why? 

A: Yes. The NRC missed the original deadline so a new one must be set. Deadlines inspire 

progress. The NRC should have a mandated deadline that is realistic based on the current 

status of the license process. Section 202 would provide an achievable targeted for the NRC 

process. 

Page 2 of 6 
34 


36643.023

Ranking Member Carper: 

Please provide a response to each question, including each sub-part. 

8. ln2012, the last time the EPW Committee discussed this issue, I was surprised to hear 

that the nuclear industry was using various canister designs to store their nuclear waste in 

dry cask storage. The storage canisters being used were fine for temporary storage onsite, but in many circumstances would have to be changed for any future travel may not 

be able viable for an interim or permanent storage location. At the time, the NRC and 

industry were working on standards and designs that would address this issue. 

a. Would you give us an update on this issue? 

A: All of the canister designs meet NRC's stringent safety regulations and the 

vast majority of them are designed for both storage and transportation. Every 

canister on Xcel Energy's plant sites is capable of being safely transported to an 

interim or permanent storage location. 

b. Is there anything the federal government can do now to help provide more 

certainty for industry and ensure our nuclear waste can be easily transferred to 

permanent sites when a repository is ready to receive the waste? 

A: First of all, the Federal Government needs to execute the program currently 

authorized by law. This will require that both the Yucca Mountain license 

application and DOE's efforts to provide for transportation be funded. Secondly, 

Congress should also authorize and fund interim storage so fuel can begin moving 

in parallel with the Yucca Mountain licensing and construction processes. What 

gives industry certainty is demonstrated assurance that the federal government 

will begin meeting its obligation to remove spent fuel from reactor sites sooner 

rather than I ater. 

9. ln Mr. Feltus's testimony, he called for the establishment of up-front generic radiation 

and environmental protection standards for the management of high-level nuclear waste 

and for a stronger role for states, local governments and Indian Tribes in the siting of a 

permanent high-level repository. Do you have concerns with these suggestions? If so, 

please explain why. 

A: A thorough, impartial review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) scientific 

staff found that a repository at Yucca Mountain would meet all Environmental Protection 

Agency requirements and safely isolate nuclear waste for more than I million years. The 

potential impacts of natural phenomena at Yucca Mountain, including earthquakes and 

volcanoes, were studied extensively. The NRC concluded that such phenomena pose no 

significant challenge to public health and safety now or in the future. Having strong 

stakeholder input and participation should be part of any plan moving forward. We believe 

that the current NRC environmental standards and stakeholder process are appropriate to 

Page 3 of 6 
35 


36643.024

assure protection of both the environment and the interests of local communities. We do not 

support providing additional authority to U.S. EPA in the siting and permitting process. 

EPA's enhanced involvement would expand the barriers to the ultimate approval of a storage 

site with little or no additional benefit. 

I 0. Are there aspects of a consent based process including incentives -you think would be 

critical for success in siting a new location for a permanent high-level nuclear waste 

repository? 

A: It is important that we listen to all stakeholders and develop a process that allows for 

input. However at the end of the day we need Congress to live up to their commitment for a 

permanent high level waste repository. We need to balance the views of the repository host 

location along with those communities around the country. including those of the Prairie 

Island Indian Community, who also did not give consent to store fuel indefinitely. 

11. Would you oppose if the nation decided to pursue multiple permanent high-level waste 

repositories across the country- rather than one central location? If so, why? If not, why 

not? 

A: I think having options is good, and we would not oppose the creation of multiple sites. 

But pursuit of multiple sites should not serve as a reason to delay opening the first site. The 

nation needs to complete the Yucca Mountain licensing process- this will prove instructive 

for whatever repository options we pursue in the future. Also we must be cognizant of the 

difficulty and cost of siting multiple repositories. Studies have shown that Yucca Mountain 

can safely handle all of the waste that the current fleet of reactors is expected to produce. So 

we should only pursue options as a complement to, not a substitute for, the process already 

called for by law. 

12. Some have suggested that the Department of Energy should no longer have authority 

over our nation's permanent high-level nuclear waste repository. Do you agree with that 

view. and. if so, who should have the authority? If you feel a federal corporation should 

have the authority, what guardrails arc needed to ensure that safety and states' rights are 

preserved in the siting of a permanent high-level waste repository? 

A: I think in the long-term there may very well be management models that can more 

effectively run the program than the Department of Energy (DOE) without being subject to 

electoral politics as described above. However, an important first step will be to re-establish 

the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management as called for by existing law. 

Once that is up and running, improved management models can then be considered. If a 

federal corporation is established, it should be accountable to a board of directors that is 

representative of all stakeholders- including the industry customers it serves and the affected 

state and local governments. 

13. Are there examples that we can learn from the high-level waste management experiences 

of other countries such as Sweden and Finland -that could help us with our nuclear 

waste issues in this country? 

Page 4 of 6 
36 


36643.025

A: Yes. Finland is the best example. They have licensed and are constructing a deep 

geologic repository for used nuclear fuel. What Finland teaches us is that the technology of 

disposal works and that once decisions are made and established as a matter of law, they 

should be adhered to. Sweden, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Canada are also making 

notable progress. The United States is the only major nuclear nation with no used fuel 

disposal program whatsoever. 

14. Nuclear waste policy has divided this country for far too long. Having listened to others 

on the witness panel during the hearing, would you provide this Committee with one 

course of action where there is agreement among the panel members? 

A: There is global scientific consensus that deep geologic disposal is the solution to this 

problem. No one testifying on the panel opposed this solution. In fact, deep geologic 

disposal is the preferred solution globally. I also believe that all witnesses agreed that 1) fuel 

can be safely packaged and transported to a disposal site; 2) interim storage can provide 

important support to existing plants by moving fuel offsite; and 3) the importance of the 

interests of the communities where fuel disposal occurs. The best way for the committee to 

move forward is to pass legislation that reflects these points of agreement. I believe the 

discussion draft represents a good path forward that is broadly consistent with this consensus. 

Senator Braun: 

15. Our energy industry should be responsive to market pressures and incentives. As in all 

industries, the government should not be picking winners and losers. There are obvious 

reasons that I support nuclear energy. I believe it is a critical element of an "all of the 

above" energy strategy. 

But "all of the above," does not imply that we should be pursuing technologies that are 

not viable in the private market. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal noted that nuclear 

facilities in Pennsylvania and Ohio are asking for state subsidies to improve their balance 

sheets, so they can remain in operation. 

How much of a balance-sheet liability does the storage of nuclear fuel on-site create 

for these utilities? 

A: Industry-wide, most of the costs are covered by the lawsuits and settlements with 

the federal government. Because the government's obligation to dispose of used fuel 

is an unambiguous matter of contract and law, the utilities have never lost one of 

these lawsuits. But because of this, the taxpayers are paying $2.2 million per day for 

the consequences of the government's non-performance. As my testimony discusses, 

under a Minnesota statute, our customers pay a fee to store spent nuclear fuel on site-

$500,000 per cask per year at Prairie Island and $350,000 per cask per year at 

Monticello totaling $32.5 million in 2018. These payments, which were only 

Page 5 of 6 
37 


36643.026

supposed to be of limited duration until the DOE removed the fuel, have cost our 

customers $360 million to date. This is not recoverable from DOE and is an added 

expense to our customers. 

a. If the long-term storage issue were solved tomorrow, would this reduce a barrier 

to the introduction of new nuclear facilities? 

A: Yes. Investment capital for new nuclear facilities is constrained in part by the 

uncertainties that the current used fuel impasse creates. 

16. Northwest Indiana consumes around 80 percent of the electricity from the D.C. Cook 

nuclear power plant. Our ratepayers have paid to build Yucca Mountain, and they have 

not gotten anything in return for that yet. Even worse, because Congress has failed to act, 

taxpayers are paying legal costs associated with on-site waste storage, a bill estimated to 

be in excess of$36 billion. Now, because of Congressional gridlock, Hoosiers paid for a 

storage solution that never materialized. 

Do you believe that the federal government has a responsibility to follow through on this 

policy, and to invest the taxes it collected for a permanent storage solution? 

A: Yes. 

Page 6 of6 
38 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. O’Connor. We appreciate your thoughtful testimony. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. O’Donnell. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. O’DONNELL, 

COMMISSIONER, MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking 

Member Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for 

this opportunity. 

I am Tony O’Donnell, 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 and Waste Disposal. 

NARUC’s member commissions ensure the safe, reliable, and affordable delivery of essential electric utility service to your constituents here in D.C. and every U.S. State and territory. The success of the Federal waste management program already funded by 

the consumers of electricity from nuclear power plants at 40-plus 

billion dollars is necessarily of keen interest. 

At the outset, I want to point out the obvious. February marked 

21 years since the Department of Energy defaulted on its obligation 

to begin disposing of spent nuclear fuel as per the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act. Federal action is more than 20 years past due. Congress 

must act now. 

Every year of inaction costs your constituents, the American taxpayers, between $500 million and $800 million from the Federal 

coffers in legal judgment payments. That works out to about $2 

million each and every day. 

This discussion draft is a welcomed and positive step forward. 

NARUC applauds Chairman Barrasso and this Committee for 

bringing it forward. We are pleased that it tracks the NARUC supported H.R. 3053 that passed the House in a strong, bipartisan 

vote of 340 to 72 last year. I think that is important in this environment. 

There are several changes to the current law and the draft that 

are long overdue and crucial to assure the integrity of the program 

and progress on a Federal disposal program, including, one, Section 

143’s pathway for interim storage of nuclear waste and linkage of 

use of such a facility to a finding that a final permanent repository 

decision ‘‘is imminent.’’ NARUC’s 2018 resolution, appended to my 

testimony, endorses both concepts, suggesting that continued storage at permanently shut down plants is unacceptable and that no 

interim storage should be allowed unless and until the review of 

the Yucca Mountain license application is underway. 

Two, Section 501’s requirements for a final Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission decision approving or disapproving the Yucca Mountain license before additional nuclear waste fund fees can be collected. The country has invested in excess of $15 billion in site 

characterization. The NRC evaluation reports endorses its safety 

and suitability. The proceeding to examine the validity of concerns 

to Yucca Mountain as a repository should be completed. 

Three, Section 501’s new mechanism that ensures any nuclear 

waste fund fees are not misdirected to unrelated government obligations and provides for the gradual return of the corpus of the 

39 

fund. NARUC specifically endorses this requirement that no nuclear waste fund fees can be collected in a fiscal year that exceeds 

90 percent of the congressional appropriation for the fiscal year 

during which such fees are collected. 

There are a few potential changes to the draft that could improve 

the program referenced in my testimony, including one, clarifying 

that any Department of Energy fee adequacy study consider if the 

approximately $1.5 billion in interest accruing annually to the nuclear waste fund is adequate to fund projected annual disposal expenditures without reinstatement of a fee. Two, incorporating the 

text of Section 504 of H.R. 3053 as introduced in the House on 

June 26th, 2017, as that section assured that certain percentages 

of the $40 billion already collected from ratepayers are actually 

used for the program based on certain triggering events. And three, 

clarifying that a precursor for the approval of a particular interim 

storage site is an evaluation of the cost and benefits that specifically considers the transportation costs and proximity to possible or 

likely permanent disposal sites. 

I look forward to the Committee’s questions, and I applaud you 

for bringing this crucial legislation to the Congress. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Donnell follows:] 

40 


36643.027

Anthony J. O'Donnell 

Commissioner 

Maryland Public Service Commission 

Anthony J. O'Donnell was appointed to the Maryland Public Service 

Commission in August 2016. Prior to his appointment, he served in 

the Maryland House of Delegates since January 1995. He 

represented Calvert and St. Mary's Counties, and was the longest 

serving member of the House of Delegates representing Calvert in 

that county's entire history. Delegate O'Donnell served in a variety of 

leadership roles in the Maryland House including senior minority member of the 

Environment and Transportation Committee (2015-16), House Minority Whip (2003-06), 

and House Minority Leader (2006-13). 

During his 22 annual sessions in the General Assembly, Delegate O'Donnell worked 

and served on a broad array of public policy issues. His work included a focus on 

agriculture, civil and criminal law, energy, environment, ethics, land use and real 

property, natural resources, state government and budget appropriations, and matters 

related to transportation. He served as a member of the standing policy committees of 

Judiciary, Appropriations, and Environment and Transportation. He also served on the 

more ministerial related committees of the House including the Legislative Policy 

Committee, the Spending Affordability Committee, and the Rules and Executive 

Nominations Committee. 

During his time in the legislature, Delegate O'Donnell became a widely recognized 

legislative champion of efforts to restore oysters to Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. 

He was formally appointed to both the statutorily-created Maryland Aquaculture 

Coordinating Council (2006-16) as well as the Oyster Advisory Commission (2007-16). 

He received the lifetime achievement recognition award from his peers on the Maryland 

Aquaculture Coordinating Council in 2014 for his long time efforts in oyster policy. 

Commissioner O'Donnell worked for 15 years at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

in Lusby, Maryland. He served in various capacities supporting safe and reliable 

electrical power generation including as a Nuclear Instrumentation and Controls 

Technician, as a Nuclear Maintenance Supervisor, as a Nuclear Maintenance 

Engineering Analyst, and as the Director- Emergency Preparedness. He was certified 

by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO) as both a nuclear qualified 

maintenance control technician and first line supervisor. 

Prior to working at Calvert Cliffs, Commissioner O'Donnell served for over eight years in 

the United States Navy. Enlisted in 1979, he completed basic training and electronics 

technician school in his first year. He then completed Nuclear Propulsion School and 

went on to successfully complete hands-on training and qualifications at the nuclear 

training facility operated by the GE-Knowles Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL). 

Following this two year training period, he reported to assignment onboard U.S.S. South 
41 


36643.028

Carolina (CGN-37), where he was a technician, a reactor plant operator, and a 

supervisor. His shipboard service included deployment and cruises to the 

Mediterranean, a North Atlantic cruise, a South American cruise, and other local Atlantic 

and Caribbean operations. After his sea tour, O'Donnell was assigned as an instructor 

at KAPL where he completed his military service. While still on active military duty, 

Commissioner O'Donnell earned a B.S. degree {1985) from the University of the State 

of New York, Regents College (now known as Excelsior). 

He serves as Chair of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues-Waste Disposal and as a 

member of the Committee on Electricity for the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC). Commissioner O'Donnell lives in Lusby, Maryland. He and 

his wife have three grown children and three grandchildren. 
42 


36643.029

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 Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

hearing on 

"S. _,the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2019" 

May 1,2019 

National Association ofRegnlatory 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.narnc.org 
43 


36643.030

Good morning Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today on the "Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2019." 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 ofRegulatory 

Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues - Waste 

Disposal. 

At the outset, I want to point out the obvious. 

February marked 21 years since the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

defaulted on a "standard contract" with the nation's reactor operators to begin 

disposing of spent nuclear fuel as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 

(NWPA). 

This discussion draft is a welcome and positive step forward and NARUC 

applauds Chairman Barrasso and this Committee for bringing it forward and holding 

this hearing today. 

But action is more than 20 years past due. Congress must act now. Every year 

of inaction costs your constituents, the American taxpayers, between 500 and 800 

million dollars from the federal coffers in legal judgement payments. That works 

out to about 2 million dollars each and every day. 

NARUC is a non-profit organization founded in 1889. Our members are the 

public utility commissions in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, 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 
44 


36643.031

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. 

In this case, it is clear the ratepayers have not. 

NARUC's State Commission members were at the table in the negotiations 

that led to the NWP A. State regulators have always agreed that ratepayers that 

benefit from electricity generated by nuclear plants should pay for waste 

management and disposal, and they have. More than $40 billion in direct payments 

and accrued interest languish in the U.S. Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). Yet so far, 

ratepayers - and the country have almost nothing to show for it. 

This is a frustration I know many members of this Committee, including 

Chairman Barrasso, share. 

Thirty five years have passed since Congress passed the NWP A. Almost 

twenty years since the project site - Yucca Mountain (which I have personally 

visited) - was approved by Congress for licensing in 2002. Since then efforts to 

block funding to complete the license review, in tandem with the U.S. Department 

of Energy's illegal refusal to pursue the license application at the NRC under the 

prior Administration, ground this nation's program to a standstill. A good case can 

be made that we are in a worse situation on spent nuclear fuel management and 

disposal than when the NWPA was passed. Today, there is no nuclear waste 

2 
45 


36643.032

program worthy of the name despite over three decades of trying and an investment 

of over $11 billion in the Yucca Mountain repository. 

In addition to the $40 plus billion in payments and interest languishing in the 

NWF, according to a September 2014 DOE audit of the NWF, $4.5 billion in 

damages have been paid out of the US Treasury Department's Judgement Fundwhich is supported by federal income tax dollars- as a result of federal government 

inaction. The Judgement Fund payments are taken out of ALL taxpayer's bank 

accounts (not just those who use nuclear energy.) DOE estimates the total liability 

for the federal government's disregard for the law will be about $27 billion, but that 

estimate includes the ridiculous assumption that DOE can begin to accept used 

nuclear fuel in 2021. Industry estimates almost double that projection. Even former 

President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) estimated that every year of 

delay in accepting used nuclear fuel will increase this liability by approximately 

$500 million. All told, we are facing damages in the tens of billions of dollars. The 

Bipartisan Policy Center estimated that, in 2015, the tab for the federal government's 

disregard for the law of the land on this issue is significant for each American adult 

on an annual basis, and that tab has only gone up since then. This only gets worse 

for your constituents going forward. 

First, the consumers paid for the original waste storage at the facilities through 

their rates. Second, they paid into the NWF, as already mentioned. Third, the 

consumers paid to rerack, or consolidate, used fuel pools, again through their rates, 

because the federal government failed to remove the waste by statutory deadline. 

Finally, they had to pay for on-site, out-of-pool dry cask storage, again through rates, 

again due to federal failure. The costs of those last two payments is covered by 

every American taxpayer- as they fund the Judgment Fund disbursements covering 

damages caused by the federal government's inaction. 

3 
46 


36643.033

NARUC welcomes the "Discussion Draft" as a positive step forward to 

correct unanticipated, but serious, structure flaws in the nation's nuclear waste 

disposal policy framework. We are pleased that it tracks in large measure NARUCsupported legislation (H.R. 3053) that passed the House by an overwhelmingly 

bipartisan vote of 340 - 72 last Congress. 

NARUC has not taken a position on all of the provisions in this draft, but it is 

obvious that the bulk of the proposals are very likely to result in concrete action 

towards a permanent repository (and possible consent-based siting of non-federally 

owned NRC licensed storage facilities). 

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. In Section 501, the draft requires a final 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decision approving or disapproving the 

Yucca Mountain License before any additional NWF fees are collected. NARUC's 

February 2018 policy resolution1 continues NARUC's staunch support for 

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 attempts to fix one major flaw that has 

severely hampered progress on waste disposal: fee disbursement. 

In our February resolution, NARUC pointed out that: 

To avoid misdirecting NWF fees to unrelated government obligations 

and provide for the gradual return of the corpus of the fund, Congress 

should mandate that no NWF fees can be collected in a fiscal year that 

exceed 90 percent of the Congressional appropriations for the fiscal 

year during which such fees are collected. 

Resolution Regarding Guiding Principles for Management and Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste 

(February 2018), online at: ht\ps://pubs.naruc.orglpub/DF7BD644-ADF8-QE04-C123-AFID951F363F. 

4 
47 


36643.034

NARUC welcomes the draft's incorporation, in Section 501, of this 

requirement. 

We are also pleased that the Discussion Draft in Section 504 addresses the 

ongoing problems of adequate appropriations for a nuclear waste disposal program 

and budgetary scoring. However, Congress could improve this legislation by 

appending the text of Section 504 ofH.R. 3053 as introduced in the House on June 

26,2017. 2 As introduced, Section 504 ofH.R. 3053 assured 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 provision that those funds be made available 

"without further appropriations" was an excellent way to assure both confidence and 

progress in the program. That section also assured 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 crucial. 

Section 504 ofHR. 3053 as introduced in the House on June 26. 2017: Availability of certain amounts. 

Section 302 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222) is amended by adding at the end the 

following: (f) Availability of certain amounts.- (l) lN GENERAL-Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

section, for the purposes described in subsection (d) that are specified in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of this 

paragraph, the following amounts from the Waste Fund shall be available to the Secretary without further 

appropriation: 

(A) An amount equal to I percent of2017 Waste Fund amounts, on the date on which high-level 

radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel is received at the Yucca Mountain site, and in each of the 25 years thereafter, 

for costs associated with construction and operation of a repository or facilities at the Yucca Mountain site. 

(B) An amount equal to I percent of2017 Waste Fund amounts, on the date on which high-level 

radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel is received at the Yucca Mountain site, to make payments under a benefits 

agreement entered into under section 170 with the State of Nevada concerning a repository. 

(C) An amount equal to 0.1 percent of2017 Waste Fund amounts, on the date that is one year after the date 

on which high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel is received at the Yucca Mountain site, and in each year 

thereafter until closure of the repository, to make payments under a benefits agreement entered into under section 

170 with the State of Nevada concerning a repository. 

(D) An amount equal to 20 percent of2017 Waste Fund amounts, on the date on which monitoring of the 

repository during the decommissioning period commences, for waste package and drip shield fabrication activities. 

(E) An amount equal to the amount of any fee collected pursuant to subsection (a)(3) after the date of 

enactment ofthe Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2017, on the date on which such fee is collected, for 

costs associated with construction and operation of a repository or facilities at the Yucca Mountain site. 

(2) 2017 WASTE FUND AMOUNTS.-For purposes of this subsection, the term '2017 Waste Fund amounts' 

means the amounts in the Waste Fund on the date of enactment. 

5 
48 


36643.035

Laudably, the discussion draft language does contain some fiscally 

responsible mechanisms. It assures DOE continues to complete a fee adequacy study 

to demonstrate the need for additional revenues to support the program before reinstituting a NWF fee that must be borne by ratepayers. Any properly conducted 

assessment of the need for additional revenues should first consider if the 

approximately $1.5 billion in interest accruing annually on the NWF is adequate to 

fund projected annual disposal expenditures without reinstatement of a fee. After all, 

it makes little sense for the Secretary to reinstate the NWF fee unless and until 

program expenditures actually exceed annual investment income. If the Discussion 

Draft's Section 501 amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 10222(a)(4) make this clarification, 

it would strengthen the bill and increase confidence in the program. 

This discussion draft also provides a pathway for interim storage of nuclear 

waste. Significantly, it also links use of such a facility to a finding that a final 

permanent repository decision "is imminent" 

NARUC's 2018 resolution also endorses both concepts suggesting that 

"continued storage at permanently shut-down plants is unacceptable" and that "no 

interim storage should be allowed unless and until the review ofthe Yucca Mountain 

License application is underway." 

NARUC also supports the idea of a cost-benefit analysis as a pre-requisite for 

progress on interim storage facilities. The draft could be improved by including, as 

a fiscally prudent prerequisite to any approval of an interim facility, an evaluation 

of the costs and benefits of a particular interim storage site that specifically considers 

the transportation costs and proximity to possible or likely permanent disposal sites. 

NARUC has also joined others in seeking a different management structure 

for the program. The Draft also makes some progress on this point in section 604 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 

6 
49 


36643.036

giving that Director a 5-year term. NARUC has not spoken directly to this 

framework by resolution, but the Committee may wish to consider increasing the 

term length to provide greater stability in the program across administrations. 

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 Committee as the drafting of this legislation continues. 

7 
50 


36643.037

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on a Discussion Draft Bill, S._, Nuclear Waste 

Policy Amendments Act of 2019" 

May 1, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Commissioner O'Donnell 

Chairman Barrasso: 

1. The discussion draft conditions interim storage on concluding the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission's (NRC) licensing process of the Yucca Mountain site. Would this structure 

provide surety that ratepayers would see a return on investment? 

O'Donnell response: 

NARUC strongly supports this provision in the discussion draft. 

The lack of progress on Yucca Mountain is a roadblock for nuclear power. As you 

pointed out in a recent editorial, at least eight states have passed laws against building 

new nuclear plants until the federal government demonstrates it will diopose qf spentfi1d 

ffthe U.S. is serious about climate change, it must address disposal issues. Sixty percent 

qf America's carbon-free energy comes from nuclear power. That's over three times the 

energy produced by wind and more than 18 times that produced by solar. It's true, that 

current reactor-site spent .fi.tel storage is safe, but retaining spent fuel indefinitely at 

working reactor sites was never intended and is, frankly, inefficient and unacceptable. 

Continued storage at permanently shutdown plants is also unacceptable. it imposes costs 

on ratepayers without equivalent benefits and prohibits economic reuse qfthe site. 

1 don't know if I can/would use the term "surety" to describe anything about this 

nation's high-level nuclear waste disposal program and/or its/inances, other than now the 

on(v "surety" is that thefederal government has our money and we still have the waste. 

But, in the sense that ratepayers would at least get the benefit and knowledge inherenr in 

the billions invested in the current~y proposed permanent repository site, yes, actually 

following the law and completing the license proceeding is the minimum return ratepayers 

deserve. 

GAO did a report in April of 2017 documenting the significant costs to the 

American taxpayer of the last administration's illegal shutdown of the license review and 

NRC waste program office. Between 1983, when the NWPA became law, and 2008, when 

DOE submitted its license application for Yucca Mountain. DOE spent at least $15 billion 

to investigate developing a repository and building expertise - expertise that is eroding 

each day that the review is postponed. Step two of the four key steps highlighted by that 

GAO report highlight this unquant!fied cost q( continued delay. it specifies that DOE and 

the NRC will have to rebuild organizational capacity including "as needed, recruiting 

personnel to recreate DOE's, NRC's, and nonf'edera/ parties' project offices" 

Page 1 of 11 
51 


36643.038

The longer that Congress permits this delay, the more retirements of NRC and other 

experts will continue to inflate the overall costs of completing the license review. And that 

is on top of the estimated $2.2 million dollars a day that delay is costing the American 

taxpayer. 

That is ·why this requirement must be included in any legislative ':fix" for 

programmatic progress, The fact is there will be difficulty with locating an interim storage 

site unless there is some permanent storage solution on the horizon. Providing an interim 

storage solution without progress on a permanenl repository is irresponsible. This is 

simply kicking the cask down the road jbr future generations to address while absolutely 

guaranteeing that the overall cost of disposal will increase significantly. 

2. Section 603 of the discussion draft amends the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to use the 

Nuclear Waste Fund for safety activities associated with transporting spent nuclear fuel to 

the repository. Do you support this provision? If so, why? 

O'Donnell response: 

NARUC does not have a position on this provision. However, transportation 

planning, including selecting routes and associated safety activities were always 

contemplated as part of the program under the NWPA. As such, NARUC has supported 

the basic provisions o/the NWPA. 

3. Title I of the discussion draft requires the Department of Energy (DOE) go through a 

step-by-step process to infonn its interim storage program. The steps include determining 

the need for an interim storage program, a request for information, and a request for 

proposal prior to entering into a contract for interim storage. 

a. What arc the key issues DOE must address as part of any interim storage 

program? 

b. Do you agree it is important for DOE to have a developed interim storage 

program prior to entering into a contract with a private entity? If so, why? 

O'Donnell response: 

a. As noted in my response to question I, it is irresponsible to proceed until the review 

for a permanent program license application is underway. That must be addressed as a 

precursor to any progress on an interim storage program. Not only is it the fiscally 

responsible thing to do, but it will unquestionably facilitate the siting of interim storage. 

Today, the nation already has approximately I 2 I interim storage sites in 39 states. That is 

unacceptable. The license application process for a permanent storage facility must be 

restarted. 

b. It is crucial that DOE conduct a cost-benefit analysis before taking additional steps. 

It seems possible that.fbr shut down locations, the net benefits and savings in duplicative 

security and monitoring costs could outweigh the potential additional costs of transporting 

Page 2 of ll 
52 


36643.039

the waste Mice first to interim storage and later to a permanent repository. The Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future report cites a study that suggests the 

savings from consolidated storage for this stranded spent fuel might be enough to pay for 

the cost of the storagefacility. 

4. Approximately $15 billion has been spent to-date on the Yucca Mountain project. If the 

law is amended to abandon the Yucca Mountain site and restart the search for a new 

repository, how would you expect those costs would compare to what has been spent thus 

far on Yucca Mountain? 

O'Donnell response: 

Changing the law to abandon the Yucca Mountain site without completing the 

license application is simply irresponsible. It would be an extraordinary waste of money 

and resources. Restarting the process would obviously cost more in today 's dollars, how 

much more is anyone's guess. 

There has to be linkage between progress on the YM License and any interim 

storage option. Ajier all, the additional and not insignificant expense to taxpayers of an 

interim storage option, including the duplicative transportation costs, might not have been 

necessary if the Yucca Mountain license review had been allowed to proceed in 2008. 

Both practically and as a matler ofsimple fairness, there has to be linkage. 

Electricity ratepayers in at least 39 States, have invested literally billions in 

characterization oftlw Yucca Mountain site- including the release ofthe Safety Evaluation 

Reports that indicate the site is suitable. Ratepayers deserve a hearing on their investment. 

But they are not alone. Those that support the siting o,/the facility both in Nevada and 

around the country as well as those that have claim the site is unsuitable also should 

have an opportunity to make their case before a neutral and apolitical arbiter. The logical 

next step for anyone is to let the science and the license process determine the fate of Yucca 

Mountain. 

Practically, speaking, any interim storagefacility willface many oft he same siting 

issues that have been raised with respect to Yucca Mountain. No movement on Yucca would 

likely turn debate on an interim facility into a debate on a de jure permanent repository. 

5. The discussion draft prohibits the Secretary of Energy from restarting the nuclear waste 

fee until the Commission approves or denies the Yucca Mountain license application, Do 

you suppor1 this provision? lf so, why? 

O'Donnell response: 

NARUC strongly supports this provision. 

Page 3 of 11 
53 


36643.040

First, under no conditions should the fee be restarted until the Yucca lvfountain 

license proceeding is complete. 

Second, a new DOE fee adequacy study that demonstrates the need for 

reinstatement is a necessary prerequisite for restarting the fee and must consider if the 

approximately $1.5 billion in interest accruing annually on the nuclear waste fund {NWF) 

is adequate to fund pr()jected annual disposal expenditures without reinstatement of afee. 

The fee should not be reinstated until program expenditures actually exceed annual 

investment income. 

Finally, Congress should mandate that nofees can be collected in a fiscal year that 

exceeds 90 percent of the Congressional appropriations for the fiscal year during which 

such fees are collected The ratepayers have done their part already: contributing over $-10 

billion, including interest, to this program and thus far have nothing to show for it- other 

than additional expense. This check on any necessmy reinstitution of the fee is crucial to 

assure ratepayer's money isn 'I again diverted by Congress. 

6. Title IV of the discussion draft authorizes the Secretary of Energy to negotiate a benefits 

agreement with the State of Nevada, as well as Nevada counties. Do you support 

providing defined benefits to state and local governments for hosting an interim storage 

facility or repository? 

O'Donnell Response: 

NARUC supports a negotiation of benefits with Nevada and Nevada counties as a 

necessary aspect of the permanent repository licensing process. Certainly, the use (!f the 

NWF to provide benefits to qffected States and localities are necessary incentives to host 

a repository and should advance the siting pracess. 

As for using NWFfor interim storage activities, NARUC's 2018 resolution notes 

that: "The BRC Report recommendationsfor consolidated interim storage represent a new 

use for the NWF that should be authorized only ajier a careful consideration olthe costs 

and benefits involved" It seems likely if a progress on a permanent repository is underway. 

the need and the quantum of any benefits package for an interim storage site would be 

considerab~v diminished Further. the model for the more recent interim storage facilities 

are intended to be "'for profit" enterprises. which should be taken into consideration when 

providing benefits to the host communities. The provision qldejined benefits to state and 

local governments is at least part(y premised on assuaging opposition from local 

governmental entities. 

7. The discussion draft reforms the financing mechanism to limit fee collections to an 

amount not greater than 90 percent of what is appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. 

This will assure fees are collected only if Congress appropriates money for a nuclear 

waste program. 

a. How will this provision impact your ratepayers? 

Page 4 of 11 
54 


36643.041

b. Do you support this provision? If so, why? 

O'Donnell response: 

NARUC strongly supports this provision. 

Once enacted, this innovative proposal may be the most significant posiTive policy 

change since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was signed into law. 

It will unquestionab(y protectfi;ture ratepayer investments blocking payments To 

the federal government for a program that the federal government never funds. If the 

budgeted dollars are not appropriated the fee is su5pended and the new ratepayer burden 

is lifted 

The proposal also provides for a de minus return every year the fee is assessed of 

10% a/the corpus of the NWF. While NARUC has not taken a specific position on thisin my personal opinion. the provision could be improved by increasing that to 25% or 

higher return oft he corpus, i.e., limiting the fee assessment to 75% oft he amount actually 

appropriate to the program each year. 

8. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for nuclear waste from national defense activities 

to be disposed in a single repository with commercial spent nuclear fuel. This policy 

allows the costs to be shared between ratepayers who pay for commercial spent nuclear 

fuel disposal and taxpayers who pay for disposal of defense waste. Section 204 of the 

discussion draft prohibits DOE from spending money on a defense-waste only repository 

until there is a final decision on the Yucca Mountain license. 

a. Do you support this provision? If so, why? 

b. How does developing a single repository for both commercial and defense 

material will simultaneously protect our military and protect ratepayers? 

O'Donnell response: 

NARUC supports !his provision. Any other approach is economically inefficient 

and wastes taxpayer dollars. Section 204 makes certain that defense and commercial waste 

remain dependent upon the same program. This comingling of defense and commercial 

waste provides for economies of scope and scale along with a sharing of cosls. This is a 

better dealfor ratepayers, a better deal for taxpayers, and a better deal for the military. 

Moreover, a consolidated repository will allow the military to focus on their primary 

mission. Final(v, given the history of failure with this program, there is a high likelihood 

that allowing DOE to divert resources to focus on a defense-only repositmy will impede if not eliminate progress on development of a commercial waste repository. 

9. Senator Rosen's testimony states the discussion draft eliminates the current requirement 

for progress on a second repository. 

Page 5 of ll 
55 


36643.042

a. Does the Nuclear Waste Policy Act require any action on a second repository? 

b. If so, does the discussion draft amend that provision? 

O'Donnell response: 

a. The NWPA does not require a second repository. It does permit consideration of a 

second repository. 42 U.S.C.A. § 10172a (a), which addresses the siting of a second 

repository, is available online at: https:!!www. govinfo. gov/content/pkg/USCODE-20 17-

title42/pd(lUSCODE-20!7-title42-chap!08.pd( That section specifies that the Energy 

"Secretary may not conduct site-specific activities with respect to a second repository 

unless Congress has specificallv authorized and appropriated funds (Or such activities. " 

Section 10172a (b) required the Secretary to report to Congress on the need for a second 

repository by Januar_v 2010." That recommendation. filed in 2008. is available online m. 

https:!lwww.energv.govlsites/prodlfi/es/edglmedial.'iecond Repositorv Rnt l20908.pd( 

There the Energy Secretary recommended that: "consistent with legislation that the 

Administration proposed in 2007, Congress act promptly to remove the statutory limit of 

70,000 lvfTHM for the Yucca Mountain repository, thereby permitting a deferral of a 

decision regarding the needfor a second repository." Seven years later, in 2015, afteras the courts later found- DOE illegally refitsed to prosecute the license review process 

for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, based on other NWPA provisions, the 

President found that a separate repository filr defense-related radioactive waste was 

required and DOE announced plans to build lWO repositories, one for defense waste and 

another for commercial spent nuclear fuel and residual defense waste. The next year, in 

2016, the National Defense Authorization Act .for Fiscal Year 2017 deniedfundsfhr a 

defense-only repository. According to the GAO, the President's FY 2018 "budget request 

included Sf 20 million for !he resumption of' the license review for the repository at Yucca 

iv!ountain anclfor interim storage of nuclear waste, which reflected a change in policy and 

effectively terminated DOE's plans to build a separate defense waste repository." 

Congress did not provide this funding. " The GAO Nuclear Waste Disposal is online ar: 

https:/lwww.gao.gov/kev issues/disposal o( high/eve/ nuclear waste/issue summary 

b. The draf[ does not prohibit consideration of a second repository but, recognizing 

the inefficiency and duplicative costs for separate repositories for defense and civilian 

waste - it does, in Section 204, limit consideration of a second delense-only repository 

"until rhe Commission issues a .final decision on an applicalion for a construction 

authorizationfor a repository under section 114(d)(]} of the NWPA." 

10. The number of operating nuclear power plants is expected to drastically decrease in the 

next four years. What will happen if Congress and the Department of Energy further 

delay reconstituting a nuclear waste program and a significant number of power plants 

shut down? 

O'Donnell response: 

Commercial nuclear power is already facing challenges with uneconomic units. 

Page 6 of 11 
56 


36643.043

Further increasing the costs of nuclear power by requiring the construction of 

additional onsite storage capacity because the federal government has not disposed of its 

waste in a permanent repository, as required by law, will only exacerbate the economic 

pressures on the units still running. While the percent of zero-emission electricity on the 

grid fluctuates by season and month, the US grid hit its record for percent of zero-emission 

megawatt hours in April of2018 (40.1 percent.) In March of this year that percentage was 

around 38.4 percent. Therefore, with less nuclear generation running the US will have 

little chance of meeting and/or sustaining 40 percent or more zero-emission electricity on 

the grid in the foreseeable future. Long term if it becomes necessary to restart the NW 

fee- the costs of the disposal facilities will be imposed on a smaller and smaller subset of 

ratepayers. That means the costs to jurisdictions that are serious about reducing their 

carbon footprint will go up. 

A first step to reversing the trend is making sure there is a waste disposal solution. 

Speaking on my own behalf, and not NARUC. personally I think any thinking person would 

have agree to agree with climatologist James Hansen 2015 statements that: 

"To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not preiudice. 

Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial 

climate targets or achieving them. " 

Look- it is a fact that every plant that is shutdown results in increased greenhouse 

gas emissions. Nuclear has to be part of the equation. I believe that is why lawmakers in 

the state legislatures of New York, Illinois, Connecticut and New Jersey have all moved to 

provide subsidies to keep in-state nuclear plants open and operational. 

11. Section 103 of the discussion draft authorizes funding for a pilot interim storage program. 

The funding is authorized from the general treasury fund, not from the Nuclear Waste 

Fund. What is NARUC's position on funding an interim storage program from the 

Nuclear Waste Fund? 

O'Donnell response: 

NARUC believes that consolidated interim storage represents a potential new use 

under certain conditions. The new use for the NWF should be authorized only after a 

careful consideration of the costs and benefits involved. Additionally, any analysis of the 

costs and benefits of interim storage should consider transportation costs and proximity to 

possible or likely permanent disposal sites. Finally, no interim storage unless and until the 

review of the Yucca Mountain license application is underway. 

12. Your testimony notes support for the funding mechanism contained in H.R. 3053, as 

passed by the House Energy & Commerce Committee in 2017. Please provide additional 

detail how the annual Congressional appropriations process inhibits a durable nuclear 

waste management program. 

O'Donnell response: 

Page 7 of 11 
57 


36643.044

The simple answer is currently there is no effective appropriations process for this 

issue and hasn't beenji1r many years. In fact, the House Committee on Appropriations on 

May 21, 2019 voted against appropriating any dollars to restart the licensing process. The 

Senate process is no better as we have heard there will be no dollars added during the 

Energy and Water markup. 

The law is clear, the initial science on sl!fety and suitability of the current proposed 

repository site is clear, and the Nevada county hosting the site wants the facility open and 

operational if if is safe. The onZv problem is the appropriations process - which has for 

years been the Achilles heel of the program. 

That is why I suggested in my teslimony that Section 504 ofH.R 3053 as introduced 

in 2017 should be included in the discussion drafi. With that language, funds collected 

from ratepayers to fimd the program could be made available "without further 

appropriations. " That provision, above all 01hers, would provide "surety", confidence and 

progress in the program. 

Ranking Member Carper: 

Please provide a response to each question, including each sub-part. 

13. In Mr. Fettus's testimony, he called for the establishment of up-front generic radiation 

and environmental protection standards for the management of high-level nuclear waste 

and for a stronger role for states, local governments and Indian Tribes in the siting of a 

permanent high-level repository. Do you have concerns with these suggestions? If so, 

please explain why. 

O'Donnell response: 

NARUC has not taken a position on Mr. Feltus· new proposals. But, the country 

does have general radiation and environmental protections in place for the siting of any 

repository. Mr. Fettus' career indicates he is clearly not a proponent of nuclear power. 

lv'ARUC is concerned that much of what he is advancing is strategically designed to raise 

additional "roadblocks" and make nuclear power less appealing. Certainly diverting )iet 

again .from what the currenl law requires will unquestionab(v make siting a permanenr 

repository more difficult than it already is, it' thai's possible. 

14. Are there aspects of a consent based process- including incentives -you think would be 

critical for success in siting a new location for a permanent high-level nuclear waste 

repository? 

O'Donnell response: 

Page 8 ofll 
58 


36643.045

NARUC has no position on this issue other than we believe States and local 

governments should be engaged in a more collaborative manner that can be guided by a 

negotiated consent agreement among the involved parties, ·whether for storage or disposal 

facilities. 

Aside from incentives, the strong support of the host county is a pre-requisite. A1y 

understanding is that Nye County Nevada- where Yucca Mountain is located- and each 

of the neighboring counties, has the support of local officials and citizens as long as the 

licensee proceeding finds the site to be saf'e. 

15. Would you oppose if the nation decided to pursue multiple permanent high-level waste 

repositories across the country- rather than one central location? If so, why? If not, why 

not? 

O'Donnell response: 

NARUC has not specifically addressed this idea in resolutions. But, it seems 

premature to discuss multiple permanent repository sites. The federal government ought 

to complete the licensing process for the current proposed location to take advantage of 

the information to be gleanedfrom the process. That process will inform efforts to site a 

second repository. Simultaneous investigation ()f' multiple permanent sites seems 

inefficient. 

16. Some have suggested that the Department of Energy should no longer have authority 

over our nation's permanent high-level nuclear waste repository. Do you agree with that 

view, and, if so, who should have the authority? If you feel a federal corporation should 

have the authority, what guardrails are needed to ensure that safety and states' rights are 

preserved in the siting of a permanent high-level waste repository? 

O'Donnell response: 

The management of federal responsibilities for used fuel management would be 

more succes.iful if assigned to a new organization with a new approach to siting and better 

access to financing. Whether DOE was unable to achieve its NWPA responsibilities due to 

mismanagement or factors beyond its control can be debated. but the Blue Ribbon 

Commission (BRC) made a sound case for creating a new organization, outside of DOE. 

with the sole responsibility to manage nuclear waste. NARUC supports this concept. 

The new organization should be charged to engage wilh States and local 

governments in a more collaborative manner that can be guided by a negotiated consent 

agreement among the involved parties, whether for storage or disposal facilities. The 

NWPA already has provisionsfi!r use of the Nuclear NWF to provide benefits to q{fected 

States and localities as an incentive to host a repository that could be amended if a benefits 

agreement is negotiated that advances the siting process. We agree with the BRC 

recommendation that a public utility commissioner be appointed to an oversight board 

having responsibility to evaluate the adequa(v qf the fees. 

Page 9 of 11 
59 


36643.046

17. Are there examples that we can learn from the high-level waste management experiences 

of other countries-- such as Sweden and Finland- that could help us with our nuclear 

waste issues in this country? 

O'Donnell response: 

1\fARUC has not taken a position on the relative merits of' other country's 

approaches. However, if always makes sense to learn/rom other's successes andfailures. 

But. the fact is, !he Uniled States should comple1e the license process for !he disposal 

facility design that was passed by Congress and signed into law before changing process 

design parameters. 

!8. Mr. O'Donnell, as I mentioned during the hearing, I try to live my life by the Golden 

Rule and treat others the way I want to be treated. This means often putting myself in 

another person's shoes and thinking about how I would feel in their situation. As 

Commissioner on the Maryland Public Service Commission, I would like for you to think 

about how your counterparts in Nevada and other states may feel about the nation's 

current federal nuclear waste policy. 

a. If an independent company wanted to pursue a NRC license to safely store 

nuclear waste on an interim or permanent basis in the State of Maryland, what do 

you believe would be your constituents' response to that idea? 

b. In your mind, what steps must the federal government take for Marylanders to 

ever support the idea of more nuclear waste coming into their state and being 

stored long-term? 

O'Donnell response: 

Senator Carper, as you know .from your time as a Governor, somelimes decisions 

are made by State officials (orfederal officials for /hat matter) that prove wildly unpopular 

though they need to be made regardless using eminent domain for a road improvement 

or to site a transmission line for instance. These are not easy and we try to be guided by 

what is best for the public good. We make the decisions based upon the best information 

and science that we have available. In some cases we look at all the information, science, 

cost, benefits, safety, necessity, and yes politics. Ye1, after all the analysis we still end up 

hoping we made the right decision. But, even after all that, sometimes the decision comes 

down to having tofollow the rule of law over all else. Congress has determined the law in 

this instance. Sir, I wouldfollow the rule oj'law. 

19. Nuclear waste policy has divided this country for far too long. Having listened to others 

on the witness panel during the hearing, would you provide this Committee with one 

course of action where there is agreement among the panel members? 

O'Donnell response: 

Page 10 of 1l 
60 


36643.047

I think the only obvious consensus on my panel was that doing nothing is not an 

option. Congress must act. 

Senator Braun: 

20. Our energy industry should be responsive to market pressures and incentives. As in all 

industries, the government should not be picking winners and losers. There are obvious 

reasons that I support nuclear energy. 1 believe it is a critical element of an "all of the 

above" energy strategy. 

But "all of the above:· does not imply that we should be pursuing technologies that are 

not viable in the private market. On Monday. the Wall Street Journal noted that nuclear 

facilities in Pennsylvania and Ohio are asking for state subsidies to improve their balance 

sheets, so they can remain in operation. 

a. How much of a balance-sheet liability does the storage of nuclear fuel on-site 

create for these utilities? 

b. If the long-term storage issue were solved tomorrow, would this reduce a barrier 

to the introduction of new nuclear facilities? 

O'Donnell response: 

With regard to (a), that would really be a unU by unit answer because of all the 

variables involved, including but not limited to whether the unit was decommissioned or is 

still running. With regard to (b), yes, if would reduce one of the barriers. 

2L Northwest Indiana consumes around 80 percent of the electricity from the D.C. Cook 

nuclear power plant. Our ratepayers have paid to build Yucca Mountain, and they have 

not gotten anything in return for that yet. Even worse, because Congress has failed to act, 

taxpayers are paying legal costs associated with on-site waste storage, a bill estimated to 

be in excess of $36 billion. Now, because of Congressional gridlock, Hoosiers paid for a 

storage solution that never materialized. 

Do you believe that the federal government has a responsibility to follow through on this 

policy, and to invest the taxes it collected for a permanent storage solution? 

O'Donnell response: 

Unequivocal~v YES! It is the right thing to do. lt is the responsible thing to do. and 

it is the law. It will without question save taxpayers and ratepayers money. 

Page 11 ofll 
61 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. O’Donnell, for 

your testimony. We are grateful for your 8 years of service in the 

United States Navy, your 22 years of service in the General Assembly of Maryland, and your leadership in the Environment and 

Transportation Committee, which is very similar to the Committee 

that we have here. I know you have been a champion of the Chesapeake Bay, and this Committee has done a lot of work in that effort as well. So thanks so much for being here and sharing your 

opinions. 

Mr. Fettus. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY H. FETTUS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, 

CLIMATE AND CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. FETTUS. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity for me to present the views of the Natural Resources Defense Council on nuclear waste. 

We thank the Committee for what we hope can be a new beginning. With more than 80,000 metric tons in more than half the 

States in reactors moving to decommissioning, we need to reset the 

process. Respectfully, this discussion draft, however, will not solve 

the current stalemate and won’t lead toward workable solutions. 

For more than 50 years, Congress has offered—and even 

passed—bills that attempt to do what this bill would have us do: 

restart the eco-licensing process, or kick open a door in New Mexico 

for an interim storage site, when that State was promised repeatedly no such thing would ever happen. Efforts such as these failed 

in Tennessee, in Kansas, Nevada, Utah, and everywhere else. 

Another such attempt restarts the litigation controversy. The 

likely result? Continued stalemate. Seven years ago, a bipartisan 

Blue Ribbon Commission keenly described why past attempts 

failed. That commission, and Ranking Member Carper, wisely asserted that we can’t keep doing the same thing. Congress must create a process that allows any potential host State to demonstrate 

consent, or for that matter, non-consent. 

So rather than spend more of your valuable time on why this 

won’t work, and spend more time talking past each other, as so 

often happens at these hearings, I put before you in my testimony 

today a doable, meaningful reset of how we manage and dispose of 

nuclear waste. The solution could be summed up simply: give EPA 

and the States power under well established environmental statutes so that they can set the terms for how much and on what conditions they could host a disposal site. 

Radioactive waste is stranded because the Atomic Energy Act 

treats it as a privileged pollutant. The Act preempts regulatory authority of EPA and the States, exempting radioactivity from hazardous waste law, sizable portions of the Clean Water Act, et 

cetera. We don’t need to do a statutory lesson today. It ignores the 

vital role States play in addressing other environmental pollutants. 

Our government and the Senate is most aware of this, is that it 

is strongest when each player’s role is respected. As an example, 

the years of wrangling over how clean is clean for contaminated 

nuclear weapons sites such as those in Washington and South 

62 

Carolina is made exponentially worse by DOE’s self-regulatory status, which the Atomic Energy Act ordains with these exemptions. 

The same is true with spent fuel from the commercial sector. 

State consent and public acceptance of potential repository sites 

will never be willingly granted—we saw that from the Nevada Senators—unless and until power on how, when, and where is shared, 

rather than decided by Federal fiat. There is only one way consent 

can happen, consistent with our cooperative federalism. Specifically, Congress must finally remove the Atomic Energy Act’s exemptions from our bedrock environmental laws. Our hazardous 

waste and clean water laws must include full authority over radioactivity and nuclear waste facilities, so EPA—and most importantly, the States—can assert that direct regulatory authority. 

It is true, removing these exemptions tomorrow will not magically solve this puzzle and create a final repository. But it will open 

a path forward that respects each State, rather than offering up 

the latest one for sacrifice. Because a State can say no or yes, and 

on what terms, and not necessarily be subject to hosting the entire 

burden or shipping all the waste across the country through every 

congressional district, such a new regime would allow for a thorough technical review, unlike the years of fighting that has been 

the hallmark of every single past process. Just as important, that 

fundamental sharing of power could result in public acceptance of 

solutions. 

We have seen these bills before, but each has been a mirror of 

the last. It is time to try something that has a proven track record 

in addressing other controversial topics. It is time to regulate nuclear waste the same way as every other pollutant, with EPA and 

delegated States taking the lead under our foundational environmental statutes. 

Thank you again for having me here. I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fettus follows:] 

63 


36643.048

Geoffrey H. Fettus 

Senior Attorney 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Fettus both litigates and testifies before Congress for 

NRDC's Energy & Transportation program, where he 

focuses primarily on issues relating to the beginning and 

end of the nuclear fuel cycle-including issues associated 

with uranium mining and the disposal of radioactive waste. 

A graduate of Haverford College and the University of 

Wisconsin Law School, he worked as an attorney for a public-interest law firm and 

served as an assistant attorney general for New Mexico before he joined NRDC in 

2001. He is based in Washington, D.C 
64 


36643.049

Statement of 

Geoffrey H. Fettns 

Senior Attorney 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

"Statement for Legislative Hearing on a Discussion Draft Bill, S. _, 

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2019." 

Before the 

Congress of the United States 

United States Senate 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

Room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building 

NROC 

~ 

May 1, 2019 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

1152 l51

h St. NW, Suite 300 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Tele: 202-289-6868 

gfettus@nrdc.org 
65 


36643.050

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill, S. , Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public- Wot'IG-Committee 

May I, 2019 

Page I 

I. Introduction & Summary. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and members of the Committee, thank you for providing 

the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) this opportunity to present our views on 

the Discussion Draft, S. _,Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of2019. We appreciate that 

the Committee sees the need to commence work again on solving our national nuclear waste 

dilemma and we hope to work with all of you on a constructive process. 

NRDC is a national, non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers, and environmental specialists, 

dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC serves more 

than three million members, supporters and environmental activists with offices in New York, 

Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, Montana, and Beijing. We 

have worked on nuclear waste matters since our founding and continue to do so. 

In our years of appearing before this Committee and others, NRDC almost always begins with a 

straightforward introduction that highlights our key observations and then proceeds to map out 

precisely what we think about the bill in question, section by section, and in detaiL But we are 

cognizant of the long history of this matter, the veritable tsunami of legislative history detailing 

objections or support to similar pieces oflegislation as the one before us today. Indeed, we've 

contributed to that wealth of testimony. 1 And we are keenly aware that our time before you is 

valuable and we don't want to waste a moment of your important attention. 

Therefore, in a more summary fashion than is our usual wont, we make the following points. 

Title I of the Discussion Draft attempts to clear the legal obstacles to allow New Mexico or 

Texas to receive sizable portions of the nation's nuclear waste at a consolidated interim storage 

site that has not been licensed, has significant legal and technical challenges, and is opposed by 

See, e.g., Hearing Before The Subcommittee On Environment OfThe Committee On Energy And 

Commerce, House Of Representatives, 115'" Congress, First Session April 26, 2017, Serial No. 115-26, online at 

!Jttp,s://www,govinfu.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg25996/pdf/CHRG· 115hbrg25996.pdf; see NRDC's 

submission at 136 (pdf page 140 of 172); orNRDC's 2015 Testimony Before the House Energy & Commerce 

Committee; see http!>:llwww.nrdc.org/expertslmatthew-mckinzielnrdc-testifies-house-renresentatives-nuclear·waste. 
66 


36643.051

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill~ S. _,Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

May I, 2019 

l'age2 

the entire New Mexican Congressional delegation and Governor. 2 Title II of the Discussion Draft 

sets the abandoned, defunct Yucca Mountain licensing process back in motion, but with an even 

more truncated environmental review, and with a set of new potential sources of state funding. 

Nevada issued its notice of disapproval of Yucca Mountain on April&, 2002 and has repeatedly 

stated its opposition, seemingly to no avail. Last, the other titles set forth various matters such as 

an expansion of the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund in ways that place ever more burdens on 

taxpayers and fewer on the industry. 

Respectfully, but bluntly, enacting Titles I and II into law would immediately precipitate a welter 

of controversy and litigation from the potential recipient states, which would result in no 

progress toward a solution and more states firmly objecting. Witness, as a keen example, the 

Private Fuel Storage interim nuclear waste storage site in Utah, which was licensed in 2006 but 

has not- and will not- ever receive waste due to the state's steadfast resistance. The result of 

enacting Titles I and II would also continue all the attendant frustrations that come with nuclear 

waste in pools or dry storage at Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed reactors around 

the country. Seven years ago, then Chairman and now Ranking Member Carper rightly noted that 

consent-based siting, with meaningful partnerships and open communication among federal, 

state, local, and tribal leaders, is a most important step toward establishing a geologic nuclear 

waste repository. This Discussion Draft does not adhere to that wise observation, and rather than 

spend your valuable time repeating arguments in the record on these matters, we tum to 

explaining two things- first, the fundamental flaw in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) 

that Congress must fix- namely, removing the Atomic Energy Act's (AEA) exemptions from 

environmental law- and second, why the removal of those environmental exemptions can result 

in nuclear waste repositories that are both scientifically defensible and publicly accepted. 

This is notable as there is a nod toward "consent" in the text of the legislation, see Section 143(a)(2), 

Conditions for MRS Agreements, and it would therefore seem that the New Mexico consolidated interim storage site 

could be dispensed with now and any plans abandoned. There is no such similar provision for the repository process 

inTitlell. 
67 


36643.052

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill, S. , Nuclear Wa<>te 

Before the Senate Environment & Public WorkS-Committee 

May 1,2019 

Page 3 

11. How Did We Get Here? 

A. Today's Impasse Has Many Causes. 

After more than 50 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 to certain Senators, to Nevada Governors of both parties, to NRC 

Commissioners, and even to the public for failure to accept its part in disposing of nuclear waste. 

All ofthis is wrong. 

Failure cannot be laid at the feet of any one person or entity or the public, and this defeat has 

many causes. Several agencies (including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the NRC, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)) and 

Congress repeatedly distorted the process established in the NWPA, including for developing 

licensing criteria for a proposed repository. In each instance, such action weakened 

environmental standards rather than strengthening them, and always to ensure the site would be 

licensed, no matter the end result. These actions both precipitated and gave traction to terocious 

resistance from Nevada, Tennessee, New Mexico, Washington, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Utah, Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, and 

Indian tribes. But even those actions are not the reason we remain locked in a virtual culdesac, 

witness to repeated attempts to try and force the same the result by the same fashion- i.e., 

transferring the entirety of the nation's nuclear waste to an above ground parking lot in a 

resistant New Mexico, or to the technically inadequate attempt at a repository in Nevada. 

B. Science & Politics Are Both Necessary. 

Nuclear waste remains a third rail of American politics for a singular reason- a deep 

misunderstanding of federalism and the necessary role of states in the process of solving 

this challenge. If you take one message from our appearance before you today, it is that there is 
68 


36643.053

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill, S. , Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public WorkS-Committee 

May I, 2019 

Page4 

another way to try and cut this Gordian Knot, but it must be done in a fashion that respects the 

extraordinary history of cooperative federalism in environmental law. 

We urge the Committee to appreciate the metamorphosis of Congressman Mo Udall's (D-AZ) 

NWPA, the organic subject oftoday's hearing. Indeed, NRDC views the original incarnation of 

the NWPA as a remarkable, nearly visionary piece of legislation that contained one tragic, fatal 

flaw: a deep misunderstanding of federalism and the necessary role of states. And that flaw is the 

single clear conclusion that we have drawn from the history of failures associated with nuclear 

waste. 

As the Committee is aware, the enacted 1982 NWPA set forth obligations and duties for EPA, 

DOE and NRC, with Congressional oversight and checkpoints along the way. The law attempted 

to place science in the forefront and balance political power in a way that might allow tor this 

fraught, difficult process of finding and developing disposal sites for nuclear waste. But, 

importantly, the NWPA never challenged or altered in any way the AEA's provision for 

exclusive federal jurisdiction over radioactive waste. Despite this baked-in oversight, the 

NWPA's attempt at the legal balancing act was unprecedented at the time and that observation 

remains true today. And as we all know, the balancing act was upset as the NWPA was 

repeatedly altered and the process was finally abandoned by the previous administration in 2009. 

But why the repeated derailments? A myriad of answers get offered, generally suggesting that 

"not in my backyard" (NIMBY) sensibilities and associated politics are responsible for the 

failure to license and open Yucca Mountain. But as noted at the outset- this is wrong. The deep 

misunderstanding of federalism and the necessary role of states at the heart of the NWPAjust 

kept getting lost over the years. The federal exclusivity over nuclear waste regulation was simply 

presumed a priori, without consideration as to whether that might be at the root of the problem. 

So how is the misunderstanding offederalism at the root of the problem? The relationship of the 

federal government to the governments of the 50 states that comprise our republic is the 

fundamental fact of American politics. Our political system has never easily digested or durably 
69 


36643.054

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill, S. • Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public WorkS Committee 

May!, 2019 

Page 5 

solved profound national problems like voting rights, health care, gun control, carbon 

restrictions, or the disposal of nuclear waste, by either federal fiat or, conversely, by turning 

matters over to the states entirely. 3 And in every instance of national decision making on these 

and other complex issues, heavily compromised laws or regulations have taken 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, but no less protective regulatory mandates that meet the 

needs of the state in question. Nuclear waste should be no different, but under the AEA and the 

NWPA, it is different. 

So, where do these observations leave us? It is NRDC's firm conclusion that Congress is right to 

take up these matters, that new nuclear waste legislation must be written, and that a new process 

must be created. Consistent with the expressed statements of Ranking Member Carper and 

former Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bingaman, whatever results 

must be "consent based," concordant with President Obama's bipartisan Blue Ribbon 

Commission (BRC),4 and take into account the needs of the industry and their federal 

For perspective on the ever-present interplay of the constitutional principles of federalism and 

equal sovereignty of the states and the extraordinary controversies that still attend such matters, see the 

20131andmark (5 votes to 4 votes) Voting Rights decision and its vigorous dissent, Shelby County, Ala. v. 

Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013). 4 President Obama's "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future- Report to the Secretary of 

Energy, January 3/, 2012" (hereafter "BRC' or "Final Report"); see online at 

https://www.energy.gov/siteslprodlfiles/20 13/04/fOibrc finalreoort jan20 12 pdf. 
70 


36643.055

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill. S. , Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public WorkS Committee 

May I. 2019 

Page6 

champions. But this time, any new legislation must also take into account the fundamental need 

for public and state acceptance and there is only one way to do that, as we explain next. 

C. It Is Past Time to Normalize the Treatment of Nuclear Waste Under 

Environmental Law. 

State consent and public acceptance of a nuclear waste solution will never be willingly granted 

unless and until power to make such a decision as to how, when and where such waste is 

disposed of is shared rather than decided by federal fiat. There is only one way that can happen 

consistent with the protective, cooperative federalism at the heart of environmental law. 

Specifically, Congress must finally end the AEA's 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. This will necessarily alter the federalism oversight that has been central to the tailure 

oftheNWPA. 

The NWPA's (and AEA's) misunderstanding of the importance of federalism is at the heart of 

the repository program's failure. If we don't find a way to give EPA and the states regulatory 

power over nuclear waste- and that is accomplished only by doing away with the environmental 

exemptions in the AEA- we will not solve this dilemma. Lack of consent from an unwilling host 

state selected in an expedient demonstration oflegislative and administrative power over the 

(statutorily defined) powerless is a recipe for inaction and, ultimately, disaster in this country, 

whether the issue is nuclear waste or any other great public concern. 

Ill. NRDC's Prescription & How To Get This Right. 

A. Five Recommendations to Get the Nuclear Waste Program Back on Track. 

We can dispose of nuclear waste and do so in a fashion that is both scientifically defensible and 

publicly accepted, but we cannot do so if we keep trying the approach that has failed for over 50 

years. To that end, NRDC urges Congress to- (I) recognize that geologic repositories must 
71 


36643.056

NRDC Stakment on Discussion Draft Bill, S. . Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Pubtic WorkS Committee 

May l, 2019 

Page 7 

remain the focus of any legislative effort; (2) create a coherent legal framework before 

commencing any geologic repository or interim storage site development process; (3) arrive at a 

consent-based approach for nuclear waste storage and disposal via the fundamental change in 

law we described above; (4) address storage in a phased approach consistent with the careful 

architecture of former Senator Bingaman's S. 3469 (introduced in 2012); and (5) exclude 

delaying, proliferation-driving and polarizing closed fuel cycle and reprocessing options from 

this effort to implement the interim storage and ultimate disposal missions. 

Importantly, our view on each area is premised on a single overarching caution: in order to avoid 

repeating the mistakes of the last four decades, Congress must create a transparent, equitable 

process incorporating strong public health and environmental standards insulated from 

weakening repository performance standards in order to ensure, at the conclusion of the process, 

the licensing and operation of a suitable repository site (or sites). 

1. Recommendation I -Deep Geologic Repositories Are The Solution For Nuclear Waste 

And Must Remain The Focus. 

NRDC concurs with the long held, consensus recognition that our generation has an ethical 

obligation to future generations regarding nuclear waste disposal. Adherence to the principle of 

deep geologic disposal as the solution to this obligation is consistent with more than 60 years of 

scientific consensus. The decision to isolate nuclear waste from the biosphere implicates critical 

issues, including: financial security, environmental protection. and public health, and no other 

solutions are technically, economically, or morally viable over the long term. This is why NRDC 

strongly supports development of a science-based repository program that acknowledges the 

significant institutional challenges facing nuclear waste storage and disposal. Thus, in whatever 

legislation moves forward, we urge explicit adherence to the first purpose of the NWPA, 42 

U.S.C. § 1013l(b)(l ), "to establish a schedule for the siting, construction, and operation of 

repositories that will provide a reasonable assurance that the public and the environment will be 

adequately protected from the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and such spent 

nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in a repository." 
72 


36643.057

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill, S. , Nuclear Waste 

BefOre the Senate Environment & Public WorkS Committee 

May I, 20!9 

Page 8 

2. Recommendation 2- Create A Coherent Legal Framework That Ensures The 

"Polluter Pays" Before Commencing Any Repository Or Interim Storage Site 

Development. 

To avoid repeating failures of past decades and consistent with the bipartisan 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. To give this recommendation explicit and 

simple context, Senator Bingaman's 2012 legislative effort (S.3469, specifically in Sections 304, 

305 and 306) set in place some of the necessary structures that could avoid repeating the failure 

of the Yucca Mountain process. Specifically, the bill would have directed EPA to adopt, by rule, 

broadly applicable standards for the protection of the general environment from offsite releases 

of radioactive material from geologic repositories. The bill also directed NRC to then amend its 

regulations governing the licensing of geological repositories to be consistent with any relevant 

standard adopted by EPA. Further, embedded in Senator Bingaman's bill was the requirement 

that the polluters pay the bill for the contamination created. This bipartisan concept has long 

history as bedrock American law and must remain in full force in any legislation. 

These requirements and this phasing of agency actions in Senator Bingaman's bill were 

appropriate (i.e., first EPA sets the standards and then NRC ensures its licensing process meets 

those standards)- and in the next recommendation we'll expand on how this coherent legal 

framework must be improved. But it is key that a coherent legal framework be in place before 

siting decisions get made. Unfortunately, recent iterations of nuclear waste legislation, including 

this Discussion Draft, ignore this wise sequencing, thus ignoring BRC's recommendation that 

new, applicable rules be in final form before site selection. 

Congress should also direct that standards for site screening and development criteria be based 

on careful characterization of the radiation sources and resulting doses. The chief sources of 

radiation in high-level nuclear waste forms are the beta-decay of fission products like Cs-137 and 
73 


36643.058

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill, S. , Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public Work; Committee 

May I, 2019 

Page 9 

Sr-90 and the alpha-decay of actinide elements like Uranium, Neptunium and Americium. Betadecay is the primary source of radiation during the first 500 years of storage, as it originates from 

the shorter-lived fission products. Then alpha-decay becomes the dominant source after 

approximately 1,000 years. These radiation sources and doses must be considered to ensure a 

scientifically defensible legal framework for site selection. 

3. Recommendation 3- Develop A Consent-Based Approach For Nuclear Waste Disposal 

Through A Fundamental Change In Law. 

a. The BRC Failed To Define Consent & Thereby Did Not Point The Way Forward. 

For all its laudable qualities, the 2012 BRC report did not accurately portray the fundamental 

problem facing how to finally solve our nuclear waste disposal challenges. The BRC should have 

explicitly stated and we do so here today- that Congress, with its firm understanding of 

federalism, should legislate a role for EPA and the states in nuclear waste disposal by amending 

the AEA to remove its express exemptions of radioactive material from environmental laws. 

State, local and tribal governments must be central in any prescription for a successful repository 

and waste storage program. Senator Carper wisely observed as much many years ago and we 

hope that this remains his position today. Regrettably, current law has treated these relationships 

as dispensable afterthoughts, preempted from any meaningful power and authority over 

radioactive waste disposal sites. And the current effort at draft legislation suffers the same 

malady. 

Rather than address this problem head on, seven years ago the BRC chose to carefully skirt the 

matter in its report, while still noting that federal and state tensions are often central in nuclear 

waste disputes. We think this failure to squarely address the matter provides the continued 

impetus to ignore this elephant in the room. The BRC's Final Report states in pertinent part: 

We recognize that defining a meaningful and appropriate role for states, tribes, 

and local governments under current law is far from straightforward, given that 
74 


36643.059

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill. S. • Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public WorkS Committee 

May I, 2019 

Page 10 

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over 

many radioactive waste management issues, Nevertheless, we believe it will be 

essential to affirm a role for states, tribes, and local governments that is at once 

positive, proactive, and substantively meaningful and thereby reduces rather than 

increases the potential for conflict, confusion, and delay, 

BRC Final Report at 56 (citation omitted), 

The first sentence above both makes an observation and states a fact. The observation is that 

defining a meaningful and appropriate role for states, tribes, and local governments under current 

law is far from straightforward, The fact is that the AEA provides for exclusive federal 

jurisdiction over many radioactive waste management issues, According to the BRC, the 

difficulty of defining a meaningful and appropriate role for states is a "given" because of the fact 

of exclusive federal jurisdiction. 

So what did the BRC suggest Congress do about this? Do away with the explicit federal 

jurisdiction? Increase the exclusivity of the federal jurisdiction? Somehow argue that the 

problems can be addressed without altering the exclusive federal jurisdiction in some fashion? 

There is nothing so clear or direct in the text, Rather, the BRC's very next sentence is simply an 

aspiration, without any explicit recommendation addressing the "given" (i.e., exclusive federal 

jurisdiction) that makes the process so difficult. The BRC simply noted that it is "essential to 

affirm a role for states, tribes, and local governments that is at once positive, proactive, and 

substantively meaningful." NRDC agrees with the aspiration, but plainly the BRC missed an 

important opportunity to address the fundamental roadblock to solving our nuclear waste 

problem. 

Without fundamental changes in our current, non-consent based law that explicitly address what 

the BRC termed, "federal, state and tribal tensions," we will never approach closure and consent 

on transparent, phased, and adaptive decisions for nuclear waste siting. We now explore in more 

detail this decades-overdue change in the law. 
75 


36643.060

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill, S. , Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public WorkS Committee 

May I, 2019 

Page 11 

b. NRDC',v Prescription For En,vuring States' Authority- Remove The AEA 's 

Exemptions From Environmental Law. 

As we stated at the outset (supra at 2), a meaningful and appropriate role for states in nuclear 

waste storage and disposal siting can be accomplished in a straightforward manner by amending 

the AEA to remove its express exemptions of radioactive material from environmental laws. The 

exemptions of radioactivity make it, in effect, a privileged pollutant. Exemptions from the Clean 

Water Act and RCRA are at the foundation of state and, we submit, even fellow federal agency 

distrust of both commercial and government-run nuclear complexes. Removing the exemptions 

would make the treatment of radioactive waste consistent with every other bedrock 

environmental law. 

As the Committee is aware, most federal environmental laws expressly exclude "source, special 

nuclear and byproduct material" from the scope of health, safety and environmental regulation 

by EPA or the states, leaving the field to DOE and NRC. In the absence of clear language in 

those statutes authorizing EPA (or states where appropriate) to regulate the environmental and 

public health impacts of radioactive waste, DOE retains broad authority over its vast amounts of 

radioactive waste, with EPA and state regulators then only able to push for stringent cleanups on 

the margins of the process. The NRC also retains far reaching safety and environmental 

regulatory authority over commercial nuclear facilities, with agreement states able to assume 

NRC authority, but only on the federal agency's terms. 

States are welcome to consult with NRC and DOE, but the federal agencies can, and do, assert 

preemptive authority where they see fit. This has happened time and again at both commercial 

and DOE nuclear facilities. This outdated regulatory scheme is the toea! point of the distrust that 

has poisoned federal and state relationships involved in managing and disposing of high-level 

radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, with resulting significant impacts on public health and 

the environment. 
76 


36643.061

NRDC Statement on Disc-ussion Draft Bill, S. , Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public WorkS Committee 

May I, 2019 

Page 12 

If EPA and the states had full legal authority and could treat radionuclides as they do other 

pollutants under environmental law, clear cleanup standards could be promulgated, and the 

Nation could be much farther along in remediating the toxic legacy of the Cold War nuclear 

weapons production complex. Further, we could likely avoid some of the ongoing legal and 

regulatory disputes over operations at commercial nuclear facilities. Indeed, the BRC Report 

discusses New Mexico's efforts to regulate aspects of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant under 

RCRA as a critical positive element in the development of the currently active site (BRC Final 

Report at 21). Any regulatory change of this magnitude would have to be harmonized with 

appropriate NRC licensing jurisdiction over facilities and waste, and harmonized with EPA's 

existing jurisdiction with respect to radiation standards: but such a process is certainly within the 

capacity of the current federal agencies and engaged stakeholders. Some states would assume 

regulatory jurisdiction over radioactive material as delegated programs under the Clean Water 

Act or RCRA, and others might not. In any event, substantially improved clarity in the regulatory 

structure and a meaningful state oversight role would allow, for the first time in this country, 

consent-based and transparent decisions to take place on the matter of developing nuclear waste 

storage sites and geologic repositories. 

Ending the anachronistic AEA exemptions does not guarantee a repository will be sited in the 

next few years. Indeed, expecting fast progress on nuclear waste seems a fool's errand in light of 

the history. But ending these exemptions and providing RCRA authority for nuclear waste solves 

the most crucial matter for consent -the opportunity for meaningful state oversight over nuclear 

waste. Any such statutory change bars the substantial likelihood of Congressional terms and 

modifications exacted from states (that might be willing to host a repository) years into a good 

faith negotiation on a site. Indeed, while .it would be theoretically possible for a future Congress 

to revisit the AEA and re-insert exemptions from environmental law, it would have to do so in a 

manner that would remove jurisdictional authority from all states (or Congress would have to 

single out one state for special treatment). The difficulty of prevailing over the interest of all 50 

states rather than simply amending legislation that affects the interests of just one state should be 

apparent. It is past time to normalize nuclear waste with the rest of environmental law and 

NRDC sees this as the key to developing a durable consent-based approach. 
77 


36643.062

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill, S. • Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public WorkS Committee 

May I, 2019 

Page 13 

4. Recommendation 4-Address Storage In A Phased Approach Consistent With The 

Careful Architecture Of 1012's S. 3469. 

Efforts to initiate a temporary away-from-reactor storage facility- that are now, unfortunately, in 

process- must be inextricably linked with development of a permanent solution. This linkage, 

which is a crucial guard against a "temporary" storage facility becoming a permanent one, or 

essentially dictating the choice of a nearby site, should guide the legislative process. Consistent 

with the BRC's findings, a case can only be made for interim storage if it is an integral part of 

the repository program and not as an alternative to, or de facto substitute for, permanent disposal. 

Specifically, the only way in which NRDC could see merit in a pilot project is in a hardened 

building,5 located at one of the currently operating commercial reactor sites. These potential 

volunteer sites operating commercial reactors- already have demonstrated "consent" by 

hosting spent nuclear fuel for years or decades. Far less of the massive funding that would be 

necessary in the way of new infrastructure would be required, and the capacity for fuel 

management and transportation is already in place, along with the consent necessary for hosting 

nuclear fucilities in the first instance. Further, Congress would avoid entirely the ferocious fight 

that is sure to ensue with New Mexico and Texas citizens (and as happened with Utah and 

Tennessee) if they continue down the road with the DOE and the existing license applications in 

those states. 

Rather than prematurely bypassing a careful, consent-based process that can arrive at protective, 

publicly accepted and scientifically defensible solutions, NRDC urges NRC and industry to 

focus spent fuel storage efforts on ensuring that all near-term forms of storage meet high 

standards of safety and security for the decades-long time periods that interim storage sites will 

be in use. 

An example of such a hardened building is the Ahaus facility in Germany. 
78 


36643.063

NRDC Statement on Discussion Draft Bill, S. , Nuclear Waste 

Before the Senate Environment & Public WorkS Committee 

May 1,2019 

Page 14 

5. Recommendation 5- Exclude Unsafe, Uneconomic Closed Fuel Cycle And 

Reproce.~sing Options From This Effort. 

Both the BRC Recommendations and all the subsequent legislative iterations have, for the most 

part, wisely resisted inclusion of support for reprocessing, fast reactors, or other closed fuel cycle 

options as a corollary to new nuclear waste policy. We agree with relevant BRC findings, that 

there are "no currently available or reasonably foreseeable" alternatives to deep geologic 

disposal.6 As Senator Bingaman noted at the 2012 Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

hearing, "even if we were to reprocess spent fuel, with all of the costs and environmental issues 

it involves, we would still need to dispose ofthe radioactive waste streams that reprocessing 

itself produces and we would need to do so in a deep geologic repository." At no point should 

this evolving nuclear waste process include support for closed fuel cycle options. 

IV. Conclusion. 

On one thing I hope we can all agree; the history of the federal nuclear waste program has been 

dismal. But decades from now others will face the precise predicament we find ourselves in 

today if Congress again tries to push through unworkable solutions contentiously opposed by 

states, lacking a sound legal and scientific foundation, and devoid of wide public acceptance and 

consent. Efforts to quickly restart the abandoned Yucca Mountain licensing process or fast track 

an interim storage facility will not work, lead to years of litigation, and thus derail needed efforts 

to find disposal sites. Unless and until Congress fundamentally revamps how nuclear waste is 

regulated and allows for meaningful state oversight by amending the AEA to remove its express 

exemptions of radioactive material from environmental laws, we're doomed to repeat this dismal 

cycle until a future Congress gets it right. 

We deeply appreciate the opportunity to testify today and I am happy to answer any questions. 

BRC Final Report at 100. 
79 


36643.064

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on a Discussion Draft Bill, S._, Nuclear Waste 

Policy Amendments Act of2019" 

May 1, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Fettus (in italics) 

Responses from Mr. Fettus Timely Filed June 6, 2019 

Chairman Barrasso: 

I. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued the Yucca Mountain Safety 

Evaluation Report in 2015. To complete the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain 

repository, the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board must adjudicate contentions 

raised by parties of the licensing proceeding Is there value in completing the NRC ·s 

independent regulatory process to build public confidence in the robustness of the 

licensing process? 

Answer from NRDC: 

Respectfully Mr. Chairman. there is no value in resuming the NRC's long-abandoned licensing 

process. A few of the reasons why we believe restarting the licensing process would not be 

valuable were detailed in my testimony, but I will briefly expand on those here. 

Over the last thirty years, the process of developing, licensing, and setting environmental and 

oversight standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository was essentially rigged or 

dramatically weakened to ensure that the site could be licensed, rather than provide for safety 

over the length of time that the waste remains dangemus to public health and the environment. 

The process itself has thus always been compromised and continuing along this track would not 

build public confidence. How the Yucca Mountain site was selected and how the environmental 

standards were originally set and then repeatedly weakened are examples that illustrate this 

observation. 

A. Site Selection 

First. barely 4 years after the 1982 passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 

§ l 0 l 0 I, et seq., the Energy Department (DOE) and then the Congress corrupted the site selection 

process within the NWPA. The original strategy contemplated DOE choosing the best four or 

five geologic media, then selecting a best candidate site in each media alternative, then 

narrowing the choices to the best three alternatives, and finally picking a preferred site for the 

Page 1 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
80 


36643.065

first of two repositories. And while dozens of sites in dozens of states were initially under 

consideration, the site selection guidelines were strongly criticized as DOE was accused of 

selecting sites that they had previously planned to pick. And in an act that illustrated support for 

this jaundiced but unfortunately accurate view, in May of 1986 DOE announced that it was 

abandoning a search for a second repository, and it had narrowed the candidate sites from nine to 

three, leaving in the mix the Hanford Reservation in Washington (in basalt), Deaf Smith Co .. 

Texas (in bedded salt), and Yucca Mountain in Nevada (in unsaturated volcanic tuff). 

What little equity remained in the site selection process was jettisoned entirely in 1987. when the 

Congress, confronted with a potentially huge cost of characterizing three politically chosen sites, 

amended the ~WPA of 1982, directing DOE to abandon the two-repository strategy and to 

develop only the Yucca Mountain site. The abandonment of the NWPA site selection process led 

directly to the loss of support from the State of Nevada, substantially diminished Congressional 

support (except to ensure that the proposed Yucca site remains the sole site), and decreased 

public support for the Yucca Mountain project. The situation with respect to Yucca Mountain 

has only deteriorated since that time. 

b. Radiation Standards 

Radiation standards, the second track of the NWPA process has, if possible, fared worse. 

Section 121 of the NWPA of 1982 directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

establish generally applicable standards to protect the general environment from offsite releases 

from radioactive materials in repositories. and further directs the NRC to issue technical 

requirements and criteria. Unfortunately. it has been clear for years that the projected failures of 

the geologic isolation at Yucca Mountain are the determining factor in EPA's standards. 

EPA repeatedly issued standards that are concerned more with licensing the site than establishing 

protective standards. EPA's original !985 standards were vacated in part because the EPA had 

failed to fulfill its separate duty under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300h, to assure 

that underground sources of water will not be .. endangered'. by any underground injection. 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Pro/ec/ion Agency. 824 F.2d 1258 (I st Cir. 

1987). 

EPA's second attempt at setting standards that allow for a projected failure of geological 

isolation was again vacated, this time by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

The D.C. Circuit found that EPA's Yucca Mountain rule (and the corresponding NRC standard), 

which ended its period of required compliance with the terms of those rules at l 0,000 years, was 

not '"based upon or consistent with" the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences 

("NAS") as required by the 1992 Energy Policy Act and therefore must be vacated. Nuclear 

Ener;o· Institute, Inc., eta!. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251 (2004). 

However, giving significant deference to the agency, the D.C. Circuit did not vacate EPA's 

strangely configured compliance boundary for the Yucca Mountain site. See the map of EPA's 

compliance boundary, NRDC Attachment l, at the end of the document. Inside the oddly drawn 

line, the repository need not protect water quality and radiation is permitted to leak in any 

amount. The dramatically irregular line that represents the point of compliance has little 

Page 2 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
81 


36643.066

precedent in the realm of environmental protection, and its shape is perhaps more reminiscent of 

gerrymandered political districts. Rather than promulgate protective groundwater standards, EPA 

pieced together a ·•controlled area" that both anticipates and allows for a plume of radioactive 

contamination that will spread several miles from the repository toward existing farming 

communities that depend solely on groundwater and perhaps through future communities closer 

to the site. 

EPA's next proposed and revised rule, issued in 2005, retained the groundwater standards and 15 

millirem/year radiation standard for the first I 0,000 years, but then for the period after 10,000 

years it did away with the groundwater standard entirely and established a 350 millirem/year 

radiation standard. This two-tiered standard fails to comply with the law and fails to protect 

public health, especially if the repository's engineered barriers were compromised earlier than 

DOE predicts. On October 15, 2008, EPA published the final version of its revised Yucca 

Mountain rule in the Federal Register ("2008 Yucca Mountain rule," 73 Fed. Reg. 61255-

61289). The 2008 Yucca Mountain rule's two-tiered individual protection annual dose standard 

establishes an initiall5 millirem first-tier limit, but weakens that limit to' 100 millirem in the 

period after I 0,000 years, when EPA projects peak dose to occur. Again, peak dose could occur 

significantly earlier if engineered barriers fail earlier than DOE and EPA have projected. 

In any event, the final status of EPA's most recent two-tiered rule remains fundamentally 

uncertain. In an action pending in the District of Columbia Circuit (State of Nevada v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, No. 08-1327, consolidated with No. 08-1345), Nevada has 

challenged EPA's 2008 Yucca Mountain rule as once again failing to honor EPA's statutory duty 

to protect public health and safety, and to proceed consistently with the National Academy of 

Science's recommendations. 

C. Current Status & Why The Licensing Proceeding Should Not Be Resumed. 

The current status of the repository can best be described as a stalemate. The Obama 

Administration long ago decided that the project is unworkable and implemented the Blue 

Ribbon Commission for America's Nuclear Future (BRC) process from 2009 to 2012 to stat1 the 

way down another- consent based road. Such a path will, however, take legislation and a 

substantial reworking of the NWPA. In our testimony before this Committee just last month, 

NRDC proposed a set of meaningful legislative guideposts consistent with the bipartisan and 

careful recommendations of the (heavily weighted toward industry interests) BRC. 

'vVhatever course the Trump Administration takes on these matters, and at more than two years 

into the term without aggressive policy suggestions beyond attempting to garner the authority to 

reclassify high level radioactive waste in the state of Washington, we remain perplexed as to why 

we are here addressing the Yucca Mountain project, which was rightly abandoned a decade ago. 

And on a final, practical note, we urge the Committee to carefully consider our observation that 

restarting the Yucca Mountain process would be at best problematic, and likely waylay the 

process of developing a repository for years, if not forever. Without remotely straying into 

hyperbole, there are dozens of issues likely to be litigated at enormous length. One in particular 

is premised entirely on DOE's design for titanium drip shields that are supposed to sit over each 

Page 3 of12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
82 


36643.067

of the thousands of waste canisters in Yucca Mountain's underground tunnels to keep out 

corroding water. Although DOE included the drip shields as part of the repository design, and 

NRC has accepted them for license-review purposes, there is no plan to design, license, pay for, 

and much less install the shields until at least I 00 years after the waste goes in. This 

unacceptable state of affairs is detailed by former NRC Commissioner Victor Gilinsky. 1 Quite 

simply, Yucca's likely repository configuration doesn't come close to meeting 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 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 )2 And in the more than 

five years of this proceeding, only three contentions were fully litigated on their merits. not the 

more than 200 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 of ever 

developing a repository may be permanent. 

2. Title IV of the discussion draft authorizes the Secretary of Energy to negotiate a benefits 

agreement with the State of Nevada, as well as counties. Do you support providing state 

and local bene/itsfor hosting an interim storage or repository? 

Answer from NRDC: 

NRDC strongly supports a broad range of appropriate items that could constitute a benefits 

package for the locations where the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) 

will ultimately be disposed of for the next several thousand years. However, we do not 

necessarily see the need for the development of such a package with Nevada as we do not 

believe the Yucca Mountain repository will ever be licensed for the reasons we articulated above 

and at the hearing. And further, NRDC supports a benefits package for the locations where the 

spent nuclear fuel is currently held, at operating and decommissioning reactor sites. The draft 

legislation offered by Senator Duckworth on this matter is an excellent starting point in the 

conversation of how to support the reactor communities that benefitted from the power 

generation and jobs, but will continue to host the waste generated there for years to come. 

But turning to the larger point, while we believe that a benefits package is appropriate, far more 

important is altering the law as suggested in our testimony to provide the EPA and the relevant 

1 See Yucca Mountain Redux, Victor Gilinsky, Bulletin ofthe Atomic Scientist, l'ovember 5. 2014 (accessed July 

29, 20 16) !illQ;/"thebuiiJCti11Jl!.g/)'uc~;;:!!JOuntJ!in-redux780Q. 

'In the Malter a/Strata Energy. Inc., (Ross In Situ Recovery Uranium Project), Docket No. 40-9091-MLA, ASLBP 

No. 12-915-0 l-~1LA. 

Page 4 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
83 


36643.068

states the direct regulatory authority over the waste, consistent with environmental law. State 

consent and public acceptance of a nuclear waste solution will never be willingly granted unless 

and until power to make such a decision as to bow, when, and where such waste is disposed of is 

shared rather than decided by federal fiat. There is only one way that can happen consistent with 

the protective, cooperative federalism at the heart of environmental law, Specifically, Congress 

must finally end the Atomic Energy Act's (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. This will necessarily alter the federalism oversight that has been central to the failure 

oftheNWPA. 

3. The number of operating nuclear power plants is expected to drastically decrease in the 

next four years. What will happen if Congress and the Department of Energy further 

delay reconstituting a nuclear waste program and a sign{ficant number of power plants 

shut down? 

Answer from NRDC: 

Your question suggests a correlation where there is none; to wit, suggesting that the failure of the 

nuclear waste program is somehow related to the impending closure of uneconomic nuclear 

reactors. The domestic nuclear waste program has had a consensus position since at least 1957. 

when the National Academies first stated that geologic repositories were necessary and the best 

solution. NRDC concurs with the finding of the National Academics. During all those decades 

(from 1957 to the current day)- a time period that includes the construction of more than 100 

domestic commercial reactors built in this country- there has been no solution for nuclear waste. 

What was true in 1957 remains true this day. The glaring and unwise lack of a solution for 

nuclear waste has not halted or substantially perturbed the construction or operation of nuclear 

reactors in the United States. 

By contrast, what has perturbed and halted reactor constn1ction in the United States (and 

globally) are the gigantic up-front costs of building nuclear reactors and a distinct lack of 

economic competitiveness in modern energy markets. As of now, with decades of subsidies and 

protections such as the federal assumption of liability in the case of an accident and the waste 

burden that is the subject of this hearing, nuclear power represents approximately 19 percent of 

all U.S. electricity production (and 11% of production worldwide), and the U.S. nuclear plant 

fleet comprises 98 reactors at 61 facilities across 30 states. Most of the plants were designed and 

constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and almost a! I reach the end of their 60-year operating 

licenses in the 2030s and 2040s. A portion of these reactors are at risk of closing before their 

license end dates because they are no longer economical, perhaps with looming safety issues, and 

cannot compete in the marketplace, often because of the lo1v price of natural gas and renewable 

energy and in some cases due to the need to replace expensive major components. The delays 

and failures of the waste program have little to no bearing on the market failures of the nuclear 

industry. 

Page 5 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
84 


36643.069

4. Is nuclear energy a key component ta reducing carbon dioxide emissions? 

Answer from NRDC: 

To the extent the current domestic fleet operates safely and economically, we believe those 

reactors will continue to play a role in producing low carbon electricity for some indeterminate 

period of time, but we do not sec new reactors playing a key role in the near future for our 

massive need to reduce carbon with all speed. 

We concur that nuclear power's beneficial low-carbon attributes are important to consider in a 

warming world, but we must take seriously the significant safety, global security, environmental, 

and economic risks that this technology imposes on society. This reality demands stringent 

regulation of the complete nuclear fuel cycle, beginning with the mining and milling of uranium 

and ending with the final disposal of radioactive wastes. The 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in 

Japan, the worst since Chernobyl, illustrates some of these risks. Until these risks are properly 

mitigated, expanding nuclear power will not be a leading strategy for diversifying America's 

energy portfolio and reducing carbon pollution. More practical, economical, and environmentally 

sustainable approaches to reducing U.S. and global carbon emissions are available, including the 

widest possible implementation of energy efficiency throughout the economy, and the adoption 

of policies to accelerate the commercialization of clean, flexible, renewable energy technologies. 

Next, and going directly to the point of the question on the need to reduce carbon emissions, we 

don't see the nuclear industry as producing an increasing share of our low carbon needs. This is 

because perennial talk of a ''nuclear renaissance" by industry advocates has repeatedly been 

hollow. Indeed, the nuclear sector has been plagued by poor economics and renewed concern 

about nuclear safety following the Fukushima disaster. 

There are currently only two nuclear reactors under construction in the U.S., both at the troubled 

Vogtle project in Georgia. The costs of that project keep increasing, and are now estimated to top 

$28 billion, in part because of delays in construction tied to the bankruptcy of nuclear supplier 

Westinghouse. Southern Co., the plant's primary owner, scrambled to avoid having its partners 

withdraw from the project in late October and had to accept greater responsibility for any future 

cost overruns. A similar project under construction in South Carolina, V.C. Summer, was 

scrapped by that state last year as costs skyrocketed. No other applications are pending to build a 

new reactor. 

Thus, at best, the future of nuclear energy in the United States is uncertain. The existing and 

aging reactors are in decline, not economically competitive in many instances, and unlikely to be 

replaced by nuclear options in any near-term scenario. More pointedly, entrepreneurial projects 

promoting alternate reactor designs such as small modular, molten salt, liquid metal, hightemperature gas-cooled, and pebble bed reactors currently lack data from a design prototype by 

which to rigorously evaluate their safety, reliability, and economics. The recent fate of the 

nuclear start-up company Transatomic Power is a cautionary tale: this alternate reactor design, 

Page 6 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
85 


36643.070

once heralded as an important tool to mitigate climate change, was instead exposed as based on 

engineering miscalculations, and the company folded 3 

To the extent that new nuclear reactor design projects go forward with public money, NRDC has 

five prescriptions for such federal programs: give priority to solving the nuclear waste problem; 

learn from mistakes in recent nuclear construction; consistently apply a nuclear weapons 

proliferation test to advanced nuclear designs; consider the full impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle 

associated with advanced nuclear reactors, including severe accidents; and get clarity on the 

economic competitiveness for advanced nuclear designs early on. 

5. Does a Federal government nuclear waste management program increase public 

confidence in nuclear energy generally? 

Answer from NRDC: 

NRDC respectfully suggests that attributing the failures of the federal nuclear waste management 

program to certain Senators, to Nevada Governors of both parties, to NRC Commissioners, and 

even to the public for failing to accept its part in disposing of nuclear waste, does not increase 

confidence in nuclear energy. As we detailed in our testimony. the failure here has many parents, 

and chief among them were efforts to weaken environmental standards rather than strengthen 

them. and always to ensure the site would be licensed, no matter the end result. These are actions 

that decrease pub! ic confidence in nuclear energy and its attendant harms. 

Altering the current unsound legal framework to ensure that the nuclear industry complies with 

strong. protective, and comprehensive environmental laws as laid out in our testimony (NRDC 

May I Testimony, at 6-14), would undoubtedly assist the public perception of nuclear energy. 

Ranking Member Carper: 

Please provide a response to each question, including each sub-part. 

6. During the hearing, we talked briefly about the successful siting of the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant, WJPP, in New Mexico, which today accepts mid-level defense waste. You 

mentioned that the state was able to maintain control of the site by using its authorities 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovel}' Act (RCRA). 

a. Please elaborate why RCRA authority helped the state and local community to be 

willing to accept WIPP? 

b. Today, could a state >vith a site designated as a high-level waste depositorv have 

the same authority under RCRA as New lvfexico has with W!PP'! 

c. What changes to current law, ifany, would be needed to allow a state to have 

such authority? 

1 Temple, J. "Nuclear Energy Startup Transatomic Backtracks on Key Promises." (2017). 

Page 7 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
86 


36643.071

NRDC Answer: 

Answer to a. Please elaborate why RCRA authority helped the state and local 

community to be willing to accept WIPP? 

As a starting point to answer your multi-part question, as we are sure you are aware, most federal 

environmental laws expressly exclude "source. special nuclear and byproduct material" from the 

scope of health, safety, and environmental regulation by EPA or the states, leaving the field to 

DOE and NRC. In the absence of clear language in those statutes authorizing EPA (or states 

where appropriate) to regulate the environmental and public health impacts of radioactive waste. 

DOE retains broad authority over its vast amounts of radioactive waste, with EPA and state 

regulators then only able to push for stringent cleanups on the margins of the process. 

Specifically, this means states have exerted what control they can over DOE cleanups and 

nuclear waste sites (such as the Hanford site in Washington or WIPP in New Mexico) via their 

RCRA authority, pursuant to which states can control the regulation of the hazardous component 

of mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. RCRA allows states to apply 

for EPA authorization to administer a hazardous waste program. 42 U.S.C. § 6926(b). In order to 

receive this authorization, a state hazardous waste program must be "equivalent" to the RCRA 

Subtitle C (42 U.S.C. §§ 6921-6939c) program established by EPA, must be "consistent" with 

the federal and state programs applicable in other states, and must provide for ·'adequate 

enforcement." !d. The state-issued requirements authorized by EPA operate in lieu of equivalent 

federally-issued requirements in the federal program, and the authorized requirements become 

requirements ofRCRA Subtitle C. 42 U.S.C. § 6926(b); 40 C.F.R. pt. 271. States may adopt 

requirements that are more stringent than federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 6929. 

EPA has authorized the State of New Mexico to administer its hazardous waste program in lieu 

ofRCRA,4 but this is an area with a long history of fraught litigation. We need not recite it all, 

but succinctly, the State of New Mexico was only able to establish its RCRA authority over the 

WIPP site in the mid-l990s after ferocious litigation. See, New Mexico v. Watkins, 969 F.2d 

1122 (DC. Cir. 1992). And to the extent there is any meaningful public acceptance of the 

continuance of WIPP operations (especially after the fire and explosion of2014),5 it is via the 

state's ability to halt operations and shut the site down for cleanup operations to protect workers 

and the environment, pursuant to the powers I is ted in the paragraph above. Indeed, the 2012 

BRC Report discusses New Mexico's etTorts to regulate aspects of WIPP under RCRA as a 

critical positive element in the development of the currently active site (BRC Final Report at 21 ). 

'

1 It should be noted, however, that Section 9(a) ofthe WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. Public Law 102-579. as 

amended, exempts WJPP from compliance with the RCRA land disposal restrictions. See also, 

h!.!.i2~!/v, ww.env,run.gov!hll.~dous-wastrthazarq.illJ§-w~~tt!.:.[gY.kilion-anQ-authorl?.\3tion/. 

5 See e.g., ,Vue/ear acciden/ in New Mexico ranks among !he costliest in U.S history. Ralph Vartabedian, Los 

Angeles Times, Aug. 22,2016, found online at !:ll!ns:ilw;yl:'!.,lati[lles.corn!nation/la·na·rrew-me:'\ico-nuclear-dump-

~PJJ).illli9..:.>.nap·storY.J:!lmj. 

Page 8 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
87 


36643.072

Answer to b. Today, could a state with a site designated as a high-level waste depository 

have the same authority under RCRA as New }vfexico has with WIPP7 

A state could attempt to assert such authority, but considering DOE's and NRC's aggressive usc 

of their preemptive authority with respect to radioactivity, we would expect years, if not decades, 

of contentious litigation on the precise contours of that asserted state authority. What the final 

result of those years of litigation would be, at this juncture we wouldn't hazard a guess. Bluntly, 

as we have seen for decades, states can attempt to consult with NRC and DOE, but the agencies 

can, and will, assert preemptive authority where they see tit. This has happened time and again at 

both commercial and DOE nuclear facilities. This outdated regulatory scheme is the focal point 

of the distrust that has poisoned federal and state relationships involved in managing and 

disposing of HLW and spent nuclear fuel, with resulting significant impacts on public health and 

the environment. 

Answer to c. i¥hat changes to current law. if any, vvould be needed to allow a state to 

have such authority? 

A meaningful and appropriate role for states in nuclear waste storage and disposal siting can be 

accomplished in a straightforward manner by amending the AEA to remove its express 

exemptions of radioactive material from environmental laws. The exemptions of radioactivity 

make it, in effect, a privileged pollutant. Exemptions from the Clean Water Act and RCRA are at 

the foundation of state and, we submit, even fellow federal agency distrust of both commercial 

and government-run nuclear complexes. Removing the exemptions would make the treatment of 

radioactive waste consistent with every other bedrock environmental law. If EPA and the states 

had full legal authority and could treat radionuclides as they do other pollutants under 

environmental law, clear cleanup standards could be promulgated, and the Nation could be much 

farther along in remediating the toxic legacy of the Cold War. Further, we could likely avoid 

some of the ongoing legal and regulatory disputes over operations at commercial nuclear 

facilities. 

7. Besides providing states the opportunity to have more control over a repository. are there 

any other aspects of a consent based process including incemives -which you think 

would be critical for success in siting a new permanent high-level waste repository 

location? 

NRDC Answer: 

As we noted above, the draft legislation offered by Senator Duckworth on this matter is an 

excellent starting point in the conversation of how to support the reactor communities that 

benefitted from the power generation and jobs, but will continue to host the waste generated 

there for years to come. But to be precise, it's not simply '"more control" for states that is 

necessary. Indeed, states have literally no control under the current process and must avail 

themselves of a wide array of techniques to fend off becoming the unwilling recipient of the 

entire store of the nation's spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. If EPA and the states had 

full legal authority and could treat radionuclides as they do other pollutants under environmental 

law, clear cleanup standards could be promulgated and states could negotiate from a position of 

Page 9 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
88 


36643.073

power on what terms, what amounts, and in what manner this national challenge could be met. 

Until we solve that part of the equation, we have 50 years of evidence the waste will remain right 

where it is dangerous, above ground, and in the human environment. 

8. Do you agree that the nalion should be looking to have multiple permanent high-level 

waste repositories across the country- rather than one central location? If' so, why.> 

NRDC Answer: 

Yes, NRDC agrees that the nation should look at multiple sites across the country. But with that 

thought in mind. we have a sequencing caution that accompanies this answer. 

To avoid repeating failures of past decades and consistent with the bipartisan BRC 

recommendations, both the standards for site screening and development criteria must be in final 

form bej'ore any sites are considered. Generic radiation and environmental protection standards 

must also be established prior to consideration of sites. To give this recommendation explicit and 

simple context, Senator Bingaman's 2012 legislative effort (S.3469, specifically in Sections 304, 

305. and 306) set in place some of the necessary structures that could avoid repeating the failure 

of the Yucca Mountain process. Specifically, the bill would have directed EPA to adopt, by rule, 

broadly applicable standards for the protection of the general environment from offsite releases 

of radioactive material from geologic repositories. The bill also directed NRC to then amend its 

regulations governing the licensing of geological repositories to be consistent with any relevant 

standard adopted by EPA. Further, embedded in Senator Bingaman's bill was the requirement 

that the polluters pay the bill for the contamination created. This bipartisan concept has long 

history as bedrock American law and must remain in full force in any legislation. 

These requirements and this phasing of agency actions in Senator Bingaman's bill were 

appropriate (i.e., first EPA sets the standards and then NRC ensures its licensing process meets 

those standards) and we have recommended how to expand and improve on this coherent legal 

framework by removing the environmental exemptions in the AEA. But in any event, it is key 

that a coherent legal framework be in place before siting decisions get made. Unfortunately, 

recent iterations of nuclear waste legislation, including this Discussion Draft, ignore this wise 

sequencing, thus ignoring BRC's recommendation that new, applicable rules be in final form 

before site(s) selection. 

9. Some have suggested !hat the Department of Energy should no longer have authority 

over our nation's permanent high-level nuclear waste repository. Do you agree with that 

view, and, if so, who should have the auLhority? {j'youfeel afedera/ corporation should 

have the authority, what guardrails are needed to ensure that safety and :ilates' rights are 

preserved in the siting of a permanent high-level waste repository? 

NRDC Answer: 

We will answer the last question first what guardrails are needed to ensure that safety and 

states· rights are preserved in the siting ol a permanent high-level waste repository- by stating 

Page 10 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
89 


36643.074

that a coherent legal framework must be in place before siting decisions get made and reiterating 

that EPA and the states must have RCRA authority over radioactivity, as we described in our 

testimony. 

Further, we have not fully formed our opinion on whether DOE should no longer have authority 

over the repository program. We believe a federal entity accountable to bedrock environmental 

laws and to Congress must be in place to run the program. Whether that entity is at DOE or, for 

example, a new federal agency that is governed by a board of directors, is an issue we think can 

be addressed after the fundamentalllaws in the NWPA are dealt with. In any case, the success of 

any legislative outcomes wi II depend on a consensus process that includes- ( l) recognizing that 

repositories must remain the focus of any legislative effort; (2) creating a coherent legal 

framework before commencing any geologic repository or interim storage site development 

process; (3) arriving at a consent-based approach for nuclear waste storage and disposal via a 

fundamental change in law; ( 4) addressing storage in a phased manner; and (5) excluding 

polarizing closed fuel cycle and reprocessing options from this effort to implement the interim 

storage and ultimate disposal missions. 

10. Are there examples that we can learn from the high-level waste management experiences 

of other countries such as Sweden and Finland- that could help us with our nuclear 

waste issues in this country? 

NRDC Answer: 

Without a doubt, we can always learn from the experiences (and parallel failures) of other 

countries, and this is especially true with respect to scientific analyses of geologic media, 

engineered barriers, waste forms, protective and useful canisters, and transportation. But the 

nuclear waste challenges faced by the United States are uniquely difficult due to the sheer 

expanse and legacies of our commercial sector and nuclear weapons program, overlaid by a 

federal system of states with sovereign power that can and will challenge the power of the 

federal government. As we noted in our testimony, state consent and public acceptance of a 

nuclear waste solution will never be willingly granted unless and until power to make such a 

decision as to how, when, and where such waste is disposed of is shared rather than decided by 

federal fiat. This is a peculiarly American challenge and the one way that it can happen 

consistent with the protective, cooperative federalism that rests at the heart of our domestic 

environmental law is for Congress to finally end the AEA's exemptions from environmental law. 

11. Nuclear waste policy has divided this country for far too long. Having listened to others 

on the witness panel during the hearing, would you provide this Committee with one 

course olaction where there is agreement among the panel members? 

NRDC Answer: 

There were a few areas where there was important agreement among the panel members. One 

example was where Xcel's witness, Mr. O'Connor, stated the company's intent to "be carbonfree by 2050 ... and to achieve 100 percent, we think that maintaining a technology-neutral or 

Page 11 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
90 


36643.075

open to all technologies, included advanced nuclear, provided it is affordable and provides the 

needs, it is dispatchable in the way that our grid needs it, would be usetlil." See Hearing 

Transcript at 42, 43. NRDC is in full agreement with and support of this goal, regardless of our 

differing views on the likely pathways for a I 00 percent carbon free goal to be met. For a view of 

NRDC's understanding of the pathways to a carbon free future, please see our Pathways report 6 

Another example is our common understanding of the profound technical challenges associated 

with the disposal of nuclear waste. Senator Capito, looking for consistency among the panelists, 

asked the following: "since the Act was first passed in 1982 and Yucca was designated in the late 

1980s, the technology of actually storage, according to what I understood Mr. Fettus to say, has 

not technically changed over that period oftime. Could you talk about that a little bit? Is it going 

to get any easier, is my question." Hearing Transcript at 60. Mr. O'Connor responded,"! would 

agree that the canisters and the storage that we currently do today is not significantly different. 

Canisters have become a little bit, I would say, different in design, but fundamentally they are 

principally the same. Senator Capito.'' !d. at 60, 61. Mr. O'Donnell responded, "Thank you, 

Senator. I have nothing really to add on that. I think it is essentially the same." ld., at 61. If we 

can agree on the technical particulars of what's facing us, that is at least an important starting 

point and a statement of shared understanding. 

6 See America ·s Clean Energy Frontier: The Path11·ay Ia a Safer Clitnale Fulure, Vignesh Gowrishankar & Amanda 

Levin, September 19) 2017, fOund online at hHQli~.:'l!YY!_!v.nn;J£:J1I&-ig,suur~-~5@m~rk_l;1~:£.!~U:~~ngrEt:fronti§[: 

uathlYlU:2~f~~..fJjrrlili.g~_fut u r~. 

Page 12 of 12 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, June 6, 2019 
91 


36643.076

NRDC Attachment 1 

Projected Groundwater Standards Compliance Boundary for Spread 

of Radioactive Contamination at the Yucca Mountain Project 

Measurement of Radioactive Contamination Takes Place Outside of Controlled Area 
92 


36643.084

NROC 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on a Discussion Draft Bill, S. __ , Nuclear fVaste 

Policy Amendments Act 11{2019" 

May 1, 2019 

Additional Questions for the Record for Mr. Fettus (in italics) 

Responses from Mr. Fcttus Timely Filed .July 17,2019 

Senator Markey: 

I. What steps would you take to improve sa{ety and security standard~ji1r the transport of' 

nuclear waste hy rail:' 

A. How old are the current rail sa{ety standardsji1r nuclear waste:' 

B. Do you think that the current slandardsfi!r spent nuc/earfiiel sl11jJping 

containers, which specify thai packages must be a hie to survive a 30:/i!ot drop 

and a 30-minule{tre. are sufficient to prorect against modern tran.IJmrt 

accidents> 

Answer from NRDC: 

A. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) updated its analysis of high-level waste and 

spent nuclear fuel transport risk in 2014 ("Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment:· 

NUREG 2125 (Jan. 2014)), and the transport accident standards in 10 CFR §7!.73 were 

last updated in 2004. NRC updated security requirements for high-level waste transport 

in 2013. 1 

B. No. The current standards in some respects are unrealistic. NRDC has not recently 

commissioned an analysis from a transportation expert, as we currently do not see the 

substantial likelihood of an impending interim or long-term repository option, thus we are 

not investing our scarce resources in such an analysis at this time. However, we are aware 

of substantial and credible controversy over the adequacy of the system. For nearly two 

decades, the State of Nevada has raised serious concerns about the adequacy of the 

1 See, Physical Protection of Irradiated Reactor Fuel in Transit, 78 Fed. Reg. 29520, ;'vlay 20,2013. found online at 

hllps:!www.govinfuJmyc_<;Q!l)<;JljipJig:tJ\:c£Q.Ll:!L':}"\1'pdL'?Q_U.::.! I 717.pdf. 

Page 1 of6 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, .July 17,2019 
93 


36643.085

current standards on just the issues you note above 2 The updates in 2004, 2013 and 2014 

by the NRC in no way addressed all of the concerns raised by Nevada and others. 

Indeed, as President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission for America's Nuclear Future 

noted in its 2012 report, ''the current set of transport-related regulations will need to be 

updated to accommodate changes in fueling practices. Moreover, past performance does 

not guarantee that future transport operations will match the record to date, particularly as 

the logistics involved expand to accommodate a much larger number of shipments.'' BRC 

Final Report at xiii. 

To cite just a few of the meaningful criticisms that will need substantial updates andreanalysis long before shipments could ever be ramped up; are the scenarios- and any 

associated modeling and testing of accidents -conservative in term of routes and potential 

mishaps':' Here. we urge conservatism with respect to analysis of casks falling from 

substantial heights, accidents caused by high speed. casks being submerged for long 

pet·iods, and casks subject to fires and high heat (such as tunnel incidents). Indeed, we 

have specific concerns that the standards do not explicitly require physical testing3 

All of this will need substantial reworking to ensure the public health and environment 

will be protected in the event we finally do get a repository program (and thus a massive 

potential ramping up in the number of shipments) back on track. 

Senator Markey: 

2. Residents around the countrv with decommissioned or soon-to-close nuclear plants are 

grappling with the threat of indefinite storage of nuclear waste within their communities 

to which !hey did no/ con.s·enl. How would your nuclear was/e management proposal, as 

laid out in your testimony. seek to address lhese concerns:' 

Answer from NRDC: 

With the evidence of fifty years of failure to develop a meaningful solution for nuclear waste, we 

hope to put all of that in the rear-view mirror with our proposal that is, essentially, amending 

2 See Letter from !\evada Governor Guinn to the Honorable Senator Harry Reid, regarding a report entitled. 

''Radiological Consequences q(.)'en're Rail. lccidents fnvoh·ing Spent .\"uclear Fuel S'hipments to rucca }foun!ain 

!lypothetical Baltimore Rail Tunnel Fire Sue/ear Fuel," Found online at 

JJ1!1L:.~~,~.\',V(.~Lill~o!:!'L~~~-:.n!J9.Y\·a~J.~ .. ~l~~~:~,2_P9.! The referenced report can be found online at 

hHJ2~i~:~~!~C·.~·)itf.!t~.: I.!.Y:J.l5/ n Uf_\'!'Jl5.! ~· q~ ~ys_~_D(lL' D D L! 12.2 JJ1!TI· 

3 See NRC "Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment," NUREG 2125 at 9 (Jan. 2014) ("The tests are performed 

on a package design (either physically using a full·scale prototype or sub-scale test unit, or via computational 

modeling), but not on every package that will be used to transport SNF. A package designer may create computer 

models to evaluate the performance of a package design or components of the package design, build full-size or 

scale model packages for physical testing, or incorporate references to previous satisfactory demonstrations of a 

similar nature. ln practice, the safety analysis performed for Type B packages often incorporates a combination of 

physical testing. computer mode-ling. and engineering evaluation.''}. 

Page 2 of6 

!'iRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, July 17, 2019 
94 


36643.086

the AEA to remove its express exemptions of radioactive material from environmental laws. The 

exemptions of radioactivity make it, in effect, a privileged pollutant. Exemptions from the Clean 

Water Act and RCRA are at the foundation of state and, we submit, even fellow federal agency 

distrust of both commercial and government-run nuclear complexes. Removing the exemptions 

would make the treatment of radioactive waste consistent with every other bedrock 

environmental law. 

Specifically, normalizing the treatment of nuclear waste with environmental laws by expanding 

the reach of hazardous waste laws to include radioactivity would not simply offer ''more control" 

for states, although that is necessary. What it would start to rectify, impotiantly, is the reality that 

states have literally no control under the current process and must avail themselves of a wide 

array of techniques to fend off becoming the unwilling recipient of the entire store of the nation's 

spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. If EPA and the states had full legal authority and 

could treat radionuclides as they do other pollutants under environmental law, clear cleanup 

standards could be promulgated and states could negotiate from a position of power on what 

terms, what amounts. and in what manner this national challenge could be met. Simply put. 

states could trust that they could agree to accept a specific pmiion of the nation's nuclear waste 

without fearing that they would open the door to the entire expanse of the burden. 

Indeed, one could imagine as a first step delegated states requiring better and more protective 

storage configurations (say, for example. not directly on the beach/shoreline in California) than 

what is currently allowed for. But crucially, to avoid the mistakes of the past and address the 

communities' concerns in your question, NRDC strongly urge that we give these communities 

confidence that the repository program is on track and looking at multiple sites around the 

country, but in a way that supports equitable, sound and careful solutions. Thus, we have a 

sequencing caution that accompanies this answer. 

To avoid repeating failures of past decades and consistent with the bipatiisan 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, To give this recommendation explicit and 

simple context, Senator Bingaman's 2012 legislative effort (S.3469. specifically in Sections 304, 

305. and 306) set in place some of the necessary structures that could avoid repeating the failure 

of the Yucca Mountain process. Specifically, the bill would have directed EPA to adopt, by rule. 

broadly applicable standards for the protection of the general environment from offsite releases 

of radioactive material from geologic repositories. The bill also directed NRC to then amend its 

regulations governing the licensing of geological repositories to be consistent with any relevant 

standard adopted by EPA. Further, embedded in Senator Bingaman's bill was the requirement 

that the polluters pay the bill for the contamination created. This bipartisan concept has long 

history as bedrock American law and must remain in full force in any legislation, 

These requirements and this phasing of agency actions in Senator Bingaman's bill were 

appropriate (i.e., first EPA sets the standards and then NRC ensures its licensing process meets 

Page 3 of 6 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, July 17,2019 
95 


36643.087

those standards) and we have recommended how to expand and improve on this coherent legal 

framework by removing the environmental exemptions in the Atomic Energy Act. But in any 

event, it is key that a coherent legal framework be in place before siting decisions get made. 

As a later step, after the passage of strong site screening and development criteria and associated 

radiation and environmental protection standards, one could envision a process for regional 

repositories where not all but some significant portion of the country's nuclear waste would be 

disposed of permanently. A state might negotiate and ultimately assent to such a thing because 

unlike now, that state would. consistent with a strict and protective regime of federal 

environmental law, have the ability to limit, halt, and restrict whatever amount of nuclear waste 

in question according to a precise set of protective terms. And it could do so with the clear 

understanding and with unstinting confidence that it would not, no matter what. become the 

unwilling recipient for all the nation's nuclear waste. Until we solve this institutional part of the 

equation. we have 50 years of evidence the waste will remain right where it is- dangerous. 

above ground. and in the human environment. 

Thus, we are confident the imposition of environmental laws on nuclear waste will lead to 

improved protections for the communities that host the waste during the pendency of years the 

waste will remain in place. at reactors. Our proposal will also provide important leverage to 

ensure transition assistance is available as the nuclear industry continues to decommission more 

and more of the domestic reactor fleet. And on a final note. NRDC supports a benefits package 

for the locations where the spent nuclear fuel is currently held, at operating and 

decommissioning reactor sites. The draft legislation offered by Senator Duckworth on this matter 

is an excellent starting point in the conversation of how to support the reactor communities that 

benefitted from the power generation andjobs but will continue to host the waste generated there 

for years to come. 

Senator Markey: 

3. The Pilgrim Nuclear Plan! in Plymouth, Massachuse/ls announced that it would move its 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISF~'\1) to a sitefarther awayfrom the 

coastline, following concerns over the potentia/for climate impacts and sea level rise to 

ajji?ctthe integrity of the dry casks. Do you believe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

is sufficiently considering climate projections in its approval and impection process. and 

if' not. how could it better integrate climate science? 

Answer from NRDC: 

No, the NRC is not sufficiently considering climate projections in its approval and inspection 

process. We have several examples of this, but one is in active litigation before the Commission 

and the Atomic Safety & l.icensing Board. so we will not go into detail on those matters. Suffice 

to say that the NRC could and should better integrate rapidly developing climate science if it 

dramatically reworked its environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Page 4 of6 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, July 17, 2019 
96 


36643.088

42 U.S.C. §4321. e/ seq .. to include a thorough review of sea level rise impacts and direct water 

impacts. Notably. about two-thirds of the thermal energy produced in a nuclear reactor is 

discharged to the environment as waste heat,'1 frequently pushing temperatures in receiving lakes 

and rivers beyond both their ecological carrying capacities and legal limits on the temperature of 

the receiving waters 5 Also, conversely, a nuclear reactor can also consume water more 

intensively than any other power generation technology-at the rate of2400 gallons per million 

BTU6 These impacts, in an overheating, carbon constrained world, pose serious potential 

problems and the agency has shown little inclination to seriously grapple with them. 

Turning to the recent developments at the Pilgrim site in your home state. the new Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) site will increase spent fuel storage capacity. elevation 

and distance from the shoreline. which we depict in the image below. ·rhe image also includes 

various sea level rise scenarios. Under a 1.5C global warming scenario (RCP4.5). which we are 

not expected to meet, mean sea level is expected to see a rise between 0.62ft to !.08ft by 2065. 

In the image provided, a I ft sea level rise is indicated in dark red. Nonetheless. this image does 

not take into consideration storm surge. From 2015 analysis from the Union of Concern 

Scientists, local intense precipitation events can result in flooding up to 23.5 feet above mean sea 

level in the north and west sides of the plant, up to 25.2ft above mean sea level in the south sides 

of the plant. As the existing ISFSI pad sits just 25ft above mean sea level. moving the site's spent 

nuclear fuel to the proposed location is wise. 

4 David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists, Got !Fater? at 2, (2007), found online at 

https://www. ucsusa.org/ sites/ de f au It/ fi I es/legacy I assets/ documents/ n uc I ear __ power/200 7 1204 ~ucs~brief~gotwater. pdf. 

:, See generally Pollution Issues. Thermal Pollution, ll.Un:it\V\Vw.po!!utionissues.com/l'c-L'rvThcrmai-Pol!uti~.Jn.html. 

6 Tamim Younos et al., Va. Polytechnic lnst. & State Univ .. Va. Water Res. Research Ctr.. Water Dependency of 

Energy Production And Power Generation Systems. 8 Tbl.4 (2009). 

Page 5 of6 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, July 17,2019 
97 


36643.089

Pilgrim Nuclear Station 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Sites 

Page 6 of6 

NRDC Responses to Questions for the Record, July 17,2019 
98 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for joining the panel 

and for your thoughtful testimony today. 

Prior to asking questions, I am asking first unanimous consent 

to enter into the record, No. 1, a Washington Post editorial entitled 

Put Yucca Mountain to work. The nation needs it. Second, a Chicago Tribune editorial entitled Revive Yucca Mountain: Illinois has 

more nuclear waste than any other State, all of it in temporary 

storage. And the third, an L.A. Times editorial entitled, There’s no 

great answer for nuclear waste, but almost anything is better than 

perching it on the Pacific. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

99 


36643.077

The Washington Post 

The Post's View Opinion 

Put Yucca Mountain to work. The nation needs it. 

By Editorial Board 

July 15, 2017 

ENERGY SECRETARY Rick Perry traveled to Capitol Hill last month, asking Congress for 

$28 billion in funding for evef}thing from nuclear weapons to clean-coal research. Yet one of 

the most controversial elements in his department's budget proposal was a request for a 

relatively tiny $120 million- to restart work on Nevada's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 

storage site. 

Congress decided in the 1980s that Yucca was to be the permanent home of the countl)''s large 

and increasing pile of spent nuclear fuel. In a forbidding desert landscape about 100 miles 

outside Las Vegas, the site would appear to be an ideal choice for an unbreachable underground 

vault. The federal government spent more than $15 billion studying the place. Just a couple of 

years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the facility would be technically 

sound, considering everything from seismic activity to accidental human intrusion, on time 

scales of up to a million years. Locals in Nye County, which would stand to benefit from 

employment related to the site, are on board. 

But practically everyone else in Nevada opposes the Yucca project, and state leaders have waged 

a so-far successful not-in-my-back-yard campaign, even though federal law is clear that the site 

is to be the nation's nuclear waste storehouse. The state has denied the Energy Department the 

water rights it would need to build the depository. For years, then-Senate Majority Leader 

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) successfully blocked funding for its development, with the help of 

President Barack Obama, who made an exception for swing-state Nevada from his pledge to 

run a science-based administration. 

With Mr. Reid and Mr. Obama both retired, the Trump administration and GOP leaders are 

trying to revive the project. Work is furthest along in the House, where a bill jump-starting 

Yucca's approval is advancing quickly. Yet it faces a tough road: Nevada's congressional 

delegation will fight it tooth-and-nail. 
100 


36643.078

It's past time the opposition was sidelined for good. The nation's nuclear regulators have found 

that technic<tl hurdles can be overcome; the biggest barriers to developing the site are political. 

Congress should re-fund Yucca Mountain and finally end this gratuitous fight. 

But that is hardly all lawmakers need to do. No matter what happens with Yucca, the country 

should move its stocks of waste, which have piled up at nuclear plants, to interim storage sites, 

where they will be secured more safely and cheaply while the permanent depository is 

permitted and constructed. With the messy Yucca process in mind, an Obama-era blue-ribbon 

commission on nuclear waste recommended enticing localities to volunteer to host waste sites 

with the significant economic benefits that such facilities can bring to isolated communities. 

Though perhaps few places would volunteer, a cooperative approach could result in a smoother 

process and is worth a try. Congress has considered legislation along these lines before. It 

should do so again. 

The nation's nuclear power plants generate massive amounts of electricity with practically no 

carbon dioxide emissions. Answer the waste question, and the technology v.illlook all the more 

valuable. 

Read more: 

Letters to the Editor: Yucca Mountain is an ideal site for nuclear disposal 

The Post's View: Back to Yucca Mountain 

Letters to the Edi~or: Refueling the Yucca Mountain debate 

The Post's View: A bankruptcy that's bad news for climate policy 

Jennifer Rubin: Things just got worse for the GOP's weakest senator 

0 23 Comments 
101 


36643.079

Editorial: Revive Yucca Mountain: Illinois 

has more nuclear waste than any other state, 

all of it in temporary storage 

The Yucca Mountain nuclear waster storage facility in Nevada is back In the news vlith President Donald Trump's budget 

proposal including $120 million to revive the project (Isaac Breekken I AP 2006) 

By Editorial Board 

APRiL 11, 2017, 5-14 PM 

I t has been 30 years since Congress designated ~evada'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. 

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 hlr 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. 
102 


36643.080

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 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 re~;ve it. Because if they don't, we're all screwed. 
103 


36643.081

Los Angeles Times 

There's no great answer for nuclear waste, but almost anything is better than perching it 

on the Pacific 

By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD 

SEP 11,2017 

One of the great failures in U.S. energy policy was that we've never figured out what to do with 

the lethally radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. That's why the owners of the 

decommissioned San Onofre nuclear plant have had little choice but to keep their spent fuel rods 

on site, bundled up in concrete bunkers at the edge of the Pacific Ocean, dangerously close to an 

earthquake fault and millions of people- and hope for the best until the federal government 

finds a good place to put the deadly waste. 

The feds don't have one yet, but developments in court and in the marketplace could help move 

San Onofre's waste somewhere considerably less risky. As part of a legal settlement earlier this 

month, Southern California Edison, which is the majority owner of the shuttered nuclear power 

plant, promised to make a good-faith effort to find a safer home for the 3.55 million pounds of 

nuclear waste at the plant. That's a welcome shift for the company, which has been focused on 

moving its spent fuel rods into safer containers on-site. 

And unlike in the past, it may have several choices for where to send the waste. Although there 

still are no federally licensed nuclear waste dumps, despite the billions of dollars ratepayers have 

paid to fund them, as of this year there are two proposals for temporary storage sites that could 

conceivably be ready for business by the early 2020s. 

When it comes to waste that's going to remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. there 

are no great solutions. 

The most promising is an underground facility in the southeast corner of New Mexico, 35 miles 

from any significant population center, operated by Holtec International, the nuclear storage 

company that makes the dry storage casks used currently by San Onofre. If there are no hitches 

in licensing, it could be ready to store spent nuclear fuel in about five years. That would 

incidentally be good timing for California's last operating nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, which is 

set to shut down its last reactor in 2025. 

Another proposed short-term site is in Andrews, Texas, operated by Waste Control Specialists 

and currently storing low-level radioactive waste. But its prospects are less certain. Earlier this 

year the company put on hold its application to expand into high-level nuclear waste, citing 

financial reasons. Meanwhile, public opposition to the proposed expansion had been growing. 

A third option is the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in the Arizona desert about 50 miles 

from Phoenix. At the moment, Palo Verde holds a permit to store its own waste on site, but 

Edison is a part owner of the plant and presumably could have some sway in the decision to seek 

an expanded waste storage permit. 
104 


36643.082

That there are real options at last for off-site storage is heartening. Although the nuclear waste at 

San Onofre is about as safe as it could be, the storage containers used aren't designed for longterm storage. Yet any longer-term option will require tremendous political will to achieve. 

Having Edison contributing to that effort certainly can't hurt. 

As for truly permanent storage, the U.S. Department of Energy's proposed Yucca Mountain site 

in Nevada still appears to be the safest place in the country for a permanent nuclear repository, 

though even if all the stars aligned it would take decades to open. The federal government needs 

to renew its efforts to bring the Yucca Mountain site into operation. 

Doing so. however, will be a political challenge. After the federal government sunk $11 billion 

into the site's development, President Obama halted work in 20 I 0 as a favor to then-Senate 

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). And though the GOP generally seems more open to the 

project, Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller vociferously opposes it. Nevadans don't generally 

like the idea of having nuclear waste in their state, but even they would have to concede that the 

remote and dry location built deep into a mountain is a better spot for radioactive material than in 

the middle of a seismically active population center. 

Granted, when it comes to waste that's going to remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years, 

there are no great solutions. But there are certainly better ones than continuing to hold more than 

70,000 tons of nuclear fuel at about 120 operating and decommissioned nuclear plants across the 

country in facilities never intended for long-term storage, then hoping for the best. 
105 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I apologize, I missed the 

intro, and I just wanted to welcome all the witnesses, but particularly Commissioner Anthony O’Donnell from the State of Maryland. 

He is serving on our Commission, but he also served with great 

distinction in the Maryland General Assembly, where we both 

served. 

I apologize for the interruption, I have been bouncing around between different hearings, and I thank you for the opportunity. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. You, too, Senator; thank you for the welcome. 

Senator BARRASSO. We appreciate the comments, and 8 years of 

naval service as well, the time that he spent in the legislature and 

on the Environment and Public Works Committee in the legislature. And then, Senator Van Hollen, I also pointed out his commitment to the Chesapeake Bay, an area that we on the Committee— 

you and certainly Senator Cardin, the other Maryland Senator— 

have been focused on as well. 

Mr. O’Connor, Xcel intends to eliminate all carbon dioxide emissions from its electricity generation by 2050. That is the stated 

goal. Would your company include advanced nuclear energy to 

achieve that goal, if it is cost competitive? Is it part of the process? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Yes, Chairman Barrasso, we would. Our focus is 

to be carbon-free by 2050, as you stated, and I stated. We would 

like to be 80 percent by 2030. To achieve that, we need our existing 

nuclear plants, and to achieve 100 percent, we think that maintaining a technology neutral or open to all technologies, included advanced nuclear, provided it is affordable and provides the needs, it 

is dispatchable in the way that our grid needs it, would be useful. 

Senator BARRASSO. Will it be more difficult, though, to add advanced nuclear energy if Washington doesn’t re-establish a waste 

program? Would that make it more difficult for you to do the 

things, your goal, that you are trying to achieve? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Yes, Chairman, I believe that not advancing fuel 

in any manner is probably going to create a block for nuclear being 

used as any kind of a form in terms of achieving that goal. I think 

that particularly to be true with some of the issues in Minnesota. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. O’Donnell, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain 

license application for review. They did that in 2008. The law required the Commission to approve or deny the application within 

4 years. 

The discussion draft amends the law to provide for an additional 

3 years for the Commission to complete the licensing process. Government Accountability Office reported the Commission could complete the process within this timeframe. 

Do you agree with these findings? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Senator, I do. 

Mr. Chairman, the Government Accountability Office in 2017 

took a very deep look at the cost to the American taxpayers, and 

took a very deep look at what it was costing us in terms of loss 

and aging out of our experience in these matters. So we are losing 

a lot of people from DOE that are involved, and we are losing a 

lot of expertise from the NRC that is involved. To reset the clock 

is going to make it even worse. 

106 

So they extended 3 years, but they also say, we have to get moving on this licensing process. I would just add parenthetically that 

if our commission, as a commissioner speaking from Maryland, 

were to stop a licensing process right in the middle of a process for 

arguably political reasons, that is not a fair process for everybody. 

Both the opponents and the proponents deserve an answer. 

Senator BARRASSO. Any other reasons why we need a specific 

deadline for the Commission to make their final decision on the application? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I think the fact that we are here today with 

these amendments highlights why need a deadline. That reason is, 

failure of a deadline allows stuff to get kicked down the road for 

a long, long time. So it is essential. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am going to ask all three of the witnesses 

to respond to this. The discussion draft allows the Secretary of Energy to partner with private companies to store spent nuclear fuel 

on an interim basis. That interim storage program has to proceed 

at the same time as the Commission’s review of the Yucca Mountain license application. 

So I would like you to each respond, if you support a requirement 

that interim storage be connected to a tangible action on a permanent repository for nuclear waste. 

Mr. Fettus, we will start with you. 

Mr. FETTUS. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. We certainly are 

supportive of the idea that if there is ever an interim storage movement to go forward, which we right now currently don’t support 

what is currently on offer, but it would have to be tied to a repository. 

In fact, in my written testimony, I suggested that there is one 

model of an interim storage solution that we would see as a pilot 

project that could be useful. That is storing at active reactor sites. 

You already have consent to manage the spent nuclear fuel. You 

already have the trained staff. You already have the structural 

readiness to manage that fuel as well as an NRC license. 

Rather than engender the kind of controversy that is certainly 

going to erupt in New Mexico, which is, I believe, as united as Nevada is now in opposition to a centralized interim storage site, I 

would strongly urge the Committee to consider operating reactor 

sites. That also keeps the onus on the industry where it belongs. 

And we think that would be a functional way to go forward. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. O’Donnell, any thoughts on this? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act says the onus is 

on the Federal Government. That is the law. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. O’Connor. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Chairman, I think we believe that the Federal 

Government has to live up to its obligation under the law and remove the fuel. I think that being said, we are open to any and all 

venues that advance the fuel, whether that be interim storage or 

that be the Yucca or some combination. 

I think the real message is simply moving it and not letting it 

stay status quo. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

107 

As we revisit this issue, I am reminded of some of the values 

that I try to embrace as a human being, as a leader here, and 

guide me in the decisionmaking that I and my colleagues make. 

One of those is Golden Rule, treat other people the way you wanted 

to be treated. Probably the most important rule of all. Next is just 

to figure out in general what is the right thing to do. A lot of times 

when confronted with issues, people say, well, this would be easy 

or this would be expedient. But I say, what is the right thing to 

do. We have all maybe not come to agreement on what is the right 

thing to do. 

I would love to figure that out, I studied economics in Ohio State 

and later on in graduate school. After the Navy, I did quite a few 

years in the Navy. 

Mr. O’Donnell, what did you do in the Navy? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. I was a technician and nuclear operator and an 

instructor in the naval nuclear power program. 

Senator CARPER. I was a P3 aircraft mission commander, chasing 

Russian submarines in all the oceans of the world. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Thank you for your service. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for yours. It is great to have you 

here. 

One of the things I love to do is just try to figure out how to do 

we harness market forces in order to get to good public policy solutions. The other thing I often try to focus on is to find out what 

works and do more of that. Find out what works and do more of 

that. They seem to have figured this out, maybe not entirely in 

France, but I mentioned this in my opening statement, they think 

they have figured out what to do. The approach that they use in 

France, what can we learn, what can we take from that as we are 

at this decision point, trying to figure out how to go forward? 

Mr. Fettus, please. 

Mr. FETTUS. Senator Carper, I was struck by your idea about 

prisons. Let me quickly respond on France. France actually doesn’t 

have a waste program that is working any better. In fact, we would 

submit that it is probably going to be much more of a mess than 

our program is. The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, just as the 

Blue Ribbon Commission several years ago said, still requires a 

geologic repository. It creates a host of proliferation and security 

concerns by the creation of plutonium. France has no repository at 

current, they will not be able to do away with the MOX fuel, mixed 

oxide fuel assemblies they have waiting to burn in advanced reactors that will likely never be built, because they are not cost competitive. 

So I would actually be happy to work with your staff and talk 

to anyone on the Committee about why reprocessing is not going 

to be a solution that is going to solve our problems. The solutions— 

and I like that you said we are looking for things that actually 

work. Our environmental laws have worked in an extraordinary 

fashion over the last 50 years. What we have done with nuclear 

waste is taking it outside of that process. 

The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act was a remarkable law 

that balanced powers. But it left out the States. And in so doing, 

what you have had is that lack of consent. And consent doesn’t just 

108 

mean a set of incentives, market incentives. It wasn’t like Nevada 

wasn’t offered the Moon. Every Committee member knows that. 

The question is, is that no one would enter into a contract if they 

don’t have some sort of power to exact terms for consideration. No 

one would enter into a contract. That is where we are left with nuclear waste. 

So what I am trying to impress upon the Committee is, and I 

think you are wisely, when you talked about prisons in your opening statement, I think that was, why are some places competing for 

them. Well, because those States or regions can actually set the 

terms by which they can look to their communities and say, we can 

do this safely, we can have these jobs, and we can control the manner in which we are setting a way forward. 

Nevada has none of that ability, nor would New Mexico. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, very, very much, for your response. 

I want to ask Mr. O’Donnell and also Mr. O’Connor. 

Mr. O’Donnell, briefly, can you respond a little bit to what Geoff 

was saying? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. NARUC, I don’t believe, has a position on that. 

I will check, sir. If we do, I will get back to the Committee. Two, 

I will say that the States have been at the table through NARUC 

and through the Congress, actually. But through NARUC, we were 

brought to the table in 1982 as a crucial part of crafting the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I think that is essential to say, to continue 

to hear that the States have been excised out of this process is not 

true. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

Mr. O’Connor, please, a response, if you will. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Could you repeat the question? 

Senator CARPER. Respond to what you heard from Mr. Fettus, 

here, especially, and also some thoughts if you have any on how 

do we incent other States to become repositories for spent fuel. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Well, I think that as far as consent, my view and 

our company’s view and our customers’ view would be certainly, 

residents, communities, and States should have their issues and 

their voice, and it should be heard. I don’t know if one group is 

more important than another. I don’t think so. I think our many 

other States and communities, our Indian community as an example, obviously did not give consent to the fuel being stored next to 

them. So I believe there are processes that we should use to vet 

those. I think they exist for us to be able to work through it and 

make prudent decisions. 

As far as reprocessing, again, I think that is a possibility, as you 

said. There is a fair amount of energy that remains in the fuel, and 

it could be used for new reactors or other types of venues. I think 

that is true. But without moving the fuel first, I don’t see how reprocessing is a discussion yet. First, we have to advance it from 

where it currently is to a location that can be afforded, I will say, 

those opportunities to look at. 

Senator CARPER. All right; thank you all. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Braun. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I always listen carefully, 

because you answered a couple of questions along the way. I was 

109 

hoping there might have been more enlightenment from France, 

since they have invested so heavily in nuclear energy. It sounds 

like they may not be too much farther down the trail than we 

would be when it comes to long term solutions on waste. 

Mr. FETTUS. Respectfully, they are not, Senator. 

Senator BRAUN. OK, that is good to know, to discount that. And 

reprocessing, I was hoping, was something that there was better 

news with as well. 

So I am going to—Mr. Fettus, I want to ask you this. You said 

geological repository. To me, implicit in that is that there are only 

a limited number of places that can actually store spent fuel, due 

to the geology of where you would store it. Is that true, or did I 

misinterpret that? 

Mr. FETTUS. You didn’t misinterpret that, that a geologic repository has certainly been the consensus answer, I believe, from the 

environmental community to the industry for literally decades. The 

precise number of places that could potentially isolate the waste for 

the length of time it is dangerous, as Senator Cortez Masto described in her testimony this morning, that process, looking and 

trying to find all of those sites, was essentially sideswiped or done 

away with back in the mid-1980s, when I was in high school, long, 

long ago. 

We haven’t even really done the technical analysis nationwide for 

the potential technical sites that might be suitable. 

Senator BRAUN. What would your best guess be, since it looks 

like other than maybe Nye County, Nevada, as being willing to do 

it, what percentage of our surface area in this country, would it be 

closer to 5 or 10 percent that would be geologically—or do we not 

know that? 

Mr. FETTUS. Honestly, Senator, I would defer to, going back to 

look at the history of the geologic studies that were done in the 

1980s, and starting at that point. I wouldn’t hazard a guess right 

now. 

Senator BRAUN. If that is information that any other panelist 

could give, I think that would be something that is important. If 

we are talking about a limited amount of options to begin with, and 

most of those options people not wanting it, we have, to me, a significant issue. So if you could glean that information, anyone, I 

think it would be good for me and other Committee members to 

have. 

So is there any other place, other than Nye County, Nevada, that 

has shown a willingness to consider it? I am assuming that is the 

county where Yucca Mountain is, is that true? 

Mr. FETTUS. That is the county in Nevada, Senator. If you take 

the time with my testimony that I hope you and your staff can do, 

one of the things, one of the things that we are trying to articulate 

is that right now, it is not about one place, or is there another site. 

If it is not Yucca Mountain, where can it go? That is not the question right now that I think the Senate should spend its time trying 

to find out. 

The Senate can’t find and pick a site. That is how we got into 

this mess in the first place. What we need to do is set up a structure where people can say yes, and they can do so consistent with 

any other environmental pollutant that they might take in their 

110 

community. We have hazardous waste disposal sites around the 

country. We can do this. But we can’t do it without a process where 

people can set those terms and have direct regulatory authority. 

And that model is an environmental law. 

Senator BRAUN. Good point. 

Final question would be, when it comes to using nuclear energy 

for electric power generation, and when it comes to the disposal of 

the waste, has anything changed technologically that you are 

aware of from, say, 25, 30 years ago to change the dynamic that 

it is kind of an inherently difficult form of energy due to all the 

risks associated with it? Has anything out there changed in France, 

other places where they use this more consistently than our shutting the industry down because we are befuddled by all the problems associated with it? Has anything changed? 

Mr. FETTUS. No. It is a profoundly—— 

Senator BRAUN. More than it is here? 

Mr. FETTUS. It is a challenge, that you have to try to find places 

that can isolate it for a million years. It is a profoundly deep technical challenge. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Braun. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

Illinois is indeed home to more nuclear reactors than any other 

State in the Nation. Eleven operating, three decommissioned, 7,500 

tons of spent fuel stored in pools, and another 900 tons in dry 

casks. Four more plants, pools, are running out of room. So we 

need to find a solution. 

We are struggling to deal with the decommissioning of nuclear 

power plants that have become de facto interim storage sites for 

the stranded nuclear waste. Without consent or compensation, 

these communities and plants are paying the price for the Federal 

Government’s failure to find a permanent solution to spent nuclear 

fuel. 

Last Congress, I offered the STRANDED Act, to provide impact 

assistance and economic development incentives to communities 

burdened with storing stranded nuclear waste. My bill has three 

components. First, it establishes the Federal task force to identify 

existing public and private resources and funding that could benefit 

affected communities. This policy is also included in today’s bill. 

Second, it creates economic impact grants that would provide financial assistance to offset the economic and social impacts of 

stranded nuclear waste and affected communities. Third, my bill 

extends tax credits that will bring investment to these stranded 

communities. 

Of the three policies in my bill, the most critical component is 

the second. That is to compensate communities who are acting as 

interim storage sites for nuclear waste now. 

Mr. Fettus, do you agree that communities like Zion, Illinois— 

which is one of these sites—Zion, Illinois, should be compensated 

now for storing waste? 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

111 

Right now, my State has one decommissioned nuclear power 

plant; in a few years it could have even more, several actually. 

Would the kind of proposal you outlined in your testimony affect 

what happens in my State? 

Mr. FETTUS. We think it would. It would give the State much 

more control over the terms by which that nuclear waste is going 

to remain in your State, which by any measure, it is going to be 

in the State for a long time, especially as you have all the operating reactors that Illinois has. 

Right now, States can essentially, as California sees in the San 

Onofre situation, they have no real authority to affect that. What 

we outline could change that. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. So I look at these, and even if we say, 

Yucca Mountain, magically, we are going to proceed with it, it is 

still going to be a matter of decades before this fuel could be 

moved. 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. In the meantime, it sits there in Zion, Illinois. Nobody is building. It is in a lakefront on Lake Michigan, 

beautiful piece of property, and there is nothing they can do, and 

nobody wants to move there; nobody wants to buy a house in Zion. 

And yet there are very good jobs at the plant that is there, and 

people drive in to hold these jobs, but they drive from a long way 

away because nobody wants to buy property there. 

So I think it is common sense that we would make these payments to the local community, since they are now stuck holding 

this nuclear fuel, that the Federal Government has failed to live up 

to in terms of dealing with it. 

I think we can both agree, Mr. Fettus, that it is critical that our 

existing nuclear fleet operates also as safely as possible. 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes, that is NRDC’s position. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I have a bill that would fix a drafting error 

that occurred in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It clarifies that 

whistleblower protection rights for DOE and NRC employees may 

be enforced as Congress intended. Do you agree that whistleblower 

protections, which are disputed at DOE, are of critical importance 

to the nuclear industry? 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes, I do. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Do you want to elaborate a little bit more 

on what you were saying about the consent piece? I like what you 

said about the fact that we need to change the model from forcing 

this fuel onto someone to compensating the people who are already 

holding it, and coming up with a way for people to say yes. 

Mr. FETTUS. Figuring out a pathway forward, Senator, I do appreciate the conundrum Congress is confronted with. I think this 

is one of the first paragraphs, in almost every testimony I have 

written on nuclear waste, this is a devilish challenge, a technical 

challenge, to science alone. Then you put the interplay of politics 

on top of it, and it gets turned into a hot potato that makes Chairman Barrasso’s job, or Ranking Member Carper’s job, extremely 

difficult, and in fact, every member of the Senate. 

But to keep trying to force a square peg into a round hole simply 

won’t work. To give you a sense of scale, when you said, if we magically had Yucca Mountain be licensed and go forward, it would still 

112 

be decades for fuel across the country to get moved at various 

times. That is not going to happen, though. The licensing process, 

if this bill were to become law, would go forward, and then there 

would be contentious litigation for, we submit, despite any deadline, decades. And if they truncated the litigation, they would simply open themselves up to legal challenge on that issue. 

So we can’t urge strongly enough, there is a better way to do this 

that is consistent with our environmental laws. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Fettus. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank all of you. 

I represent one of the six States that prohibits nuclear power 

generation. I live in West Virginia, within its borders. Pending a 

final permanent Federal waste storage solution, so West Virginia 

conditions approval of a nuclear power plant on making economic 

sense for the taxpayers. I don’t see this in the future, since we have 

a lot of natural gas development in our State as well. 

So I don’t have the first hand knowledge, although I have toured 

the nuclear plant in Michigan, on nuclear energy, but I do believe 

we need to keep nuclear energy as part of our energy mix. I think 

it is absolutely essential for our baseload generation and have been 

very supportive of that. 

I wanted to ask a question first of all, off of what Senator Braun 

said to Mr. O’Connor and Mr. O’Donnell. I think Mr. Fettus sort 

of answered the question. I wanted to see consistency here, asking, 

since the Act was first passed in 1982, and Yucca was designated 

in the late 1980s, the technology of actually storage, according to 

what I understood Mr. Fettus to say, has not technically changed 

over that period of time. Could you talk about that a little bit? Is 

it going to get any easier, is my question. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Senator, are you referring to canister methodology of storing fuel at this point? 

Senator CAPITO. I am just saying, has the technology changed. I 

went to the reprocessing plant in France, I have been there. But 

are we advancing in the technology so we can find a solution to this 

and make it easier? Or is it pretty much the way it was 30 years 

ago? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I would agree that the canisters and the storage 

that we currently do today is not significantly different. Canisters 

have become a little bit, I would say, different in design, but fundamentally they are principally the same. 

Senator CAPITO. Mr. O’Donnell. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Thank you, Senator. I have nothing really to 

add on that. I think it is essentially the same. 

Senator CAPITO. That is my understanding. I just wanted to 

make sure I had that correct. 

I also serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and another source of consternation with regard to nuclear waste storage 

policy is how it affects the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. 

The funds coming into the waste fund are mandated by law to be 

paid by utilities generating nuclear power, are mandatory, but 

113 

their disbursement is treated as discretionary. This is getting into 

the technicalities that you would understand as a former member 

of the legislature, how convoluted this can become. And so it is 

competing with other programs like the Corps of Engineer programs, and our national lab systems and the Energy and Water 

Appropriations bill. 

So this discretionary hook is also why a handful of Senators can 

block this. Meanwhile, the judgment fund, which Commissioner 

O’Donnell, you spoke about this, represents $2 million in payments 

by the taxpayers per day to compensate utilities for the Federal 

Government doing nothing. And it remains mandatory spending. 

So with all of that screwball accounting that could probably only 

occur in Washington, I would like to ask Commissioner O’Donnell 

and Mr. O’Connor, since it is your ratepayers footing the bill, with 

nothing to show for it, do you have a view on this state of affairs 

in terms of the funding? 

Mr. O’Connor, do you have a comment? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Our customers continue to foot the bill for storage. As I said before, there isn’t anything that is happening. 

One unique thing about Minnesota is that in addition to just the 

cost for the actual storing of the fuel, there is added cost that our 

customers pay per cask at each facility. It is $500,000 per cask at 

Prairie Island and $350,000 at Monticello. 

Senator CAPITO. Is that the purchase price, or is that the storage 

price? Is that every year? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. That is just an every year storage cost that we 

provide the State and a renewable development fund. And our customers pay for that. That is $32.5 million per year right now. That 

is unacceptable, in my mind. So that means we must move things 

forward. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. O’Donnell, do you have a comment on that? 

Mr. O’DONNELL. The only thing I would say, Senator, is that the 

customers have paid for this time and again. They paid for the 

original storage, they paid to re-rack the spent fuel pools, they paid 

to build the interim storage, the SCs onsite. They continue to pay, 

not the least of which is the $41 billion, $40 billion in the Nuclear 

Waste Fund. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes, with nothing changed. And the map that 

you see of where everything is being stored now, it is pretty compelling in terms of not just footing the bill, but it is still sitting 

there and accumulating, I would imagine, at the same time. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts contains more than 700 

metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. Some of that radioactive waste 

sits in 16 dry casks in Rowe. They are remnants of the Yankee 

Atomic Plant that stopped operations in 2007. After the Pilgrim 

Nuclear Power Station completes its decommissioning process, 

which is set to begin at the end of this month, there will be 61 dry 

casks full of nuclear fuel sitting in Plymouth, Massachusetts. 

Dry casks are more secure than spent fuel pools, which are a disaster, waiting to happen. That is why I have repeatedly introduced 

114 

the Dry Cask Storage Act, an effort joined by Senator Gillibrand 

and Senator Sanders. 

Mr. Fettus, should we ensure that all decommissioned plants 

move their spent fuel in dry casks as soon as the fuel has cooled 

enough to do so? 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Excellent answer. The Pilgrim decommissioning process and the proposed Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

decommissioning rule both ignore the need for environmental impact analysis. The nuclear industry is just running roughshod over 

transparency and environmental protections. 

While the discussion draft of this bill does not focus on onsite nuclear waste storage, it builds upon the NRC’s refusal to seriously 

consider the environmental and health concerns of spent fuel. This 

draft does not address environmental and safety criteria in its proposal for interim storage facilities, and it blocks key parts of the 

environmental review for Yucca Mountain. 

Mr. Fettus, shouldn’t the environmental and public health impacts of storing nuclear waste be at the forefront of our considerations? 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Now, the Pilgrim decommissioning plan as presented to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, assumes that all 

spent fuel will be fully removed from the site by 2062. That is the 

date being used for all cost estimates. So if that deadline isn’t met, 

and the decommissioning process will break its budget, potentially 

leaving the towns to foot the bill, Mr. Fettus, how likely is it that 

the spent fuel from Pilgrim would be moved to Yucca Mountain by 

2062? 

Mr. FETTUS. I think it is very unlikely that it will be moved to 

Yucca Mountain, because I would suggest it is never going to be 

moved to Yucca Mountain for the reasons Senators Cortez Masto 

and Rosen outlined today. 

Senator MARKEY. And I agree with you, 100 percent. 

So, Mr. Fettus, by attempting to move us deeper into the Yucca 

Mountain fantasy land, do you think this discussion draft brings us 

further away from a permanent storage solution for nuclear waste 

than that which would allow us to actually move waste out of these 

closed plant sites? 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes. In fact, I would suggest, Senator, and I appreciate this line of questioning, that the outline of the concepts that 

I have in my testimony today would potentially get us farther faster than the 2048 deadline that the Energy Department has been 

bandying about for several years. 

Senator MARKEY. So the NRC has refused to answer my questions about whether the Commonwealth or surrounding towns 

might be left footing the bill for decommissioning costs, like storage, if the licensee can’t pay. Mr. Fettus, what could it mean for 

costs to the town or to taxpayers if we don’t develop a real plan 

to address nuclear waste storage? 

Mr. FETTUS. I think those costs could be significant, and if anything were to ever go wrong, they could be astronomical. 

Senator MARKEY. They can be astronomical. 

115 

Mr. Fettus, have the towns and taxpayers in the Commonwealth 

provided consent to have nuclear waste stored indefinitely in their 

home town? 

Mr. FETTUS. Not that I am aware of. 

Senator MARKEY. No. It is a decision made by the Federal Government. We don’t want every decommissioned nuclear site to become a permanent repository for radioactive waste. We don’t want 

to be left holding an ongoing endless bill for storage costs, emergency response costs, and radiological monitoring costs. Continuing 

to pretend as though Yucca Mountain is a real, viable option for 

the permanent storage of nuclear waste from Massachusetts and 

every other community where this type of waste currently resides 

only makes it more likely that it will be these communities which 

will be left holding radioactive receipts. We need a real, honest dialogue about nuclear waste storage, and that conversation won’t 

lead us to Yucca Mountain. 

Moreover—and this will be my final question, if I may, Mr. 

Chairman—this discussion draft pursues the development of interim nuclear waste storage sites, which leads to two dangerous potential outcomes. First, if we don’t get a real long term solution, 

the interim sites could become de facto permanent repositories, an 

unacceptable outcome. Second, if we do eventually develop a permanent repository, interim storage means we will have to move 

dangerous radioactive waste twice. That is twice as much risk that 

something could go wrong along the way. 

Mr. Fettus, do you think the transportation and safety issues 

should be considered as part of any nuclear waste management 

plan? 

Mr. FETTUS. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. And do you think that communities that might 

be exposed to a transportation related nuclear waste accident 

should be consulted as part of a consent based nuclear waste management process? 

Mr. FETTUS. Absolutely. 

Senator MARKEY. Otherwise, twice we will be putting mobile 

Chernobyls out on the highways of America, driving nuclear waste 

across our country, through communities that will not have given 

consent, and without proper security that has been put in place. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Before turning to Senator Cramer, I note in today’s USA Today 

front page story, in terms of nuclear power for the future, Some 

2020 Dems warm up to nuclear, Clean-energy option finds unlikely 

support. This is the future that we are talking about, and without 

objection, I will submit this for the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

116 


36643.083

INUFE 

"Spider-M•n: Far From Home" an'lve$ 

thissummer.JO.JOWHlLDEt-1 

What's after 'Endgame' 

for Marvel Universe? Five dire-Ctions the popular frarn:hise 

could go to hold on to its momentum 

Destined to Burn, m wh~eh a 

partnership between Journalists 

from USA TODAY Network·Ca!ifornla, McClatchy. Medl~ News 

and The Assodated Press explore 

the urgent wildfire issues fa<:mg 

California. 

~""'"' ~ .... --........ ~ -~ ...... ,.,~... ~· ·~ h' "" 

reality that wad systems. throughout the 

state are not designed tu handle a sudden 

evacuation. 

A USA TODAY Net\vork~Califomia 

analysis reveals the extent to whlch a 

fundamental. problem in ftaradise - too 

few escape lanes for roo many people In 

vehicles - applif's tn other cities and 

neighborhoods at gr!.'at risk of ,.,.ildfire. $ft EVACUATION, Page 3A 

Nuclear power provides nearly ZO% of u.s. eleetrklty, data show. Tli!Ni<STOC~ 

Some 2020 Dems 

warm up to nuclear 

Clean-energy option 

finds unlikely support 

WASHINGTON - Nuclear t-nergy 

could be making, a t'Omcback thanks to 

.,, Democrats? 

Several candidates vying for the 

party's presidential nomination in 

2020 are pmmotinR or haw ~hnwn 

openness to expanding ~next generation" nud,e.ar power as part of the arsenal of options to aggressively ad- dwss the effects of dimate change. 

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Rep. John 

Delaney, D-Md.; and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D·Minn. are backin!'t t>xpan>~lon 

of modem nuclear energy that would 

have to meet toughl'r safl•L y standards. 

several otht'r White HotLqe candidates, including former Colorado Gov. 

John Hkkl~nlooper; Rep. Tim Ryan, 

D-Oilio: and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 

S.. NUClEAR, Pap 2A 

'We will not 

be afraid, 

andwewill 

not hide' 

Jewish leaders eonfront 

rise in anti-Semitism 

£Iizabeth W.l$e 

and Nkquet Terry Ellis USA TODAY 

A rabbi in Rlwrs!di>, t'a!lfomia, begins services with an announc-ement 

about where the exih arc in NSe 

people need to run fur their liws 

In Glen Rock, New Jersey, a rabbi is 

unsure what to write Oil 11igno; at ihe 

temple entrance. At fin;t, tht• /llt"M>aw• 

read, ~Entering a secure spa('OJ ," hur 

that wasn't exactly what sht• wanh•d to 

conwy to peoplt' arriving to wm'-hip 

A syna~e in San Fraru::'IH'{J a!h 

cates money toward airport· sty!.• mdul detllctoVJ and security guard;,. 

Saturday's deadly shootlug Ht tht• 

Chabad synagogut> of Poway nt'nr Stm 

Diego killed one woman and injur,•d 

three people when a gunman op~'!V'd 

fiw during a Passover servi;ce . 

The attack came si.x months nft1•r a 

mMs shooting at the Tl'N· of l.i!<· 
117 

Senator CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to all of the witnesses. 

I apologize for being so late. Wednesday is my day, the day that 

I have the great honor and privilege of presiding over the Senate. 

So I have to remind myself often that the inconvenience is worth 

it. But thank you all for being here today. 

I want to follow up a little bit on something that Senator Markey 

was referencing, as he was referencing the fantasy of Yucca Mountain. Do we forget that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is the law of 

the land? There is a law that was passed, and we have been neglecting for a few decades. 

I will use that opportunity to slide into some more North Dakota 

specific stuff, Mr. O’Connor, because I know you are familiar with 

this. I was a utility regulator for nearly 10 years in North Dakota. 

Xcel Energy is our largest utility in North Dakota, and our ratepayers have been paying in for decades. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Yes, we have. 

Senator CRAMER. I was on the commission, along with Commissioner Tony Clark at the time, when the lawsuit succeeded and we 

had to redirect several million dollars to North Dakota ratepayers 

for their burden of paying into something for which they were getting nothing. So I remember that redirection. Since leaving the 

commission and coming to Congress, I think we have probably redirected double that much again. This is no way to run an organization, not your organization, but our much larger organization. 

So I am quite familiar with the fund, and the broken promises, 

the bill of goods that the ratepayers have been given over the last 

several decades, and am anxious to get to not the fantasy of storage, but hopefully a conclusion one day that makes some sense. 

And I hope that we can come to it soon. 

There is all the talk, of course, in this town and throughout the 

country, about clean energy. Xcel Energy certainly has been committed to that. You have invested lots of money in my State and 

other places in renewable fuels. But if we are going to get to the 

type of goals that many people aspire to, Mr. O’Connor, can you do 

that at Xcel without your nuclear fleet? And again, North Dakotans 

enjoy the reliability of it. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. No. 

Senator CRAMER. No. Right. So I want us to continue to have the 

discussion. I don’t believe that it is a fantasy. 

You have invested lots of money in wind and solar and other renewables. What percentages—I don’t know the answer to this— 

what percentage of your generation is renewable? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I believe the renewable portfolio is around 15 

percent at this point. We are planning, obviously, as you are aware, 

to replace our coal facilities with renewables, and using nuclear as, 

I will call it, a backbone for that transition. Our intent is to be up 

into the 50, 60 percent in renewable resources. 

Senator CRAMER. And nuclear being the main baseload, then, 

where we probably can’t have gas? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Nuclear at this point needs to be part of that 

component. I think we are open to all other technologies that could 

be dispatchable that are carbon-free. In the meantime, I think the 

reality is gas would still probably be part of that equation. 

118 

Senator CRAMER. I am going to resist spending a lot of time on 

ground that has no doubt been plowed in my absence, Mr. Chairman, and I don’t think it is necessary to repeat it, other than to 

again, make my North Dakota illustration and my point. But I 

would remind my colleagues and others, last year in the House, 

when I was in the House, we did pass the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act, 340 to 72. That is pretty good bipartisan action. 

A number of Republican and Democratic co-sponsors of the legislation, of course, I was on the Energy and Commerce Committee and 

was a co-sponsor of that. 

I want us to be more aspirational than to think this is somehow 

a fantasy. This isn’t a fantasy, this is really important stuff. It is 

important to the ratepayers, the taxpayers, to the environment. It 

is important to the economy. 

And with that, again, thank you all for your appearance, and I 

yield back. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Cramer. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I am up here reading the USA Today article 

that the Chairman referenced. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. It reminds me—I live in Delaware, I have the 

privilege of representing Delaware. We are the lowest lying State 

in America. Our State is sinking, fortunately not too fast, but we 

are sinking. The oceans—and our neighboring Marylanders know 

about this—the oceans are rising around us, and it is not a good 

place to be. So we take the issue of climate change and global 

warming very, very seriously. I think it is the most serious threat 

we face on this planet. 

So the idea, if we could somehow create our electricity without 

producing more carbon dioxide or have technology to actually suck 

carbon dioxide out of the air, we are trying to do those kinds of 

things, that would be a good thing. But as helpful as nuclear energy is in terms of not making climate change any worse, in fact 

it is helping us on that problem, huge problem, we have this problem with the disposal of the spent fuel. 

It is not often we have a second chance in life, to get stuff right. 

We didn’t get it right back in the 1980s. I think given the reality 

of climate change, the threat it poses literally to our planet, we 

have a chance to get it right, and if we are smart about it, provide 

economic opportunity for communities where they like to have that 

kind of opportunity with the kinds of protections that they need 

and help preserve our planet. 

President Macron from France was here about a year ago, he 

spoke at a joint session of Congress. One of the things he mentioned was that this is the only planet we are going to have. There 

is no Planet B. And so we are trying really hard to figure out how 

to get it right this time, and we appreciate very much your presence here and providing some great guidance for us. I appreciate 

the leadership that the Chairman is showing in trying to restart 

the conversation, hopefully with a better ending. 

One question for Mr. Fettus to close out, and then I am going 

to ask all three of you to sort of give me a recommendation on the 

119 

Federal commission that has been recommended by a Blue Ribbon 

panel a couple of years ago. 

Mr. Fettus, back to you, consent based approach. It is my understanding that previous mechanisms for finding voluntary sites for 

nuclear spent fuel have been successful in this country. One of 

those is a place down in New Mexico, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

Hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. There is an acronym for it called 

WIPP; I will not use that. 

Mr. FETTUS. I am familiar with WIPP, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. I am sure you are. However, that was for a different type of facility than what we are talking about here today. 

My understanding is, I don’t know a lot about this facility, but 

I understand that it takes mid-level defense waste; is that right? 

Mr. FETTUS. Transuranic defense waste, yes, Senator. Kind of 

like silver at the pump. 

Senator CARPER. OK. And in fact, to my understanding, the State 

of New Mexico and the community agreed to the facility with the 

understanding that it would not accept high level nuclear waste in 

the future. 

Just very briefly, would you provide any takeaways from the 

New Mexico experience on what we can replicate in a consent 

based approach for a high level, high level spent fuel repository, 

and any cautions on maybe what cannot be replicated, please. Just 

very briefly. 

Mr. FETTUS. Very briefly, Senator. Thank you for the question. 

To the extent that there is public acceptance of the WIPP facility 

in New Mexico after all these years, crucial to that is the existence 

of the State’s hazardous waste permitting authority for the hazardous waste portion of the waste at the site. The State still has 

no regulatory authority over the radioactivity, but they have authority over the hazardous waste portion. 

So the State has some measure of control, and it can, after the 

explosions and fires of 2014, the State can require a shutdown and 

protect its citizens, unlike in other nuclear facilities, where States 

have no regulatory authority. So if there is something to replicate 

that is at the root of our suggestions, it is that. It is expanding 

that. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

And for the entire panel, the Department of Energy’s record overall has not inspired a whole lot of trust in our Nation’s nuclear 

waste management program. For years, I have heard—maybe you 

have, too—calls from various stakeholders, including those in the 

nuclear industry, for a new federally chartered organization and incorporation to be created that is dedicated solely to dealing with 

our nuclear spent fuel. 

The creation of a new nuclear waste, Federal organization, I 

think was one of the recommendations that came out of the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on Nuclear Waste launched during the Obama 

administration. 

Just very briefly from each of you—we will start with you, Mr. 

O’Connor, if you would, briefly, we would like to hear your 

thoughts on that idea that I just described. Could taking nuclear 

waste out of DOE’s hands insulate the issue from the political procVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:27 Jul 31, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36643.TXT SONYA
120 

ess and improve the consent based approach, should Congress consider taking a step? 

Mr. O’Connor. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Senator, I think that recommendation is one that 

should be explored, or at least considered. I think having dedication toward advancing used fuel can only be a good thing. 

I also believe that if it provides the dedication, I think it can help 

probably work through many of the items that were discussed here 

today, or at least maybe assist in processes to make that happen. 

One caution, though, is that another agency can tend to grow 

very quickly and become expensive. So what I would probably offer 

is, controls or mechanisms to not let it become not that much different than we currently have today. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. O’Donnell. 

Mr. O’DONNELL. Thank you, Senator. I would just say this. It is 

clear that the defunding of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management was crippling to DOE’s ability to carry out this mission. So on one hand, the law says under the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act, here is what you have to do, DOE. But then beginning in 2008, 

we defunded the program, crippling it. You can’t have it both ways. 

You can’t have a mandate to do something and then cripple them 

by taking the money. 

NARUC is not opposed to creating a new agency, essentially. But 

what is crucial is that we act soon so that the Federal Government 

does not age out its crucial scientific knowledge in these matters. 

That is what is happening. I would implore you to do something 

quickly. 

Senator CARPER. All right; thank you. 

Mr. FETTUS. I don’t disagree with my colleagues here. I think it 

is an idea worthy of exploring. But I think we would have to get 

the consent right first. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Thanks to all of you for being here. We are grateful for your time 

and your testimony. 

Other members of the Committee may submit questions for the 

record, so the hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. But I 

want to thank you for being here, thanks for your time, thanks for 

your thoughtfulness on this very important topic. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ