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

96–988 2016

UPDATE ON THE CURRENT STATE OF NUCLEAR 

WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 15, 2015 

Serial No. 114–42 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 5 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 90 

WITNESSES

Andrew Fitz, Senior Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, State of Washington .................................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 92 

Josephine Piccone, Director, Yucca Mountain Directorate, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 17 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 99 

Greg R. White, Commissioner, Michigan Public Service Commission, on behalf 

of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues, Waste Disposal ............................................ 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 105 

Stephen Kuczynski, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Southern Nuclear Operating Company ........................................................................ 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 112 

Geoffrey H. Fettus, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council ......... 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Einar Ronningen, Manager Rancho Seco Assets, Decommissioning Plant Coalition ...................................................................................................................... 75

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 119 

(1) 

UPDATE ON THE CURRENT STATE OF 

NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY 

FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Whitfield, Pitts, Murphy, Latta, Johnson, Hudson, Cramer, Tonko, Green, McNerney, 

and Pallone (ex officio). 

Also Present: Representative Newhouse. 

Staff Present: Charlotte Baker, Deputy Communications Director; Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment/Economy; Chris 

Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Andy Zack, Professional 

Staff Member; Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; 

Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Rick 

Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and 

Environment. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is 9:00. We want to start promptly. There is 

going to be votes sometime early this morning, and we want to get 

the opening statements through and encourage members to get 

back afterwards to follow up with questions. I will recognize myself 

for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Thank you all for coming to this morning’s hearing to receive an 

update on the status of and outlook for progress on America’s nuclear waste management policy. Let me state at the outset that 

issue of the Nation’s nuclear waste management policy is not a partisan issue. The House of Representatives has repeatedly supported 

Yucca Mountain in an overwhelming and bipartisan manner. Last 

summer, efforts to abandoned Yucca Mountain were defeated on 

the House floor with the body voting 4 to 1 in favor of Yucca Mountain. This includes nearly two-thirds of the Chamber’s Democrats. 

In April, I once again led a bipartisan group of members to see 

Yucca Mountain site firsthand. The site is an invaluable national 

asset isolated in the Nevada desert, removed from all population 

centers, and co-located with the Nevada National Security Site. 

2 

Since my previous visit in 2011, the landscape has notably advanced to support the development of a permanent repository. In 

2013, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission must continue its review of the Yucca Mountain license application. The court issued a writ of mandamus, a very 

consequential legal action, and declared it was illegal for the NRC 

to stop consideration of the license. As a result of this decision, the 

NRC resumed the scientific and technical evaluation of the license 

known as the Safety and Evaluation Report, or SER. The SER 

looked at a plethora of potential natural and manmade scenarios 

which could affect the performance of the facility. In January of 

this year, the NRC released the fifth and final volume of the SER. 

The NRC staff determined the facility could meet all safety regulations including that it could safely serve as a repository for up to 

a million years. Meanwhile, the costs of inaction and delay continue to mount. The courts ruled the Department of Energy’s dismantling of the Yucca Mountain project no longer constitute a permanent disposal program. Therefore, the Federal Government 

could no longer collect the nuclear waste fee, a surcharge paid by 

consumers of nuclear-generated electricity. 

While the fee is no longer being actively collected, the Treasury Department still maintains a balance of nearly $33 billion in ratepayer money to license, construct, and operate Yucca Mountain. 

But it isn’t just ratepayers who are paying for the consequences of 

the delay. All American taxpayers, regardless of whether they benefit from commercial nuclear power, are footing the legal bill, and 

the bill isn’t cheap. Last year, the Department of Justice account 

that pays damages on behalf of the Federal Government, known as 

the Judgment Fund, paid out over $900 million in settlements as 

a consequence of our inability to move forward with Yucca. This accounted for nearly a third of all Federal Government legal fees. 

We in the Federal Government have an obligation to uphold the 

law, to dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel, as well as honor 

the commitment made to states who host sites to support our nuclear defense activities, including South Carolina, Idaho, and 

Washington State. Congress needs a willing partner to host a nuclear disposal facility as we currently have with the sites that contributed to the Manhattan Project. I am committed to working with 

the State and local stakeholders in Nevada, who will engage in a 

constructive conversation to resolve the current impasse. 

Just saying no is not an option. As part of this process, we will 

look for areas of agreement such as facilitating a benefits package 

for communities to provide long-term budget stability, strengthen 

the State’s education fund, and identify associated transportation 

infrastructure benefits. As a host state of a Nevada National Security Site, however, Nevada already is a constructive partner with 

the Federal Government to protect our National interests. This, by 

the way, includes storing radioactive waste onsite today. 

I look forward to hearing from a broad group of stakeholders 

today who will highlight the need to finish a repository, as the 

House Representative supports, as the courts direct, and as the 

American people deserve. 

Thank you, and I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Tonko, 

for his opening statement. 

3 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Thank you all for coming to this morning’s hearing to receive an update on the 

status of, and outlook for progress on, America’s nuclear waste management policy. 

Let me state at the outset that the issue of the nation’s nuclear waste management policy is not a partisan issue. The House of Representatives has repeatedly 

supported Yucca Mountain in an overwhelming and bipartisan manner. Last summer, efforts to abandon Yucca Mountain were defeated on the House floor with the 

body voting four to one in favor of Yucca Mountain. This includes nearly 2⁄3 of the 

Chamber’s Democrats. 

In April, I once again led a bipartisan group of members to see the Yucca Mountain site firsthand. The site is an invaluable national asset isolated in the Nevada 

desert, removed from all population centers, and co-located with the Nevada National Security Site. Since my previous visit in 2011, the landscape has notably advanced to support the development of a permanent repository. 

In 2013, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

must continue its review of the Yucca Mountain license application. The Court 

issued a writ of mandamus, a very consequential legal action, and declared it was 

illegal for the NRC to stop consideration of the license. As a result of this decision, 

NRC resumed the scientific and technical evaluation of the license, known as the 

Safety Evaluation Report (SER). 

The SER looked at a plethora of potential natural and manmade scenarios which 

could affect the performance of the facility. In January of this year, NRC released 

the fifth and final volume of the SER. The NRC Staff determined the facility could 

meet all safety regulations, including that it could safely serve as a repository for 

up to a million years. 

Meanwhile, the costs of inaction and delay continue to mount. The Courts ruled 

the Department of Energy’s dismantlement of the Yucca Mountain Project no longer 

constituted a permanent disposal program. Therefore, the Federal Government 

could no longer collect the Nuclear Waste fee, a surcharge paid by consumers of nuclear-generated electricity. While the fee is no longer being actively collected, the 

Treasury Department still maintains a balance of nearly $33 billion in ratepayer 

money to license, construct and operate Yucca Mountain. 

But it isn’t just ratepayers who are paying for the consequences of the delay. All 

American taxpayers, regardless of whether they benefit from commercial nuclear 

power, are footing the legal bill. And the bill isn’t cheap. Last year, the Department 

of Justice account that pays damages on behalf of the Federal Government, known 

as the Judgement Fund, paid out over $900 million in settlements as a consequence 

of our inability to move forward with Yucca. This accounted for nearly a third of 

all Federal Government legal settlements. 

We in the Federal Government have an obligation to uphold the law to dispose 

of commercial spent nuclear fuel, as well as honor the commitment made to States 

who host sites to support our nuclear defense activities, including South Carolina, 

Idaho and Washington State. Congress needs a willing partner to host a nuclear disposal facility, as we currently have with the sites that contributed to the Manhattan 

Project. 

I am committed to working with state and local stakeholders in Nevada who will 

engage in a constructive conversation to resolve the current impasse. Just saying 

no is not an option. As part of this process, we will look for areas of agreement, 

such as facilitating a benefits package for communities to provide longterm budget 

stability, strengthen the State’s education fund, and identify associated transportation infrastructure benefits. 

As the host state of the Nevada National Security Site, however, Nevada already 

is a constructive partner with the Federal Government to protect our national interests. This, by the way, includes storing radioactive waste on site. 

I look forward to hearing from a broad group of stakeholders today who will highlight the need to finish a repository, as the House of Representatives supports, as 

the Courts direct, and as the American people deserve. 

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

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are here this morning to 

hear from a fine panel of witnesses about the current state of nuVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-42 CHRIS
4 

clear waste policy. There are some things that I do not expect will 

have changed much from the time of our last hearing on this issue. 

Nuclear facilities across the country continue to generate waste 

that has yet to be secured in a long-term storage facility. Research 

and development on waste technologies continues. The law designating a storage facility is unchanged, and today we add to the 

many oversight hearings the subcommittee has held over the years. 

But we still have no real solution, even an interim one, to offer 

to the witnesses at the table today and the constituencies that they 

do, indeed, represent. There have been reports by the National 

Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, industry and nongovernmental groups, and the President’s Blue Ribbon 

Commission. Ironically, we have a long-term storage facility, and 

yet we do not. And we do not have interim storage facilities or a 

policy of establishing them, and yet we do. Essentially the storage 

facilities at each of the powerplant sites around the country now 

serve as de facto interim storage facilities. 

We need a solution to this situation. It will not be easy, and it 

will be expensive. But the alternative is also expensive and provides less safety, less security than a functioning, ordered process 

for dealing with spent fuel. And Mr. Fitz reminds us that we also 

have to deal with legacy waste from our defense programs. 

I know the chair and others on this committee are resolved to 

complete the process of opening the Yucca Mountain facility, but 

the Yucca Mountain facility is not open at this time, and it does 

not appear it will be open in the near future. In the meantime, 

spent fuel continues to accumulate, and penalty fees continue to accrue. I continue to believe that it is worth examining additional options for dealing with this waste. 

The administration’s strategy, based on the work done by the 

Blue Ribbon Commission in 2012, has challenges and unknowns. 

Should we pursue a system that includes both interim and longterm storage of waste? If so, how do we proceed? If there are to be 

interim sites, how many will be needed? How much waste can or 

should be stored at them, and what time period qualifies as interim? What are the costs, and can we access the necessary funds 

to the fund established to deal with this problem? 

I do not expect to hear definitive answers to these questions this 

morning, but I do think it is time that we examined all options for 

moving forward. I think the future for nuclear power is in question 

if we do not find a way to deal with this issue. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. I look forward to your testimony and to your suggestions on options to move forward on what is a very critical and 

important issue. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. Anyone seeking time on the majority side? 

Seeing none, the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full 

committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

5 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you and Ranking Member Tonko for holding this 

hearing today. 

Much has changed since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act became 

law in 1982, which allowed the Secretary of Energy to remove 

spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants in exchange for fees and transported to a permanent geological repository. But I think the past three decades of the nuclear waste program might be best summed up this way: Lots of change but very 

little progress. 

Unfortunately, the one thing that seems most resistant to change 

is the program’s ongoing failure to the ratepayers, who have paid 

into the fund. That failure also applies to the taxpayers, who are 

now having to pay damages through the Judgment Fund administered by DOJ. In New Jersey, we have several operating nuclear 

reactors that provide carbon-free electricity, and this includes Oyster Creek, the Nation’s oldest operating plant, which will soon stop 

providing power but will continue to provide a home to spent nuclear fuel long into the future unless we can come together on a 

plan to fix this program. 

My point is this: I am not interested in litigating the wisdom of 

the administration’s actions with regard to Yucca Mountain because that won’t help move waste out of New Jersey, Illinois, New 

York, Michigan, or anywhere else anytime soon. I am, however, interested in making progress, and I hope this committee will put the 

ratepayer and taxpayer first and focus on efforts that can be enacted into law and that will move us forward over the next few 

years. I am encouraged by recent developments on potential consensus sites for interim storage in Texas and New Mexico, and we 

should look closely at the prospects they offer. That in no way 

means we should curtail our push for a permanent repository, but 

I do believe the best path forward is to work to identify steps we 

can take now to set the stage for real reform on permanent disposal in the future, regardless of where the disposal facility ends 

up being sited. 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working with all my colleagues, stakeholders, and the administration to put our Nation’s nuclear waste 

program back on track. 

And I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 

California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to thank the ranking member, and I 

thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his work on this issue. 

Managing nuclear waste is an engineering and a political problem. 

Based on the work I did as a graduate student for the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of New Mexico, I believe 

the engineering problem can be solved safely and satisfactorily. 

Experience has shown that in order to find a location with the 

support of the local community, we are going to need complete 

transparency and the involvement of the local community in order 

to be accepted by the local community. 

6 

More than $10 billion has been spent on the Yucca Mountain 

project, and that money may be wasted because there wasn’t the 

transparency and local involvement that would be required. The 

current situation we have invites a Fukushima-style disaster to 

happen in this country because there is so much waste stored in 

so various locations as we will hear near the Columbia River and 

other places. So are we going to need a solution? I thank the chairman for his work, and I think we need to work together in a bipartisan way to find a way forward, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Before we begin with the opening statements of our guests, I 

want to just point out that joining us is Congressman Dan 

Newhouse, a Member from Washington State, who has the honor 

and the challenge of representing the Hanford DOE site, which I 

think shows our common interest in moving forward on this. 

Thank you for joining us. 

I am going to move rapidly so we can get all our process through 

and hopefully have people return after they call votes. 

So first at the panel and will be recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. 

Andrew Fitz, senior counsel, Office of the Attorney General, State 

of Washington. 

Your full statement has submitted for the record. 

You have 5 minutes, sir. 

Pull that mic a little bit closer if you can. Move your name tag 

and then make sure the button is pressed on. 

STATEMENTS OF ANDREW FITZ, SENIOR COUNSEL, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF WASHINGTON; JOSEPHINE PICCONE, DIRECTOR, YUCCA MOUNTAIN DIRECTORATE, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; THE HONORABLE GREG R. WHITE, COMMISSIONER, MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, 

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR ISSUES, WASTE 

DISPOSAL; STEPHEN KUCZYNSKI, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY; GEOFFREY H. FETTUS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND EINAR 

RONNINGEN, MANAGER RANCHO SECO ASSETS, DECOMMISSIONING PLANT COALITION 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW FITZ 

Mr. FITZ. There we go. On behalf of the State of Washington, Office of the Attorney General, I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here before you today. Washington State has a keen interest in the 

development of a permanent repository for high-level radioactive 

waste and spent nuclear fuel. For nearly eight decades, we have 

honored our duty to temporarily house nuclear waste as a byproduct of our Nation’s defense at the Department of Energy’s Hanford 

Nuclear Reservation. 

Waste from Hanford accounts for approximately 63 percent of the 

defense-generated high-level waste projected for disposal at Yucca 

Mountain. I should point out that our near-term concern is in getVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-42 CHRIS
7 

ting this waste out of failing underground single-shell tanks and 

into a glass form. But our long-term interest is in seeing that all 

this waste is properly disposed of in a deep geologic repository. 

That is what led us into litigation over the efforts to abandon 

Yucca Mountain in 2010. 

The Federal Government’s efforts to abandon Yucca Mountain 

have ignored and bypassed the careful process Congress set forth 

in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for developing a national repository. Washington State has been clear in its legal arguments that 

if Yucca Mountain is determined to be technically unsuitable in the 

licensing process, it should not be built. But, absent that determination, the process Congress set forth in law for establishing the 

repository should be respected and upheld. 

In passing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Congress recognized 

that accomplishing the long-term objective of a national repository 

requires a stepwise approach and a process cemented in law. The 

House bill report that accompanied the NWPA concluded that, ‘‘The 

failure of government to provide a permanent waste disposal facility during more than 30 years of Federal nuclear activities is unmitigated.’’ It criticized prior Federal agency competence in ‘‘paper 

analyses and future plans’’ as failing to provide ‘‘adequate assurance that disposal facilities would be available when needed.’’ 

It noted that two prior attempts to explore potential repository 

sites had already failed due to intense political pressure, and it 

noted what it called a solid consensus of special task force and 

Presidential commission recommendations on the need for legislation to ‘‘solidify a program and keep it on track.’’ In particular, the 

report noted ‘‘it is necessary to provide close congressional control 

to assure that the political and programmatic errors of our past experience will not be repeated.’’ If it is to stand any chance of success, the process for developing a repository has to necessarily 

stand and withstand changes to Federal and State administrations 

and the political tides that accompany them. If you are going to 

complete a process measured in decades, you cannot be continually 

second-guessing or switching course partway through, or you will 

never accomplish the objective. 

The thing that keeps you on course is and must be the law. This 

is at the heart of the NWPA’s stepwise prescriptive structure. Critically, Congress reserved for itself the ultimate decision of approving a potential repository site. In the case of Yucca Mountain, Congress exercised that authority when it rejected Nevada’s disapproval of the site. And later, when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Nevada’s legal challenge to that recommendation to 

Congress, the court said: Congress has settled the matter, and we 

no less than the parties are bound by its decision. 

Once a repository site is approved under the NWPA, it triggers 

a mandate for the Department of Energy to submit a construction 

authorization application to the NRC and an obligation on the NRC 

to consider Energy’s application and issue a final decision approving or disapproving issuance of a construction authorization. Energy disregarded these mandates in 2010. It attempted to withdraw 

from the licensing proceeding based not on any claim that Yucca 

Mountain is technically unsuitable but on ‘‘the Secretary’s judgVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-42 CHRIS
8 

ment that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option’’ and that ‘‘alternatives will better serve the public interest.’’ 

The NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board agreed with our 

argument that the NWPA’s plain language and legislative history 

did not permit the Secretary to withdraw the application. In the 

words of the board ‘‘the NWPA does not give the Secretary the discretion to substitute his policy for the one established by Congress 

in the NWPA, that at this point mandates progress towards a merits decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.’’ Energy’s application thus remains pending before the NRC today. 

As the committee may know, the NRC Chair nevertheless then 

initiated his own orderly shutdown of the NRC’s license review. 

The shutdown included terminating the NRC staff’s technical review, blocking the release of Safety Evaluation Reports and shutting down the NRC’s Web-based licensing support network, which 

was a database for all the documentation regarding the application. 

Despite having more than $11 million available in appropriated 

funds to continue with licensing proceedings, the NRC cited budgetary considerations for its actions, including the political prediction that Congress would not further fund its efforts. It took 

Washington State and its fellow petitioners bringing a mandamus 

action and the court issuing an order in August 2013 to reverse 

this unilateral dismantling. 

In a clear, blunt order, the Federal Court concluded that the 

NRC ‘‘ has declined to continue the statutorily-mandated Yucca 

Mountain licensing process,’’ and that ‘‘as things stand, the Commission is simply flouting the law.’’ It rejected the NRC’s budgetary 

arguments and cited the bedrock principle of constitutional law 

that ‘‘the President and Federal agencies may not ignore statutory 

mandates or prohibitions merely because of policy disagreement 

with Congress.’’ 

Here is where that leaves us. The NRC has now completed and 

released its Safety Evaluation Reports. We have final legal decisions in place that establish the obligation of both Energy and the 

NRC to continue with the Yucca Mountain licensing process providing the funding is in place to proceed. 

I understand there are those who think that Yucca Mountain is 

technically unsuitable, but the law provides an opportunity to 

prove that case in the pending NRC hearing. I also understand 

there are those who think that following the current scheme in the 

NWPA is unwise, but the method for pursuing that disagreement 

should be through changing the law, not disregarding it. Ultimately, given the multi-decade, multi- generational task of developing a nuclear waste repository, we will never have a repository, 

whether it is at Yucca Mountain or any other site, if the legal process for siting and licensing a repository is disregarded, either now 

or by those who follow us. Thank you and I will be happy to take 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitz follows:] 

9 


96988.001
10 


96988.002
11 


96988.003
12 


96988.004
13 


96988.005
14 


96988.006
15 


96988.007
16 


96988.008
17 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate it. I know you have traveled long distances and a lot, and I want to make sure you got your full statement in. But we are trying to keep quick. 

I would now like to recognize Ms. Josephine Piccone, Director of 

Yucca Mountain Directorate from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

You are welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPHINE PICCONE 

Ms. PICCONE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, 

Ranking Member Tonko, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Josephine Piccone, Director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Yucca Mountain Directorate, which is responsible for leading the current review activities associated with the 

Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the NRC staff’s completion of the Yucca Mountain Safety 

Evaluation Report. On November 18, 2013, the NRC Commission 

approved a memorandum and order setting a course of action for 

the Yucca Mountain licensing process, consistent with the Appeals 

Court decision on August 2013, and the resources available from 

previous unexpended appropriations to the NRC from the Nuclear 

Waste Fund. This course of action included the Commission directing the NRC staff to complete the Safety Evaluation Report. We 

completed the Safety Evaluation Report this past January within 

our cost estimate. I would like to acknowledge our talented review 

team of more than 40 agency experts in technical fields such as 

health physics, geology, seismology, hydrology, material sciences, 

structural engineering, and criticality safety, to name but a few. 

We also had an excellent legal staff providing valuable support and 

assistance from the NRC’s federally funded research and development center, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, in 

San Antonio, Texas. 

The Safety Evaluation Report documents the results of the staff’s 

technical review of DOE’s application. The NRC staff finds that 

DOE has met most, but not all, of the applicable regulatory requirements. Notably, the NRC staff finds that DOE’s design and 

analysis of the proposed repository complies with the performance 

objectives and requirements both before and after the repository is 

closed. 

These performance objectives and requirements, which are protective of public health and safety, include the requirements that 

the repository be composed of multiple barriers, requirements for 

the repository to meet certain radiation limits for individual protection and human intrusion, and separate standards for protection of 

groundwater. The staff also finds that DOE has addressed most of 

the general information, administrative, and programmatic requirements. 

There are two specific requirements that DOE has not met that 

concern ownership of land and water rights. They are discussed in 

detail in Volume 4 of the Safety Evaluation Report. In addition, a 

supplement to DOE’s environmental impact statement addressing 

groundwater issues has not been completed. Therefore, the NRC 

18 

staff is not recommending issuance of a construction authorization 

at this time. 

Publication of the Safety Evaluation Report is only one of several 

steps that need to occur before a decision can be made on the construction authorization application. A decision on whether to authorize construction can be made only after a supplement to DOE’s 

Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared, a hearing has 

been conducted, and the Commission has completed its review of 

contested and uncontested issues. With regard to the first item, the 

Commission has directed the NRC staff to develop a supplement to 

DOE’s Environmental Impact Statement covering certain groundwater issues. 

The largest and most significant of the remaining steps to be 

completed before the Commission can reach a decision on whether 

to grant the construction authorization is the adjudicatory hearing, 

including consideration of approximately 300 pending contentions 

and any new or amended contentions. The NRC does not currently 

have sufficient remaining resources from the Nuclear Waste Fund 

to complete the hearing. Recently the Commission informed the 

Congress that it estimated that approximately $330 million would 

be needed for the NRC to complete the construction authorization 

proceeding. 

This concludes my formal testimony on the NRC Safety Evaluation Report. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, 

and I look forward to continuing to work with you to advance 

NRC’s important safety and security missions. I would be pleased 

to respond to questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Piccone follows:] 

19 


96988.009
20 


96988.010
21 


96988.011
22 


96988.012
23 


96988.013
24 


96988.014
25 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Next, we have the Honorable Greg R. White, Commissioner of 

Michigan Public Service Commission, on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues and Waste Disposal. He has appeared here numerous times. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes, and thanks for coming. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GREG R. WHITE 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking 

Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the status 

of the U.S. nuclear waste program. I am Greg White. I serve as 

commissioner on the Michigan Public Service Commission. I am 

testifying today on behalf of NARUC, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 

NARUC is a nonprofit organization. It has been around for over 

125 years. Members are the public utility commissions in all 50 

States and U.S. territories. We are State economic regulators, and 

we are responsible for ensuring the safe, reliable, and affordable 

delivery of essential electric utility service in every state. As a result, the success of this program is critical to the delivery of essential electric services. 

I would like to raise a few points and then offer some comments 

in regards to what we think might be able to be done going forward. NARUC was at the table when the 1982 law was passed, and 

we agreed that it was appropriate for the consumers to pay for this 

program. The people who benefit from the generation of electricity 

from nuclear power plants appropriately should pay for it. And the 

consumers have paid. I would like to point out that the only milestone in the 1982 act that was ever on time was the signing of the 

contracts that began the collection of money from the consumers. 

Since then, more than $40 billion has been collected in direct payments and in interest that has accrued in the balance. The current 

status of the program, the same as it was in 1982; we don’t have 

anything moving forward. The program is at a dead stop. 

A couple of other points. I also serve as the chairman of an organization called the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition that was 

formed in 1993. It is a group of State commissions, utility, nuclear 

utilities, consumer advocates, local communities, and we were 

formed in 1993. I can tell you that, as somebody who was in the 

room in 1993, we didn’t intend or ever expect that we would still 

be an organization working on this issue in 2015, some 22 years 

later. 

We also proposed way back in 1994, the Nuclear Waste Strategy 

Coalition, the creation of a single-purpose entity, a public-private 

corporation chartered by the Congress to manage this program, removing it from the Department of Energy. That was in 1994. The 

proposal was rejected pretty much out of hand. The argument was 

by moving to that new entity, it could delay the progress on the 

program by up to a year. 

We have been involved in several lawsuits, as you know. They 

have been explained by Mr. Fitz. Chairman Shimkus, I would like 

to point out one in particular, the suspension of the Nuclear Waste 

26 

Fund, which we argued we needed to do. We considered that to be 

a bittersweet win. It was always our intention to pay for the program, to have the consumers pay for the program. But when there 

was no program after 2010, we could no longer continue to allow 

hundreds of millions of dollars to be collected from consumers into 

a fund that was paying for nothing. 

So the Department of Energy has had some plans, I will say 

‘‘schemes,’’ perhaps. The problem is, is that they really have no 

credibility. There is no budgets. There is no time frames, other 

than the proposal that was made in 2013 as a result of the Blue 

Ribbon Commission’s recommendations suggested that the Department would make substantial progress towards a national repository by 2048, some 35 years from that date. 

My suggestion is, we seem to have learned nothing in the previous 32 years that led up to that point. 

So, in conclusion, NARUC has thoughtfully considered the country’s viable options. And we think that to move forward on a nuclear waste program, that we have to see credible substantial 

progress toward achieving the goal. The first step is to complete 

the licensing review of the Yucca Mountain license application. We 

also believe that the Nuclear Waste Fund must be managed responsibly and used only for its intended purpose. The management 

of the Federal responsibilities for integrated-use fuel management 

would be more successful if it was assigned to a new organization, 

such as the charter of a new Federal corporation, suggested by the 

Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition back in 1994. And, in addition, 

we believe that there is a need for consolidated interim storage although the amount, basis of need, and duration should be determined. 

If implemented in the near term, these steps could create a solid 

foundation on which to build a viable spent nuclear program. I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to express my views, and I 

will be very pleased to take questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:] 

27 


96988.015
28 


96988.016
29 


96988.017
30 


96988.018
31 


96988.019
32 


96988.020
33 


96988.021
34 


96988.022
35 


96988.023
36 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Next, we will recognize Mr. Stephen Kuczynski, chairman, president, and chief executive officer of the Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes, and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN KUCZYNSKI 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking 

Member Tonko, and the members of the subcommittee. I also 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. As stated, my name is Steve Kuczynski. I am the chairman, president, 

and CEO of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company. We have 

been in the nuclear power business for over 50 years. Today our 

fleet of six nuclear reactors at three sites, Plant Hatch and Plant 

Vogtle in Georgia, and Plant Farley in Alabama, provide approximately 20 percent of the electricity used in those States. We are 

also building two new state-of-the-art nuclear units at Plant Vogtle. 

It is an honor for me to appear before the subcommittee to discuss nuclear waste policy in general. Essential to this discussion is, 

of course, the need for a permanent repository. It is critical that 

the Federal Government meet its contractual obligation to take 

title to the Nation’s spent fuel inventory. It is appropriate for the 

subcommittee to explore ways to get the statutorily mandated 

spent nuclear fuel disposal program back on track. I look forward 

to discussing these and other issues with you today. 

Let me begin with a brief discussion about our company’s spent 

fuel program. Currently we have 2,300 fuel assemblies and spent 

fuel pools at Plant Farley, another 930 assemblies in dry casks. At 

Plant Hatch, we have approximately 5,000 assemblies in the pools 

with 4,150 in dry casks. At Plant Vogtle, we have 2,600 assemblies 

in the pools and 480 in dry casks. 

First thing I want to emphasize is that we have safe, reliable, 

onsite options to store spent fuel at our nuclear plants for the duration of our plant licenses and the expected life of the plants. Spent 

fuel pools and dry cask storage installations are regulated and approved by the NRC under very comprehensive safety, security, and 

environmental regulations. But these temporary measures should 

not be viewed as de facto permanent solutions to the spent fuel disposal issue. 

Under both law and contract, disposal of spent fuel is an obligation of the Federal Government. My written testimony explains in 

some more detail how this came to be. I won’t repeat that history 

here, other than to say that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act directed 

the Energy Secretary to enter into contracts with the Nation’s nuclear utilities. Those contracts provided that, in return for payment 

of the fees into the Nuclear Waste Fund, the government will take 

title to nuclear powerplant owner spent fuel for permanent storage 

at the Nation’s repository beginning in 1998. 

Industry was effectively mandated to enter into these contracts. 

Under these contracts, Alabama Power has paid over $399 million 

into the Nuclear Waste Fund for Plant Farley, and Georgia Power 

has paid over $400 million for Plant Hatch and $445 million for 

plant Vogtle. Those are real dollars obtained from electricity customers in our States on the basis of spent fuel contracts with the 

37 

Federal Government. 1998 came and went. Seventeen years later, 

the Federal Government still has not begun to perform its end of 

the contracts. My written testimony explains nuclear powerplant 

owners have been forced to make other onsite arrangements to 

store our spent fuel temporarily at great expense to our companies. 

The industry has mitigated these losses to some degree by recovering monetary judgments from the Federal Government on the 

basis of partial breach of contract claims. These recoveries have 

been limited so far to the cost for storage facilities made necessary 

by the government’s breach. The Government Accountability Office 

has estimated that, in total, across the industry, Federal Government’s liability for breach of the spent fuel contracts will exceed 

$21 billion by 2071. 

That is a brief summary of the current situation, but the news 

is not all negative. There is increasing confidence that the Nation’s 

nuclear waste disposal program is getting back on track. With recent court rulings requiring further action on the Yucca license application and the NRC’s recent reports finding Yucca Mountain to 

be safe. The Nation has come too far and invested too much to 

abandon the Yucca Mountain repository now. 

In closing, I applaud the subcommittee for taking keen interest 

and tackling this complex and challenging problem. The good news, 

it is not an insurmountable issue. Indeed, from a technical, safety, 

financial, and legal perspective, the path forward is manageable 

and understood. In many respects, the key challenges are political 

and the domain of Congress to address. 

Let me finish with three final thoughts for you to consider. First 

and number one, the Nation should move forward with the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. I believe that is clear. Two, 

Congress should reform the funding mechanisms for these programs to ensure access to the Nuclear Waste Fund for appropriate 

uses. The key challenge has been the program relies on appropriations which has been subject to the ebbs and flows of politics. And, 

three, Congress needs to protect the investment of electricity customers around the country who have collectively paid billions of 

dollars to the Federal government to dispose of the Nation’s spent 

fuel inventory. 

Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, for allowing me to appear before 

you here today and the subcommittee. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kuczynski follows:] 

38 


96988.024
39 


96988.025
40 


96988.026
41 


96988.027
42 


96988.028
43 


96988.029
44 


96988.030
45 


96988.031
46 


96988.032
47 


96988.033
48 


96988.034
49 


96988.035
50 


96988.036
51 


96988.037
52 


96988.038
53 


96988.039
54 


96988.040
55 


96988.041
56 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Next I would like to recognize Mr. Geoffrey Fettus, Senior Attorney from the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes, and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY H. FETTUS 

Mr. FETTUS. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for 

having me today and allowing me to provide the Natural Resources 

Defense Council’s views on this matter. 

Let me get right to two key issues at hand, the proposed Yucca 

Mountain repository and interim storage away from reactor sites. 

We are concerned Congress is on a trajectory to make two misguided decisions that run directly counter to the bipartisan set of 

recommendations found in President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission for America’s Nuclear Future. 

First, with respect to Yucca—and I will note that Nevada is not 

here—it is clear some members believe the proposed Yucca site is 

a safe place to bury spent nuclear fuel and that the project can be 

revived now that Senator Reid is retiring. Reasonable people can 

disagree. Respectfully, those ideas are not accurate. Efforts to restart the failed process face an uphill climb of massive technical 

and institutional challenges, years of litigation, and a complete lack 

of meaningful State consent. Simply, Yucca Mountain leaks profusely. Licensing depends on, at this point, a fictional set of drip 

shields. And the State is joined across party lines to litigate the 

matter for as long as it takes. 

This is on top of the history where, in an effort to preserve what 

turned out to be an unworkable site, in the mid-1980s, the Energy 

Department, they abandoned its technical siting guidelines used to 

select Yucca. In the early 2000s, EPA gerrymandered the site 

boundaries in an effort to ensure that radiation doses at the edge 

of the regulated area miles away would be acceptable. And then 

DOE proposed that hundreds of years into the future, the agency 

would spend billions more to introduce titanium drip shields to prevent the early corrosion of the waste containers. 

Along the way, Congress worked on the site selection process by 

simply selecting Yucca and then demanding EPA’s regulations be 

consistent with the views of the National Academy of Sciences. 

This effort subsequently backfired when a bipartisan panel of the 

D.C. Circuit unanimously found that EPA’s rule was not, in fact, 

consistent with the views of the National Academy of Sciences. 

Restarting the Yucca fight, respectfully, Mr. Chairman, is not the 

way to go nor is the right way to proceed with the current flurry 

of premature interim storage plants. Here Congress could be poised 

to delink interim storage of spent fuel from the requirement to first 

establish an acceptable final geologic site. Wise leaders with a history of reaching across the aisle, like Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who was the first and last to introduce potentially workable 

legislation consistent with the BRC recommendations warned 

against such tactics for decades. The American public and each of 

the States—and I think this is where we all agree—not just the industry that has the special deal of the Federal Government assuming its waste burden, has the right to expect a permanent, thoughtVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-42 CHRIS
57 

ful solution to our nuclear waste dilemma. Simply expediting an interim storage site for Texas or for New Mexico or some other yetto-be-named State, without doing the work of crafting a comprehensive bill that can finally get the repository program off the 

Yucca treadmill and back on track will most likely lead to double 

the transportation risks, even more extended above-ground storage 

of highly radioactive waste with no permanent disposal and deeply 

misguided efforts to shift that waste to Yucca or WIPP when the 

political stars, not the scientific stars, align. This approach passes 

the risk to future generations and is destined to arrive in the same 

quagmire we are sitting in now. It simply doesn’t solve the problem. 

Instead of proceeding in this fashion, in my written statement I 

have outlined an approach that NRDC believes is workable and can 

regain the widespread public and, most important, State support 

necessary. The elements of this approach are: One, recognized that 

repositories must remain the focus of any legislative effort; two, 

create a coherent legislative framework—and this is most important—before commencing any geologic repository or interim storage 

site development processes; three, arrive at a consent-based approach for nuclear waste storage via a fundamental change in law; 

four, address the storage or interim storage in a phased approach 

consistent with the careful architecture of former Senator Bingaman’s S. 3469, which was introduced in 2012; and, five, exclude delaying, proliferation, driving, and polarizing closed fuel cycle and 

processing options from this effort. 

This is one area where we certainly agree hopefully with every 

member of the subcommittee. The history of the Federal nuclear 

waste program has been dismal, but decades from now, others will 

face the precise predicament we find ourselves in today unless Congress revamps how nuclear waste is regulated and allows for meaningful State oversight. Otherwise, we are doomed to repeat this 

cycle until a future Congress gets it right. 

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

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fettus follows:] 

58 


96988.042
59 


96988.043
60 


96988.044
61 


96988.045
62 


96988.046
63 


96988.047
64 


96988.048
65 


96988.049
66 


96988.050
67 


96988.051
68 


96988.052
69 


96988.053
70 


96988.054
71 


96988.055
72 


96988.056
73 


96988.057
74 


96988.058
75 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Now, last but not least, Mr. Ronningen, manager of Rancho Seco 

Assets, Decommissioning Plant Coalition. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EINAR RONNINGEN 

Mr. RONNINGEN. Good morning. I am Einar Ronningen, manager 

of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Facilities for the Sacramento Municipal 

Utility District, known as SMUD. And I am here today on behalf 

of the Decommissioning Plant Coalition. 

The DPC is comprised of companies whose sites have ceased all 

commercial nuclear-generating operations. Our members own 10 

facilities in the States of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Vermont, and Wisconsin. We appreciate 

this opportunity to provide our perspective on the status of U.S. 

Nuclear waste management policy. 

SMUD’s Rancho Seco nuclear-generating station ceased commercial operation in 1989, but there remains an 11-acre independent 

spent fuel storage installation containing 22 dual-purpose 

cannisters licensed for the dry storage and transportation of used 

nuclear fuel and greater than Class C waste ultimately destined for 

disposal by the DOE. As is the case with other utilities, SMUD has 

successfully litigated a partial breach of contract claim against the 

DOE to recover the costs incurred in our management of this material. To date, SMUD has won judgments in the U.S. Court of 

Claims totalling $73 million. These damage awards have been paid 

by taxpayers out of a permanent appropriations account in the 

Treasury called the Judgment Fund. Industry-wide taxpayer liabilities for the government’s failure to perform under the contracts in 

a timely manner are approaching $4.5 billion, and DOE estimates 

that its liability will reach almost $13 billion by 2020, increasing 

annually by $500 million per year if it does not find a way to begin 

satisfying its obligation by 2022. 

From the outset, the DPC has been supportive of Yucca Mountain, and in the early years of our organization, we worked with 

Congress in urging DOE to prepare a sound license application, address the transportation infrastructure requirements, and otherwise take steps to prepare for the movement of this material from 

our sites on a priority basis. 

Nonetheless and without repeating the oft-reported historical details, Mr. Chairman, let me just state the obvious. Although the 

spent fuel at all our utility sites is and will be safely managed for 

as long as it takes, right now U.S. nuclear waste management policy is broken. 

The DPC sincerely appreciates the efforts you have made, Mr. 

Chairman, to reinvigorate the debate over the future of Yucca 

Mountain, and we were heartened by the finding of the NRC staff 

in their Safety Evaluation Report that the application demonstrates the ability of the site to meet all post-closure requirements of that agency. But we note that the staff also found that 

it could not yet recommend the issuance of a construction authorization due to several findings, including the lack of institutional 

control of the site and access to water rights necessary for the construction and operation of the facility, issues that will require the 

76 

enactment of further legislation. The need for further legislation, 

the continued opposition by significant leaders in the State of Nevada, the dismantlement of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management at DOE, the technical licensing challenges 

filed by opponents of the project, and the track record of DOE in 

completing one-of-a-kind facilities on time and within budgets, combined with the level of financial resources that need to be appropriated by Congress in a constrained fiscal environment to license, 

construct, and operate the proposed repository, lead us to the uneasy conclusion that the uncertainties of when Yucca Mountain 

would be open are not likely to be overcome in timeframes that 

meet the equity interests of our host communities. It is because of 

our members’ commitments to our host communities to resolve the 

current stalemate in U.S. nuclear waste policy as expeditiously as 

possible that we urge this committee to support the legislation that 

would not only take steps to get the Nation’s geologic repository 

program back on track but also authorize the establishment of an 

voluntary incentive-based siting program that would lead to the licensing of a consolidated interim storage facility and to initiate a 

pilot program to remove the material from our sites on a priority 

basis. 

We are pleased that two potential storage projects have been announced by capable private sector companies in the past four 

months. These could offer DOE the means to meets its contractual 

obligations. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, a pilot storage 

program that prioritizes the removal of material from permanently 

shutdown sites that is responsive to private sector initiatives, can 

be accomplished with reasonable support from the Nuclear Waste 

Fund without any impact on the repository program. The pilot 

would demonstrate the ability of the Federal Government to plan 

and execute their responsibilities for waste acceptance and transportation under the standard contract, relieve the taxpayer of the 

obligation to continue paying Judgment Fund damages, and allow 

these sites to be repurposed for useful purposes. 

We applaud your steadfast interest in a vibrant repository program, and we urge you to look favorably on the passage of legislation establishing a consolidated interim storage program that takes 

advantage of these new opportunities to remove used fuel and 

greater than Class C waste from those facilities where commercial 

reactor operations have permanently ceased. 

Thank you for the opportunity, and we look forward to questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ronningen follows:] 

77 


96988.059
78 


96988.060
79 


96988.061
80 


96988.062
81 


96988.063
82 


96988.064
83 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. You did a great job, so I appreciate the 

testimony. 

And I will recognize myself 5 minutes for the first round of questions. 

With the finish of the Safety and Evaluation Report, we now 

move to the next step, which is the license application. A very simple question, and as much as possible I would like to get a yes-orno answer because it is just based upon the license application. 

After 30 years of scientific evaluation and $15 billion spent on the 

project, we are still waiting for the final determination about the 

suitability of Yucca Mountain to serve as a permanent geological 

repository. Just going down the witness table, I would like to ask 

each one of you if you believe that the NRC should finish this process and issue a final decision. 

Mr. FITZ. As long as it is legally mandated under the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act, the answer is yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Ms. Piccone. 

Ms. PICCONE. It is dependent on congressional action and appropriations to the Agency. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But having the appropriated money, the NRC 

would finish the application process. 

Ms. PICCONE. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. White. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is good enough for me. 

Mr. Kuczynski. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yes, unanimous. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Fettus. 

Mr. FETTUS. No. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you don’t believe that if there is appropriated 

money, that the Federal Government should not follow the law? 

You are testifying right now that we should not follow the law? 

Mr. FETTUS. Mr. Chairman, that is—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am going to go—Mr. Ronningen. I am reclaiming 

my time. Mr. Ronningen. 

Mr. RONNINGEN. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fitz, your testimony provided an excellent description of the 

D.C. Court of Appeals ruling on the Aiken County case. If Congress 

provides additional funding to DOE and the NRC to complete the 

Yucca Mountain license, as the House of Representatives passed 

recently, would the writ of mandamus extend to the new funding 

and require action on the license? 

Mr. FITZ. I think if you take the D.C. Circuit mandamus decision 

in concert with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s decision 

that denied withdrawal to the Department of Energy, those two together indicate that the proceeding should move forward, that it is 

legally mandated, and that both entities, the Department of Energy 

and the NRC, are obliged to complete the process. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They are obliged to complete the process. That is 

what you are testifying? 

Mr. FITZ. That is what I am testifying. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I think, following the previous testimony, both 

then Secretary Chu and Secretary Moniz, have both testified, given 

84 

that scenario, they would be mandated to comply. And we have the 

records to support that statement. 

Mr. Kuczynski, your testimony discusses possible support for increased incentives for the State of Nevada. Would you please describe what sort of incentives could be included for a community? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. First of all, we support the permanent repository, but we also support reasonable incentives to help construct 

the facility for Nevada. That has been our consistent testimony. 

Barney Beasley testified here in 2006 the exact same point, and 

our position has not changed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. What could some of those be? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Infrastructure, education, anything that allows 

the process to move forward to continue the licensing process and 

the actual construction of the facility. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Commissioner White, do you agree that we should 

and could support these types of incentives? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, they make sense. It is entirely appropriate for 

a community that may be hosting this facility to receive some kind 

of incentive benefits, yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Based upon time, I am going to yield back and recognize my 

Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, again, welcome to our panelists. Dr. Piccone, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission has a policy in the form of the Waste Confidence Rule that, as I understand it, links the licensing of nuclear 

reactors to the availability of safe storage and, more importantly, 

permanent disposal capability for nuclear waste. Can you briefly 

explain what that means in practical terms for the licensing any 

of our nuclear reactors? 

Ms. PICCONE. I am sorry, Mr. Tonko. I don’t have that information, but I can go back to staff and get that for the record for you. 

Mr. TONKO. Are there any on the panel that would want to speak 

to the waste confidence rule? 

Mr. Kuczynski. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Yes, I think it is more appropriate today to call 

it about the continued storage rule where the NRC has revised the 

Waste Confidence Rule that they reviewed the storage of spent fuel 

at our facilities for a variety of scenarios, and the conclusion was, 

from a safety, environmental, security standpoint, that we can 

store onsite for significant lengths of time. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And, Dr. Piccone, under a best-case scenario, what is a minimum time to complete NRC’s process and 

issue a construction license? 

Ms. PICCONE. There are three things that are necessary for a decision to be made. One is the completion of the supplement to the 

Environmental Impact Statement, then the adjudicatory hearing, 

and then the Commission to make a decision on the contested and 

uncontested issues. It is hard to speculate on the length of time it 

would take for the adjudicatory proceeding. There are approximately 300 contentions and there may be additional new contentions or amended contentions. The adjudicatory hearing is suspended right now, and there is no schedule for a hearing. 

85 

Mr. TONKO. Well, given those conditions, do we not need an interim policy of some sort? 

Ms. PICCONE. An interim policy? 

Mr. TONKO. Interim storage. 

Ms. PICCONE. Well, the waste is being stored right now safely at 

nuclear power plants. 

Mr. TONKO. But should there be an improved or more conclusive 

or predictable process if this interim is challenged on the given situations that we have today? 

Ms. PICCONE. I think that is a national policy decision, sir, and 

not NRC. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Fettus, your organization sued NRC against the 

2010 revision of the Waste Confidence Rule, as did New Jersey and 

several other States. Can you explain why you did that and where 

things stand today from your perspective? 

Mr. FETTUS. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. 

Yes we did. And we were successful in front of a bipartisan panel 

of the D.C. Circuit with the decision in 2012. The reason why we 

sued was the lack of a basis for the NRC’s judgment that there 

would be confidence that there is a long-term disposal option on the 

table. And, importantly, the problem was not necessarily that 

Yucca Mountain does not exist. The problem is that there was no 

NEPA review supporting, supporting, the NRC’s decision. The NRC 

has conducted a NEPA review, and they have finalized it, and we 

have challenged that current review once again in the United 

States Court of Appeals, and that litigation is pending. The issue 

there is whether or not, at least as far as we are concerned, whether or not the NRC complied with the D.C. Circuit’s explicit directions in the 2012 decision and whether or not the NEPA review 

complies with the law. And the NEPA review is the National Environmental Policy Act and the environmental impact statement that 

needs to inform its decision on whether or not there is confidence 

to store the waste in the interim time up to the final disposal. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Harper from Mississippi for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to each of you for being here and making this effort 

on such an important issue. 

Mr. Fitz, if I could talk to you for a moment, the Department of 

Energy recently announced its intention to initiate a new permanent repository program for nuclear material generated from National defense activities. As you are aware, Washington State holds 

about two-thirds of all defense material at the Hanford site. Did 

DOE consult with the State of Washington prior to making this announcement? 

Mr. FITZ. Thank you for the question. I am not aware of the consultation. I can’t say that it did not occur, but it is not within my 

personal knowledge, and I can say personally that the announcement caught me by surprise. 

86 

Mr. HARPER. Were you advised of anyone that told you, yes, they 

told us about it, or you just can’t rule it out because you are not 

privy to it. 

Mr. FITZ. It is the latter, or both I should say. I have not heard 

of any mention of consultation, and I can’t rule it out. 

Mr. HARPER. Does Washington believe this new policy would help 

the Federal Government fulfill its responsibilities under the TriParty Agreement between DOE, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, and the State of Washington? 

Mr. FITZ. There is not a deadline in the Tri-Party Agreement for 

actually disposing of waste. There is a deadline for getting waste 

treated, which right now I think is in question with waste treatment plant delays. As to the wisdom of splitting off the defense 

stream from commercial waste, I would say a couple of things. 

First, our position has been consistent that as long as the law requires moving forward with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act process 

for licensing Yucca Mountain, that should be respected. I can speak 

to what I understand to be my clients’ policy position that pragmatically if there is another way to get waste disposed of more 

quickly, they are open to that, but I would echo what Mr. Fettus 

said—or, I am sorry, Mr. White said about DOE’s schemes that 

don’t have certainty or budget as a substitute for what right now 

is the legal process. 

Mr. HARPER. One last area. I understand that the high-level tank 

waste at Hanford is to be vitrified into large logs that are engineered to be disposed in Yucca Mountain. If DOE pursues a defense-only repository, what will happen with the vitrified waste 

logs from Hanford, and would this delay the shipment of material 

out of Washington State? 

Mr. FITZ. I think that is an unknown, and that is a concern for 

Washington. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. 

I yield back in the interest of time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. We think we have 

got—with the votes that are just called—we think we have got 15 

or 20 minutes left. We will try to quickly get to everybody. And 

then we will decide how to deal with the panel. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is interesting testimony. And I appreciate you all coming down 

here today. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Jerry, pull your mic up to you so that people—— 

Ms. PICCONE. Yes, as discussed in detail in Volume 4 of the Safety Evaluation Report, the geologic repository operations area, or 

the GROA, which is part of the repository, must be located on 

lands that are either acquired and under the jurisdiction and control of DOE or permanently withdrawn and reserved for its use. 

The land on which the repository operations area will be located 

must also be free and clear of significant encumbrances, such as 

mining rights deeds, rights of way, or other legal rights. 

In its application, DOE explained that it submitted a land withdrawal legislation to Congress in 2007. Congress did not enact that 

bill and DOE has not completed any other land acquisition process. 

87 

Therefore, NRC staff concludes that DOE has not acquired the 

lands needed for the repository operations area, nor have any necessary lands been permanently withdrawn and reserved for DOE’s 

use. In addition, because DOE has not completed a land withdrawal or other acquisition process, DOE has not demonstrated 

that the land would be free and clear of significant encumbrances. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. That is an issue for the Congress to deal with, 

is that right? 

Ms. PICCONE. That is what DOE submitted in their application. 

That is what NRC reviewed. DOE could submit additional information identifying other mechanisms and NRC would then review 

those as well. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Ronningen, thank you for coming. A little 

part of my district is in [inaudible] Territory. So I appreciate what 

you are doing. You mentioned that there were two private entities 

that announced sites in the last 4 months. Could you expand on 

that a little bit? 

Mr. RONNINGEN. Yes, sir. The Lee Eddy Group in New Mexico 

has approached the industry to develop centralized interim storage. 

And the WCS, Waste Control Specialists, in Texas has also come 

forward to announce that they wish to develop centralized interim 

storage. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Those are both [inaudible] 

Mr. RONNINGEN. Right. They would be consolidated interim storage, not repositories. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is there any possibility there would be local support for those projects? 

Mr. RONNINGEN. They are already working on that. 

In the case of Waste Control Specialists, a couple years ago they 

were successful in garnering local support for a low-level waste facility. And they wish to expand that to consolidate interim storage. 

And, again, the Lee Eddy Group has been working with local community members to get that approval from their constituents. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. White, you also mentioned the need for public-private partnerships. What do you have in mind exactly for that? 

Mr. WHITE. A single-purpose entity that would be solely responsible for the management of the program. One of the problems with 

the Department of Energy’s management is that they are a large 

organization, rather unwieldy. This program tends to be one of the 

minor focuses of the Department. We need an agency or, again, a 

public-private corporation that would have the authority and the 

focus to simply work on this issue alone. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much for yielding back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 

Whitfield, for 5 minutes. 

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

And thank you all for joining us today. 

Mr. Kuczynski, when I go to the [inaudible] Talk about nuclear 

waste. And we talk about the almost $20 trillion of Federal debt 

that we are approaching in this country. And, in 1982 I think, ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-42 CHRIS
88 

gress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And I think in 1987, 

Congress identified Yucca Mountain—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Ed, make sure you talk loud. I don’t think your 

microphone is working anymore. And I think we have lost them on 

the panel except for the chairman. I wonder how that happened. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Anyway, so Congress identified Yucca Mountain 

as the permanent spot. And then we started spending large sums 

of taxpayer dollars in preparing Yucca Mountain. And I don’t know 

the exact figure, but I understand it was roughly $10 billion or $12 

billion in preparation. And then, in 2010, the Obama administration made a decision that they were not going to pursue the licensing process. And then a lawsuit was filed by various groups saying 

that the NRC and DOE were violating the law. And the petitioners 

or plaintiffs won that lawsuit. And, at some point in there, the Federal Government could not meet its legal obligation to take possession of this waste and move it to Yucca Mountain or a permanent 

site. And so another lawsuit was filed on that, and now there are 

judgments against the Federal Government for that. So, the 

amount of dollars the taxpayers have been paying out, and we still 

don’t have a permanent site. And now this administration is saying 

that we need a separate site for military nuclear waste. 

And it is so frustrating because Congress made a decision a long 

time ago under Federal law to do this. And I understand our process of filing lawsuits, and we all have the right to do that. But, I 

mean, don’t you think that taxpayers have a right to just be totally 

upset about this process and the fact that—I am sure that you 

would like to see Yucca Mountain open as well. But am I being inaccurate in what I am saying here? I may have a few factual points 

that are not correct. But, philosophically, the American people are 

being taken to the cleaners on this. And it is a statement that Congress has clearly said that we want it to be at Yucca Mountain. Am 

I wrong on this? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. No. We share your frustration. I think you are 

accurate in almost everything you have said. And there are 

downsides, the longer this is prolonged, the more expensive it is for 

taxpayers and utility rate customers. The science has been completed. The NRC has ruled, utilized that $12 billion to $15 billion 

to use the best experts we have in our country. NRC is seen as the 

gold standard and that ought to mean something. So, from a 

science standpoint, the Yucca Mountain facility, obviously a couple 

more hurdles, but it is set to be a repository. And that is the best 

way to serve the interests of taxpayers and customers across this 

country. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, personally, I think it is very frustrating 

that the Obama administration is doing everything that they can 

do to create obstacles. 

And I would just like to publicly thank the chairman of this subcommittee, John Shimkus, because he has been a real leader in 

trying to make sure that the intent of Congress is pursued and followed through on this. And so many of us want to help him in any 

way that we can to complete this project and get it behind us. We 

have spent enough time and money on this in my humble opinion. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. In our view of the process back in the 1980s, 

under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, there are provisions for local 

89 

communities and States to take part in that process. They did take 

part. Congress overrode those objections. And we ought to follow 

the law. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes—and we are fine on time, Gene—5 

minutes for questions. And if you want to come down here and use 

this mic, you can. 

Mr. GREEN. I think I can probably talk without it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Now it is working. 

Mr. GREEN. I was out at Yucca Mountain, what, 4 years ago with 

the chair. I didn’t go on the last trip you did because, coming from 

Texas, I was actually on an offshore oil rig. When I was out there, 

we met with all the county officials where Yucca Mountain is. And 

it seemed like, to an elected official, in the counties around Yucca 

Mountain, they all supported the use of the permanent repository. 

But my first question was, has any country in the world developed 

a long-term nuclear storage? Because I know Sweden, I went there 

one time, and they had a prototype of a hole in the ground. And, 

of course, they joked that Sweden is nothing but granite, so you 

can put anything down there. But has any country developed a 

long-term nuclear storage? 

Mr. FETTUS. The only operating geological repository was in the 

United States, which is the WIPP facility in southeastern New 

Mexico for transuranic waste or trace amounts of plutonium for defense, transuranic waste. And it is currently shut down after an accident in February of 2014. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. My big concern, though, is the interim storage 

because of what is happening. And, by the way, Mr. Kuczynski, I 

congratulate Southern Company because I am a supporter of expansion of nuclear power. And you have the first expansion in decades to be able to do it because if you are worried about carbon, 

nuclear power is a solution. Now, we need to deal with the storage 

capacity, both long term and interim. But my question is about the 

interim storage. Are there safety concerns about storing the spent 

nuclear facilities on the locations they are now? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. No. We have constructed our spent fuel pools 

and our dry cask storage facilities. They meet strict environmental, 

safety, security requirements. And recent studies have shown both 

of safe for the foreseeable future. And that was a basis of the continued storage rule. 

Mr. GREEN. What is the cost for the Department of Energy’s failure to take title of that spent fuel? Have you all estimated that? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. I can give you some ballparks, every cask that 

we load on the dry cask I would just say it is about $2 million. And 

we have about 100 of them in our system. We plan to do about 25 

of them a year going forward. So that is ballpark. And we do not 

recover all of those funds through litigation. In fact—— 

Mr. GREEN. I assume you have to go, the ratepayers are actually 

paying for that? 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. Absolutely. 

Mr. GREEN. Would opening an interim storage facility help relieve many of those storage concerns, nuclear, and I assume the 

other companies around the world, around the country anyway? 

90 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. The interim storage? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. I think that is an avenue that this committee 

ought to look at. Our position is the long-term repository is the 

method. The statutory limit of, I think, the capacity is not necessarily technically based. I think we ought to pursue all storage 

at Yucca. Interim at Yucca would make more sense to me than interim storage at other facilities. Each time you build something 

new and then have to continue to move, it makes it more expensive 

for everybody. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, obviously, we need to develop a long-term storage. But I would also like to see on a lot of the companies, including the south Texas project that I supported back as a State legislator in the 1970s, I would like to see expansion there. But we do 

need to have long-term storage. And, ultimately, I think we ought 

to take responsibility as a Federal Government for the interim storage in locations that are around the country. Maybe they are not 

all like what Southern Company does or Sacramento or someplace 

else. But I think it is our responsibility. We need to deal with it. 

Mr. KUCZYNSKI. In general, we are not opposed. However, I think 

the law states that licensing of the long-term facility is first priority and then interim is after that. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time. Thank 

you for the hearing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

We have 45 seconds before the votes are closed on the floor. I 

really want to appreciate and thank my colleagues for being really 

precise and attempting to be to the point. 

After consultation with the minority, we have agreed to adjourn 

in a minute. So we won’t come back for additional questions. We 

want to thank you for your testimony. 

I want to remind you that the hearing record is open for 10 business days, so you may get questions submitted for the record. If 

you would then reply to us in that case, we would appreciate it. 

With that, again, thank you very much. And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:12 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, for holding this hearing and for your continued 

leadership on this important issue. I also thank the witnesses for being here this 

morning. 

It’s a pleasure to welcome Commissioner Greg White, who has served on the 

Michigan Public Service Commission since 2009. Commissioner White’s service and 

national leadership on nuclear issues will be missed when his term concludes this 

summer. 

33 years after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted into law, the federal government continues to struggle to fulfill its legal obligations to properly dispose of 

our spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants, and our defense nuclear 

waste. Ironically, it’s the lack of appropriations to finish out the job that is forcing 

additional costs on to American consumers and taxpayers. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in partnership with the Department of Energy, has a statutory obligation to complete the licensing process for Yucca Mountain. To support this effort, the House of Representatives recently passed an appropriations bill with strong funding levels for DOE and NRC explicitly for this purVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:06 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-42 CHRIS
91 

pose. Additionally, the bill prohibited DOE from walking away from Yucca Mountain. 

But after 30 years and $15 billion spent on this permanent repository we seem 

to be at a standstill, and the current administration’s nuclear waste management 

policy appears to be simply ‘‘delay and complicate.’’ 

For example, in March the administration announced it would separate the disposal path of material generated by defense activities from commercial spent nuclear fuel and pursue a new repository solely for defense waste. This announcement 

marked a major departure from a 30 year-old bipartisan policy to dispose of commercial and defense waste in a single repository. 

Recently there has been renewed interest and urgency in solving our nuclear 

waste management system deadlock. Breaking this deadlock will likely require legislation. Some suggest an interim storage program, intended to take title to commercial spent nuclear fuel and move defense nuclear waste on an accelerated timeframe. However, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act blocks licensing of an interim storage 

facility until construction of a permanent geological repository is authorized by the 

NRC. Linking an interim storage site to the development of a permanent repository 

could represent a breakthrough in nuclear waste management policy. But we must 

ensure that spent nuclear fuel will not be stored in an ‘‘interim’’ facility forever. 

Other proposals emphasize moving ‘‘stranded fuel,’’ or spent nuclear fuel from 

shutdown reactors. Despite the urgency many of us feel about these closed down 

sites, taking care of them should not be pursued to the exclusion of dealing with 

fuel throughout the entire system. 

I hope today’s hearing will advance the discussion to break the current impasse 

in our nation’s nuclear waste management policy. Our witnesses today bring years 

of experience and deep commitment to resolving the nuclear waste question. 

92 


96988.065
93 


96988.066
94 


96988.067
95 


96988.068
96 


96988.069
97 


96988.070
98 


96988.071
99 


96988.072
100 


96988.073
101 


96988.074
102 


96988.075
103 


96988.076
104 


96988.077
105 


96988.078
106 


96988.079
107 


96988.080
108 


96988.081
109 


96988.082
110 


96988.083
111 


96988.084
112 


96988.085
113 


96988.086
114 


96988.087
115 


96988.088
116 


96988.089
117 


96988.090
118 


96988.091
119 


96988.092
120 


96988.093
121 


96988.094
122 


96988.095
123 

Æ 


96988.096