U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

21–623 2017

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGREEMENTS AND 

ASSOCIATED BENEFITS FOR SPENT NUCLEAR 

FUEL DISPOSAL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 7, 2016 

Serial No. 114–157 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

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

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 7 

WITNESSES

Dina Titus, A Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada ................. 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Mark E. Amodei, A Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada ....... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Robert J. Dold, A Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ........... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Cresent Hardy, A Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada .......... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Dan Schinhofen, County Commissioner, Nye County, Nevada ........................... 31 

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

Joseph Hardy, State Senator, State of Nevada ..................................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Gene Humphrey, President, International Test Solutions, Inc. .......................... 46 

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

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of Brian Sandoval, Governor of Nevada, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ......................................................................................................................... 64

Statement of Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of Nevada, submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus .................................................................................................... 66 

Statement of Al Hill, Mayor of Zion, Illinois, submitted by Mr. Dold ................. 68 

Statement of Zion-Benton Area Representatives & Business Interests .............. 70 

Statement of Hon. Dean Heller, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada ........... 74 

(1) 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGREEMENTS 

AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS FOR SPENT 

NUCLEAR FUEL DISPOSAL 

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

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

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Murphy, 

Latta, McKinley, Johnson, Bucshon, Flores, Hudson, Cramer, 

Tonko, Schrader, Green, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director; Rebecca 

Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative 

Clerk, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, Environment and the 

Economy; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; David McCarthy, 

Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Chris Santini, Policy Coordinator, Oversight and Investigations; Chris Sarley, Policy 

Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Dan Schneider, Press 

Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; 

Dylan Vorbach, Deputy Press Secretary; Andy Zach, Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; 

Jean Fruci, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health 

Advisor; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 

Energy and Environment; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Doors closed. If members could have their seats. 

If the first panel will take their seats there. We’ve got all my colleagues and the leadership here so we can start promptly. I know 

a lot of people have other meetings. 

So I would like to call the hearing to order and recognize myself 

for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning and welcome to our hearing to receive input from 

Nevada stakeholders about opportunities to move forward with the 

Yucca Mountain project. 

2 

First, I would like to thank my colleagues who are here to testify 

on this important issue. The members of the Nevada delegation 

demonstrate a willingness to engage in this conversation of national importance and demonstrate leadership in the federal policymaking process. 

Congressman Cresent Hardy represents Nye County, the site of 

Yucca Mountain, and the immediate surrounding counties. I appreciate his dedication in representing his constituents in Congress 

and recognition of the need to be part of a constructive dialogue. 

He has stated that he will not tolerate the compromising of his 

constituents’ safety nor the safety of any other Nevadan and I 

wholeheartedly agree. 

I welcome my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Bob Dold. 

His testimony and legislation highlights the implications on communities around the country associated with this administration’s 

decision to walk away from Yucca Mountain. 

The legacy impact on cities like Zion, Illinois is often lost in the 

national conversations regarding the development of the Yucca 

Mountain repository to dispose of our nation’s commercial spent 

nuclear fuel. 

While we will hear from many Nevada stakeholders this morning, we will not be hearing directly from the state of Nevada. Governor Sandoval declined the committee’s invitation to participate 

and stated his opposition to the project based on scientific, technical and legal merit. 

I understand Governor Sandoval’s position and look forward to 

seeing the scientific and technical issues resolved when the licensing process resumes. 

We are not here to prejudge the outcome of this process but, 

rather, discuss what Congress should consider when the license is 

issued. 

Governor Sandoval is rightly proud of Nevada’s contributions to 

our nation as a host of key national security facilities and armed 

forces bases. He notes, ‘‘Nevadans also believe our relationship 

with the federal government should be one where the state is seen 

as a valued partner, an ideal that is often not recognized.’’ 

I hope going forward we will have a meaningful conversation 

about how exactly that partnership can be constructed despite the 

state’s formal objection in 2002, one Congress overwhelmingly rejected. I look forward to building this relationship and continuing 

dialogue with the governor. 

Our second panel of witnesses today consist of a wide range of 

Nevada stakeholders including state and local elected officials and 

private citizens. 

Those families who reside closest to the repository site should 

have their voices heard so that Congress can understand their priorities including how the federal government can provide assurance 

for safety, security and other infrastructure needs. This must be a 

two-way conversation. 

Last March, a Las Vegas newspaper published an editorial titled, 

‘‘Washington, Make Us an Offer.‘‘ That’s stated in quotations ‘‘If 

we’re going to have a conversation about nuclear waste storage it 

should start with honesty from both sides.’’ 

3 

The editorial proceeds to identify the potential associated with 

reprocessing and research on nuclear material. This is the very 

conversation that we are here today to have. 

Today’s testimony will inform a key component of this committee’s efforts to develop comprehensive legislation to advance used 

fuel management. This session of Congress we received testimony 

addressing challenges associated with a variety of nuclear waste 

issues including how to safely transport nuclear material and fix 

a broken budgetary system. 

Those two topics in particular are relevant to the state of Nevada’s interests. I have heard concerns that spent fuel shipments 

will travel too close to population centers. To address these concerns, I would welcome alternative proposals. 

Further, Congress needs to assure financial resources for the 

state and affected local governments are available for technical and 

administrative costs when the money is needed. 

However, beyond financial resources I look forward to hearing 

what tangible items could benefit the state such as associated infrastructure, access to federal land rights and economic value and 

the jobs to support a nuclear reprocessing facility. 

While we are examining the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in Nevada, we can also learn from similar examples relating to hosting 

nuclear storage facilities for the federal government. 

For example, what lessons can be learned from the New Mexico’s 

experience as a host of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, WIPP, a repository for transuranic nuclear waste. 

In the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, Congress helped to mitigate 

transportation risk by authorizing an alternative route around 

Santa Fe, New Mexico. Similarly, New Mexico state officials have 

the authority to inspect transportation canisters to make sure they 

meet the high regulatory standards in place. 

The federal government also entered into an agreement with the 

state of Idaho in 1995 to govern the storage of U.S. Navy spent nuclear fuel. This agreement included a required milestone and legally binding consequences if the federal government does not meet 

those standards. 

I recognize that New Mexico and the Idaho situations are each 

unique. But we should be applying lessons learned to Nevada rather than current path proposed by this administration. 

The Department of Energy is currently in the midst of an extended road show to highlight a political message that states 

should have veto power over a national decision to resolve a national challenge. But this publicity campaign ignores the law of the 

land. 

Nye County offered to host the DOE in public meetings but the 

department has chose to pursue meetings in the far reaches of the 

country and pretend that the citizens of Nye County are irrelevant 

to the discussion. 

The federal government made the decision to site the repository 

at Yucca Mountain site in 1987. The DOE should be working with 

Nevada stakeholders to make sure of the progress on this repository instead of ignoring the law of the land. 

4 

Our hearing this morning will do the job that DOE isn’t. We will 

continue to listen to all stakeholders to develop a comprehensive 

solution to dispose of our country’s spent nuclear fuel. 

Thank you again for your participation on this important issue 

and I apologize for going over time, and I yield back the remainder 

of the time I have. 

The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, from New York. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Good morning and welcome to our hearing to receive input from Nevada stakeholders about opportunities to move forward with the Yucca Mountain project. 

First, I would like to thank my colleagues who are here to testify on this important issue. The members of the Nevada delegation demonstrate a willingness to engage in this conversation of national importance and demonstrate leadership in the 

Federal policy-making process. Congressman Cresent Hardy represents Nye County, 

the site of Yucca Mountain, and the immediate surrounding counties. I appreciate 

his dedication in representing his constituents in Congress and recognition of the 

need to be a part of a constructive dialogue. He has stated that he will not tolerate 

the compromising of his constituents’ safety, nor the safety of any other Nevadan. 

And I wholeheartedly agree. 

I welcome my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Bob Dold. His testimony and 

legislation highlight the implications on communities around the country associated 

with this Administration’s decision to walk away from Yucca Mountain. The legacy 

impact on cities like Zion, IL is often lost in the national conversation regarding the 

development of the Yucca Mountain repository to dispose of our nation’s commercial 

spent nuclear fuel. 

While we will hear from many Nevada stakeholders this morning, we will not be 

hearing directly from the State of Nevada. Governor Sandoval declined the Committee’s invitation to participate and stated his opposition to the project based on scientific, technical and legal merits. I understand Governor Sandoval’s position and 

look forward to seeing the scientific and technical issues resolved when the licensing 

process resumes. We are not here to pre-judge the outcome of this process, but rather discuss what Congress should consider when the license is issued. 

Governor Sandoval is rightfully proud of Nevada’s contributions to our nation as 

the host of key national security facilities and armed forces bases. He notes, ‘‘Nevadans also believe our relationship with the federal government should be one where 

the state is seen as a valued partner; an ideal that often is not recognized.’’ I hope 

going forward we will have a meaningful conversation about how exactly that partnership can be constructed espite the State’s formal objection in 2002, one Congress 

overwhelmingly rejected. I look forward to building this relationship and a continuing dialogue with the Governor. 

Our second panel of witnesses today consists of a wide range of Nevada stakeholders, including State and local elected officials, and private citizens. Those families who reside closest to the repository site should have their voices heard so Congress can understand their priorities, including how the Federal government can 

provide assurance for safety, security, and other infrastructure needs. This must be 

a two way conversation. 

Last March, a Las Vegas newspaper published an editorial titled ‘‘Washington, 

Make us an Offer,’’ that stated ‘‘if we’re going to have a conversation about nuclear 

waste storage, it should start with honesty—from both sides.’’ The editorial proceeds 

to identify the potential associated with reprocessing and research on nuclear material. This is the very conversation that we are here today to have. 

Today’s testimony will inform a key component of this Committee’s efforts to develop comprehensive legislation to advance used fuel management. This session of 

Congress we received testimony addressing challenges associated with a variety of 

nuclear waste issues, including how to safely transport nuclear material and fix a 

broken budgetary system. Those two topics in particular are relevant to the State 

of Nevada’s interests. I have heard concerns that spent fuel shipments will travel 

too close to population centers. To address these concerns, I would welcome alternative proposals. Further, Congress needs to assure financial resources for the State 

and affected local governments are available for technical and administrative costs 

when the money is needed. 

5 

However, beyond financial resources, I look forward to hearing what tangible 

items could benefit the State, such as associated infrastructure, access to Federal 

land, rights to economic value and the jobs to support a nuclear reprocessing facility. 

While we are examining the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and Nevada, we can also 

learn from similar examples relating to hosting nuclear storage facilities for the 

Federal government. For example, what lessons can be learned from New Mexico’s 

experience as the host for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a repository for 

transuranic nuclear waste. In the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, Congress helped to 

mitigate transportation risks by authorizing an alternative highway route around 

Santa Fe, New Mexico. Similarly, New Mexico State officials have the authority to 

inspect transportation canisters to make sure they meet the high regulatory standards in place. 

The Federal government also entered into an agreement with the State of Idaho 

in 1995 to govern the storage of U.S. Navy spent nuclear fuel. This agreement included required milestones and legally binding consequences if the Federal government does not meet those standards. I recognize the New Mexico and Idaho situations are each unique, but we should be applying lessons learned to Nevada, rather 

than the current path proposed by this Administration. 

The Department of Energy is currently in the midst of an extended roadshow to 

highlight a political message that states should each have veto power over a national decision to resolve a national challenge. But this publicity campaign ignores 

the law of the land. Nye County offered to host a DOE public meeting, but the Department instead chose to pursue meetings in the far reaches of the country and 

pretend the citizens of Nye County are irrelevant to this discussion. The Federal 

government made the decision to site the repository at the Yucca Mountain site in 

1987. DOE should be working with Nevada stakeholders to make progress on the 

repository instead of ignoring the law. Our hearing this morning will do the job that 

DOE isn’t. 

We will continue to listen to all stakeholders to develop a comprehensive solution 

to dispose of our country’s spent nuclear fuel. Thank you again to your participation 

on this important issue. 

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

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for 

joining us here this morning. 

The inventory of spent nuclear fuel in the United States is now 

over 72,000 metric tons and growing every year. We have held a 

number of hearings on this issue during this Congress so it will 

come to no surprise to members of the committee or our witnesses 

to hear me say that we are at an impasse. 

We have been for decades and we will not resolve that here 

today. As we have discussed in previous hearings, many factors 

have prevented the Department of Energy from completing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. 

At this time I would like to, Mr. Chair, ask for unanimous consent for letters from the Nevada governor, Brian Sandoval, and 

State Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt, to be entered into the 

record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered. 

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

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

In both of these letters these officials make it clear that the state 

of Nevada’s position has not changed. They call for a long-term sustainable solution for the nation’s nuclear waste through a consentbased process. 

This also will not be news to anyone here. A consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities was a 

6 

recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission and supported by 

the Department of Energy. 

The host state, tribal, and local governments need to have a seat 

at the table and that certainly includes negotiating benefits. I am 

sure that it is a message we will hear this morning. 

So I thank our witnesses for being here and in particular I want 

to thank our colleagues for taking the time to testify before this 

subcommittee. 

But with that said, I think it must be acknowledged that there 

are other issues we should be examining within our limited time 

remaining in the session of the 114th Congress. 

Our time could be spent working on problems we can resolve 

now. We can work on an aid package for the city of Flint and bring 

it to the floor. 

Our Senate colleagues and Mr. Kildee have made a number of 

suggestions and yet we have seen no action in this House to help 

the thousands of children that were poisoned by lead in their 

drinking water. 

According to a recently released report from the Natural Resources Defense Council, more than 18 million people are served by 

community water systems that exceed the action level of the EPA’s 

lead and copper rule guides us with. 

It isn’t just Flint. This is a widespread problem. In fact, even in 

our own Cannon Office Building high levels of lead have been 

found in the drinking water. Blood level lead testing is now being 

offered to House members and staffers. 

In my own backyard in upstate New York in the village of 

Hoosick Falls, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has contaminated 

the drinking water. Hoosick Falls is not unique either. 

A number of communities have found PFOA or other unregulated 

contaminants present in their drinking water. Whether it’s lead, 

PFOA or other contaminants, it is clear that the quality of our 

drinking water deserves greater scrutiny. 

We have ignored our crumbling drinking water infrastructure. 

We ignored lead and other contaminants in our drinking water 

supplies and we have ignored getting the city of Flint and other impacted communities the just assistance they need and certainly deserve. 

We cannot ignore these problems any longer. Safe drinking water 

is essential to our every life. It’s essential to every job in this country. 

This is only one of many issues we could address this year to 

make meaningful health, environment economic impacts in our 

country. I hope we can give these other issues the attention they 

deserve also. 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Chairman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes the majority side to see if anyone 

wants time for an opening statement. Seeing none, the chair now 

recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, 

for 5 minutes. 

7 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing will take a look at the storage of nuclear waste 

in the United States and the benefits provided to communities 

hosting waste facilities and I want to welcome all our witnesses, 

particularly our colleagues on the first panel. 

While the safe storage and disposal of spent fuel from our nation’s nuclear reactors is an important matter in the realm of our 

country’s energy future, this subcommittee has already spent more 

than enough time on this issue while avoiding other more pressing 

issues, in my opinion. 

In fact, this is the fifth hearing this subcommittee has held during this Congress on the issue of nuclear waste. With the little time 

that we have left in this session, we should be spending our time 

focusing on other pressing matters that are of serious concern to 

our constituents and that have not already received such significant hearing time. 

For example, we could be using today’s hearing time to discuss 

safe drinking water. Last week, Mr. Tonko and I requested hearings to address meaningful steps to provide the additional tools the 

state and local governments need to ensure the public is provided 

with clean and safe drinking water and this committee has simply 

not done enough to address this issue. 

But we’re here again holding another hearing on the decadeslong debate over the disposal of nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site. But even in that context this hearing misses the mark. 

Regardless of your position on this issue, focusing solely on Nevada and Yucca Mountain does not help in moving this conversation forward. I believe this hearing might have been useful had we 

invited the Department of Energy to discuss its work on consentbased siting and interim storage. 

There are also important perspectives we could hear related to 

applications for storage in Texas and New Mexico that are currently pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well 

as related bipartisan legislation from Mr. Conaway, Mr. Green, and 

others that have been pending before the subcommittee. 

Unfortunately, instead of looking for a new path forward all 

we’re doing is pursuing the same old path down the same old rabbit hole with no clear purpose or benefit to the American people. 

I’d like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. I want to thank my colleague, Ranking Member Pallone for yielding time. 

This is our fifth subcommittee hearing held on nuclear waste 

storage this Congress. It’s a very important issue and I want to 

thank Chairman Shimkus for our continued oversight. 

I believe it’s now time for our subcommittee to go beyond the 

fight over Yucca Mountain and consider proposals that will move 

the ball forward and safely store our nation’s spent nuclear fuel. 

I’m an original co-sponsor of the Interim Consolidated Storage 

Act introduced by Congressman Mike Conaway of Texas. This legislation would allow for interim storage of nuclear waste. 

8 

An interim facility would have to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would be paid through the nuclear waste 

fund. 

Passage of this bipartisan legislation would provide our country 

with a path forward to securely store nuclear waste currently held 

at dozens of facilities like the South Texas Nuclear Project in our 

area around the country while we decide what to do with Yucca. 

Waste Control Specialists, a private company out of west Texas, 

has already applied to operate an interim facility with federal regulators and believe it can start receiving spent fuel by 2020. This 

proposal is supposedly supported locally and by the state and is in 

line with the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations. 

I’m on record supporting Yucca Mountain. I visited the facility in 

2011 with Chairman Shimkus when I was ranking member of the 

subcommittee and believe it’s safe for long-term storage. 

Taxpayers in Houston and Harris County, Texas and round the 

country have spent $15 billion studying and building the facility. 

Unfortunately, we have not been able to go beyond the fight over 

Yucca for over a decade. 

All the while, thousands of metric tons of spent fuel are stored 

at power plants throughout our country. We owe it to the American 

people to move forward and I urge the subcommittee to consider alternative proposals including the Interim Consolidated Storage Act. 

And I thank you and yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time and I thank my 

colleagues. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if any other member 

on my side wants their time. I guess not. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am sorry. 

And now I’d like to turn to our colleagues at the first panel and 

we will introduce you one at a time as you give your opening statements. 

First is Congressman Dina Titus from—she has corrected me 

many times—Nevada. I’m doing well, right? At least I got something in pronouncing the state correctly, and you’re welcome and 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

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

Member Pallone, Ranking Member Tonko and other members of 

the subcommittee. 

I appreciate this opportunity to testify. As you have stated, 

Yucca Mountain has been an issue of major importance for Nevadans for decades. It dates back to 1987 when President Reagan 

signed the so-called Screw Nevada bill into law. 

In the years that have followed, I along with bipartisan business, 

civic and apolitical leaders throughout Nevada have been unified 

with rare exception and vehement opposition to this failed proposal. 

Now, it’s my understanding that today’s hearing is intended to 

suggest that some benefit will accrue to Nevada for hosting nuclear 

waste generated elsewhere. 

9 

Well, on behalf of three out of four Nevadans who oppose Yucca 

Mountain, I’m here to say we cannot and will not be bought off. 

Mr. Chairman, after word of this hearing got out I was contacted 

by major stakeholders throughout Nevada who wanted to weigh in 

and have their voices heard. 

I have letters in opposition from leading Nevadans and organizations, also our governor and Senator Heller, an editorial from the 

Las Vegas Sun. I would request that these be entered into the 

record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. I can get staff to grab those, bring those up 

here. We’ll look at them and then—— 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you so much. 

Now, I realize that many people may not know about or appreciate the significant contributions and major sacrifices that Nevada 

made during Atomic Age. 

More than a thousand nuclear detonations occurred near downtown Las Vegas and you could see the mushroom cloud rising over 

the desert not far away. 

These tests took place at a time when the federal government 

conducted duck and cover drills to show us how to protect ourselves 

from radioactive fallout. I imagine some among you will remember 

Bert the Turtle—duck and cover. 

Well, since then billions of dollars have been paid to the residents of Nevada, Utah and other downwind states that were under 

that radioactive cloud earlier in the 20th century. 

I give this history lesson not only to highlight Nevada’s role in 

atomic development but also to remind you that they told us then 

we were safe and they are telling us now we are safe. 

Members of Congress may board a plane to my district and then 

be shuttled out to the desert north of town for a photo op where 

they can see the dry and desolate moonscape where Yucca Mountain is located. 

But you shouldn’t be fooled by such a superficial look at land 

that Nevadans love and want to protect. Nevada is not a wasteland. It’s home to unique desert habitats, rare and endangered species of plants and animals, iconic wildlife like bighorn sheep and 

desert tortoises, and cultural resources from Native American 

tribes dating back thousands of years. 

Such a quick visit also ignores the fact that beneath the surface 

are major fault lines and a water table that moves towards the Las 

Vegas Valley, where 2 million people live. 

Furthermore, this waste that is going to be stored there has to 

be shipped thousands of miles across this nation on highways and 

byways that go through all of your districts—in fact, almost everybody in Congress’ district. 

Fourteen years ago, I stood next to our Republican governor, 

Kenny Guinn, and other leaders from around the state on the day 

he first vetoed the Yucca Mountain site. In the years that have followed, billions of dollars have been wasted on this boondoggle and 

we are still no closer to a solution. 

It wasn’t until the Obama administration assembled a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s nuclear future with some of the most 

respected experts on this topic who released a list of recommendations to guide us forward. 

10 

One such recommendation, which goes to the heart of the matter 

and has been referenced earlier, is adopting a consent-based process by which repositories are sited. That is why I joined with my 

colleague, Joe Heck from the House, and Senators Harry Reid and 

Dean Heller to introduce the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act. 

Now, I have heard proponents make all kind of false promises to 

us in Nevada. They say Nevada could receive hundreds of millions 

of dollars for infrastructure projects or maybe be allocated more 

water from the Colorado River, for example. 

Well, who can take that seriously, really? This Congress has 

failed in its response to nearly every pressing issue facing our nation. There’s not even enough money for the completion of the 

Yucca Mountain project, much less extra left over—bribe money to 

give to Nevada. 

Nevadans may be gamblers but we are not fools. We know how 

to calculate the odds. 

So in conclusion, I would ask you to remember that Nevada has 

done its part in the development of U.S. nuclear energy. Furthermore, we didn’t produce this commercial waste. 

We don’t have any nuclear power plants. So we say keep it where 

it is for now. Pass a consent-based bill. Move forward so places who 

want it can have it. 

So in short, I urge my colleagues on this subcommittee concentrate your efforts on ways to make progress, to move forwards, 

not backwards, so we can really solve this problem. 

I thank you for your attention and I yield back. 

[The statement of Ms. Titus follows:] 

11 


21623.012
12 


21623.013
13 


21623.014
14 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time and we thank 

her for her testimony. 

The chair now recognizes Congressman Amodei from also the 

great state of Nevada and he’s recognized for 5 minutes. 

Pull that mic a little closer. I know you’ve got a big mouth. 

Mr. AMODEI. I thought that you had wanted me to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And turn the mic on. 

Mr. AMODEI. On purpose, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. AMODEI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing, 

Ranking Member Tonko. I appreciate the opportunity to share my 

views regarding the sense of your subcommittee, the E & C Committee as a whole and in fact what may indeed be the sense of the 

House of Representatives Regarding the Yucca Mountain Nuclear 

Repository in Nevada. 

No one participating in this hearing should interpret anything 

that I say as expressing a sense of what may or may not happen 

in the 115th Congress either in this house or on the north side of 

the building in the Senate. 

But nonetheless, the 115th Congress will convene in about 6 

months and the issue regarding people sitting in new seats and 

what the nation’s policy is going to be with regard to high-level 

long-term nuclear waste issues I think will be something that is on 

the agenda. 

I want to make it clear from the outset no one in Nevada is in 

favor of a nuclear landfill. Neither am I. But I also have young people telling me that you can go to things like 

congressionalrecord.com and Google it and put in words like Yucca 

and waste and you can see the names of some people who are in 

this House who take to the floor—I believe, Mr. Chairman, your 

name comes up occasionally—talking about this issue. It is not 

going to go away. 

Nevada cannot afford to just say no. No disrespect to the former 

First Lady, but this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. We are 

not for sale and we are not deficient in the national scoring sense 

of states of the union in terms of doing their patriotic duty. 

Accordingly, if we decide to deal with this I appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion that says what are the real impacts— 

what should our policy be and in that context what is the story for 

Nevada. 

I have got some things for you to think about as policy makers 

to evaluate a responsible course of conduct with respect to local 

and state economic impacts, operating oversight, safety policy in 

the near and long term and our policy as a nation regarding the 

material itself. Let’s start there. 

Remember the statement nobody is in favor of a nuclear landfill. 

There is ongoing research in this country, in the state of Nevada, 

at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, regarding reprocessing. 

So when we talk about dealing with this issue that I think we 

need to talk about well, should we start treating this as a commodity instead of trash. Because guess what—even if you want to 

talk about consent as long as we really see it as trash good luck 

15 

with that consent thing. I think they’re trying that over in Sweden 

right now. 

So the key becomes in terms of a responsible comprehensive policy is how do we do reprocessing in a way that we are not looking 

for someplace to dump it and run. There is already some infrastructure there. There are people in Nevada delegation. 

The senior senator has visited that. I would suggest that if you 

want to deal comprehensively you say, what can we do to that program there to make it the leader in the nation so that we’re not 

talking about trash anywhere—we’re talking about a commodity. 

That is something that this committee should look at and make it 

part of comprehensive policy as opposed to just Tuesday is garbage 

day and when the truck is gone we don’t have to worry about it. 

Next, Nevada has an excellent scientific research entity in terms 

of an outfit that’s called the Desert Research Institute in terms of 

nuclear monitoring, operational monitoring, making sure that if the 

assumptions in terms of how this is treated or correct that those 

assumptions actually come through. They should be given that responsibility. It is imminently fair if you decide to locate this in Nevada that people of qualification are put in charge of making sure 

that our assumptions are correct. 

Some people may scream, oh, earmark. Well, guess what, the 

siting is the biggest earmark you can have and we ought to at least 

have our homegrown folks taking a look at it that have scientific 

objective credentials and credibility. 

Let us talk about safety first a minute. Since the location of this 

before—before it transforms hopefully back into a commodity is 

something that is of primary concern to those folks in the region. 

That ought to be the National Center for Nuclear Safety. 

That ought to be the National Center for Nuclear Emergency Reaction Training. What better place to do it than the folks with the 

largest stake in the nation in terms of proximity to the material? 

Now, I want to stop for just a minute and let you know this is 

not hey, how much is it—can you buy us off for this or that. This 

is responsible policy infrastructure which will have an economic 

impact but also has the dual role of saying we’re dealing with this 

comprehensively instead of hit and run. 

The final thing I want to leave for your consideration is this. Nevada is a state that is owned by a super majority in terms of federal lands. Right now, that site is in the possession of the Bureau 

of Land Management, which means if you move forward you are 

going to have to do a federal lands transfer to DOE. 

I would suggest that there is a very, very successful example in 

Nevada. It’s called the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act where we transfer lands in a highly transparent process 

for purposes that are agreed upon by everybody in the state. 

If you’re going to do this and transfer that land I would implore 

you to look for other opportunities in other states, because as my 

colleague from southern Nevada—there are transportation issues. 

Transportation issues in Nevada, outside of Nevada, safety 

issues. It is an opportunity to do other lands transfers to get you 

away from the earmark thing, and by the way, when you do all 

those a state that is 87 percent owned by the federal government 

16 

might, if you take some suggestions, oh my, only be owned 80 percent by the federal government. 

So it is not ipso facto magical way to get all the lands back in 

the state. It is a responsible way, and by the way, the beauty of 

this we don’t have to write a check in Congress for that. 

There will be some costs but it is a relatively efficient way to say 

OK, you want some more control—you want to some of that economic development stuff, here are some lands that make the most 

step—have at it. 

So, in conclusion, I would just say this. Nuclear policy is more 

than where you’re going to put it and walk away. If you’re going 

to be responsible it needs to be comprehensive. Not looking for a 

payday, not looking for special treatment. 

But when you think about things like safety operations and 

what’s going on in the state there are many opportunities for this 

Congress or the next Congress to go ahead and deal comprehensively. 

You’ll never get everybody in the state to hug it but at least you 

can stake out some ground that is usually unique these days in 

terms of saying we’ve dealt with it comprehensively, transparently 

and from a responsible perspective. 

I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Amodei follows:] 

17 


21623.015
18 


21623.016
19 


21623.017
20 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time and I thank 

him for his testimony. 

The chair now recognizes my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Dold, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT J. DOLD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s, obviously, great to be 

here. I appreciate the honor to be able to testify before you, Ranking Member Tonko and members of the subcommittee. 

As you know, I’m Bob Dold. I represent Illinois 10th congressional district. I am here today to testify about the community of 

Zion, Illinois, and wanted to talk more specifically about H.R. 5632, 

the Stranded Nuclear Waste Accountability Act of 2016, which is 

a bipartisan bill that I had the opportunity to introduce this week. 

To fairly compensate the 13 communities across our country affected by the federal government’s failure to make good on its commitment to remove spent nuclear fuel from formerly operating nuclear power plants. 

Zion is a city in the northern part of Lake County. Zion is the 

home to approximately about 25,000 people and in 1973 the Zion 

Nuclear Power Plant Station opened on 257 acres of Lake Michigan 

shoreline. 

The plant operated from 1973 to 1998. But before the plant was 

closed, it created good high-paying jobs for the community and the 

local governments received a significant amount of tax dollars from 

the increased tax base. 

Unfortunately, once the plant closed those benefits to the community went away. Since 1998, the community has faced a difficult 

situation due to the presence of spent nuclear fuel on the site. 

As this committee is well aware, the federal government’s failure 

to move ahead with Yucca Mountain has meant that all of the nuclear spent fuel, the radioactive materials that once powered the 

nuclear plant, has remained on site in dry storage in the middle 

of Zion, just a few hundred yards away from one of the greatest 

natural resources we have in our nation in the Great Lakes. 

The community of Zion never negotiated to become an interim 

spent nuclear fuel storage location. But without the federal government doing its part in developing a long-term geologic storage site 

for nuclear waste that is exactly what it has become. 

Zion’s status as it is today has come with a very high cost. Mr. 

Chairman, I have brought with me today two letters—one from the 

mayor of the city of Zion, Al Hill, and the other from 34 local elected officials and community leaders in the Zion area. 

Each of these letters details the impact on Zion, Illinois. Each of 

these letters details, again, what has happened and they obviously 

would like to respectfully request that they be submitted for the 

record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection. Also, Congresswoman Titus, 

we’re accepting your letters also. 

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

Mr. DOLD. In order to help with these 13 communities, Mr. 

Chairman, impacted this way, earlier this week I introduced the 

Stranded Nuclear Waste Accountability Act of 2016. 

21 

This bill recognizes the problem that the federal government has 

caused in the communities that are home to a formerly operating 

nuclear power plant but where spent nuclear fuel continues to be 

stored. 

The federal government would pay the local government a fee to 

compensate that community for their status as a de facto spent nuclear fuel storage site. That fee is the same amount per kilogram 

as was included in the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 

Importantly, this bill puts a seven-year limit on these funds so 

that these communities are fairly compensated but do not become 

indefinitely reliant on federal dollars. The political failure to move 

ahead with Yucca Mountain has created an unfortunate situation 

for Zion and communities like her across our country. 

Without negotiation and without compensation these communities have been transformed into spent nuclear fuel storage sites. 

While the best solution is still to find a way to make sure that 

spent nuclear fuel is removed from these communities. 

In the meantime, I believe that this bill—my bill, a bipartisan 

common sense proposal to help compensate these communities and 

defray some of the costs associated with storing spent nuclear fuel 

out in these various 13 different communities. 

Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko, members of the 

committee, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

today and I also look forward to answering your questions. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Dold follows:] 

22 


21623.018
23 


21623.019
24 


21623.020
25 


21623.021
26 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nevada, Congressman Hardy. You’re welcome to the hearing room and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CRESENT HARDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. HARDY OF NEVADA. Thank you. Chairman Shimkus and 

Ranking Member Tonko and members of the committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think it’s on. Just pull it closer. 

Mr. HARDY OF NEVADA. Thank you for the opportunity testify 

here at today’s hearing. I represent Nevada’s 4th congressional district which stretches from north Las Vegas and the northern Clark 

County into the part of six rural counties in central Nevada. 

Now, there are many folks back here in Washington who might 

be aware that anything exists north of a little strip of land called 

Las Vegas Boulevard along the strip, as far as they’re concerned, 

and that it just might be empty desert. 

However, such thinking fails to recognize the diverse mosaic of 

people who represent the backbone of Nevada including the hardworking families of north Las Vegas, the rich cultural heritage of 

our indigenous tribes and the miners and ranchers who symbolize 

the industrious spirit of America West. 

It also ignores the incredible contributions and burdens borne by 

this part of Nevada to protect our national security generation 

after generation. From the testing and development of our nuclear 

deterrent that allowed the United States to win the Cold War to 

the most advanced realistic air combat training anywhere in the 

world to the dedicated airmen and women who fly remotely-piloted 

aircraft in the war against ISIS and al-Qaeda. People in this part 

of Nevada are no strangers to serving our country. They are also 

no pushovers, nor am I. 

As a representative, I am committed to fight so that all their 

voices are heard, to ensure that they always have a seat at the 

table. That brings us to the reason that I am seated here at this 

table here today. 

Yucca Mountain, located roughly a hundred miles northwest of 

Las Vegas, has been designated by an act of Congress as the only 

authorized site for a permanent repository to house spent nuclear 

fuel and highly radioactive waste. 

In the nearly 30 years since that decision billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent, endless litigation has played out, administrations have stonewalled, recriminations have abounded. 

Yet, two fundamental problems continue to fester. Number one, 

our nation has tens of thousands of metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel dangerously piling up at the 

power plants across this country with nowhere to safely put it. 

Number two, many Nevadans feel that they are being forced by 

the federal government to store dangerous material that they had 

no role in creating. Both of these facts are shameful failures of the 

federal government and both need to be addressed now. 

I often reflect on the courage of our Founders and the many 

great American leaders who followed them to take tough issues and 

27 

make difficult decisions. On the heels of Monday’s celebration of 

the 240th year of independence, I am reminded of the responsibility elected officials have to the American people, now more than 

ever. 

This issue of nuclear storage is not just about any one politician’s 

legacy. It can’t be, because on this issue we are talking about millennia. Not just about millennia but millions of years in the future. 

Geologic time doesn’t care about partisan politics or eagles. Long 

after we are all forgotten, footnotes in the dusty pages of history, 

the decisions we make here won’t be. The decisions we make here 

will live on and impact the lives of countless generations. 

That’s why the decision we make here in Washington or Carson 

City or Tonopah or anywhere else for that matter need to be based 

on the soundest science and the best interests of Nevadans and 

every single American. 

The beauty of science is that it’s the great equalizer, whether 

you’re in Nevada, Illinois or on the surface of the moon. The laws 

of science are universal regardless of politics. 

Yucca Mountain needs to stop being an issue that administrations here in Washington only find useful every four years in the 

state of Nevada. Nevadans deserve to have honest brokers in their 

federal government and they deserve to hear the unbiased scientific results that are—their hard-earned dollars funded. 

After being privileged enough to be elected as a representative of 

the Nevada’s 4th district in Congress, I discovered that too many 

politicians are afraid to engage in the constructive dialogue on this 

issue. 

They fail to recognize that discussing Yucca Mountain doesn’t 

equal endorsement. It’s leadership. I will never support a repository in Nevada that isn’t safe and that the people don’t want, period. Nevadans deserve a seat at the table. I’ve taken one of those 

seats. 

I appreciate the committee’s willingness to hear my testimony 

today and I look forward to working with members on both sides 

of the aisle to work towards solutions that is really worthy of 

Americans who have sent us here. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Hardy follows:] 

28 


21623.022
29 


21623.023
30 


21623.024
31 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back the time and the chair 

appreciates the testimony of my colleagues. 

It’s not the tradition of this committee to take questions to our 

colleagues so we’ll dismiss the first panel and ask the second panel 

to take their seats and thank you very much for your time. 

So we thank the second panel for joining us today. I want to 

thank my colleagues who have actually shown up in good numbers 

today to hear both our colleagues and this panel and their testimony, and hopefully will stay around for a few questions. 

So as with the first panel, I will just go one at a time. You’ll be 

recognized for 5 minutes. Your full statements submitted for the 

record. 

So with that, Mr.—first we will have Mr. Dan Schinhofen, County Commissioner of Nye County, Nevada—a friend of the committee’s. Good to see you back, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF DAN SCHINHOFEN, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, 

NYE COUNTY, NEVADA; THE HONORABLE JOSEPH HARDY, 

STATE SENATOR, STATE OF NEVADA; GENE HUMPHREY, 

PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TEST SOLUTIONS, INC. 

STATEMENT OF MR. SCHINHOFEN 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairmen, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the need for a realistic set of mitigation benefits to go to the state of Nevada and affected local communities for accepting a high-level spent nuclear 

fuel repository at Yucca Mountain. 

I am Dan Schinhofen, vice chairman of the Nye County Commission and designated liaison commissioner on Yucca Mountain. I appreciate the committee’s continued interest in Yucca Mountain 

issues. 

If built, the Yucca Mountain repository would be located entirely 

within the boundaries of Nye County. No governmental body has 

more responsibility for the health and safety of our residents than 

the Nye County Commission. 

For that reason, we have been actively involved in the Yucca 

Mountain process for decades. In fact, Nye County has conducted 

its own scientific studies. 

Some of our results became part of DOE’s license application. 

Others have been for our own oversight purposes. We believe in the 

integrity of the scientific review process for the Yucca Mountain repository. There is a federal process led by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission that includes all entities in a final independent decision on the safety of Yucca Mountain. 

The final determination if the repository can be built and operated safely should follow this process to completion. After spending 

over three decades and $15 billion dollars, common sense demands 

this. So do the clear mandates of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In 

other words, we want to see the federal government follow the law. 

My written testimony lays our views that there is no good alternative to the licencing process established in the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act. It also makes a recommendation on ways to improve 

that act. 

32 

To summarize, we believe the law should be amended to include 

a package of benefits that should go to the State of Nevada and 

local communities. This would not be bribe money. Instead, it 

would compensate the state and local communities for the increased responsibility that being the home of a spent nuclear fuel 

repository brings with it. It would also provide resources needed to 

build the personnel and physical infrastructure to support a massive public work project. 

We believe there should be two sets of benefits—one while the 

license is under review and the second when the repository is being 

built and operated. 

For the first stage we propose the following. One, resources to 

the state and local governments to fund oversight activities and 

participation in the license proceeding. Also, resources so those governments can fully participate in the planning of transportation 

routes to guarantee that the waste does not pass through Las 

Vegas. 

Two, resources to the site county to improve its infrastructure in 

preparation for construction. This would include resources for 

equipment, manpower and training for Nye County’s EMS, fire, 

law enforcement and other relevant county agencies. It would also 

provide resources to upgrade the county’s roads and water systems. 

Three, transfer of federal land to the state and impacted counties 

needed to support a repository. Four, resources to the University 

of Nevada system and community colleges to develop the trained 

workforce and expertise to support and monitor the project. 

Five, relocation of Department of Energy support offices and contractors into Nevada. Six, construction of new DOE laboratory facilities in Nye County to support Yucca Mountain to develop the 

next generation of nuclear technologies. 

Seven, payments to the state and local governments to replace 

any lost taxes and other revenues. 

Regarding the second set of benefits, which would kick in during 

the construction and operation phase of the project we do not have 

a comprehensive list prepared. Instead, we propose that the lawcreated task force with representatives from the DOE, NRC, state 

of Nevada, Nye County, impacted Native American tribes, and 

other local governments to develop a list of reasonable benefits. 

The task force should report back to Congress within 2 years. 

The list should include a minimum additional land transfers, construction of a multi-use rail line that would serve both Yucca 

Mountain and other users, construction of interstate Highway 111, 

grants to the University of Nevada and local community colleges 

and payments to the state site county, impacted local communities, 

and Native American tribes. 

The package should also address the need for water which will 

be required for the project and associated support activities. If additional water became available for a desalinization plant, it would 

greatly relieve the water controversies that plague southern Nevada as well as guaranteed needed supply for the project. 

To save even more money, we recommend that the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act be amended to allow Nevada to be an interim 

storage site. The current site design of Yucca Mountain includes 

aging pads that could hold up to 30,000 metric tons of waste. These 

33 

could be built quickly and Nye County could become an interim site 

almost immediately. This would eliminate the unnecessary expense 

of licensing another site . It would also facilitate moving the waste 

away from utility sites. 

I would add that the Nye County Commission has already formally granted its consent to this facility. We believe all the savings 

would result from proceeding with Yucca Mountain will far exceed 

the most generous package. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your willingness to engage the 

state of Nevada, local governments to develop a sensible package 

of benefits related to Yucca Mountain. 

I am here today to confirm to you that Nye County will be a willing partner in those efforts. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Schinhofen follows:] 

34 


21623.025
35 


21623.026
36 


21623.027
37 


21623.028
38 


21623.029
39 


21623.030
40 


21623.031
41 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired and I thank you 

for your testimony. 

The chair now recognizes, again, from the state of Nevada State 

Senator Joseph Hardy, and you are recognized for 5 minutes and 

that the 5 minutes isn’t, like, drop dead. 

We are fine if you over a few minutes. So don’t let that clock 

scare you. But if you go over too long then we’ll intervene. But 

you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HARDY 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think you have to push a button at the mic at 

the bottom there. 

Mr. HARDY. So if it’s a green light it’s on? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HARDY. That’s a new concept. Thank you. 

So as a physician I don’t want to do self-CPR so I’m glad I have 

some leeway. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Tonko. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to be here. There can be no discussion, no deal and no agreement from the state of Nevada on 

Yucca Mountain, the spent fuel repository, until all safety concerns 

have been addressed and resolved. 

We cannot have anyone in Nevada or a visitor to Nevada put at 

risk from either the shipment or the storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

Real people have reasonable and real concerns about the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in Nevada. 

The hospitality industry is concerned even about the perception 

of any risk that would decrease visitation to southern Nevada. People who drive the roads and live in the proximity to the roads that 

would be used have fears of accidents. Farmers could worry about 

well and danger of contamination. Politicians do not want to be the 

one who has to live with the wrong decision that could turn out 

like a water contamination on a much bigger scale than Flint, 

Michigan. 

In so many ways Yucca Mountain project illustrates that perception is reality. Thus, it behooves us to be sure that the, quote, 

‘‘science,’’ unquote, of nuclear storage is unassailable, irrefutable 

and verifiable. 

We will have to have every doubt and every question resolved 

with rational answers, not just from the advocates but from the 

skeptics with facts and figures. 

Even from those in foreign countries need to be assured that this 

is a safe place to come, stay and play. Water is critical to our lives 

and prosperity. 

We already know that the aquifers under the Nevada test site 

have been contaminated by underground detonations as well as the 

well documented effects of those downwind from the above-ground 

detonations. 

People will mistrust the government report as recently released 

as May 2016 that uses the word ‘‘small’’ in describing the potential 

adverse effect on water. 

There are definite economic benefits and risks for Nevada with 

the acceptance of spent fuel storage. People understand that spent 

fuel is not really inert or impotent in as much as we have to cool 

42 

it down on site for a about a decade before putting it in unbreakable casks and burying it in the ground far away from civilization. 

Business, developers, public officials all care about the fragile 

consumer confidence that drives our economy. Since statehood, Nevada has been shortchanged. Nevada only received one half the 

land as it could have had. Nevada leads the nation in the percentage of land controlled by the federal government. 

Payment in lieu of taxes, commonly called PILT, has not 

matched the revenue that would have been generated by land in 

private hands. Nevada remains at or near the bottom of states getting a percentage of our money back from the taxes sent to Washington, D.C. 

I have been impressed that the best laws come about with getting consensus and resolution of concerns from all viewpoints taken 

seriously into account. Partnerships work much better than opposing parties when momentous changes are made. 

How can we agree on something? Trust. It would be difficult for 

Nevada to work with the federal government when things are seen 

as impositions as opposed to agreed upon opportunities. 

How can Congress build trust? Relinquish land control, build the 

railroad, participate in road financing, consider local problems such 

as SNPLA, recognize the BLM land take downs need to take into 

account continuous parcels with water runoff realities, facilitate 

communication corridors for fiber optics and energy transmissions, 

I–11 to Las Vegas and on to Reno, making a test site—that’s what 

we call it—a place to develop research for reprocessing nuclear 

waste using spent fuel as a heat source to generate energy without 

water like some solar plants are doing now using salt, as well as 

protecting grid including microprocessing technologies and listening to the locals who know Nevada better than those who live far 

away. 

I realize that political science, counting votes will trump science. 

But we need both to concur and work together. I appreciate what 

Senator Reid and the Governors Bryan, Guinn and Sandoval have 

done to protect Nevada. 

We have come to a position where things are changing and the 

tide is shifting. I can count votes. In 2003, I presented Assembly 

Joint Resolution 6 originally asking for enough land to build a railroad from the Utah border to the test site as well as making a 

more reasonable PILT to Nevada. The land part was not accepted 

as Nevada had the votes to stop nuclear waste from coming. 

I now see Nevada in a position to call for all the above-mentioned 

requirements to be met, especially safety for all and a relationship 

built on trust and respect for the process of working together in 

this land of the free. 

This is only my opinion but I am under the impression that 

many share it with me. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

[The statement of Mr. Hardy follows:] 

43 


21623.032
44 


21623.033
45 


21623.034
46 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank you for your time. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Gene Humphrey, president of 

International Test Solutions, Incorporated. Again, your testimony 

is submitted for the record. You have 5 minutes and take your 

time. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HUMPHREY 

Mr. HUMPHREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You are recognized. 

Mr. HUMPHREY. Thanks for allowing me to speak. I am Gene 

Humphrey. I have a small business in Nevada. We moved it to Nevada from California because of the business climate in Nevada 

and for tax reasons, naturally. 

We manufacture a thin film that is used in making computer 

chips. We supply 164 different companies around the world. All of 

our material is manufactured in the United States. Most of our material is consumed in Asia and foreign countries. 

We maintain offices in Singapore and Taiwan and Japan and 

Korea so pretty international. I was raised near Cheyenne, Wyoming, in an area much similar to what Nevada is. Our house didn’t 

have running water until I went in the Army. Going into the Army 

was the way I could get out of the environment that I was in and 

advance myself. 

And so through going into the service and spending two tours in 

Vietnam I was able to go back to the University of Wyoming and 

get an education. 

In that area around Cheyenne they built the Atlas ICBM site in 

1958 and then later on those were replaced with Minuteman and 

Peacekeeper weapons systems. There is 200 silos around the ranch. 

Nuclear weapons are transported approximately a hundred miles 

from the main base at Cheyenne out to the furthest of the silos. 

They are transported over interstate highways—dual state highways that oiled and on gravel roads. 

So I know that transportation can be done safely and there is 

technology out there to be able to do it. As Americans, we’ve always 

faced these problems and been able to identify solutions for the 

problems, and I look at the transportation issue simply as technical 

issues that need to be addressed to solve the concerns that people 

have about safety. 

I also was a member of Nevadans for Carbon-Free Energy a 

number of years ago, a nonprofit to look at various technologies 

that could be brought to the state of Nevada to increase jobs in Nevada and revenue for Nevada and one of the things that we identified was a business opportunity that relates to processing of spent 

nuclear waste. 

We saw that the Nevada test site already had a history of nuclear weapons with multiple nuclear detonations down there and 

also storage currently of low-level nuclear waste in the Nevada test 

site area and it seemed that if it was done properly that the Yucca 

Mountain site could be utilized for the benefit of the people in Nevada. 

I’ve never been able to understand as a private citizen why we 

make the nuclear fuel rods, only use about 6 percent of the energy 

that’s in the fuel rod and then propose to park them someplace unVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:07 Jan 13, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-157 CHRIS
47 

derground 30,000 years, 300,000 years or a million years instead 

of utilizing the rest of the energy that’s in that rod. 

Seems to me, as a normal business guy, you’d try to utilize as 

much of that energy as you possibly could. I started my career 

working for the Energy Research and Development Administration 

for the U.S. government after the ’73 embargo, looking at ways to 

increase energy production in the United States. I ended up in the 

fossil fuels division. My first patent was in the conversion of coal 

to gaseous fuels. 

So I later went to work for the Department of Defense and was 

a weapons systems engineer on ICBMs in Cheyenne and we moved 

nuclear warheads and 220,000 pounds of high explosives around 

regularly in the community around Cheyenne without incident. 

So all of this can be done. In the Nevadans for Carbon-Free Energy one of the things we did is we funded a survey in the state 

to determine what people felt about using Yucca Mountain and reprocessing. 

And in that 2012 survey about 67 percent of the people said they 

supported some kind of development at Yucca Mountain and if the 

storage could be done safely and the plant safely operated they 

would support that. 

There have been surveys done ever since 2003 by multiple people 

and every year they come back with about the same kind of response. 

So I think in my time in Nevada people really want an open honest decision and input about what the facts are. We get a lot of 

scare tactics by a lot of people to be used for various reasons. 

But I think if you present the honest facts to the people they’ll 

support development at the Yucca Mountain site. They look forward to using the facilities to support our education system. 

I was at the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies where 

they were doing treatment of nuclear waste and to destroy the 

waste instead of store it and I met with several of major companies 

who have reprocessing technologies and I know that technically it 

is something that we can do. 

And so I would encourage you in the committee to look at an 

open honest discussion with the citizens of Nevada to find a safe 

way to develop a reprocessing facility and storage at Yucca Mountain. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of Mr. Humphrey follows:] 

48 


21623.035
49 


21623.036
50 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired and 

the chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes for my first 

round of questions—probably the only round that I’ll take. 

For Commissioner Schinhofen, did Nye County request to host a 

DOE consent-based siting public meeting? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Yes, sir. We did. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Did DOE provide a meaningful response to your 

quest and if so, when? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Yes, they did, yesterday. We’re going to meet 

with them today. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yesterday? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Yes. We requested in, I think, 2012. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Very timely. 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. We’d guess. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, will you let us know how that meetings goes, 

will you? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Happy to. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. DOE is currently seeking to develop ‘‘a 

consent-based siting process.’’ What is your perspective on their endeavor? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. I don’t know how you can get consent on any 

issue over the next election, let alone over 30 years and in consentbased, again, I don’t see how that happens because this would be 

a national security site. I don’t know what other national security 

sites allow state, local and tribal governments to object. So I think 

this needs to be seen as a national security issue, not as a consent. 

I don’t see it working. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and it’s interesting that the country that actually Yucca Mountain resides in has offered and asked for involvement in a consent based process. The DOE continues to go elsewhere and then they try to propose it, as they have in two other 

states, they’ve already been told no. 

So it’s a little frustrating from our point of view when local residents are willing to at least have a discussion and the Department 

of Energy is refusing that request from local folks. 

So do you think it is a missed opportunity for DOE to listen to 

the people who have the most experience in having a dialogue on 

spent nuclear fuel disposal? They’ve offered now to have a dialogue 

as of last night. 

But do you think they’ve lost a lot of time by not doing this when 

they first talked about this process? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Yes, sir. Absolutely lost a lot of time in that 

process. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. So let me move to Senator Hardy. 

Senator Hardy, I routinely hear claims that nuclear waste would 

be shipped through downtown Las Vegas on its way to Yucca 

Mountain. 

DOE analyzed a variety of transportation alternatives to ship 

spent fuel to Yucca Mountain and concluded that a ‘‘mostly rail’’ 

scenario was selected as the route of choice. Knowing those areas, 

I think that makes sense. 

However, as part of DOE’s comprehensive transportation evaluation highway routing was considered as part of the analysis. Federal transportation regulations permit states to identify highway, 

51 

in quotations, preferred routes for radiological shipments to minimize risk and file those with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

Currently, Nevada is receiving shipments of low-level radioactive 

waste for permanent disposal at the Nevada national security site. 

Are you aware if the state of Nevada has designated any routes for 

radioactive material with the federal government? 

Mr. HARDY. Joe Hardy, for the record. No, sir. I am not aware 

of any particular route that has been designated, recognizing that 

low-level radiation is used in Las Vegas for medical purposes, obviously, and so there would be low-level radiation things that are in 

Las Vegas right now. 

And so they would have to be taken somewhere outside of Las 

Vegas from inside of Las Vegas, which means there are no routes 

that I’m aware of that have been so designated. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. It’s our understanding the state of Nevada 

has never asked—gone through this process of designating routes. 

Mr. HARDY. That is correct, as far as I know, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would you support the state submitting such a 

plan to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration? 

Mr. HARDY. I think realistically a plan is better than no plan and 

recognizing that if we have the concept of rail being the thing that 

is most important and has been designated as safest that I would 

recognize we need to look at rail seriously as opposed to taking 

things through Las Vegas. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would identifying low-risk routes help the state of 

Nevada assure that preferred highway routes avoid major population centers such as Las Vegas and Reno? 

Mr. HARDY. It would give, certainly, help for the people who are 

in Las Vegas to recognize that we, the people who make decisions, 

are interested in their safety and wellbeing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. It is ironic that the state-based opposition to Yucca Mountain used previously discounted transportation 

routes as part of their scare tactics. But Nevada has not yet identified a preferred transportation route for low-level waste that is currently being shipped into Nevada for disposal at the Nevada national security site. 

And with that, I yield back my time and turn to the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Tonko, from New York. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and perhaps Mr. Schinhofen 

and to our senator—how do you foresee getting around the state 

water rights issues? Obviously, that’s an important part of an outcome here. 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. State water rights issues, Congressman? 

Mr. TONKO. Right. 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. In the state of Nevada the state water engineer has authority over all water issues. There is plenty of water 

in my county. Where all the low-level waste goes too is all in Nye 

County. 

It’s a matter of will, and it unfortunately is political will and not 

based in any science at this point and that’s what we hope is the 

science would speak to it and the state engineer would follow that 

and allow the water to be used because the water is currently used 

in Area 5, which is just down the road from Yucca Mountain. 

52 

Mr. TONKO. And that’s a state determination, not a—— 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. A state determination, absolutely. 

Mr. TONKO. And I’m sure you all have examples of incentives or 

benefits that should be included to assist the state, a tribal or local 

government that has agreed to host a nuclear repository. 

Do you believe that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act would need to 

be amended to modify or expand the incentives that could or 

should be provided? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. As my written testimony and my oral testimony, there are some amendments that could help this process, 

make it clear and easier. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. Senator, any improvements or modifications 

that you can—— 

Mr. HARDY. Yes. Thank you. Joe Hardy, for the record. 

We have been meeting on a regular basis with the water committee—the legislative water committee, as it were, and almost 

every basin in Nevada is over prescribed as meaning we don’t have 

as much water as we’ve said people have a water right to. 

And when you consider the aquifers under Nevada test site those 

major three aquifers have been contaminated already and so you 

don’t want to put a well down and bring that up. 

And if you consider the water being contaminated then you have 

to say that maybe when you store something such as the interim 

thing that would require an amendment that you probably aren’t 

going to have as much contamination above-ground storage or anywhere else as we’ve already had detonations underground but have 

contaminated the aquifers. So we basically have aquifers that are 

unavailable to us for those reasons. 

Mr. TONKO. And beyond that, are there other specific examples 

of benefits that you support that are not currently included in the 

existing statute? 

Mr. HARDY. And if that question is to me, I firmly believe that 

the consent such as the county of Nye is critical and I think realistically that consent can happen and when it’s done cooperatively 

recognizing the benefit and risk ratio and the benefits are probably 

going to far exceed the risks when it comes down to the reality of 

how to store it. 

And particularly I’m intrigued with the interim opportunity because that could be done, I think, fairly quickly according to the 

Nye County people. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. Thank you. 

And Mr. Humphrey, in your testimony you mentioned that the 

public should not be concerned by the transportation of spent nuclear fuel. 

Can someone give us an explanation of how spent fuel would be 

transported to Yucca Mountain? And would it be, for instance, in 

a combination of rail and truck transport? 

Mr. HUMPHREY. All of the information that I’ve seen is in casks 

either by rail or on truck. I know that Sandia did a number of 

tests. If you see the movie where the train runs into the cask and 

it doesn’t damage the cask—there’s been, I don’t know, hundreds 

of millions of dollars of testing done by the national labs, by the 

British government and others on transportation casks. 

53 

Mr. TONKO. And does the current infrastructure exist to allow for 

a safe and secure transport of spent fuel or would that have to be 

modified and improved? 

Mr. HUMPHREY. I would imagine it would have to be modified 

and improved. I’m not an expert on that. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. The transportation issues, Mr. Schinhofen or 

Senator Hardy, any concerns there that you would want to share? 

Mr. HARDY. It was interesting. I think transportation is probably 

one of the biggest challenges that we have if not the biggest. 

Earlier, we had put into the record a article from the Sun that 

just came out on the 6th and it used the phrase ‘‘radioactive pellets 

encased in ceramic also can be safely kept for more than 120 years 

in steel-lined water-filled concrete pools or reinforced concrete containers alongside the nuclear power plants that created them.’’ 

So it’s a little ironic to me to see that we have the article that’s 

against storage saying that it can be safely stored outside of Yucca 

Mountain next to a—so the storage issue, I think, has some interesting dynamics there. 

So it becomes the transportation issue and I enjoyed looking at 

some of the pictures of the on-site storage where they have three 

guys and four guys on a little thing on the other side of a storage 

place and the other four guys on the other side of the storage place 

and they’re putting the cask down into the concrete barrier and 

they are literally guiding it in and within arm’s reach making sure 

that it gets in. 

So the concept of how much radiation is going to be in that 

transportation issue is going to have to be looked at for the reality 

of it and divorce some of the emotions from it. 

So the transportation is something that I think can be done and 

can be done safely and we have to recognize that people still have 

rational fears and we have to adjust and make sure that we resolve 

those. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Your time has expired. We need to move on. 

Mr. TONKO. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Chair recognizes my colleague from 

Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, and I welcome this panel. 

I’m from the Pittsburgh area, which is the home of Westinghouse 

where the first commercial nuclear power plants were built where 

we still do a great deal of nuclear power plant designing and building and it’s also the home of the nuclear Navy in many ways in 

terms of design and work being done there. 

So quite familiar with this and Shippingport was the first commercial nuclear power plant along the Ohio River west of Pittsburgh and we still have Beaver Valley there and other plants 

around. 

So we recognize is when you have spent nuclear fuel it’s still 

there right now underneath several feet of water on site and it’s 

there and I hope the nation understands this too—it’s safe there 

but it’s still in close proximity to cities and suburban areas very 

close by. 

So when I look upon things like Yucca Mountain and other facilities and I look at the places I have toured in France where they 

54 

grind up spent nuclear fuel and embed it in rock, where in Sweden 

where they drill down hundreds of meters and build a cave and 

look at storing it there. 

There’s different designs around the world but it is still a clean 

fuel. It does not have an impact there in terms of CO2 emissions 

and it’s something I want to make sure we continue to support. 

But all of you have discussed infrastructure needs associated 

with hosting a nuclear disposal facility and I’d like to know in your 

opinion what do you consider to be the highest priority infrastructure opportunities for Congress to examine? 

Mr. Schinhofen, we’ll begin with you and just go across the 

panel. 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think essential to the Yucca Mountain project to store the spent 

fuel down there would be a rail line. Absolutely. If we had a rail 

to move it there would be the best option. 

We currently, with transportation right down the road from proposed Yucca Mountain, is Area 5, where we ship what’s called lowlevel waste there all the time. 

We have U–235, which is as hot as anything that would go to 

Yucca Mountain, ship there recently safely on the roads. But the 

roads need to be improved and the I–11 corridor would help with 

that, too. 

And currently the city council of Las Vegas does not allow shipments to go through the Spaghetti Bowl, which is right 

indowntown Las Vegas. So all that material does come through 

Nye County and Area 5 is completely in Nye County too where we 

store all that, too. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Senator Hardy. 

Mr. HARDY. It would be a little disingenuous of myself to say it’s 

rail in Nevada. In order to get to a rail anywhere in Nevada you 

have to get on a rail from someplace elsewhere and so you have 

every single state, every single city on the way who’s interested in 

what’s coming between there and radiation, however safe it may 

be. 

So yes, we need a rail line in order to be able to do that and recognizing that that rail is connected we need the conversation to 

exist bigger than Nevada. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Humphrey. 

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. I assume that the rail lines would have to 

be improved. But it also is a matter of what size shipments you’re 

going to use. 

Just because of the tonnage it makes sense to use rail and you’d 

have to improve the rail line. But if you broke it into smaller shipments to take it in over longer period of time in more random intervals to eliminate any kind of, you know, predetermined schedule 

for shipments you could also ship it with trucks. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Schinhofen, on another question—your testimony notes the 

design of facilities at Yucca Mountain could accommodate consolidated interim storage sites, which Department of Energy is currently pursuing at others sites. 

55 

However, Nuclear Waste Policy Act currently prohibits an interim storage facility and a repository in the whole state. So would 

you support removing this statutory barrier so Nye County could 

compete with other locations to host a consolidated storage facility? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Yes, sir. In my written testimony too we believe that the aging pads that are designed at part of Yucca Mountain would be a great place for that and we do realize that it would 

need to be amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I appreciate all of your comments and 

testimony on this and we know we have to deal with this and every 

state has their role to play and I’m thankful for your candid testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Chairman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes my colleague from California, Mr. 

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the chairman for holding this 

hearing. It’s an important hearing and we need to find a solution. 

We can’t just assume the nuclear waste is going to go away—close 

our eyes, click our heels. No, that’s not going to work. We need 

hard solutions and I appreciate your testimony this morning. 

Nuclear waste does have value, in my opinion, but history is not 

very kind about this. I mean, look at Savannah River, Rocky Flats, 

Hanford. 

There are very expensive, very dangerous nuclear waste sites 

that need to be cleaned up because of the actions of the federal government. And now the federal government has tried to force Nevada to accept using Yucca Mountain without proper transparency, 

without consent and now what’s result? We’ve got a big stalemate. 

Twenty years, 30 years, nothing has happened. There are technical solutions, I agree completely. I’m a scientist, an engineer. We 

need to just be transparent. We need to be honest and we need to 

do the science properly. But, again, we need complete transparency 

and we need consent-based solutions. 

Now, there’s a lot of mistrust that’s been sowed over time with 

Nevada because of actions of the federal government. 

Mr. Schinhofen and Senator Hardy have a list of demands, which 

I think are quite in line with what’s needed. If the federal government meets some of those demands or all of those demands are the 

people of Nevada going to be accepting of a project there? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Congressman, if I may speak first. 

I believe they will but I think this goes—my three children live 

in the biggest town to Yucca Mountain. My four grandchildren 

have all been born there. 

So it all goes back to safety—is it going to be safe and we won’t 

know that unless the law is followed and we get after 30 years and 

$15 billion dollars and all the science has been collected we need 

to hear the science. 

I think if the science is proven and done by the NRC in a fair 

and open process people would definitely be more responsive and 

I refer to the studies the gentleman mentioned and the last one in 

the RJ was 64 percent of Nevadans wouldn’t object. 

56 

But I think what needs to happen more than anything we need 

to follow the law and let the process play itself out and then we 

will know. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, we’ve heard a lot of emotional—not a lot. 

We’ve heard some emotional testimony this morning. Nevada has 

put up with a lot. They have done their duty. They don’t want any 

more of this. I mean, is it possible to overcome that? 

And that’s not only a question for Nevada. If the citizens of Nevada say no, then is any other community in the country going to 

say yes? I mean, I think we’re in a real difficult quandary here 

today. 

So what is it going to take for the federal government? And 

you’ve said that we need transparency. We need science. I’m just 

worried that even if we do those things that mistrust is so deep 

that we’re not going to be able to convince any community to accept 

nuclear waste. That’s my concern. 

Mr. HARDY. If I may. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate the question. 

I was a little stunned. February June 17th, Wall Street Journal 

business section, front page of the business section, has a subhead 

line ‘‘Green Groups Ease Opposition to Nuclear Power.’’ 

I mean, we are seeing a understanding that hasn’t been there before when you are comparing carbon footprints, for instance. 

So you are seeing people who are understanding that we have 

nuclear power. It works without the sun shining or the wind blowing and we recognize that you’re going to have to do something and 

if Texas wanted it we would be thrilled. 

Nevada is not at this table saying we won this. I am not going 

to represent Nevada nor pretend to. But I can tell you there are 

a lot of people that I talk to on a daily basis and I’ve made a point 

of asking this that say I understand it and I think it makes sense. 

Mr. HUMPHREY. And I would say, sir, that I look at it as a business opportunity for Nevada. It’s a lot of jobs, a lot of revenue, improving our school systems, all the things that we’ve been working 

for in Nevada to try to do over the last years. 

And with this program we are actually getting paid to take the 

jobs and we are not having to use tax abatement and other programs to buy the jobs. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I think it comes down to there really is 

value in the waste material. There is energy. There is plenty of 

value if we can get to it without contaminating other areas without 

sowing mistrust like has been done in the past. 

So Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Again, I thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you very much to the panel for being here. We appreciate 

your testimony today. 

And Mr. Humphrey, if I could start my questions with you and 

first, thank you very much for your service in the Army, to our 

country. We appreciate it. 

57 

Mr. HUMPHREY. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. And if I could just go into some of your testimony. 

You talked about reprocessing and we all know what’s happening 

in France with their reprocessing. 

I was wondering if you might talk a little bit about France and 

its experience in reprocessing that spent nuclear fuel, what their 

experience has been and maybe what the economic impact has been 

on France because of that reprocessing. 

Mr. HUMPHREY. Well, my understanding was that France is 

about 60 percent of their electric power was generated from nuclear 

power plants. And so their reprocessing facilities were integral and 

key to their nuclear program. 

Those facilities also are decades old and the technology has much 

improved since that time. In our discussions with various companies that can do reprocessing we found in the new plants and in 

the ability to build a reprocessing facility that would actually eliminate the need for this long-term storage of the large quantities of 

material. 

Britain had a reprocessing facility. Russia has reprocessing. 

China is incorporating. Japan has a reprocessing facility. 

But somehow in the United States we’ve elected not to do reprocessing and yet we are the leaders in technology in the world. And 

it would seem to me that we need to emphasize our efforts on 

eliminating the nuclear waste instead of storing it. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, also just to follow up on that, if we would have 

reprocessing here in the United States would it make sense that 

the reprocessing plant really locate near the Yucca site when Yucca 

becomes, let’s just say, a repository? 

Mr. HUMPHREY. I think it’s the perfect location. You also have interim storage. You’ll have some small amount of permanent storage 

and if you had the reprocessing facility right there the security for 

the area is great and I think it would be great for the state of Nevada, the jobs it would create, and the support for our university 

systems, having a research center located on the site to be a center 

of the world for nuclear research. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Schinhofen, I see you shaking your head there. Would you 

like to comment? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. I agree wholeheartedly that that would be— 

Nye County, when we’ve heard that Nevada has done its part, and 

I agree it has. 

But all of that is located in Nye County and after all these years 

and Area 5 where we store low-level waste and being the only 

county that has had an atomic dropped from a plane on it, we have 

nothing to show for it. 

A reprocessing facility, I agree with Congressman Amodei too, as 

part of this holistic approach, not just dump and run, is a great 

idea and where it should go. 

But the first step is we need to follow what we do have and let 

the science speak and show it safe. But I agree with the gentleman 

here, too. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me follow up. In your testimony you also discuss 

how the commission has been actively and constructively engaged 

with the DOE on Yucca for decades. Can you elaborate as well as 

58 

discuss what relationship and communications you have had with 

the NRC? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Our relationship with the DOE over the years? 

Mr. LATTA. Right. 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. OK. 

Mr. LATTA. And also what your communication has been with the 

NRC. 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Unfortunately, I would have to say our communication hasn’t been quite so good with the DOE as we would hope, 

as evidenced by we’re just going to have a meeting now about interim when we asked a few years ago. 

And in light of them putting U–235 in Area 5 and we asked for 

a year and a half for information and we didn’t get it and when 

we finally did the governor—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So they used the site to store and they didn’t even 

really ask or—they didn’t ask for any permission? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. No. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. There was no consent-based program for this storage? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Yes. There was no consent. The governor did 

sit down and hold a group of meetings for about a year with them 

and we were excluded from those meetings. And the site is wholly 

in our county. So we haven’t had a lot of open communication with 

them but we have done a lot of studies. 

We have done a lot of water studies in particular. With due respect to Congresswoman Titus, none of the water flows towards 

Las Vegas. It flows out towards Amargosa and Beatty in Death 

Valley. 

So we have done a lot of the studies. But as for our relationship 

with DOE we have constantly asked to be involved and be included. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I thank my colleague for letting me jump in 

there. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 

McKinley, for 5 minutes. Check your mic again. I don’t think it’s 

working. So either—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. Three quick questions and we’ll see 

any one of you that would like to answer that. 

The waste isolation pilot plant that is located—it’s an obvious 

geologic repository for nuclear waste located in New Mexico. As 

part of this partnership with the state of New Mexico, they had the 

ability to inspect the transportation of canisters into the state. 

That’s what I understand the agreement was with DOE. Would 

this model actually help the confidence of your constituents that 

the spent fuel rods can be transported safely? 

Mr. HARDY. If I may. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Anything that we do that allows the state to have control is 

something that is critical. So not only can send but control the ability to inspect, the ability to sign off on would be absolutely necessary. 

It’s not something that you can say we trust the federal government and all of its different agencies at a different time with a different administrator, et cetera. 

59 

So the state would be critical that it would be involved with that 

and obviously you do not want to ignore the people who live there 

in that process. And so it would behoove us to make sure that Nye 

County not only has a seat at that table but has input to it. So if 

it comes it won’t be pretty if we don’t have the say. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. All right. And maybe just a follow-up question. 

Are there other transportation priorities that Congress and DOE 

should examine to, again, continue to increase its confidence in 

people in the transportation? Are there others? 

Mr. HARDY. And while I’ve got the mic—Joe Hardy, for the 

record—if you consider, and I’ve heard some people say depending 

on how big the cask is, for instance, you would have to do highway 

hardening. 

So you have a highway that is strong enough to maintain the 

truck traffic. You would have to look at where that is going to be 

and you would have to extend what we call I–11 to a place because 

the current road system probably would not be able to sustain the 

loads that would be needed if there’s any truck carrying at all 

through Nevada. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. The third wrap-up question that I have with 

Senator—excuse me, Congressman Murphy, we went over to the 

Hague in France to see the recycling facility about 5 years ago, I 

assume it was. 

But one of the things that I recall very vividly was they were 

talking about the cost of the recycling was so expensive and they 

said that because there is such a demand in France of using the 

nuclear rods that they could afford to make that happen and the 

fact that their utility bills are considerably higher than ours in 

America. 

So they were warning us, I suppose, or alerting us that this cost 

of the spent fuel—the recycling is an expensive process. Can any 

of you enlighten? Other than advancing technology, pursuing it so 

more innovatively that we might be able to find that? I’ve heard 

you earlier say there is none occurring in this country and that’s 

a shame. But what is the current—is it cost-driven? 

Mr. HUMPHREY. I think it’s primarily cost-driven. The reprocessing and the people that we’ve talked to said that it’s going to be 

much more expensive than generating power from a straight, new 

electric power plant. 

But you’re disposing of a problem and under the original legislation, as I understand it, the ratepayers are paying this tenth of a 

mil per kilowatt hour, anyone who uses electric power, and that’s 

being paid for the disposal of the fuel. 

And so in the original enabling legislation the idea always had 

been as the people that use electric power are going to pay for the 

ultimate life cycle of it, which I also believe should be done for 

other things such as solar, wind, and everything else. 

But it certainly will be more expensive. But it solves a problem 

that we’ve had for a long time and I think the cost of it would be 

minimal. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Just to illuminate a little—when people use 

these terms a lot of expense is this twice the cost? Three times the 

cost? 

60 

Mr. HUMPHREY. In what I’ve seen it’s probably close to twice the 

cost. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Twice the cost. 

Mr. HUMPHREY. And then but also in the new technology you destroy the plutonium and generate electric power, which gives you 

additional revenue so there’s some offsetting. And I’m not an expert 

on the economics of reprocessing. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 

Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each of 

you for being here. I guess most of you have been here before and 

we appreciate you taking the time. 

And first, I just want to say to Mr. Humphrey thank you for your 

service to our country and your two tours in Vietnam, and I want 

to say thank you and welcome home. Thank you. 

Mr. HUMPHREY. Thank you. 

Mr. HARPER. Senator Hardy, your testimony notes that the federal government obviously owns a large amount of land in Nevada. 

Could you please explain a little more about how this federal land 

control impacts state economic development opportunities? 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. Joe Hardy, for the record. 

If you can have land in private hands, it’s very easy to do property tax, for instance, and property tax is what the East does in 

order to fund education. 

Eighty-seven percent of the land controlled by the federal government we can’t tax. So if you look at the numbers you’re probably 

getting a tenth of the amount of money that you could generate 

when it’s compared with four other states, for instance, on how 

much you could generate in proper use of the land. And I heard 

Congressman Amodei say, you know, we want 5 percent of the 

land. 

Well, in 2003, I said I wanted 1.5 percent of the land. But if you 

look at the reality of the land in Nevada there is some land that’s 

better than other land at putting in the hands of private property. 

BLM doesn’t have enough to administer everything anyway and 

if we had the opportunity to sell land and have that opportunity 

to have property tax we would then be able to fund education 

whereas Alaska they got money to fund education—poof, here’s 

your money, fund your education. 

I would like land. I can do something with land. I can build 

things. We can have a economic opportunity in Nevada. 

Mr. HARPER. Right. Thank you, Senator Hardy. 

Commissioner Schinhofen, does Nye County experience similar 

limitations on economic development and if so what does that mean 

for your economy? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Similar, yes. Ninety-eight percent of my county 

is either owned or managed by the federal government and we are 

the third largest county by land mass in the continental United 

States. 

So yes, we have that same limitation in trying to work with BLM 

to free some of that up it has been 15 years since our last RMP. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you both for that input. 

61 

And Senator Hardy, I’m going to talk a little bit about the authorizing legislation for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, WIPP. 

In includes a requirement that DOE provide free and timely access to data related to health, safety and environmental issues at 

WIPP to New Mexico and the New Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group. 

This enables New Mexico to provide an independent technical 

evaluation of WIPP. So my question, Senator Hardy, is would a 

similar construct for an independent technical evaluation for a Nevada-based organization build trust for your constituents and assuring the repository meets all regulatory requirements? 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Independent is interesting. I’m not sure I want an independent. 

I want one by Nevada. In other words—— 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Who would you recommend or do you have an 

entity—— 

Mr. HARDY. I don’t have a list in my pocket. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Mr. HARDY. But I would like Nevada to have a role in that because if I have the federal government, who has that independent 

group not to use current political things in a sentence right now 

it’s not as independent as it is that we would trust. 

So if we choose it, we trust it. If you choose it, we don’t trust it. 

And so we want control. We want to be able to say this is what 

we hired to have done. 

To illustrate New Mexico, for instance, back in the day I did the 

numbers and we got 75 cents back from our dollar that we sent to 

Washington, D.C. and New Mexico got $2.01 back. 

And so if you look at the medical aspect of the WIPP and how 

it affects health, we went ahead and did our Medicaid acceptance 

and so now you’re looking at we doubled the number of Medicaid 

recipients in the state of Nevada when we did that. That is a huge 

cost to the state of Nevada and we are, obviously, looking for ways 

that we can afford that. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, thank 

you for joining us today. This is an important topic and your presence here certainly validates that. 

I want to get into a little bit about the education partnerships. 

Nevada higher education institutions have previously received 

funding to support nuclear science activities associated with Yucca 

Mountain. 

So my question, Senator Hardy and Mr. Schinhofen, do you support resumption of that funding and if so how can Congress assure 

that funding is effectively managed and supports nuclear science 

programs in the state? 

Senator, why don’t you go first? 

Mr. HARDY. I love the question. First of all, you’re asking us if 

you can trust us. That’s the irony, I guess, from my standpoint. So 

we have a history of—— 

62 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you have to realize, Senator, that the federal 

government issues—and I say the federal government at large— 

spends a lot of money on things that the American people don’t 

trust. So it’s not me that’s asking can we trust you. 

We’re the voice of the American people. It’s can the American 

people support the state of Nevada, and I think I know the answer 

to that but I want to give you an opportunity to articulate that. 

Mr. HARDY. The simple answer is yes. We have been very diligent in making sure we know what the Nevada system of higher 

education does, where that money goes and how we do it. 

So if there is, and that’s the big if and I can read tea leaves, 

things are happening. They’re going to happen. So what is it that 

if something happens that you can depend on us. 

And you can put strings on that as we would hope somebody does 

because I pay taxes, too. So there have to be strings. But the recognition of somewhere that is probably the most secure, the most 

safe, the best place to do anything in the way of research for nuclear whatever it is happens to be on a place that is Yucca Flat—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. HARDY [continuing]. Where we have bombed under and over 

more than anywhere in the world and that is the place that is the 

most secure. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Schinhofen. 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Short answer, yes. We would like to have that 

resumed and put the same restrictions on it you put on other moneys that came to us from before. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. Well, continuing with you and continuing on what some of the line of questioning that my colleague, 

Mr. Harper, asked, Mr. Schinhofen, I understand that the Bureau 

of Land Management owns a significant amount of land in Nye 

County. 

Some of this land, specifically, Amargosa Valley, was previously 

made available to Nye County for purchase in 2007—for purchase 

and then in 2007 the Nye County commissioners adopted an area 

plan to use a parcel of land to develop a ‘‘Yucca Mountain project 

gateway area.’’ 

Will you please describe the key components of this plan and 

how the federal government could assist in developing this proposal? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. Congressman, I really couldn’t go into great detail. We did acquire 61 acres or about 5,000 acres that were available. The BLM has pulled all of those back and has made no land 

now available in Amargosa for us. We have 61 acres near the gate 

that could be used for a variety of purposes—for study, for offices, 

for support. But I would be happy to send you that information—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Did they give a reason for why they pulled that 

land back? 

Mr. SCHINHOFEN. We are supposed to do a research management 

plan, an RMP, every 10 years. We’ve been in the middle of ours for 

15 years now. They’re afraid of what taking that land away would 

do to one of the wildlife sites miles away from that. 

Other than that, I don’t know why they’ve done it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. 

63 

And for any one of you on the panel, just real quickly in my last 

30 seconds, the construction of a repository in Nevada would be a 

massive multi-generational infrastructure project. What would this 

major investment mean for high-skilled jobs in the state? We have 

got about 20 seconds, so quickly. 

Mr. HARDY. The jobs in the state would come with all of the research and things that you’re going to do there, not just the storage 

because once it is stored, it is there. 

So I think it’s the development of the research that comes afterwards. It’s the development of the site for other purposes. It’s using 

the land for other purpose. I want land. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

Seeing no other colleagues present, we want to thank the second 

panel for not only your testimony but also your answering of the 

questions. This is just one of numerous hearings we’ve had. 

We’ve had it on funding. We’ve had it on transportation. We’ve 

done some on the science. Obviously, when we talk to NRC we’ve 

been involved with them in discussions. 

So this is just—as the senator would know, this is a process as 

we move forward on legislation and negotiations with the state of 

Nevada. So we appreciate your time, look forward to working with 

you. 

And with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

64 


21623.001
65 


21623.002
66 


21623.003
67 


21623.004
68 


21623.005
69 


21623.006
70 


21623.007
71 


21623.008
72 


21623.009
73 


21623.010
74 

Æ 


21623.011