U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

25–054 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–970 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BLUE RIBBON 

COMMISSION ON AMERICA’S NUCLEAR FUTURE 

FOR A CONSENT-BASED APPROACH TO SITING 

NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND MANAGEMENT 

FACILITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 7, 2012 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 7, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 1 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 3 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 5 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 6 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 126 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho, prepared statement . 126 

WITNESSES 

Scowcroft, Brent, Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force (retired), and President, 

The Scowcroft Group ............................................................................................ 8 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 21 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 26 

Peterson, Per F., Professor, Chair, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley ............................................................................ 27 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 29 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 34 

Fettus, Geoffrey, Senior Project Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Wright, David, President, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and Vice Chairman, Public Service Commission of South Carolina .. 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Howes, Eric, Director of Government and Public Affairs, Maine Yankee .......... 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Metlay, Daniel S., Senior Professional Staff, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical 

Review Board ........................................................................................................ 86 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 109 

Orrell, S. Andrew, Director of Nuclear Energy and Fuel Cycle Programs, 

Sandia National Laboratories ............................................................................. 110 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112 

(1) 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON AMERICA’S NUCLEAR 

FUTURE FOR A CONSENT-BASED APPROACH 

TO SITING NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND 

MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper (Chairman of the 

Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Barrasso, Udall, Merkley, and Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Good morning; welcome one and all, General 

Scowcroft, Professor Peterson, ladies and gentlemen. 

We appreciate the efforts of all our witnesses to be here today. 

I want to pass on my very best to Congressman Hamilton, who is 

one of my heroes and mentors from my time in the House. I appreciate it, and hope he is doing well. 

Today’s hearing is really one of several that we hope to hold on 

the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future as our Committee starts to deliberate on how we move forward on what I think what we all believe is the very important 

issue of nuclear waste disposal in this country and really in the 

world. Specifically today we will be focusing on the consent-based 

siting recommendations made by the Commission. Senators will 

have 5 minutes for their opening statements, and then we will recognize our first panel of witnesses, two members of the Blue Ribbon Commission itself. 

General Scowcroft and Dr. Peterson will have 5 minutes each to 

offer their statements to our Committee. If you go a little bit over 

that, that is OK. But not too far over that. Following the first panel’s statements, we will have one round of questions. And somewhere during this, we will probably start some votes. I think we 

have one vote today at 10:30. So we will deal with that, and then 

start right back up. Maybe if we are lucky we will be able to continue in session. I would like to try that. 

2 

Then our second panel of witnesses will come forward, and their 

testimony will be followed again by another round of questions. 

That is sort of the game plan. We will see how it works out. 

Across this country, we have 104 currently operating nuclear 

power reactors who are providing this nation with clean, reliable 

power. They provide roughly 20 percent of the electricity to the 

people of this country. Unlike fossil-fueled power plants, these nuclear power plants do not emit sulfur dioxide, do not emit nitrogen 

oxide, do not emit mercury, do not emit carbon dioxide, all of which 

harm our health and our environment. Currently our nuclear reactors are storing spent nuclear fuel onsite in a safe and reliable 

manner. 

I have been told that the technology we have to store spent nuclear fuel, called dry cask storage, can be safe for another 50 to as 

many as 100 years, perhaps even longer. However, our nuclear reactors were not designed to keep the spent fuel onsite forever. And 

as our reactors age and are decommissioned, we must find an alternate resting place for our nuclear spent fuel. 

Unfortunately, our country has been on a path to finding a place 

for nuclear spent fuel for decades. It was over 30 years ago when 

Congress realized the importance of finding a permanent solution 

for disposal of our spent fuel and high level waste. In response, 

Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, moving this 

country forward toward deep mine geologic nuclear waste repositories. 

After years of study and debate, we find ourselves 30 years later 

at what is really a dead end. We have no functioning nuclear waste 

repository and none in the foreseeable future. I applaud President 

Obama for realizing that we need to forge a new pathway to dealing with our nuclear waste by forming this Blue Ribbon Commission which is represented here today. 

I want to thank General Scowcroft, and I want to thank Congressman Lee Hamilton, Commissioner Peterson, and the other 

commissioners for what is very good work on this effort. I believe 

the Commission did a thorough job, reaching out literally to thousands of Americans and folks all over the world in searching for 

the best way to move forward on this front. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations provide us with an excellent road map to 

enable us to not just find a new path, but to go the right direction. 

Before we start running full speed ahead, we need to make sure 

that we fully learn from our past mistakes and not repeat those 

missteps. If not, our country may well find ourselves 30 years from 

now in another dead end situation, the kind that we face today. 

I believe that one of the biggest mistakes that we made is that 

we were unable to get consent from all parties on the location of 

disposal. Somehow we have learned in communities, really, States 

across the country to compete with one another for the siting of 

prisons in their States as opposed to other States, but haven’t 

learned how to get communities to compete for our disposal sites 

for spent fuel. 

Some of my colleagues have heard me discuss in the past in 

Delaware that siting prisons is not an easy thing to do in fairly 

dense populations. But we have found there are a number of other 

States around the country who, as part of their economic developVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:03 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25054.TXT SONYA
3 

ment plan, would be a host to build prisons and host prisoners 

from other States. If we can get States to do that, we ought to be 

able to get figure out who would like to do what they are doing 

over in France, in providing good paying jobs in high tech facilities 

for spent fuel. 

That is why I believe, out of all the Commission’s recommendations, the recommendation on consent-based siting is the most important, and that is why we are holding our hearing today on this 

important issue. 

As a former two-term Governor—and I know Senator Alexander 

is a former two-term Governor and knows this as well, and so do 

our other colleagues—but I know that any consent-based approach 

must include a meaningful partnership between Federal, local, and 

State leaders. We also have to have open communication with the 

people who live and work in and around those communities. Only 

with open communication will we be able to re-establish the public 

trust and confidence that is needed to solve our nuclear waste disposal issues once and for all. 

In closing, I am looking forward to today’s discussion. I am especially interested in hearing what we have learned from our mistakes and what we can do different as we examine how consentbased siting might work here in the USA. 

With that, let me turn to my partner in crime, Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to join you in welcoming all the witnesses who have 

agreed today to be here to testify, including the two Blue Ribbon 

Commissioners. Most especially I want to welcome Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft, the co-chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission. 

Thank you for your service to our country and for agreeing to testify today. Thank you both. 

Mr. Chairman, the issue of the storage of nuclear waste is vital 

to maintaining and expanding affordable nuclear power in the 

United States. All of us here know that Congress took action 30 

years ago to begin addressing the problem of the build up of nuclear waste stored at nuclear plants throughout the United States. 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed by Congress laid out a process that looked at three possible long-term storage sites. Yucca 

Mountain was deemed the best by the Department of Energy after 

a thorough technical analysis. 

Congress has voted a number of times to retain Yucca Mountain 

as the national site, and $15 billion has been spent on the project. 

Nineteen billion dollars is the estimated taxpayer liability to be 

paid out of the judgment funds to utilities because the DOE has 

not yet removed the nuclear waste as promised. Thirty billion dollars is the total amount of IOUs in the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund 

that ratepayers have been paying into that must eventually be paid 

back by the taxpayers because Congress spent the money on other 

programs. 

Unknown is the cost of creating another Federal agency to manage nuclear waste, as recommended by the Commission. 

4 

The Yucca Mountain project goes back three decades, and it 

seems that we are nowhere near today yet a long-term solution. 

The question we have to ask is, how do we know that if we adopt 

the recommendations laid out in the Commission’s report that we 

won’t be back here again three decades from now, having spent billions more without a long-term storage solution. Can this plan be 

a bridge that will result in long-term solution, or will this kind of 

be a bridge back to square one? 

So that is what I hope to find out in what I hope will be a series 

of hearings on this important subject. The barriers to establishing 

a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste are the same barriers 

that interim storage facilities will face. So whether it is the cost of 

shipping the waste and building the storage facilities, whether it 

is the siting of the facilities, whether it is the transportation routes 

for the shipment of the waste or the environmental impact of shipping and storing the waste, or the bureaucratic red tape of permitting the project across multiple governmental entities, none of 

these issues have yet gone away. 

Even while advocating a new consent-based approach to siting 

the waste, which we will explore today, the Commission itself admits in the report that ‘The crux of the challenge derives from a 

Federal, State, tribal, and local rights dilemma that is far from 

unique to the nuclear waste issue and no simple formula exists for 

solving it.’’ 

So the Commission is attempting to solve this problem and offer 

solutions to the siting and storage of waste. They have cited examples in New Mexico, Finland, France, Spain, and Sweden where 

there have been possible templates for us to follow. 

So I look forward to exploring these examples and see if we have 

found something new here that can work. But we must not lose 

sight of the ultimate goal here, which is, where is the long-term solution, and are we getting there any time soon. We must not forget 

that nuclear power is a viable part of our energy mix. It is affordable, runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is an essential part 

of an all of the above strategy. 

We cannot secure our country’s energy future without providing 

for its continued success. That means developing our natural resources such as mining for domestic American uranium, found in 

abundance, Mr. Chairman, in my home State of Wyoming. It also 

means expediting the siting and construction of new nuclear power 

plants across the country and providing for a long-term storage facility for spent fuel. 

So I pledge to continue to work with my colleagues, with you, 

others on the Committee and in the Senate to achieve these things. 

Again, thank you very much for this hearing this morning, and I 

look forward to the testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks a lot for your statement. 

I think Senator Merkley might be up next, then Senator Alexander. 

Senator MERKLEY. I will simply say that I appreciate your report 

very much, that this is an incredibly important challenge, and I 

look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you. 

5 

Senator CARPER. Short but sweet, thank you. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. I know this is an issue of real interest to you, 

and I am delighted that you are part of this. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. Thank you for having the hearing, and to you and Senator Barrasso, and after we vote I will be 

back so I can hear what all the witnesses have to say and hopefully 

ask some questions. 

General Scowcroft, Professor Peterson, thank you both for your 

hard work on all of this. My view on nuclear power is pretty well 

known. To think about using windmills when we have nuclear reactors would be like General Scowcroft going to war in sailboats 

when we had a nuclear navy available. But I won’t get into all that 

today. 

As the Chairman said, and as Senator Barrasso said, we have 

had a stalemate here for about 25 years, as you have said in your 

report. And we in Congress have caused some of that. And we need 

to break that stalemate. Your report told us something we know or 

should have known; it is the obvious that no policy or process involving nuclear waste can be successful unless it is consent-based 

along the way. 

So we have tried to break that stalemate. And by we, I say Senator Bingaman, Senator Feinstein, who are the ranking members 

on Energy and the Energy Appropriations Committee, and Senator 

Murkowski and I, who are the ranking Republican members, we 

have decided that we are going to work together, Mr. Chairman, 

with you and others to try to break the stalemate, address the 

issue and begin to implement the best ideas from this report. 

Two things have happened this year which are moving us in that 

direction. First, we were able to include, with the approval of the 

Authorization Committee leaders, a provision in this year’s Energy 

and Water Appropriations bill that creates a pilot program for the 

Department of Energy to begin to find consolidation sites for used 

nuclear fuel. That would be a consent-based process, and it would 

be a place where you would put nuclear fuel before it goes into a 

long-term repository. 

We thank you for the endorsement by the co-chairs of your Commission of this idea. Dr. Peterson has also commended the idea; 

that is a big help. Whether one is for or against Yucca Mountain, 

we need to move ahead. We still need consolidation sites. We have 

some places around the country of the 65 sites where we have used 

nuclear fuel where there are no plants any more. Those would be 

obvious places where we ought to move that used nuclear fuel to 

consolidation sites. 

And it is our responsibility, as Senator Barrasso said. Under the 

law, it is our job to get the waste and to take care of it. We are 

not doing that, and the Government is liable for that. So that is 

another reason to break the stalemate. 

Still another reason to break the stalemate is, even if Yucca 

Mountain were open today, we would still need a second repository 

6 

very quickly. Because the stuff we have would pretty well fill up 

Yucca Mountain if it were open. 

So we need to move ahead. We need to break the stalemate. I 

am very appreciative of Senators Carper and Barrasso focusing on 

this. I want to commend Senators Bingaman and Feinstein and 

Murkowski for their leadership. We know that fuel safely stored 

can be stored there for a long time, maybe 100 years. But that is 

not where it is supposed to be stored. And we need to solve that 

problem. 

The second thing that is happening is that Senator Bingaman 

and Senator Murkowski are developing a comprehensive proposal 

to try to implement the recommendations that your Commission 

has made. Senator Feinstein and I hope to be co-sponsors of that. 

We have been meeting on it regularly. We hope that that bill can 

be introduced within the next 2 or 3 weeks. Senator Bingaman 

hopes to have a hearing on it soon. 

In other words, we want to get moving. So this is an area in 

Washington where we have had a stalemate for 25 years and 

where Senators on both sides are taking advantage of an excellent 

report by the Commission. Whether or not you favor Yucca Mountain, we need to move ahead with consolidation sites, with finding 

a second repository. And we can argue about Yucca Mountain along 

the way. 

Thank you for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Alexander, and for the expertise and passion you bring to this subject. 

Senator Udall, good morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Good morning, Senator Carper. It is good to be 

here with Senator Barrasso. 

Senator CARPER. It is great to have you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

First I would like to thank our Blue Ribbon Commissioners for 

coming, and would also like to especially welcome two panelists of 

our next panel. Geoff Fettus formerly worked with me in the New 

Mexico Attorney General’s office during the WIPP siting process. 

His expertise is now very much broader, and he is a very knowledgeable expert with a great spirit of public service. Geoff, welcome. 

Dr. Andrew Orrell, of the Sandia National Lab, is one of our nation’s best experts on the science and policy of the nuclear fuel 

cycle. Thank you for making the long trip here from Albuquerque 

to be with us. Dr. Orrell has worked on WIPP, Yucca Mountain, 

and the science behind numerous international and potential nuclear waste solutions. 

Sandia, Dr. Orrell and his colleagues, and Los Alamos National 

Labs are very valuable assets for the entire country on the nuclear 

issue. 

As we consider nuclear issues, I encourage all of my colleagues 

to reach out to both Sandia and Los Alamos for objective, reliable 

information. Second, I want to emphasize, this is an extremely imVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:03 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25054.TXT SONYA
7 

portant hearing. The Senate Appropriations Committee has already 

approved legislation on the interim nuclear waste storage. It is my 

understanding that that provision is within the jurisdiction of this 

Subcommittee and this Committee, like many of the Blue Ribbon 

Commission recommendations. We are trying to start over with 

clean slate, so I think we should proceed with the regular order 

whenever possible. 

I know the Senate Energy Committee also has a strong interest, 

and I believe we should work cooperatively with them. Nuclear 

waste policy has a poor history in Congress, as evidenced by Congress cutting short the site selection process and mandating Yucca 

Mountain over State objection. What goes around comes around. 

As New Mexico’s attorney general, I had a similar experience, 

having to litigate against the Department of Energy over the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Project. We were not fighting over the facility itself 

but DOE’s go-it-alone process and Congress’ failure to provide appropriate authorization. Eventually we were able to obtain State 

regulatory authority, independent EPA oversight, and hundreds of 

millions in State assistance. The facility was also firmly limited to 

defense only transuranic waste. High level waste is specifically prohibited. These standards were eventually enacted in the WIPP 

Land Withdrawal Act. As a result, the State accepted WIPP, and 

it has been operated safely ever since. I know both of these Commissioners have visited WIPP and are very familiar with it. 

Both the Yucca Mountain case and the WIPP case shed light on 

what consent-based siting should mean. Our panel here today is 

very qualified to help us further understand these issues, and I 

look forward to the Committee’s work. 

Once again let me say, Senator Carper, I very much appreciate 

your interest in this issue and asserting jurisdiction of this Committee over this issue. I know that this is a big issue, and I know 

that the Subcommittee and our Committee, the EPW Committee, 

have jurisdiction, and we should assert that and push forward with 

this issue. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. You are in an assertive mood today, aren’t you? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. This is good. 

To our Commissioners, General Scowcroft, you are a hero to 

many of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, having served our 

nation under several Presidents, I think Gerald Ford, if I am not 

mistaken, and Richard Nixon, and George Herbert Walker Bush. 

We are grateful for all the years you have served and continue to 

serve. 

Dr. Per Peterson—has your first name ever been mispronounced? 

Every day? 

Mr. PETERSON. I confess, I don’t pronounce it correctly, because 

I do not have a Swedish accent. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PETERSON. It does happen every now and then. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Well, I come from the colony of New 

Sweden, where the first Swedes came to America, Wilmington, 

Delaware, they planted a flag almost 300—I want to say 375 years 

8 

ago, and said this was the colony of New Sweden. It is now Wilmington, Delaware. So a special welcome. 

You are currently, as I understand, a professor of nuclear engineering at UC Berkeley, part of this Commission. General Scowcroft said you are the brains of the operation. That is a high compliment. I know he has plenty of brains himself, and so does Congressman Hamilton. 

The full content of your written statement will be included in the 

record. I will ask you to go ahead and proceed. We will probably 

start the voting around 10:35, one vote. I want us to make sure we 

all get to hear your testimony. We may take a short break and 

come right back and ask questions. 

General Scowcroft, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BRENT SCOWCROFT, LIEUTENANT GENERAL, 

U.S. AIR FORCE (RETIRED), AND PRESIDENT, THE SCOWCROFT GROUP 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before you 

today to discuss the final recommendations of the Blue Ribbon 

Commission on America’s nuclear future. 

Before we begin, I would like to pass along co-chairman Lee 

Hamilton’s deep regrets for not being able to be with you today. 

But I am very pleased that fellow Commissioner Per Peterson was 

able to join me. 

I would like to note that Congressman Hamilton and I were delighted to work with such a talented and dedicated group of fellow 

commissioners. We are thankful for the expertise and insights they 

brought to our endeavors. We had a wide difference of perspective 

on the issues, but the professionalism of the commissioners led to 

our final report being unanimous, a fact which we believe speaks 

to the strength of our recommendations. 

As you are aware, the Blue Ribbon Commission was formed by 

the Secretary of Energy at the direction of the President. Our 

charge was to conduct a comprehensive review of the policies for 

managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and to recommend 

a new strategy. We came away from our review frustrated by decades of unmet commitments to the American people, yet confident 

we can turn this record around. 

Mr. Chairman, as we are all too well aware, America’s nuclear 

waste management program is at an impasse. The Administration’s 

decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain is but the 

latest indicator of a policy that has been troubled for decades and 

has now all but completely broken down. The approach laid out 

under the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has 

simply not worked to produce a timely solution for dealing with the 

nation’s most hazardous radioactive material. The United States 

has traveled nearly 25 years down the current path, only to come 

to a point where continuing to rely on the same approach seems 

destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and protracted 

delay. 

What we found is that our nation’s failure to come to grips with 

the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. 

9 

It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues, damaging to prospects for maintaining a potentially important energy supply option for the future, damaging to State-Federal 

relations and public confidence in the Federal Government’s competence, and damaging to America’s standing in the world as a 

source of nuclear expertise and as a leader on global issues of nuclear safety, non-proliferation, and security. 

The national interest demands that our nuclear waste program 

be fixed. Complacency with a failed nuclear waste management 

system is not an option. With a 65,000 metric ton inventory of 

spent nuclear fuel spread across the country and growing at over 

2,000 metric tons a year, the status quo cannot be accepted. The 

need for a new strategy is urgent. 

Mr. Chairman, the strategy we recommend in our final report 

has eight key elements. We are certain they are all necessary to 

establish a truly integrated national nuclear waste management 

system, to create the institutional leadership and the wherewithal 

to get the job done, and to ensure that the United States remains 

at the forefront of technology developments and international responses to evolving nuclear safety, non-proliferation, and security 

concerns. 

We will now discuss those in detail. I will cover the first four and 

Commissioner Peterson the last. 

Our first recommendation is a new consent-based approach to 

siting future nuclear waste management facilities. Experience in 

the United States and in other nations suggests that any attempt 

to force a top-down federally mandated solution over the objections 

of a State or community, far from being more efficient, will take 

longer, cost more, and have lower odds of ultimate success. 

By contrast, the approach we recommend is expressly adaptive, 

staged, and consent-based. Based on activities in the United States 

and abroad, including most notably the siting of a disposal facility 

for transuranic radioactive waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, 

or WIPP, in New Mexico, and recent positive outcomes in Spain, 

Finland, and Sweden, we believe this type of approach can provide 

the flexibility and sustain the public trust and confidence needed 

to see controversial facilities through to completion. 

I might just add that I had the opportunity to speak with the 

Prime Minister of Finland last evening, and he announced that he 

was very pleased with the progress that they are making. He 

thinks that it will be very successful. 

Senator CARPER. Did he also mention the first Finns came from 

America through Wilmington, Delaware? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. No, we didn’t get to that. 

Senator CARPER. Just checking. 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. Our second recommendation is for a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management 

program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed. The overall record of DOE and of the Federal Government as 

a whole has not inspired confidence or trust in our nation’s nuclear 

waste management program. 

For this and other reasons, the Commission concludes that new 

institutional leadership is needed. Specifically, we believe a single 

10 

purpose, congressionally chartered Federal corporation is best suited to provide the stability, focus, and credibility needed to get the 

waste program back on track. 

For the new organization to succeed, a substantial degree of implementing authority and assured access to funds must be paired 

with rigorous financial, technical, and regulatory oversight by Congress and the appropriate Government agencies. 

Our third recommendation is that access to the funds nuclear 

utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste 

management. Nuclear facilities are assessed a fee on every kilowatt-hour of nuclear generated electricity in exchange for the Federal Government’s contractual commitment to begin accepting commercial spent fuel beginning by January 31st, 1998. Fee revenue 

go to the Government’s nuclear waste fund, which was established 

for the sole purpose of covering the cost of disposing of civilian nuclear waste and ensuring that the waste program would not have 

to compete with other funding priorities. 

The fund does not work as intended. A series of executive branch 

and congressional actions has made annual fee revenues of approximately $750 million a year, and the unspent $27 billion balance in the fund effectively inaccessible to the waste program. Instead, the waste program is subject to exactly the budget constraints and uncertainties that the fund was created to avoid. This 

situation must be remedied immediately to allow the program to 

succeed. 

The Commission sent a letter to the President on December 11th 

of 2011, discussing this particular recommendation in detail. And 

we will submit it as a part of this hearing’s recommendation. 

Our fourth recommendation is prompt efforts to develop one or 

more geologic disposal facilities. The conclusion that disposal is 

needed that the deep geologic disposal is a scientifically preferred 

approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked 

at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear 

waste program. 

Moreover, all spent fuel reprocessing or recycle options either already available or under active development at the time still generate waste streams that require permanent disposal solutions. We 

simply note that regardless of what happens with Yucca Mountain, 

the U.S. inventory of spent fuel exceeds the amount that can be legally in place at that site until a second repository is in operation. 

The statutory limit for Yucca Mountain is 70,000 metric tons. And 

DOE has set aside 10 percent of that limit for defense-spent nuclear fuel on high level waste, leaving only 63,000 metric tons for 

civilian waste. 

So under current law, the United States will need to find a new 

disposal site even if Yucca Mountain goes forward. We believe the 

approach set forth here provides the best strategy for assuring continued progress regardless of the fate of Yucca Mountain. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scowcroft follows:] 

11 


25054.001
12 


25054.002
13 


25054.003
14 


25054.004
15 


25054.005
16 


25054.006
17 


25054.007
18 


25054.008
19 


25054.009
20 


25054.010
21 


25054.011
22 


25054.012
23 


25054.013
24 


25054.014
25 


25054.015
26 


25054.016
27 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Peterson. 

Thank you, General Scowcroft. 

Please continue. The votes started at 10:30; we are about 5 minutes into the vote. I would like for you to be able to complete your 

testimony; then we will take a short recess. 

STATEMENT OF PER F. PETERSON, PROFESSOR, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 

Mr. PETERSON. So continuing with the disposal as a key element 

of consent-based siting of disposal facilities, the Commission believes that before any new disposal site is selected, a new, siteindependent safety standard should be developed. So the Commission has recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which this Committee 

has jurisdiction over, should begin working together to define an 

appropriate process for developing a generic disposal facility safety 

standard and associated implementing regulations. 

The fifth recommendation relates to prompt efforts to develop 

one or more consolidated storage facilities. Developing consolidated 

storage capacity would allow the Federal Government to begin the 

orderly transfer of spent fuel from reactor sites to safe and secure 

centralized facilities independent of a schedule for operating a permanent repository. The arguments in favor of consolidated storage 

are strongest for stranded spent fuel at shut down plant sites, of 

which there are 10 across the country. Stranded fuel should be first 

in line for transfer to consolidated facilities, so these plant sites can 

be completely decommissioned and put to other beneficial uses. 

The availability of consolidated storage will also provide valuable 

flexibility in the nuclear waste management system that could 

achieve meaningful cost savings, can provide backup storage in the 

event that spent fuel needs to be moved quickly from a reactor site, 

and would provide an excellent platform for ongoing R&D to better 

understand how storage systems currently in use at both commercial and DOE sites perform over time. 

We support the efforts of Senators Feinstein and Alexander with 

their proposed legislation regarding a pilot storage program for 

high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel as it incorporates 

several key recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission and 

is a positive step toward the goal of creating integrated waste management program in the United States. Our letter of support dated 

April 23rd, 2012, will be submitted for the record. 

Sixth is prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large scale 

transport of spent fuel and high level waste to consolidated storage 

and disposal facilities, when such facilities become available. The 

current system of standards and regulations governing the transport of spent fuel and other nuclear materials appears to have 

functioned well. The safety record of past shipments of these types 

of materials is excellent, particularly with respect to the WIPP 

transportation system. 

That being said, greater transfer demands for nuclear materials 

are likely to raise new public concerns. The Commission believes 

that State, tribal, and local officials should be extensively involved 

in the transportation planning and should be given the resources 

28 

necessary to discharge their roles and obligations in this area. Historically, some programs have treated transportation planning as 

an after-thought. No successful programs have done so. 

Seventh is support for advances in nuclear energy technology 

and work force development. Advances in nuclear energy technology have the potential to deliver an array of benefits across a 

wide range of energy policy goals. The Commission believes these 

benefits, in light of environmental and energy security challenges 

the United States and the world will confront in this century, justify sustained public and private sector support for RD&D on both 

existing light water reactor technologies and advanced water and 

fuel cycle technologies. 

The eighth recommendation relates to the key topic of active U.S. 

leadership in international efforts to address safety, non-proliferation, and security concerns. As more nations consider pursuing nuclear energy or expanding their nuclear programs, U.S. leadership 

is urgently needed on issues of safety, non-proliferation, security, 

and counter-terrorism. 

From the U.S. perspective, two points are particularly important. 

First, with so many players in the international nuclear technology 

and policy arena, the United States will increasingly have to lead 

by engagement and by example. Second, the United States cannot 

exercise effective leadership on issues related to the back end of the 

nuclear fuel cycle so long as our own program is in complete disarray. Effective domestic policies are needed to support America’s 

international agenda. 

In conclusion, the problem of nuclear waste may be unique in the 

sense that there is a wide agreement about the outlines of a solution. Simply put, we know what we have to do, we know we have 

to do it, and we even know how to do it. We believe the conditions 

for progress are arguably more promising than they have been in 

some time, but we will only know if we start, which is what we 

urge the Administration and Congress to do without further delay. 

Thank you for having us here today, and we look forward to your 

questions. 

[The responses of Mr. Peterson to questions for the record follow:] 

29 


25054.017
30 


25054.018
31 


25054.019
32 


25054.020
33 


25054.021
34 


25054.022
35 

Senator CARPER. I want to thank you both for that joint testimony. We are going to recess here for a brief time; we should be 

back in about 10 minutes, and we will start right back, and we will 

go right into questions. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CARPER. You were all having a lot of fun while we were 

gone. I hate to bring that to a close. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. We are finishing up the vote, and our colleagues 

are making their way back over here in the next couple of minutes. 

Let me ask the first question. This is really a question for both 

of you. Feel free to take turns answering it or whatever you are 

comfortable with. But it is my understanding that previous mechanisms for finding voluntary sites for nuclear waste facilities have 

been successful in this country. One of those is in New Mexico; I 

think it is called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

However, there is a different type of facility than the one we are 

talking about here, for high level waste, as I understand it. But I 

believe the New Mexico facility does take mid-level defense waste. 

And in fact, it is my understanding that the State and the community there agreed to a facility with the understanding that it would 

not accept high level waste in the future. 

Can you help provide any takeaways from the New Mexico experience on what we can replicate in a consent-based approach for 

high level repositories, or any cautions on what cannot be replicated? What can be exported from that experience in New Mexico 

and what cannot? 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. We found a number 

of very important lessons in examining the success of the development of the WIPP facility. I can list just a couple. One was that 

the Federal Government in the end was willing to negotiate legally 

binding agreements with the State government that clearly defined 

a set of regulatory authorities that the State held, and in essence 

gave State leadership hands on a steering wheel, or at least ability 

to put their foot on a brake. I think that was a key element of creating confidence that the facility could be operated safely, and that 

they could assure citizens that indeed it would be operated safely. 

Senator CARPER. So instead of a my way or the highway, Federal 

Government calling the shots, you have the State in the car? 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. And in one of the front seats of the car. 

Mr. PETERSON. That is correct. 

Senator CARPER. With the ability to put a foot on the brake. Almost like in driver’s ed when I was in high school, you would have 

the student driver on the one side and then the instructor on the 

other side, both with a steering wheel and the pedals and everything. 

Mr. PETERSON. And in the next panel, Geoff Fettus and others 

are likely to comment on the value of this. It does mean that whatever new entity is created by amendment to the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act that it will be very important that it have the authority 

to negotiate and enter into these sorts of agreements on behalf of 

the Federal Government. 

36 

Another key thing that was done was that the Federal Government funded an independent scientific and technical evaluation 

group called the Environmental Evaluation Group in New Mexico. 

I think the State government made a tremendous decision by locating that scientific review panel within their university system, so 

that it was given in essence the type of independence that one associates with an academic institution, and therefore had tremendous credibility. 

It also didn’t hurt to have two very capable national laboratories 

in the same State as well. But to have independent source of scientific advice, separate from the Federal Government, I think was 

another key ingredient. 

Another key element was that this repository was sited and developed and licensed to a safety standard that was established in 

advance of the siting of the repository, not during or after the selection of the repository. This relates to the Commission’s recommendation that a new site-independent safety standard be developed by EPA and the NRC. 

I think a final element that was critical in my judgment was the 

fact that this program had assured funding. And in the sense that 

the senior Senator from the State of New Mexico served on both 

the appropriating and authorizing committees, and that gave some 

assurance that adequate funding would be available to operate the 

facility safely after it had been built. We can’t really rely on that 

good luck happening again, because the statistical probability, as 

you might guess, is rather low. 

So this is a key reason why the Commission has recommended 

that we need to change, at a minimum, the way that we classify 

the fee receipts in such a way that when they are appropriated, 

they don’t have to compete against other discretionary spending 

priorities. The situation in terms of spending those moneys looks 

more like how we fund the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where 

the fees offset appropriations, and Congress is not faced with the 

dilemma of needing to cut other programs in order to fund something that is being paid for by the fees. 

This is really critical, because I think that a local community 

really wants to have confidence that the facility will receive adequate funding. 

The final element was that the Office of Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management, in its 30-year history, never had a single director who served for more than 2 years. In other words, there was 

a lack of continuity of leadership that, if you think about a consentbased process, to have the leader of an organization going to a local 

community and then knowing that that person is not likely to be 

around, say, within 18 months, also would be a really serious problem. So this is another reason why we think that some type of new 

organization does need to be created to take on these responsibilities, so it can have the continuity of leadership that can give confidence to local communities that the Federal Government ultimately will live up to its obligations. 

Senator CARPER. Those are very helpful answers. Thank you very 

much. 

37 

Let me yield to Senator Udall, a junior Senator for now, but not 

for long. You will soon be the senior Senator from New Mexico. I 

say that sadly, because we love Jeff Bingaman. 

Senator UDALL. We sure do, we sure do. And Senator Carper, we 

are going to miss him very much, and miss that ability as Professor 

has pointed out, how he was serving on several committees that 

were really key. 

Senator CARPER. I also know, I say this to our witnesses, I also 

know that the interests of New Mexico will be in very good hands. 

Senator UDALL. Well, you are very kind. We are going to work 

hard on that. 

And let me say to Dr. Peterson, I think you pulled out some of 

the very good lessons on the Waste Isolation Pilot Project. I wanted 

to explore a little bit more of those with both of you here in terms 

of questioning. 

Should a State as a whole have the right to accept or reject a 

nuclear waste site in its borders, and how should that authority 

work? 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. That is a very hard question for us to answer. 

Senator UDALL. That is why I asked it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. You were given a lot of time to think about that. 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. Well, we looked a lot at the differences between 

New Mexico and WIPP and Yucca Mountain. I think you put your 

finger on the principal difference. In New Mexico, there is a general acquiescence that this is good for the State, good for the country. So that is completely lacking in Nevada, where local communities are by and large very supportive, the State communities are 

very opposed. I think that Per has described a number of the details. 

But WIPP is what gives me the optimistic confidence that we can 

move ahead. Because I think the attitude that we found down 

there, that I found down there, and I am not an expert like Per 

is, was immensely reassuring that this consent adaptive approach, 

if really taken seriously by both sides, can work. 

Senator UDALL. General Scowcroft, you still didn’t answer this. 

The question was very pointed here. Should a State as a whole 

have the right to accept or reject a nuclear waste site in its borders, and how should that authority work? You are comparing Nevada and New Mexico. As you know, and I think the history you 

are talking about, what happened in Nevada was the High Level 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which had a very scientific process, 

broad selection of sites, was shortened by Congress, and Congress 

basically said, it is going to Nevada and forced it down Nevada’s 

throat. I think at the time the Governor and local officials, there 

was a lot of objection. 

In New Mexico, it was different. The Governor and local officials 

and I believe the leadership in the Congress all had a very accepting attitude. So they came together and talked about, well, what 

should this agreement be. And as one of the parts of the agreement, as I mentioned in my opening statement, was the idea that 

no high level waste was going to come to New Mexico, that this 

was going to be a transuranic waste site. 

38 

So that is why I asked this question to you. It is one I know, I 

think you have tried to finesse in your report. And I am trying to 

get to the real heart here. Should a State as a whole have the right 

to accept or reject a nuclear waste site in its borders, and how 

should that authority work? 

I realize that it is a tough question. But that is why we hired 

you to do this. 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. Well, and I am speaking now more as an individual, because we didn’t resolve that in detail, I will be honest 

with you. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, but please, as an individual, your best. You 

sat through all of this; you have seen the experiences. Tell us what 

you think. 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. I think to be successful we need to have State 

and local communities together. If they are not together, it is not 

going to work. So I think part of the whole consent process is working with the communities as a whole, State, local, tribal, whatever 

they are, to make it work. 

Senator UDALL. Dr. Peterson, your thoughts on that question. 

Mr. PETERSON. I think that in our report we essentially recognized that this is the major issue. So the final report does address 

it more specifically in the sense that it points out that in the end, 

the ability to opt out and what the conditions would be and how 

long should it be unconditional is best left to be a matter of negotiation between the Federal Government and the State. Because for 

example, if you are going to enter into a mortgage to purchase a 

house, there is a point and time where you make these decisions. 

But in this case, by having the ability to opt out be one of the 

most important and key elements of negotiation, you can preserve 

an unconditional opt-out initially. Of course, if any safety issue 

arises associated with the site, there should be an immediate ability to put a brake onto the whole thing until things are fixed. 

The timing and ability to opt out is something that in the phase 

of the operative approach probably needs to be worked out as a 

part of the negotiation between the State and Federal Governments. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. And I think Senator Carper, he has pointed 

out an issue here that is very important when we look at final legislation. Many of the issues that arise along the way, what happened in the Waste Isolation Pilot Project was local people and 

State people were very worried about the safety issues and they 

were worried about highways, they were worried about emergency 

preparedness. And many dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, 

were put toward that, to alleviate the fears, to improve the roads, 

to get emergency preparedness in place, No. 1. 

And then the issues that you both talked about came together 

around, should we have the site, how we should have it. And the 

State was very worried about the science. The State was saying, 

well, we know the big Federal Government has a lot of science, we 

know about the national laboratories. But as a State, we want to 

have some oversight. So as part of the negotiation, as you both 

pointed out and you put in your report, the Environmental Evaluation Group was created. These were independent scientists, and 

they walked every step with the Federal scientists along the way, 

39 

challenged them at times. I think Dr. Orrell will talk a lot about 

this when he hits the testimony here. 

So there were some important lessons that I think were learned. 

I have gone on way too long, but I really, and I only asked one 

question, and you see how hard it is to get to the bottom of that 

crucial question. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. I hope Senator Alexander will focus on in this, 

too. It is important to protect Tennessee, I know, from the unilateral action of getting a nuclear site. 

Senator CARPER. It may have only been one question, but it was 

a pretty good one. 

Senator Alexander, before you begin, let me just ask something. 

I have kind of been thinking out loud here about the role that Senator Domenici played in all this, as an authorizer and as appropriator. I think Pete, who was a colleague for many years, may have 

seen, in fact, in the words of Albert Einstein, in adversity lies opportunity, potential for adversity. But also the potential for real 

economic opportunity for the people of New Mexico, if they figure 

it out and play their cards right. I think, arguably, they have done 

that pretty well. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

As I said in my opening remarks, whether you are for Yucca 

Mountain or against Yucca Mountain, we need to break the stalemate. That is the point of the Commission report, right? 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. You said 25 years is long enough just to be 

sitting there, and we need to get on with it. And if I am not correct, 

you said even if that, as far as a repository, even if Yucca Mountain were open, we would soon need a second repository; is that 

correct? 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So we have that work to do. 

And you didn’t define what you meant by consent-based. Was 

that deliberate? You didn’t say the State legislature has to pass a 

law and the local city council has to pass it. You didn’t say that. 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. No, we didn’t, because we said consent-based 

also is adaptive. It depends on the circumstances, and it may be 

different in different areas. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Did you envision that there would be incentives to local governments to do that? 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. Yes, we did, and I think Per has talked about 

some of those. The research laboratory, all kinds of things that can 

make such a facility attractive to the community. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Basically whatever it took to create an attractive environment so that people want to compete for this. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. Part of the consent basis. 

Senator ALEXANDER. In my experience, and I don’t want to prejudge this, and this may not even be a part of Senator Bingaman’s 

bill, but for a long-term repository, I would think that the Federal 

Government would want the Governor and the State legislature to 

pass a law approving it. Then if I were the Governor, I would want 

40 

the Congress to pass a law approving it, because I wouldn’t want 

the next President or the next Governor to undo it. 

So my guess is that this will work, what we mean by consentbased will work itself out. Because communities who compete for 

the research laboratory or whatever this opportunity turns out to 

be will try to put together the most attractive package they can. 

And then from whoever the Federal administrator is will look at 

it and say, well, New Mexico has A, a history, B, their Governor 

or legislature said yes, or city council said yes, or Tennessee said 

yes. And that would be a part of an attractive proposal to the Federal Government, would it not, to know that you had that kind of 

backing in law, rather than just some statement by a Governor 

who might not be there next year. 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. Absolutely. And that is essential. And in our 

Federal system, it is much more complicated than in other countries where we have looked, like Sweden and Finland and so on, 

where they don’t have a Federal system. They have actually had 

communities bidding against each other. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, I would hope that would happen here. 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. But it is more complicated here because of the 

nature of our structure. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes, but still, I think Senator Carper—and 

I have mentioned this myself, I had the same experience with prisons when I became Governor. We couldn’t locate one, and I announced that we only had one, and we would have a competition. 

Pretty soon we had three proposals. So we can make it attractive, 

and should. 

I think your consent-based recommendation just clears the air, it 

doesn’t resolve Yucca Mountain for now. But again, whether or 

not—whether one is for Yucca Mountain, as I am, or whether one 

is against it, as Senator Reid is, it doesn’t really matter in terms 

of whether we need a second repository or consolidated site. 

Now, let me ask about these consolidated sites. The Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act allows consolidated storage only after a permanent repository has been licensed. Now, in the legislation that Senator Feinstein and I have in the Appropriations Committee, we 

separate these consolidated sites. We don’t call them interim sites, 

because there might always be something there on its way to a permanent site. 

But can you discuss why you in your recommendation separated 

the consolidation site from the search for the permanent repository 

and whether or not you think it is a wise idea for us to move ahead 

as the appropriations language says with identifying one or more 

pilot consolidation sites? Although in the end, if any site were chosen, it would have to be approved by an act of Congress. 

Mr. PETERSON. That is an excellent question. I think we found 

that the benefits of developing consolidated storage are so large in 

terms of taxpayer liability, of being able to collect material into a 

smaller number of locations and return unused sites to more productive uses. And to gain experience with transportation at smaller 

scale, so that we can build that capability. So it makes sense to 

move forward on consolidated storage in parallel with, not after the 

development of a geologic repository. 

41 

This does take amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and 

it is just one of several areas where we made recommendations. 

You had also mentioned the importance of incentives. We reviewed 

the current structure of incentives in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

and found that they probably would not work as well as they 

should. So the report provides recommendations for ways to improve the incentive basis for that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But did I state it correctly, your recommendation and support for the idea of moving ahead with identifying consolidation sites does not decide the question of Yucca 

Mountain one way or the other? Whether we are for Yucca Mountain, am I accurate to say whether we are for it or against, we still 

need to move ahead with consolidation sites, and we still need to 

move ahead as soon as the legislation is passed to begin to identify 

a second repository? 

Mr. PETERSON. Absolutely. Clearly the question of what needs to 

be done with Yucca Mountain is quite controversial. I think if our 

Commission had been required to answer that question, we would 

have had a difficult time reaching a consensus. But what we found 

is that the things that we recommended that we do move forward 

on, developing a new repository, developing consolidated storage, 

creating a new entity, these are things we need to do, as the Commission said, regardless of whether we were to retain, discard, or 

place into deep freeze or whatever it ends up being, what happens 

to Yucca, these are other things that really are important for us 

to move forward on as promptly as we can. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more quick 

question? 

Senator CARPER. Let us discuss this. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Go ahead. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Did you weigh—sometimes the simplest solution is the best solution. And the simplest solution for used nuclear fuel is to leave it 

where it is. I mean, you have security, you don’t have to transport 

it, which is hard to do and sometimes risky. And so a consolidation 

site takes time, takes a lot of money, requires transportation, 

which could be risky. 

So did you weigh those two things and still come down on the 

side of the need for consolidation sites? 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. Yes, we certainly did. We looked at all the different possibilities. And we concluded that even though it means 

more sites you have to locate, that on balance it was well worth 

it. And the transportation is certainly a problem. It has worked 

well regarding the WIPP thing, and we think that with certain precautions which we suggest in our recommendation to have the 

State and local authorities aware of possible crises, that transportation is not that big a problem. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Senator Barrasso, 

for your courtesy. 

Senator CARPER. You are welcome. Great questions. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

42 

To both of you, in the testimony you discussed examples of where 

a consent-based approach has worked. You visited about the disposal facilities, siting for New Mexico. My question is, are there 

positive outcomes, Spain, Finland, Sweden? Could you tell us a little bit more about what the key common elements are that made 

those projects successful? 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. I would say the key common elements are that 

the prospects were made to look positive in the eyes of the local 

communities. And they were an asset to the communities. That is 

why there has actually been, in some cases, active bidding to hold 

the site. 

So I think that is the key to it, to make it not a penalty that is 

being forced on you, but an opportunity for the community. And 

that will differ for different communities, what they find attractive. 

But it seems to be working very well in all the other countries that 

we visited. As I say, none of them have the particular complications we do in our Federal system. But given that, we are optimistic. 

Senator BARRASSO. Talk about some of the particular complications in the Federal system. In the written testimony you mentioned in terms of the EPA working with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. I think you said they should begin working together 

to define an appropriate process for developing a generic disposal 

facility safety standard, and then associated implementing regulations. 

Was there a similar process in terms of developing that safety 

standard when it came to Yucca Mountain? Was that there? Because it seemed that the process took a long, long time. 

Mr. PETERSON. For Yucca Mountain, there were difficulties in 

demonstrating compliance with the existing safety standards. So 

Congress did direct the National Academies to study the question 

and issue a report upon which a new safety standard could be 

issued. This occurred after the site had been selected. 

So in my professional judgment, I think the standard that was 

developed is reasonably protective. But to do this after you have 

picked a site and then to change the safety standard that it is required to meet through legislation I think does damage the confidence in the entire process. And this is one of the reasons why 

considerable amount of activity can start immediately in terms of 

facilitating the ability of local communities to study and to understand what the implications would be of hosting facilities. But before site selection occurs, it really would be best to have a clearly 

defined and clearly site-independent safety standard available that 

the sites would be required to meet. 

Senator BARRASSO. When I think about Yucca Mountain, we 

need affordable domestic energy. And we need it now. I believe 

Yucca Mountain could be a key bridge to allowing nuclear energy 

to be a very viable part of America’s energy mix. So when I look 

at this—you talk about providing incentives for communities to accept nuclear waste. Under your plan, would Nevada qualify for incentives, and is there any way now to incentivize communities in 

Nevada to move forward with Yucca Mountain? 

43 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. We see no reason that Yucca Mountain could 

not go forward if it meets the criteria. So we do not rule out Yucca 

Mountain at all. No. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. To my colleagues, I would just say, for years, 

whenever I see Yucca Mountain referred to in the press or in the 

media, by the media, it is always characterized as a nuclear waste 

dump. Always characterized that way. In my State, my guess is the 

same is true in Wyoming or Tennessee or New Mexico or any other 

State, nobody wants to have a dump in their neighborhood or in 

their community. As we figure out, going through this kind of consensus building that is being recommended by the Commission, not 

as important to make clear that a repository collection site, whatever we want to call it, not be a dump, but to be able to point to 

other similar facilities around the world where these actions have 

gone forward, and they are anything but a dump. 

And there are not only construction jobs for those facilities in 

other countries, there are very good jobs for people who work there 

and operate these facilities. And they spin off tax revenues for the 

local governments and do so in an environmentally sound way. We 

have to be smart enough, as they have, I believe, in some of these 

other countries, to meet the transportation concerns that have been 

alluded to here today. 

But we have to be smarter the second time through than we 

were the first time through. I am hopeful that the work the Commission has done will enable us to be a whole lot smarter. Or as 

my father used to say, just take your smart pills, Tom. We are 

going to take our smart pills, and you are going to give us a full 

prescription of those. 

Laura Haines, who sits behind me, over my left shoulder, gave 

me a note. I just want to refer to it briefly here. The question goes 

back to jurisdictions. And I show this to Senator Barrasso. It is 

very short, so I just want to mention this before you all are excused. 

I believe that some folks are confused about the Subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction. We want to be clear and state very briefly what we 

think it is. This is a quote: ‘‘A non-military environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy.’’ That is non-military Environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy. That is verbatim. 

Our friends in the Energy Committee, whom we love, have jurisdiction over the—and this is a verbatim quote: ‘‘A non-military development of nuclear energy.’’ That is the non-military development 

of nuclear energy. And since we are talking about the control of nuclear waste spent fuel, we believe this clearly lies in this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. In fact, several nuclear waste bills have 

already been reported to our Subcommittee, to our Committee over 

recent years. 

I am sure, given the affection we have for our friends in the Energy Committee, that we will work well and closely with them and 

other relevant committees on this very important issue. 

That having been said, I just want to thank you and ask you to 

convey to your colleagues on the Commission our profound thanks 

for all the work, all the time and effort that has gone into this efVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:03 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25054.TXT SONYA
44 

fort and to say we look forward to having good dialogue with you 

going forward, as we end up in a much smarter place this time 

than we did over the last 30 years. 

With that having been said, you are excused. Our very best to 

your colleague, Lee Hamilton. Give him our highest regards, and 

thank you so much. 

Mr. SCOWCROFT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Ranking Member. It has been a privilege to be with you. 

Senator CARPER. The privilege is ours. Thank you both. 

As our second panel takes their seats, I just want to briefly introduce them, welcome them. Thank you all for joining us today. 

You heard from your warm up act. They were pretty good. We 

now look forward to hearing from each of you. 

On this panel, we welcome Geoffrey Fettus, Senior Project Attorney for the National Resources Defense Council, which announced 

earlier this year that in evaluating the beaches throughout the 

country, the NRDC, as I recall, announced that there a lot of onestar beaches, they announced that there are a lot of two-star beaches. You don’t want to be a one-star beach, but we have a lot of onestar beaches, we have a lot of two-star beaches, not as many threestar beaches, even fewer four-star beaches. But there turned out to 

be four five-star beaches in America. And two of them are actually 

in a State represented by one of the two members of this Committee, sitting here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. And the last time I checked, there were no 

beaches in New Mexico. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Did you know, Chairman Carper, that we had an 

ancient ocean a million years ago in New Mexico? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. That was then. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. This is now. So if you are looking for a five-star 

beach to come to, Senator Udall, Senator Barrasso, feel free to visit 

us in Rehoboth or Dewey Beach, Delaware. 

All right, that is neither here nor there. We are especially happy 

to welcome you, given the great work that the NRDC did on that. 

David Wright, President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and Vice Chairman, Public Service 

Commission of South Carolina. Nice to see you. Welcome. 

Mr. Eric Howes, Director of Government and Public Affairs, 

Main Yankee. And Daniel S. Metlay, Senior Professional Staff, U.S. 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. 

Dr. Metlay, great to see you. And is it Mister or Doctor; which 

do you like to be called? All right, Mister it is. All right, we will 

alternate, then. 

Dr. Andrew Orrell, Director of Nuclear Energy and Fuel Cycle 

Programs, Sandia National Laboratories. 

Again, we will ask you to hold your statements to about 5 minutes. If you go way beyond that, we will have to rein you in. But 

we are glad that you are here, and we appreciate your participation 

and your preparation. 

Mr. Fettus. 

45 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY FETTUS, SENIOR PROJECT 

ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. FETTUS. Good morning. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for inviting NRDC to share its views on the potential 

legislative outcomes of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission. 

I have submitted written testimony to be included in the record, 

and I will focus briefly on two points now. Point one, in new legislation, we urge Congress to require standards for site screening 

and development criteria be in final form before any interim storage or disposal sites are considered. And I was very pleased to hear 

Dr. Peterson reiterate that call; we share it. 

The same is true for generic radiation and environmental protection standards. The BRC was correct when it wrote that regulatory 

requirements to license a geologic repository should be generic, that 

is, applicable to all sites in the first instance. 

But with respect, we are very pleased that they were explicit 

today that such standards must be in final form before the process 

begins. Why do we feel so strongly about this? Short circuiting the 

site selection process and gerrymandering environmental standards 

led directly to the loss of support from Nevada, substantially diminished congressional backing, except to ensure that the proposed 

site remained the sole option, and wholesale erosion of public support for the Yucca Mountain Project. 

Further, we expect any such generic standards will be subject to 

adverse pressure applied by, for example, the Office of Management and Budget, other involved agencies, and perhaps even industry. Altering regulatory standards in order to allow a site to be licensed, which is what happened repeatedly with Yucca Mountain, 

ensures the nation won’t make progress on lasting solutions. 

Which takes us to point 2. The BRC’s emphasis on a consentbased approach was a step in the right direction. I am pleased to 

hear so many members of the panel amplify that today. The Commission studied hat worked and what didn’t work over the past 20 

years, and it looked overseas. It came to the conclusion that trying 

to foist an unending stream of nuclear waste on an unwilling State 

and an unwilling congressional delegation was a losing proposition. 

The BRC stated, ‘‘It is essential to affirm a meaningful role for 

States, tribes, and local governments that is at once positive and 

substantively meaningful.’’ Frankly, such an observation was long 

overdue. We concur with that observation but note that BRC was 

too tentative in its recommendation. Rather than attempt to build 

a better version of the same kind of mouse trap, such a change can 

be accomplished by amending the Atomic Energy Act to remove its 

express exemption of radioactive material from environmental 

laws. Exemptions of radioactivity from our laws make it, in effect, 

a privileged pollutant. 

These exemptions are at the foundation of State and Federal 

agency distrust of both commercial and Government-run nuclear 

facilities. If EPA and the States had full legal authority and could 

treat radionuclides as they do other pollutants, clear clean up 

standards could be promulgated, and we could be much further 

along in remediating the toxic legacy of the cold war, as just one 

example. 

46 

Furthermore, we could avoid some of the ongoing disputes over 

operations at commercial nuclear facilities. Even the BRC recognized this, as it noted New Mexico’s efforts to regulate aspects of 

the WIPP facility in Senator Udall’s State, under its hazardous 

waste laws, is mentioned as a critical positive development. Speaking briefly outside of my text, I can assure you that obtaining that 

regulatory authority was, in short order, a contentious fight. But 

once that regulatory authority was obtained by the State, that was 

the critical step. 

Any regulatory change of this magnitude would have to be harmonized with NRC licensing jurisdiction over nuclear facilities and 

EPA’s existing jurisdiction over radiation protection standards. But 

such a process is certainly within the capacity of those Federal 

agencies. 

Some States would assume environmental jurisdiction over radioactive material; others might not. But in any event, improved clarity in the regulatory structure and a meaningful State oversight 

role would allow for the first time consent-based and transparent 

decisions to take place. 

Let me close point 2 by noting that if Congress were to follow a 

more timid path and legislate a narrow allowance for a particular 

State, such as a contract that would provide the State with some 

measure of regulatory control, that would be inadequate and would 

not provide the State the necessary certainty. New Mexico and its 

Senator might be able to inform this more. With the demise of the 

proposed Yucca Mountain project, we understand that some have 

already suggested that aspects of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act 

might be subject to alteration. 

Well, as Senator Udall explained before, there were express 

promises made to New Mexico. And if those promises are even remotely in jeopardy, it is not clear to NRDC why any State would 

trust such a contract or future promise. 

We addressed interim storage and other matters, and I am 

happy to take questions on those as well. But I will close on the 

overarching premise that we hope guides both congressional inquiry and legislative drafting. That is, years or decades from now, 

just as you warned, Chairman Carper, others will face our current 

predicament unless Congress creates a transparent, equitable process with strong public health and environmental standards that 

can’t be manipulated in order to license a site that may not be suitable. 

As I stated to several members of the BRC in an extensive public 

colloquy last fall in Denver, I can’t guarantee that NRDC’s recommendations will result in a solution. But I can point to strong 

evidence that following a course similar to the last two decades results in failure. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I am happy 

to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fettus follows:] 

47 


25054.023
48 


25054.024
49 


25054.025
50 


25054.026
51 


25054.027
52 


25054.028
53 


25054.029
54 


25054.030
55 


25054.031
56 


25054.032
57 


25054.033
58 


25054.034
59 


25054.035
60 


25054.036
61 


25054.037
62 


25054.038
63 


25054.039
64 


25054.040
65 


25054.041
66 


25054.042
67 


25054.043
68 


25054.044
69 


25054.045
70 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Wright, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WRIGHT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, AND 

VICE CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. WRIGHT. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Barrasso, Senator Udall, and other Subcommittee members as they 

come in. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My 

name is David Wright, and I am a Commissioner with the South 

Carolina Public Service Commission, and I invite you to Myrtle 

Beach, to the beaches around Hilton Head and Charleston, South 

Carolina. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WRIGHT. I also have the privilege of serving as the President 

of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 

otherwise known as NARUC, on whose behalf I am speaking this 

morning. 

NARUC is a quasi-government, non-profit organization founded 

in 1889. Our membership includes the public utility commissions 

serving all State and U.S. territories. NARUC’s mission is to serve 

the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of 

public utility regulation. Our members regulate the retail rates and 

services of electric, gas, water, and telephone utilities. 

We are obligated under the laws of our respective States to assure the establishment and maintenance of such utility services as 

may be required by the public convenience and necessity to assure 

that such services are provided under rates and subject to terms 

and conditions of service that are just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. 

NARUC and State utility commissions in 40 States served by nuclear generated electricity have been involved in the troubled history of nuclear waste disposal since 1983. That is when the utilities 

which own used fuel were required by the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act to enter into contracts with the Department of Energy. Those 

contracts called for payments of fees for nuclear generated electricity into the Treasury for deposit into the Nuclear Waste Fund 

to pay for cost of disposal of the used fuel beginning in 1998. As 

you know, that disposal has not happened. But the fee payments 

continue to be made. Or as a former Florida utility commissioner 

summarized the status in 1991, the Government has our money; 

we have their waste. 

It is now 20 years or more later, and the used fuel remains in 

indefinite storage at 72 sites in 34 States all across the United 

States. Utility commissioners care because the utilities pass the 

cost of these fees to their customers through the electric bill. 

Notwithstanding our position on the Administration handling of 

the Yucca Mountain issue, NARUC was closely involved in the 

work of the Blue Ribbon Commission. We wrote letters, gave testimony, provided comments, and attended most of the public meetings. We were impressed with the panel’s distinguished members, 

their approach to the task, the talented professional staff, and the 

71 

sincere interest in public input. We have asked DOE to preserve 

and maintain access to the Commission Web site. 

As for the recommendations, while we welcome them all, we have 

the following points. First, reform the Nuclear Waste Fund. Reform 

of the Fund is essential for most of the recommendations to occur. 

Next, regardless of what happens with Yucca Mountain, we need 

another repository. The lessons of Yucca and the better lessons of 

Finland, Sweden, and WIPP suggest that consent-based siting approach may get better results but will require patience. 

We have long favored consolidated interim storage but found the 

report vague as to quantity, duration, and cost. We are not sure 

what the effect will be on the fee if the Nuclear Waste Fund is to 

be used to pay for storage. We agree with the concept and benefits 

of a new Federal corporation that can focus solely on the waste 

management mission, hopefully with a fresh partnership attitude 

for encouraging the consent-based approach. We look forward to refining the concept in enabling legislation. Transportation planning 

and coordination with States and others cannot begin soon enough. 

Finally, we commend the BRC January 2012 report for specifying 

that the proposed consent-based approach to siting future repositories must be adaptive in the sense that the process itself is flexible and produces decisions that are responsive to new information 

and new technical, social, or political developments. 

Certainly future siting efforts will have to account for a widely 

divergent demographics populations as well as unique proposed repositories, topologies, and geologies. Since one size certainly does 

not fit all in this context, NARUC agrees that flexibility in approach is a necessary prerequisite to future siting initiatives. Moreover, the time is not right to commit to a reprocessing strategy as 

an economic proposition, although R&D should continue as the 

BRC recommends. Also, we encourage DOE to take steps to seek 

volunteer host communities to step forward in storage siting without waiting to form a new management organization. 

There are two areas where we disagree with the Commission report. The report says overall we are confident that our waste management recommendations can be implemented using revenue 

streams already dedicated for this purpose. There are no cost estimates to substantiate that belief, which likely also assumes the 

$26.7 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund is assured. 

The report further says, ‘‘We know what we have to do, and we 

know we have to do it, we even know how to do it.’’ While we may 

wish that were true, our assessment is that there are too many 

people who are probably content to pass the problem along to future generations and leave the waste where it is. It is fitting for 

the Commission to call for prompt action, developing both consolidated interim storage and beginning the search for a new repository. But we may need the public education outreach to help persuade some who seem to favor the no-action alternative. Continuing to kick the dry cask down the road should not be an option. 

So yet another study calls for prompt action, yet despite, on 

paper at least, a financing plan, implementation relies on leadership from the Administration and Congress. NARUC stands ready 

to assist on behalf of the ratepayers who may not realize that they 

are overpaying for safe waste disposition. 

72 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:] 

73 


25054.046
74 


25054.047
75 


25054.048
76 


25054.049
77 


25054.050
78 


25054.051
79 


25054.052
80 


25054.053
81 

Senator CARPER. Did you quote a Nuclear Regulatory or public 

service commissioner in Florida? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I did. I believe it was Mike Wilson. 

Senator CARPER. Correct me if I am wrong, I think you said that 

he may have said, the Government has our money; we still have 

our waste. I think that was the quote. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Correct. 

Senator CARPER. And I thought about that, and I thought maybe 

another way of thinking of it is, the Government has the ratepayers’ money, and the utilities still cost via the waste created by 

their nuclear reactors. So I would look at it just maybe a little different. 

Having said that, the status quo is not acceptable, and we have 

to be smarter than this. And we are going to be. Thank you. 

Mr. WRIGHT. And I appreciate that, too, Senator. And I will tell 

you that I don’t refer to it as nuclear waste myself. I refer to it as 

a nuclear resource. 

Senator CARPER. That is good. 

Mr. Howes, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC HOWES, DIRECTOR OF 

GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, MAINE YANKEE 

Mr. HOWES. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Barrasso, Senator Alexander, Senator Udall. 

I am Eric Howes, the Director of Government and Public Affairs 

at Maine Yankee. I appreciate the invitation to appear before you 

today on behalf of the Yankee companies, Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, and Yankee Atomic in western Massachusetts. 

We and our fellow sites that comprise the decommissioning plant 

coalition worked closely with the Blue Ribbon Commission to ensure it understood the unique impacts that our three sites and the 

six other permanently shut down reactor sites face. The Yankee 

Companies and others in the DPC especially endorse those BRC 

recommendations concerning permanently shut down plants that 

are most directly achievable: the prompt establishment of a voluntary incentive-based siting program that would lead to the licensing of a consolidated interim storage facility or facilities, the 

establishment of a first in line priority for the movement of spent 

fuel and other material being stored at permanently shut down reactor sites to those licensed consolidated storage sites, and the 

prompt initiation of programs to coordinated Federal, State, and 

local efforts to plan for the transportation of this material to consolidated storage and disposal facilities. 

The Blue Ribbon Commission noted the success that we enjoy 

with our citizens advisory panels at the Yankee Companies that 

help demonstrate how a community-based process works to address 

issues in meaningful discussions that yield results. In summary, 

the Blue Ribbon Commission agreed that it makes no sense to keep 

this material at former reactor sites scattered around the nation. 

We believe that fiscal year 2013 efforts should even more aggressively advance the resolution of issues identified in the BRC report. 

We are pleased to see that the Department has committed to restore funding for the regional transportation planning groups, is 

beginning site-specific assessments of the infrastructure, transporVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:03 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25054.TXT SONYA
82 

tation readiness, procurement, and construction needs at each of 

these former reactor sites. 

What is yet needed is the initiation of dialogue between the Government and a partnership of local communities, State governments, and industry in an effort to develop a consensus siting approach for both consolidated interim storage and future repository 

facilities. These are activities that must be sustained if we are 

going to be serious about the timely implementation of the BRC’s 

recommendations. 

Consolidated interim storage is a needed and important element 

of spent fuel management, regardless of the decision on a repository for the material. Through the prompt siting of consolidated interim storage facilities, the Federal Government will demonstrate 

its capability to fulfill its promises and commitments to remove and 

manage this material. The ratepayers and taxpayers will be relieved of the obligation to pay twice for storage costs and damages 

for the Government’s contractual failure. And we will avoid future 

costs that will only accelerate if the material remains onsite for an 

indefinite period. 

In short, consolidated interim storage makes it possible to design 

a facility that maximizes security effectiveness and economies of 

scale, and encourages and facilities desired storage research efforts. 

Among those supporting consolidated interim storage are two organizations represented on this panel. NARUC commented that we 

fully concur that the spent fuel from decommissioned reactor sites 

should be first in line for shipment and storage at a new consolidated storage facility. NRDC testified before the Blue Ribbon Commission that NRDC believes it makes sense to provide for consolidated dry storage of spent fuel from permanently shut down reactors that are not at sites with reactors still operational. 

In addition, we note the support of such organizations as the 

New England Governors Conference, the MIT Center for Advanced 

Nuclear Energy Systems, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the New 

England Council, the National Conference of State Legislators, the 

Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, the Government Accounting Office, the Keystone Center, the National Commission on Energy Policy, and the American Physical Society. 

We are also grateful for the enduring support for priority movement of our material to consolidated interim storage of the many 

Members of Congress who represent districts and States where our 

sites are located. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today, and I am glad to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Howes follows:] 

83 


25054.054
84 


25054.055
85 


25054.056
86 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Howes. We will 

get to the questions in a little bit. 

Dr. Metlay, we would like to call on you, please. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL S. METLAY, SENIOR PROFESSIONAL 

STAFF, U.S. NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 

Mr. METLAY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, Senator Udall, 

Senator Alexander, my name is Daniel Metlay. I am a member of 

the Senior Professional Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical 

Review Board, an independent Federal agency. 

I thank you for inviting me here today to provide some background information on the international experience related to consent-based programs for siting facilities for storing or disposing of 

high level nuclear waste. I will summarize my remarks and ask 

that my full statement be included in the hearing record. 

This Subcommittee undoubtedly is familiar with the experiences 

in the United States, both before and after site characterization 

was limited to Yucca Mountain. It may be less familiar with the 

experiences of other countries. These, I believe, can be very instructive, so I will focus my comments on them today. 

In the last 40 years, a dozen countries, including the United 

States, have initiated more than two dozen efforts to identify potential repository sites. Only three of those efforts have succeeded 

in choosing a site and are still on track. All three have relied on 

volunteerism and a consent-based process. 

In discussing site selection strategies for geologic repositories, it 

is important to note that they involve both technical and non-technical considerations. The process can start with a search for a technically qualified site, or for a willing host. Either approach can succeed, although the suite of sites that may emerge as potential candidates may be quite different. 

Virtually all national programs with the exception of the Finnish 

one have experienced shaky starts. Several consent-based programs, however, are today making considerable progress. Two municipalities in Sweden have agreed to host a repository. A community in France volunteered to host an underground research facility, knowing ahead of time that the facility could evolve into a full 

scale repository. One area in the United Kingdom and more than 

a dozen localities in Canada are now involved in discussions with 

the implements of their respective national waste management programs. 

But here I caution you: volunteerism does not guarantee success. 

In Japan, even before the damage caused to the Fukushima facility 

by the tsunami, a 10-year-old consent-based process had bogged 

down. In Germany, a site proposed more than 35 years ago by the 

state of Lower Saxony appears to be in limbo. 

In short, although the disposal of high activity radioactive waste 

in deep mined geologic repositories is the preferred option internationally, what most characterizes national programs is their diversity and their variety. Some programs focus from the beginning 

on specific host rock formations. Others start with generic qualifying and disqualifying conditions. Some countries evaluate sites 

87 

one by one. Others adopt a parallel approach characterizing and 

comparing at least two sites simultaneously. 

In any case, communities already hosting nuclear facilities may 

be especially receptive. And the prospective of receiving a generous 

benefits package appears to be have been instrumental in gaining 

community acceptance, at least in some cases. 

So to sum up, we have learned from the experience in the U.S. 

and abroad that one, potential host communities must at least acquiesce to site investigations. Two, implementers must engage potential host communities by establishing a strong and long-term 

local presence. Three, potential host communities must have a realistic and practical way to withdraw from the siting process. 

In the United States, the experience of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator may be especially relevant because that effort was truly a 

consent-based siting process. 

I will close by observing that in a consent-based site selection 

process, public trust in the institutions is essential. It is vitally important that potential host entities have confidence in the credibility of the process and the trustworthiness of the implementer of 

the program. 

I thank you very much, and I look forward to questions from the 

Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Metlay follows:] 

88 


25054.057
89 


25054.058
90 


25054.059
91 


25054.060
92 


25054.061
93 


25054.062
94 


25054.063
95 


25054.064
96 


25054.065
97 


25054.066
98 


25054.067
99 


25054.068
100 


25054.069
101 


25054.070
102 


25054.071
103 


25054.072
104 


25054.073
105 


25054.074
106 


25054.075
107 


25054.076
108 


25054.077
109 


25054.078
110 

Senator CARPER [presiding]. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Mr. Orrell. 

STATEMENT OF S. ANDREW ORRELL, DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR 

ENERGY AND FUEL CYCLE PROGRAMS, SANDIA NATIONAL 

LABORATORIES 

Mr. ORRELL. Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Barrasso 

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

My name is Andrew Orrell, and regardless of how it is pronounced, I have the pleasure of serving as the Director of Nuclear 

Energy and Fuel Cycle Programs at Sandia National Laboratories. 

Throughout my career working on both the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plan and the Yucca Mountain project, I have experienced firsthand 

the meaning of consent-based approaches to repository projects and 

the cauldron of public controversy that can surround them. It is 

from this perspective that I offer my comments today, recognizing 

any such comments are my own and do not necessarily represent 

the opinions or positions of the Department of Energy or of the 

Sandia National Laboratories. 

We are fortunate that the United States contains many geologic 

formations that are considered to be technically suitable for deep 

geologic disposal of nuclear waste. And even more locations technically suitable for interim storage. But challenges still remain to 

site facilities that are socially and politically acceptable to both 

local communities, host States, and the Federal Government. 

One exception has been the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan. While 

noting the success of the WIPP, the Blue Ribbon Commission correctly notes that ‘‘No one could have designed the process that was 

ultimately followed ahead of time, nor could that process ever be 

replicated.’’ While the WIPP process can’t be replicated exactly, it 

does offer important lessons, especially in regard to the need for 

unquestioned credibility and integrity in both the institutions and 

individuals representing the Federal interest. 

In all consent-based approaches, the placement of trust and 

credibility will be a prerequisite for success, which leads me to 

what I believe are other prerequisites that if addressed will enable 

and encourage more potential host communities and States to consider the siting of new nuclear waste management facilities, but 

that if left unresolved can be expected to stifle or confound any consent-based siting process. 

The first issue to clarify is the uncertainty of exactly who will be 

the Federal representative of a consent-based negotiation: the Department of Energy or as the Commission recommends, a new Government-chartered corporation. Complicating this uncertainty is 

the unresolved issue regarding whether or not to commingle the 

management responsibility of defense and commercial waste. 

The second issue needing clarification is to finalize what the new 

disposal standards and regulations will be that govern the determination of safety. The Commission correctly calls for the development of a new generic disposal standard and supporting regulatory 

requirements that ‘‘should be finalized prior to the site selection 

111 

process.’’ And we need to recognize that these are often long lead 

time items. 

The third issue centers on when there will be a confidence that 

a geologic repository for permanent disposal of spent fuel and high 

level waste will be realized. The Commission correctly notes ‘‘The 

challenge of siting one or more consolidated storage facilities cannot be separated from the status of the disposal program.’’ The lack 

of a discernible repository development program can be expected to 

thwart the willingness of some communities or States to consider 

the siting of needed waste management facilities and perpetuate 

the moratoria on new nuclear power plant construction. 

Simply, consent-based siting efforts will be stifled so long as potential host communities and States have uncertainty over who, 

what, and when. Who will be the organization representing the 

Federal interest when negotiating for a consent? What are the final 

regulations that will govern a determination of safety? And when 

will there be a confidence over whether a geologic repository for 

permanent disposal will actually be available? 

In a broad sense, the intent of the BRC recommendations are to 

open new opportunities for the Federal Government to meet its nuclear waste management obligations and to promote a larger number of opportunities for States and communities to willingly host 

needed storage and disposal facilities. The technical solutions for 

developing one or more storage and disposal facilities do exist or 

are readily developed. Given that technical solutions to storage and 

disposal are readily available, the timeframes of decades often suggested for siting new facilities are thus rooted in the prerequisites 

to initiating a consent-based program. Prompt action on resolving 

the items noted will help minimize further delay and better enable 

this generation to meet its obligations for responsible nuclear waste 

management. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Orrell follows:] 

112 


25054.079
113 


25054.080
114 


25054.081
115 


25054.082
116 


25054.083
117 


25054.084
118 


25054.085
119 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

I would like for each member of the panel to briefly react to what 

you just heard from Mr. Orrell. 

We will start with you, Mr. Fettus. Just briefly, 15 seconds. 

Mr. FETTUS. I think it would be extraordinarily premature for 

Congress to not take its time to do precisely what I outlined and 

what I think Dr. Peterson and General Scowcroft outlined, which 

was to methodically work through the process of creating new legislation and assess the criteria. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks so much. 

Mr. Wright. 

Mr. WRIGHT. From what I heard, I tend to agree. I agree with 

a lot of what he has laid out. I think it is sensible. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Howes. 

Mr. HOWES. I would agree that what he has laid out makes a 

good deal of sense. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Metlay. 

Mr. METLAY. I would certainly agree, and my board has certainly 

take the position that there are no technical impediments to developing a repository. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Another question for you, Dr. Metlay. You mentioned in your testimony that the U.S. Nuclear Waste Negotiator, which was established, I think, in the 1987 amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act—could you just take a minute, I don’t think you mentioned in 

your testimony, but take a minute if you will and talk more about 

the Negotiator’s intended role, and is this something that we 

should or could pursue this time around. If you could. And be fairly 

brief in your response. 

Mr. METLAY. Certainly. The Negotiator, as you said, was established as part of the 1987 amendments. He was given a broad charter to negotiate with any State or native American tribe an agreement to host either a repository or an interim storage facility. 

After many years of effort, that task proved unsuccessful, and I 

believe it was in 1993 the Congress decided to get rid of the Office 

of Negotiator. Certainly the idea was a useful one, and other countries have tried it. 

Senator CARPER. With success, or not? 

Mr. METLAY. Not so much. 

Senator CARPER. All right, fair enough. 

For Mr. Orrell, and Commissioner Wright, the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends pursuing consolidated storage facilities in parallel to a disposal program. Some in Congress believe we can pursue interim storage first without also pursuing a parallel disposal 

program. 

Based on your experience and knowledge, how easy or difficult 

would it be to get consent at all levels of government if interim 

storage is pursued without pursuing a disposal program? That 

would be for you, Mr. Orrell, and Mr. Wright. 

Mr. ORRELL. Well, my personal opinion—— 

Senator CARPER. I will ask you to be brief. 

Mr. ORRELL. Yes. My personal opinion is at the moment, without 

a robust, discernible repository development program, the enthuVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:03 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25054.TXT SONYA
120 

siasm for moving early on consolidated storage will probably be 

short lived. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

Mr. Wright. 

Mr. WRIGHT. What he said. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. You guys are getting good at this. I might invite 

you to come back to be our third panel today. 

This is one for the entire panel. If all of you were in our shoes, 

what would be your first action to get this country started on a 

consent-based approach toward finding a final resting place for our 

spent fuel? And what should Congress’ first step be, and is there 

any action that we shouldn’t take that we should rule out at this 

stage? That would be my question. 

Do you want to go first, Mr. Fettus? 

Mr. FETTUS. You should start by doing what you are doing precisely today, with these kinds of hearings. You should start with 

additional hearings on the issues that are going to be very complicated, like fees. The issue of site selection process, the issue of 

standards. And finally, I think the one mistake you could make is 

to commence site selection process right now, where you start down 

the road of an interim storage site that jumps ahead of the line in 

all of this. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Mr. Wright, a somewhat longer response than you gave to my 

last question, but not a lot longer. 

Mr. WRIGHT. There are actually two things that jump out right 

away. The first is to pursue the Fed corp, because you have to do 

something with the fee to make things happen. And transportation, 

moving the decommissioned sites right away can happen and needs 

to happen, so that these sites can be put back to productive use. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

Mr. Howes. 

Mr. HOWES. We agree, the Yankee companies agree that the dual 

track makes sense. However, the repository could be quite a number of years away. And so we are very appreciative of the language 

in the Senate Appropriations bill that calls for a pilot project for 

decommissioned plant fuel. We think that there is a good deal of 

lead time, both for transportation and other planning, that needs 

to go into that along with developing a consent-based approach for 

identifying a volunteer host community. 

So we think there are near-term actions that the Department of 

Energy, with Congress’ support, could certainly get started on 

while we work out some of the knottier issues down the road. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Dr. Metlay, just very briefly, please. 

Mr. METLAY. Based on the international experience, it is clear 

that those countries that have had a successful siting program 

have figured out the problem of distributing power between the 

central government and the periphery. Countries like Germany, 

Japan, and Switzerland where you have a Federal system have had 

a much more difficult time. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Orrell. 

121 

Mr. ORRELL. Two issues. One, make the fundamental decision 

about whether to use Fed corp as the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends. It is a fundamental issue that translates to all of the 

other recommendations in some form. 

Then two, I would encourage the promulgation of the new disposal standards and regulations, as these to take very long period 

of time. 

Senator CARPER. All right, good. Thank you all very, very much. 

Senator Barrasso. He is going to yield to you, Lamar. 

Senator ALEXANDER. He already did that once. I am getting in 

his debt. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. This has been very helpful and very, very 

interesting. 

Mr. Howes, let me ask you about the Yankee companies. You 

have three sites, right? How many reactors? 

Mr. HOWES. There were three reactors, but the sites are fully decommissioned. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So you have stranded fuel? 

Mr. HOWES. We have stranded nuclear fuel at our three sites. 

The reactors and all of the buildings have been removed. The sites 

are fully decommissioned except for the stranded fuel. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So you have the fuel that we are supposed 

to be taking care of? 

Mr. HOWES. Our fuel is licensed by the NRC for both storage and 

transport, and it is ready to go when the Federal Government 

comes to pick it up. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, the suggestion, and you mentioned 

the language in the appropriations bill, which comes from an impulse to—these things take a while. The stalemate has been 25 

years. It takes Congress a little while to pass any kind of legislation. 

So our thought with the appropriations bill was, can we take a 

step or two while we work out the comprehensive piece, or legislation, which would then take over the whole process. Do you think 

that is reasonable? 

Mr. HOWES. Yes, we do. We think that there are near-term actions that could be taken. I think as was mentioned earlier, before 

you could actually move to consolidate interim storage, you would 

have to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to do that. But there 

are any number of things you could do leading up to that, including 

beginning the transportation planning, identifying the routes for 

moving this material. Even if you are not sure where it is going, 

you pretty much know the routes going out of the sites. 

So yes, we think that it is eminently feasible to get started on 

this. 

Senator ALEXANDER. In the proposal in the Appropriations bill, 

of course, any site that is chosen, even as a pilot site, would have 

to be approved by the Congress. In other words, a law would have 

to be passed. So I would guess that the law that would be passed 

would be the comprehensive next step forward. 

From your company’s point of view, how would such moving 

ahead with such a consolidation site affect the Yankee companies? 

122 

Mr. HOWES. As I indicated, there are any number of steps that 

need to take place. For example, a transportation cask doesn’t yet 

exist. The Department of Energy would need to provide a transportation cask to move our material. 

There are years of lead time to do this. Our sense is that there 

are things that can be done within existing authority at the Department of Energy to get started on this track, with the hope that 

Congress in fact will make the needed changes to the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act to allow this to go forward. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Wright, do you agree or disagree that 

if we in the Congress try to move as aggressively as we can to pass 

a comprehensive piece of legislation, that it is prudent to go ahead 

with the language in the Appropriations bill that allows the Department of Energy to begin the process of identifying a consolidation site? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, I believe—well, we are in favor of doing that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I know. I just wanted to get you to say that. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Absolutely. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. And what are the advantages of it, if you 

are in favor of it? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I think it does a number of things. One, it proves 

that you can move it. And No. 2, the Government is on the hook 

for a lot of money, liability-wise. And this may start to reduce their 

exposure to some of that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Fettus, you are not in favor of that? 

Mr. FETTUS. No. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And your reason? 

Mr. FETTUS. The reason quite simply, Senator Alexander, is that 

we think that not treating the storage process—and by the way, as 

was cited here today by Mr. Howes, we don’t have objection to the 

stranded fuel potentially going to an operating reactor site as a 

consolidated storage. We think that makes imminent sense. And 

we have said that repeatedly, for years. 

That said, within the structure of where we are now, and after 

the 20 some years of gridlock, if you don’t set the chess board properly for the next site of steps going forward, we think you could 

prematurely choose sites that either may not be suitable, will not 

fall into the consent-based process that Congress is going to have 

to very arduously try and build. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. Sometimes we do things better 

step by step than we do comprehensively. Henry Clay nearly killed 

himself trying to pass his compromise and went to Nantucket to recover, and Senator Douglas from Illinois picked up the compromise 

and offered each piece of it separately. And they all passed, with 

Senator Houston being the only Senator to vote for each piece. 

We don’t want to go so fast in identifying a consolidation site 

that we don’t do an appropriate job on the second repository. But 

we have been stuck so long on the Yucca stalemate that my hope, 

Mr. Chairman, is that we can find prudent ways to move ahead on 

the consolidation site, while at the same time being very careful as 

we work through the authorization legislation to go aggressively for 

a repository and let the processes learn from one another and eventually be the same process. 

123 

And that will not be derailed by the Yucca debate. We have conclusively demonstrated that we have a big difference of opinion 

over Yucca Mountain. I don’t think we need 25 more years to do 

that. We also, I think, have everybody here, and if anyone disagrees with that, I hope you will say so, that even if we opened 

Yucca Mountain, we will soon need, or maybe immediately need, a 

second repository for the material we already have. So we need 

consolidation sites and we need a second repository or more. And 

so we are looking for a prudent way to get on with it. 

This hearing is a good help to that, and the testimony today has 

been very useful. 

Senator CARPER. I agree. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

This question is to Mr. Orrell and Mr. Fettus. I am trying to drill 

down a little bit, because the BRC, on this issue of parallel, versus 

what we have in the law now, as you all know, DOE can’t open an 

interim or consolidated site unless a permanent site is already 

open. So the BRC talks about parallel. How far along, in your opinion, do we need to be toward a permanent site before you start 

opening an interim site or a consolidated site? 

Mr. FETTUS. I am very happy to begin. A lot farther along than 

we are now. I will start with that. As I outlined extensively in my 

written testimony, there is a long, and I think it is safe to say tortuous history of the repository program, as well as sputtering attempts at an interim storage program. And as Dr. Metlay I think 

effectively outlined today, countries that are having any progress 

are countries that have resolved the allocations of power. If we 

don’t do that, and I have a set of suggestions in my testimony as 

to how we begin to do that in a more thoughtful way that avoids 

the mistakes of the past, I think we could do it. 

But Congress has a significant amount of work to do before we 

do anything remotely related to site selections or moving forward 

on that front. And that includes storage, or that includes final disposal. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Orrell. 

Mr. ORRELL. Well, as was noted earlier, this somewhat hinges on 

the definition of consent and how you would secure that. If a host 

community needs consent on allowing interim storage, or consolidated storage facility, and it would like to have knowledge that 

there is a repository program behind it, it will probably define what 

the level of progress would be. 

But one other measure might be simply an uncontested waste 

confidence decision. We have a recent waste confidence decision 

from the NRC that unfortunately has been legally contested. That 

brings at least suspect whether or not we have a sufficient progress 

on a repository program. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Fettus, you recommend removing the exemptions radioactive 

pollutants from State environmental authority. Why would giving 

States more authority over a nuclear waste site making consentbased siting more likely, and what does the WIPP experience tell 

us about State authority? 

124 

Mr. FETTUS. First, in answering this question, I want to respond 

briefly to Senator Carper’s admonition that these things are seen 

as dumps. They are. This is some of the most toxic and dangerous 

waste that will be radioactive for a million years. This is a difficult 

thing to manage and is why the scientific consensus for over half 

a century has been deep geologic disposal. NRDC concurs with that 

consensus. This is a difficult matter with extraordinarily dangerous 

waste. 

That said, I am informed by my work for Senator Udall, when 

he was the attorney general of New Mexico, the only meaningful 

time that States felt in any measure comfortable in terms of accepting this kind of facility within their borders, no matter the incentives, if it were simply a matter of financial and monetary incentives or structural, then Yucca Mountain would have been built 

a long time ago, or built and actually operating a long time ago. 

What it is is when States essentially have a measure of skin in 

the game. And a Governor, an attorney general, its congressional 

delegation can say, we can make a deal here, because we have control, with of course a Federal floor, that I am quite sure EPA and 

the NRC and the Energy Department or whatever new entity can 

harmonize their standards. 

But when States have a measure of control to say, we can regulate this according to the most strict and protective standards that 

we see fit. And when that is the case, there is a potential for this 

kind of very complicated, difficult decision to go forward. Without 

that, it is not going to happen in our Federal system. 

I think the evidence bears me out on that. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I would like to ask Senator Barrasso if he feels 

prepared to bring us home and to be our last questioner. He is up 

to it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Howes, I am concerned about how long it has taken to address the long-term storage of nuclear waste. It is a process that 

began three decades ago. We are no closer to a solution. 

With regard to interim storage, you talk about wanting to see the 

timely implementation of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations. What is your opinion? What would be timely, when 

you talk about a timely implementation, to see these recommendations implemented? 

Mr. HOWES. We recognize that nothing proceeds very quickly 

when we are talking about nuclear waste. I think the Blue Ribbon 

Commission recognized that there are long lead times for developing any of the consolidated storage options, including looking at 

transportation and other issues. 

The Blue Ribbon Commission, I believe, said that this might be 

able to be done in a decade or so. I think that would be a wonderful 

thing. I think it may be optimistic. We are prepared to work with 

other stakeholders to get this done as rapidly as possible, but we 

are not naive enough to think that it is going to happen overnight. 

Senator BARRASSO. And Mr. Wright, you said in your testimony 

that you have long favored consolidated interim storage but find 

the report vague as to the quantity, the duration and the cost. 

These are very big issues to solve. Could you elaborate a little bit 

125 

more on that point, what details we have that this Committee and 

the public at large need to see here? What do we need to see from 

this Commission and the Administration before signing off on a 

plan? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I do believe that you do see things better now than 

maybe what has been mentioned in years past. You really are 

starting to focus on it, and I have been very gratified with what 

I have heard here today. It is still, and I agree with Mr. Howes, 

it is going to take lead time. Ten years is what has been thrown 

out on some of that stuff. But you have EIS reports and NEPA 

things that you have to go through; there are hoops that have to 

be jumped through. 

The bottom line, I think, for the confidence of commissions and 

States and the utilities that we serve and regulate is the money. 

Making sure that the money is used for what it is supposed to be 

used for, and that trust that needs to be built with any partnership 

with the Federal Government and States and communities that you 

are going to be dealing with. I think that is huge. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to ask just one more question, and 

if my colleague want to ask another question, they are welcome to. 

Sometimes when we have a panel, this has been a really good hearing, and I appreciate all of you being here, certainly appreciate our 

colleagues being here. 

Here is my question. One of the things, as my colleagues may recall, I like to look for consensus from a panel. You all agree on 

some things, and you disagree on some things. Maybe just to start 

with you, Mr. Orrell, one major point where you think there is consensus from this entire panel, what might that be? 

Mr. ORRELL. Well, I would say that the general feeling of the 

time has come to take action. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Dr. Metlay. 

Mr. METLAY. My board has written in one of its publications, it 

would be a shame if we temporize. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. Howes. 

Mr. HOWES. The Federal Government needs to fulfill its obligations. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Wright. 

Mr. WRIGHT. It is probably time to move the decommissioned 

plant site waste and get that moved to a consolidated place. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Fettus. 

Mr. FETTUS. I think there is an acknowledgment that a consentbased process is what has to come out of Congress now. There are 

very different views on how that can come about, but I think there 

is an acknowledgment that that has to be first. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Senator Alexander, anything else? 

Senator ALEXANDER. No. I hope we will have more of these when 

it is appropriate, and I hope all of the other hearings are as useful 

as this one. Thank you very much. 

126 

Senator CARPER. And I would echo that. I think our colleagues 

have 2 weeks—our colleagues, some of whom were not able to be 

here, would like to ask questions of you. They have 2 weeks to do 

that. We simply ask if you receive those questions that you just respond to them in a prompt manner. 

Great to be with all of you; thank you for your participation 

today and for your help. Thanks. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Barrasso, for your leadership 

on nuclear energy issues. I look forward to hearing from the members of the Blue 

Ribbon Commission and our other witnesses. 

I would begin by noting that, even as our nation builds more nuclear power plants 

like those at Plant Vogtle, we still do not have an operational repository for spent 

nuclear fuel. Why? 

As explained in the Department of Energy fiscal year 2011 budget justification, 

the Obama administration unilaterally ‘‘determined that developing the Yucca 

Mountain repository is not a workable option and the nation needs a different solution for nuclear waste disposal.’’ 

I do not believe it was the right decision. 

First, the law of the land—the Nuclear Waste Policy Act—established Yucca 

Mountain in 1987 as the designated site for the nation’s geologic repository for spent 

nuclear fuel. That law has not been changed. 

Second, the Yucca site has been fully studied and found to be a safe place to store 

spent nuclear fuel. This was an effort that took more than 25 years and cost taxpayers more than $14 billion. The geological, hydrological, geochemical, and environmental impacts have been studied, including a detailed evaluation of how conditions 

might evolve over hundreds of thousands of years at Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy has summarized these studies in several scientific reports which 

served as the basis for the 2002 decision to approve Yucca Mountain as a site repository. 

Third, there is a misconception that the Yucca repository is ‘‘unworkable’’ because 

of a lack of ‘‘local support.’’ In fact, the Board of County Commissioners of Nye 

County, Nevada—the county where the Yucca repository would be sited—wrote the 

Blue Ribbon Commission in February 2011 to say that ‘‘strong local community support for Yucca Mountain exists at the host county level.’’ The county’s letter states 

that their ‘‘own research . . . convinces us that the science embodied in DOE’s license 

application for Yucca Mountain and its hundreds of supporting documents is sound 

. . . ’’ They write that the Yucca repository has been ‘‘hijacked by the politics of a 

single powerful Senator and what some view as complicity by the NRC Chairman.’’ 

Attached to the Nye County letter is a 2011 resolution by the Board of Commissioners urging completion of the Yucca Mountain licensing proceedings and resolving that ‘‘the Yucca Mountain repository can be constructed and operated safely.’’ 

So, again, this is the county where the repository would be sited, and the county 

leadership is clearly stating, on the record, that they support the Yucca Mountain 

repository. 

Finally, I would note that the Nuclear Waste Fund is about to reach $28 billion. 

Those dollars were paid by electricity ratepayers and were intended for a permanent 

solution for spent nuclear fuel. On June 1st the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit raised serious questions about this matter, and the court indicated that it 

may even issue an order halting the collection of the nuclear waste fee. 

Chairman Carper, thank you again for holding today’s hearing. I look forward to 

hearing from the members of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and I greatly appreciate 

the work they have done on this issue. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Good morning. I thank Senator Carper for scheduling this hearing on the recommendations stemming from the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear 

Future. 

127 

I also appreciate the participation of our panelists: Lieutenant General Brent 

Scowcroft, who served as Co-Chair of the Commission, and Dr. Per Peterson, who 

served with him on the Commission. Thank you both for the time and consideration 

you put toward this effort. 

In carrying out its work, the BRC noted a clear ‘‘erosion of trust in the Federal 

Government’s nuclear waste program,’’ which requires new approaches to the longfamiliar challenges of siting, licensing, operating, and funding waste management 

activities. 

Consistent with this finding, BRC recommended the creation of a separate new 

organization dedicated solely to implementing a waste management program. This 

organization would be separate from the Department of Energy which currently has 

responsibility for management of defense and civilian nuclear waste. 

While there are no commercial nuclear power plants in Idaho, significant quantities of nuclear waste stemming from defense activities are currently stored in the 

State. Idaho is proud of the role it continues to play in support of national defense 

activities, including the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. 

It is critically important that the Federal Government not lose sight of its commitment to remove defense waste in accordance with established agreements with 

Idaho and other States by 2035. I fear that any comprehensive re-organization of 

nuclear waste management responsibilities heightens the risk that established 

agreements may be violated. This is an entirely unacceptable outcome. 

The BRC recommended that the Administration launch an immediate review of 

the implications of managing defense wastes within the DOE versus a new organization, correctly noting that the issue raises key questions of funding, governance, 

and congressional oversight. I support this review and urge that defense waste removal remain a top priority within the Department of Energy. 

I continue to support Yucca Mountain as the legally mandated, permanent geologic repository for both defense and civilian high level waste. Much of the DOE inventory, including the naval reactor spent nuclear fuel now stored in Idaho, has 

been managed and placed into a condition suitable for ultimate disposal in just such 

a deep geologic disposal facility. 

The BRC contends that the question of managing defense waste separately from 

civilian waste need not delay implementation of other BRC recommendations. However, it is crucial that whatever the actions Congress and the Federal Government 

may take to move nuclear waste disposal forward, we remain appropriately focused 

and committed to existing agreements with the States regarding the removal of defense wastes. Nothing whatsoever should be done to delay the permanent disposal 

of this waste, relative to the disposition of civilian waste. 

Again, I appreciate the participation of the panel members this morning and look 

forward to your insight. 

Æ