U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–962 WASHINGTON : 2019

H.R. 2278, THE RESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017; AND H.R. 

2389, TO REAUTHORIZE THE WEST VALLEY 

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 18, 2018 

Serial No. 115–130 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, CaliforniaL RUIZ, 

California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(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 ................................................................................................ 4 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 49 

WITNESSES

Hon. Tom Reed, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ..... 6 

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

Mark Gilbertson, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory and Policy Affairs, Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 58 

Noah Shaw, General Counsel and Secretary, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority .................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 64 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of Carmelo Melendez, U.S. Department of Energy ............................ 50 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 54 

Statement of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ...... 52 

Letter of May 18, 2018 from Hon. Scott R. Tipton, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Colorado, to the subcommittee .............................. 53 

(1) 

H.R. 2278, THE RESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017; AND H.R. 

2389, TO REAUTHORIZE THE WEST VALLEY 

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

FRIDAY, MAY 18, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 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, McKinley, Johnson, Flores, 

Walberg, Duncan, Tonko, and Green. 

Staff Present: Samantha Bopp, Staff Assistant; Daniel Butler, 

Staff Assistant; Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Energy and Environment; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Jordan 

Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; Zach Hunter, Director 

of Communications; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Drew McDowell, Executive Assistant; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Austin Stonebraker, Press 

Assistant; Everett Winnick, Director of Information Technology, 

Priscilla Barbour, Minority Energy Fellow; Rick Kessler, Minority 

Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; 

Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff Assistant; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; and Catherine Zander, Minority Environment 

Fellow. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Subcommittee on the Environment will now 

come to order. 

The chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

Thank you for joining us at this morning’s hearing to review legislation to reauthorize two projects within the Department of Energy’s portfolio of environmental remediation activities. 

I am pleased to report that last week, the House overwhelmingly 

passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. This 

long overdue legislation provides a disposal path for commercial 

spent nuclear fuel and our nation’s defense high-level radioactive 

2 

waste. This defense waste material requires the most careful handling and the most stringent isolation requirements in the Federal 

Government’s inventory. However, extensive decontamination work 

remains to be accomplished across the country at DOE sites. 

DOE’s Office of Environmental Management faces a significant 

workload to complete decontamination work at legacy Cold War 

sites. Since its establishment about 30 years ago, Environmental 

Management has successfully remediated 92 sites, but the most 

technologically challenging projects remain in process at 17 locations. 

This morning, Mr. Mark Gilbertson will represent the Department on issues addressed in the legislature proposals. Since this 

committee last discussed the critical programs under the Office of 

Environmental Management, the Department has welcomed a new 

Assistant Secretary, Anne White. We look forward to working with 

Assistant Secretary White on the rest of Environmental Management’s portfolio. 

Our hearing today will discuss one of the Department’s unique 

projects. During the early years of our nation’s civilian nuclear industry, New York State leased land to a private entity to demonstrate the feasibility of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The legacy cleanup at the site, known as West Valley Demonstration 

Project, is jointly overseen by DOE and the New York State Energy 

Research and Development Authority, on behalf of New York State. 

Prior to his election to Congress, the ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, was the President and CEO of NYSERDA. 

I look forward to the unique perspective and the interests he brings 

to this morning’s hearing based on his previous experience. 

In 1980, Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration Project 

Act to direct DOE to partner with New York to address legacy environmental issues, and authorized $5 million to spend on this 

project for fiscal year 1981. The project has not been reauthorized 

since, and Congressman Reed’s bill provides Congress a chance to 

review the project. The lingering question of how to dispose of the 

high-level radioactive waste, which was generated prior to passage 

of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is an important one that needs 

further examination. 

I welcome my colleague here this morning, and thank Mr. Reed 

whenever he shows up, for his leadership on behalf of his constituents to bring attention to ongoing issues at the West Valley site. 

DOE will provide context regarding key upcoming milestones and 

remaining challenges at the West Valley site, while NYSERDA will 

give a voice to the New York State government. These respective 

viewpoints provide this subcommittee important information as 

Congress considers the next steps at the site. 

We will also receive testimony on a bipartisan bill sponsored by 

Congressman Tipton to extend the authorization of the Grand 

Junction, Colorado, disposal cell. Mining and processing uranium 

generate a byproduct known as uranium mill tailings. Congress 

passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 40 years 

ago to establish a framework for DOE to dispose of mill tailings. 

The bill also authorized the Grand Junction, Colorado, site to serve 

as a disposal location. 

3 

H.R. 2278, the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act, extends the site’s authorization for another 25 years. The proactive 

reauthorization exemplifies the foresight needed for these disposal 

sites to plan accordingly. 

I am pleased to hold the hearing today, and I look forward to the 

testimony. 

And with that, I have a minute remaining. Does anyone seek the 

rest of my time? 

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

subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Thank you for joining us at this morning’s hearing to review legislation to reauthorize two projects within the Department of Energy’s (DOE) portfolio of environmental remediation activities. 

I am pleased to report that last week the House overwhelmingly passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. This long-overdue legislation provides 

a disposal path for commercial spent nuclear fuel and our nation’s defense high-level 

radioactive waste. This defense waste material requires the most careful handling 

and the most stringent isolation requirements in the Federal government’s inventory; however, extensive decontamination work remains to be accomplished across 

the country at DOE sites. 

DOE’s Office of Environmental Management faces a significant workload to complete decontamination work at legacy Cold War sites. Since its establishment about 

30 years ago, EM has successfully remediated 92 sites, but the most technologically 

challenging projects remain in process at 17 locations. 

This morning Mr. Mark Gilbertson will represent the Department on the issues 

addressed in the legislative proposals. Since this Committee last discussed the critical programs under the Office of Environmental Management, the Department has 

welcomed a new Assistant Secretary, Anne White. We look forward to working with 

Assistant Secretary White on the rest of EM’s portfolio. 

Our hearing today will discuss one of the Department’s unique projects. During 

the early years of our nation’s civilian nuclear industry, New York State leased land 

to a private entity to demonstrate the feasibility of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. 

The legacy cleanup at the site, known as the West Valley Demonstration Project, 

is jointly overseen by DOE and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, on behalf of New York State. 

Prior to his election to Congress, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, 

Mr.Tonko, was the President and CEO of NYSERDA. I look forward to the unique 

perspective and interest he brings to this morning’s hearing based on his previous 

experience. 

In 1980, Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration Project Act to direct 

DOE to partner with New York to address legacy environmental issues and authorized five million dollars to spend on this project for Fiscal Year 1981. The project 

has not been reauthorized since and Congressman Reed’s bill provides Congress a 

chance to review the project. The lingering question of how to dispose of the highlevel radioactive waste, which was generated prior to passage of the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act, is an important one that needs further examination. 

I welcome my colleague here this morning and thank Mr. Reed for his leadership 

on behalf of his constituents to bring attention to ongoing issues at the West Valley 

site. 

DOE will provide context regarding key upcoming milestones and remaining challenges at the West Valley site, while NYSERDA will give a voice to the New York 

State government. These respective viewpoints provide this Subcommittee important information as Congress considers the next steps at the site. 

We will also receive testimony on a bipartsian bill sponsored by Congressman Tipton to extend the authorization of the Grand Junction, Colorado disposal cell. Mining and processing uranium generate a byproduct known as uranium mill tailings. 

Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 40 years ago to 

establish the framework for DOE to dispose of mill tailings. The bill also authorized 

the Grand Junction, Colorado site to serve as a disposal location. 

4 

H.R. 2278, the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act, extends the site’s authorization for another 25 years. The proactive reauthorization exemplifies the foresight needed for these disposal sites to plan accordingly. 

I am pleased to hold this hearing today and look forward to the testimony. 

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

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, first, let me welcome our colleague from New York, Mr. 

Reed, to discuss his bill on the West Valley Demonstration Project. 

Thank you for your interest, Tom. It is an important part of the 

energy concept in New York and environmental concerns. 

I also want to welcome our other witnesses, Mark Gilbertson of 

DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, and Noah Shaw, who 

I am proud to say is representing my former employer, the New 

York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 

NYSERDA is, I think, a great collection of consummate professionals. Thank you, Noah, for being part of that and for the legal 

expertise you provide and for your commitment to West Valley. It 

is incredibly important. 

Thank you both for joining us for this legislative hearing on two 

bills: H.R. 2278, the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 

2017; and H.R. 2389, to reauthorize the West Valley Demonstration 

Project. 

While this committee, under the leadership of Chair Shimkus, 

has made progress in addressing some of our nation’s most significant nuclear waste challenges, a number of outstanding issues remain. 

DOE’s Office of Environmental Management was established to 

remediate sites contaminated with high-level radioactive waste, 

spent nuclear fuel, excess uranium and plutonium, and contaminated soil and groundwater. These sites located across the country 

are dealing with the legacy of our nation’s entry into the atomic 

age. 

The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act established a 

process for remediating an active uranium or processing sites, such 

as the site in Grand Junction, Colorado. H.R. 2278 would authorize 

DOE to continue to operate the Cheney Disposal Cell until September 30 of 2048, or until the disposal cell is filled to capacity. 

Currently, DOE is authorized to operate this cell through September of 2023. 

I want to give some additional attention to Mr. Reed’s legislation. 

The bill authorizes some $75 million for the West Valley Demonstration Project for fiscal years 2017 through 2026. This is identical to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2018, and will ensure the cleanup will continue on schedule. But West Valley is a 

unique site. Its history is unlike other properties, and this has 

caused the point of disagreement between the relevant stakeholders for decades, which is addressed in the other provision of 

H.R. 2389. 

From 1966 through 1972, the Western New York Nuclear Service 

Center was the only privately-owned facility for spent nuclear fuel 

reprocessing in the United States. When that business ceased operating, the site eventually reverted back to its owner, New York 

5 

State. And, of course, DOE’s predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, was intimately involved in the operation of the site. 

Approximately 60 percent of the spent nuclear fuel reprocess at 

the site came from Hanford, and 80 percent of the recovered plutonium was returned to Hanford. Ultimately, this activity resulted in 

transuranic waste and high-level nuclear waste continuing to be 

stored at that site. 

This bill is not the first time Congress has had to consider a 

unique solution to address West Valley. In 1980, Congress passed 

the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, which directed DOE to 

carry out high-level radioactive waste management. This bill made 

DOE responsible for 90 percent of the cost of the site’s cleanup. 

And 2 years later, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act made it clear that 

costs resulting from permanent disposal of high-level radioactive 

waste from atomic energy defense activities should be paid by the 

Federal Government. However, since 1986, based on a DOE IG report, DOE has classified the high-level waste at West Valley as 

commercial waste, rather than waste deriving from atomic energy 

defense activities. 

Under this formulation, DOE believes the cost for disposal of the 

waste should be borne by the State of New York due to its ownership of the site, and that is the crux of the disagreement. I understand that DOE will reiterate that under the statute. It cannot own 

the waste at West Valley. But that is immaterial to the question 

of who is responsible for bearing the cost of cleaning up and disposing of it. 

The standard under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is whether the 

waste was generated in whole or in part from any atomic energy 

defense activity or at any facility used in connection with any such 

activity. Under the Act it is either defense related or not. 

So where the waste generated, as a result of atomic energy defense activities, I think the record is clear that this is the case for 

West Valley. The high-level radioactive waste and transuranic 

waste left at this site are primarily from atomic energy defense activities and should be disposed of as such, but obviously this issue 

remains unsettled, which is why we are here today. 

I look forward to a full debate on West Valley this morning. And 

even if this bill does not move forward, I will continue to urge DOE 

to engage with the State of New York to try to each an understanding on this critical issue. 

So, Mr. Chair, I thank you again, and yield back, and look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair doesn’t see the chairman of the full committee nor the 

ranking member, so with that, we will conclude our member opening statements. 

The Chair would like to remind members that pursuant to committee rules, all members’ opening statements will be made part of 

the record. 

We want to thank all our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before this subcommittee. Today’s witnesses 

will have the opportunity to give opening statements followed by a 

round of questions, although we usually don’t question Members of 

Congress, especially you. 

6 

Mr. TONKO. There was a key word there: ‘‘usually.’’ 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is right. 

Our first witness panel for today’s hearing includes the Honorable Tom Reed, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, from 

the great State of New York. With that, sir, you are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM REED, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. REED. Well, thank you very much, Chairman. And good 

morning to my colleagues, to the Ranking Member Tonko and my 

fellow colleagues on the committee today. Thank you for an opportunity to address you and to offer testimony in regards to the legislation. 

I am proud to have introduced H.R. 2389, to reauthorize the 

West Valley Demonstration Project, along with my colleagues, Congressman Nadler and Higgins, and the late Congresswoman 

Slaughter. 

Nuclear cleanup sites must be at the top of the priority list. 

There are still nuclear sites in the United States that need to be 

managed and cleaned up. The Western New York Nuclear Service 

Center in my district is one such site. 

The Department of Energy estimates that making the investments needed now in nuclear site remediation will save our nation 

hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming decades. The cleanup 

at this site, designated the West Valley Demonstration Project, is 

very important to our constituents in New York State, as nuclear 

waste cleanup is a matter of environmental health and the health 

and safety of our fellow citizens. 

I have worked with the constituents on the West Valley Citizen 

Task Force, the Department of Energy, State and local officials, 

along with my colleagues in Congress, to raise awareness about the 

need for consistent funding at this facility. Given the public safety 

issue of dealing with radioactive waste and the long-term cost savings, this bill makes good sense from a governmental and a financial standpoint. 

H.R. 2389 will provide the necessary resources over a sufficient 

number of years to continue the cleanup work required by the 

Demonstration Project Act. At its core, the Western New York Nuclear Service Center was an Atomic Energy Commission project. 

And because New York State was encouraged by the AEC to develop it, the Federal Government should provide a disposal path for 

all waste on the site. 

Records show that the majority of waste at the site was the result of reprocessing federally owned nuclear fuel, most of it from 

the Federal Government’s Hanford facility in Washington State. 

The result of that reprocessing then went to the Federal Government, in some part for weapons research or weapons use. 

In summary, this bill will authorize sufficient funding to continue the cleanup work and reduce overall life cycle costs and treat 

all radioactive waste at the site as resulting from the atomic energy defense activities. I appreciate your commitment to this important issue, and encourage you and your staffs to continue workVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:07 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-130 CHRIS
7 

ing with our office, as we will work with you to solve this important issue. 

Thank you very much for your time this morning. I do look forward to your questions, but hopefully you will honor the commitment of not asking those questions of your witness before you. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:] 

8 


32962.001
9 


32962.002
10 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The gentleman from Texas, do you seek recognition? 

Mr. FLORES. No, I was just going to ask him a hard question, but 

I know he couldn’t answer it so—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

So thank you, Tom, for being here. Obviously, you have got a 

good ally and friend who is the ranking member of the subcommittee. We have worked well on a lot of issues together, so this 

will be something new for many of us, and we look forward to finding out more about it. 

With that, you are dismissed. 

Mr. REED. Thank you very much. Have a good day. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And we will sit the second panel down. 

So welcome. 

Joining us now is Mr. Mark Gilbertson, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, that is a mouthful, for Regulatory and Policy Affairs, the Office of Environmental Management, Department 

of Energy. 

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

STATEMENT OF MARK GILBERTSON, ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR REGULATORY AND 

POLICY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. GILBERTSON. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and 

members of the subcommittee. I also would like to recognize Representative Reed’s interest on behalf of his district and the support 

for the West Valley site. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today to represent the Department of Energy’s Office of 

Environmental Management. I will provide you with an overview 

of the impacts of the bill, H.R. 2389, which proposes to amend the 

West Valley Demonstration Act. 

Regarding the bill, the Department has several concerns. Section 

1(b) of the bill appears to be inconsistent with section 5(b) of the 

West Valley Demonstration Project Act, as it could be construed to 

have the effect of assigning the Department the responsibility and 

financial liability for all radioactive waste at West Valley resulting 

from atomic energy defense activities. 

Further, section 1(b) would not be consistent with the Department’s financial responsibilities that are clearly defined in existing 

laws, agreements, and settlements, as well as the Department’s 

historical position on responsibilities and liabilities for the vitrified 

commercial high-level radioactive waste. 

For example, the consent decree entered into by the State of New 

York and the Federal Government provides that the Federal Government is only responsible for 50 percent of the cost, depending 

on the activity, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed 

disposal area. 

The Federal Government and the State of New York have 

reached similar allocation agreements regarding other cleanup activities at West Valley. The proposed bill contradicts, without expressly eliminating, these legally binding agreements. This could 

also set a precedent for the Department’s liability for disposal costs 

11 

for other commercial waste that would be designated as defense 

waste. 

The Department’s historical position has been and remains that 

the high-level radioactive waste was generated as a result of commercial activities. And the explicit mission of the AEC, Atomic Energy Commission, was to foster a private nuclear industry, including a private reprocessing capability. The Atomic Energy Commission made its reprocessing technology available to private industry 

and also provided spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing operations in 

order to incentivize private investment and reprocessing business 

operations. 

While 60 percent of the spent nuclear fuel reprocessed at West 

Valley did come from the end reactor at Hanford, this reactor generated both electricity and plutonium for the nuclear weapons program. This arrangement was agreed to in a deliberative manner to 

honor the Federal Government’s commitment to provide spent nuclear fuel to support West Valley’s commercial reprocessing operations. 

The contract to provide spent fuel from the Department for reprocessing at West Valley was entered into for this purpose, not as 

a means to manage or dispose of defense spent nuclear fuel. The 

West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980 explicitly assigns 

title to the West Valley vitrified commercial high-levelradioactive 

waste with the State, and deferred the question of its ultimate disposition to generic legislation then under consideration. 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, passed just 2 years later, 

did not alter the West Valley Demonstration Act provisions. The 

disposition of the West Valley vitrified commercial high-level radioactive waste was the responsibility of New York State and not the 

Department. 

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to represent 

the Department’s views on H.R. 2389. The Department’s Office of 

Environmental Management is committed to achieving its mission 

and will continue to apply innovative environmental cleanup strategies to complete its work at West Valley in a safe, efficient, and 

cost effective manner, to serve as a strong steward of taxpayer resources. 

I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilbertson follows:] 

12 


32962.003
13 


32962.004
14 


32962.005
15 


32962.006
16 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, sir. 

And now we will go to a round of questions, and I will start by 

recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

When Congress directed the Department to partner with the 

State of New York to remediate this site, Congress explicitly prohibited DOE from acquiring title to any high-level radioactive 

waste at the site. This leaves the waste in the hands of the State 

of New York. As we will hear from the next witness, Congress recognized that the Federal Government had a role in cleaning up the 

site, and Congress has met this commitment by appropriating over 

$1.4 billion just over the last 20 years for this purpose. H.R. 2389 

would reclassify the waste as a result from atomic energy defense 

activities, thereby affecting previously established disposal responsibility. 

According to New York, there is a balance of nearly $30 million 

set aside to pay for disposal costs in a trust fund from a legacy account in 2016. But in 1986, the DOE, Department of Energy IG, 

said that the State would owe $68 million to the Nuclear Waste 

Fund. 

Has DOE reassessed how much would be due to the waste fund 

based on that outdated estimate? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. Thank you for that question. We have not reassessed that amount recently in recent times, and I would like to 

take that question for the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Has DOE conducted any preliminary 

cost analysis to determine how much it would cost to dispose of 

West Valley waste, either at a commercial facility for the Greaterthan-Class C or at another disposal facility? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. Thank you for that question. At the present 

time, the Department has not analyzed that particular cost because 

the repository is not available to take the waste. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would you agree that having that information 

would be helpful to move the conversation forward? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. Could you please repeat that, sir? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We are asking these questions obviously to put in 

the record but also try to figure out how we move forward. Do you 

think that our ability to have that information will help us deliberate and decide to move forward in one way or another? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. I believe it would help you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. That’s all the questions I have. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the sub, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair Shimkus. 

Mr. Gilbertson, thank you for being here and for the work done 

by the Office of Environmental Management. I hope today’s discussion can help us better understand some of the disagreements 

around the West Valley site. 

In October of 2016, members of New York’s delegation, including 

Mr. Reed, who we just heard from, and myself, wrote to DOE regarding West Valley. And we asked for calculations, including the 

method of such calculations of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act disposal fee for the State of New York and how much it would have 

to pay if such a fee were to be assessed both today and in 2048. 

17 

Now, in response to the chair, you just indicated that you will 

work on that information and get it to the subcommittee, and I 

hope it does include the methodology along with the number. I 

think that would be useful information. And so, thank you for 

agreeing to provide that to the committee. 

In DOE’s response to that October 2016 letter, DOE stated, and 

I quote, ‘‘There may be considerable merit in disposing of the West 

Valley high-level waste and defense high-level waste in the same 

repository.’’ And we do believe such a conversation is timely and 

would welcome a dialogue with the State of New York and other 

interested parties with respect to the potential disposal of the West 

Valley high-level waste. 

I understand from the State that other than one initial meeting, 

and I believe that was in March of 2017, DOE has not responded 

to requests to engage in any such discussion. Can you or will you 

commit to following up with the State of New York on this matter 

and to provide whatever information you can in response to the 

State’s request? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. Thank you for that question. We have an ongoing dialogue with the State where we are exploring through the 

Phase II planning process, which I am sure you are aware of, the 

ultimate disposition of a lot of the materials on the site. So it has 

been a conversation and I agree that it will be a conversation going 

into the future. So, yes, we will talk with the State, continue to 

talk with the State about that. 

Mr. TONKO. All right. And NYSERDA’s review of documents from 

the West Valley site shows that 60 percent of the materials sent 

to West Valley was from facilities where defense activities were underway and that 80 percent of the reprocessed plutonium shipped 

out of West Valley was sent to Federal defense facilities. Also, that 

the character of the materials was suitable for bomb making, not 

civilian uses. 

So do you have any reason to question these facts? And would 

you agree that if they are true, then the West Valley waste was 

generated at least in part related to defense activities? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. Thank you for that question. Those facts are 

facts that have been known for a long period of time. They have 

been known since when the original act was put into place. It is 

the Department’s position, based on that set of facts, that the materials that we provided were for commercial purposes and not defense. So I think that we stipulate that the facts are the correct 

facts. We have a different interpretation of what that material is. 

Mr. TONKO. I would hope that these would be the cornerstone of 

the discussion between the State of New York and the Department. 

In your testimony, you noted that DOE does not own the West 

Valley site. As I understand it, this bill does not implicate ownership. And the question whether the waste is related to defense activities does not need to be directly linked to who technically owns 

it. 

Apart from the ownership question, is there any evidence that 

has caused DOE to believe that the majority of this waste is not 

related at least in part to defense activities? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. So we go back to the origins of the intent of 

why the material was provided to West Valley. The material was 

18 

provided to West Valley for commercial purposes, which is why we 

have the split with regard to costs we are doing the work at the 

sites that we do. So we believe that this is the long-standing position that we have, it is commercial material. 

Mr. TONKO. But you say that, but the products sent back were 

all usable or characterized as defense related, the reprocessed materials. So how can you suggest that there is not a defense-related 

component to that? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. So the materials that were taken back, you are 

right, the percentages of materials have been known for a long 

time where they went, it was part of a commercial process. So we 

believe that the material was provided originally to a commercial 

kind of process, would allow it to be sold back as a commercial entity, and so—— 

Mr. TONKO. But if it is sold to a private entity doesn’t mean it 

is ranked commercialized; it was being used for defense-related 

purposes. Isn’t that at the crux of this question here? Isn’t that the 

big debate? And doesn’t it suggest or indicate strongly that it is defense related? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. So I believe this set of facts and information 

was known when the act was put in place originally when we entered into negotiations with the State of New York. We have moved 

forward with the cleanup with regard to the division of responsibilities and have—it is our position that it was provided for commercial purposes in that we have divvied up the responsibilities for 

costs with regard to moving forward with the cleanup at the site. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, I am out of time, but I do have to indicate that 

acts are always revisited and that there is always amending that 

can be done. And I think as more information is presented, we 

need to have the facts guide us. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair would now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Gilbertson, thanks for being here today. For States that 

have a Department of Energy cleanup site, the disposal of radioactive waste is a top priority. I know this because we have one in 

South Carolina, the Savannah River Site. It is right outside my district, but I am very engaged with the site. 

SRS serves as a DOE site responsible for cleanup, waste management, and disposition of nuclear materials. Sixty percent of the 

missions at SRS are environmental management missions. This includes the disposition of solid, liquid, and transuranic waste. One 

of the largest check DOE EM projects of liquid waste is the liquid 

waste cleanup at SRS. The South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control describes its mission as the single 

greatest environmental risk at South Carolina. 

I have been to the tank farms. I have seen the vitrification facilities. I have been to Hanford. I have seen the closure process out 

there with EM. The defense waste processing facility at SRS vitrifies high-level waste, has been doing so for over 20 years, and remains the only site in the country able to do so. I guess Hanford 

has got a defense waste vitrification plant underway, I don’t know 

19 

the status of that. When I was there in 2008 092009, they were 

working on it. 

There is over 34 million gallons of radioactive byproduct held in 

45 waste tanks at Savannah River Site. So from your perspective 

at DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, what do you believe the Department’s cleanup priorities are for the Savannah 

River Site? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. So for the Savannah River Site, we do believe 

that cleanup of the tank waste is the highest priority for the Department to complete there. And we are moving forward with the 

Salt Waste Processing Facility to bring that onboard so we can 

clean up the tanks at an even faster pace down there at Savannah 

River. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is the priority to single line the thinner metal 

tanks first? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. Right. The priority are the higher risk tanks 

first, to disposition the materials in those tanks first. Yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So more than half of DOE’s environmental budget 

at SRS is spent on this tank waste, and some tank waste meets 

the WIPP acceptance criteria, but it cannot be sent there because 

it is considered high-level waste due to how that waste was created, right? So WIPP is currently limited to only being able to accept defense-related transuranic waste. This is the issue with West 

Valley that we have been discussing earlier. And can you talk a little bit about how the lack of clarity of what is considered high-level 

waste affects disposal efforts at Savannah River Site? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. So we believe that under the 435 order, that we 

have the ability to disposition various materials. And there has 

been legislation that was put in place to affect your site. The 3116 

legislation that allowed us to dispose of tank waste materials not 

as high-level waste. So there are provisions with the regulations. 

We are constantly looking at ways to improve the process to make 

it more clear as to what waste can be dispositioned in the proper 

technical manner at sites. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you see in the future the ability to take this vitrified high-level waste from sites like Savannah River Site, and if 

Yucca is not online, to a place like WIPP? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. So at the present time, we are not able to 

take—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Because of the classification? 

Mr. GILBERTSON [continuing]. Take tank waste to the WIPP facility to dispose of it. There is a provision in the current permit that 

doesn’t allow us to take tank waste. We have a permit modification 

that we put in to the State of New Mexico to potentially allow for 

them to take tank waste. 

The issue is, is currently, as defined, the high-level waste, without some clarifications, tank waste can’t go to the WIPP facility. 

The issues of it, there is a potential for some of the material that 

is tank waste, though, to be within the characteristics, technical 

characteristics of what can be disposed of from a performance assessment perspective at WIPP. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So I am about out of time. Let me make this statement. 

20 

You can’t take the waste from the tank farms and the EM efforts 

at Savannah River Site, even though it is similar to the waste from 

other places, because of how it is created, and its classification is 

highly radioactive waste—defense waste—because it was created 

for defense purposes. 

I can tell you, if it doesn’t go to WIPP, it needs to go to Yucca 

Mountain. And If Yucca Mountain doesn’t come onsite, we are 

going to have to do something, because the concrete slab that these 

vitrified, stainless steel tanks are sitting in, under a metal building 

at Savannah River Site, is not a long-term repository for this 

waste. 

It is time for this nation to follow the law, which is Yucca Mountain. Open Yucca Mountain up and let’s get this waste out of South 

Carolina and out of Hanford and out of Idaho and out of Oak 

Ridge, and all the other places where it is stored, and put it in a 

long-term repository known as Yucca Mountain, because it was 

studied and it is the law of the land and it is time for us to do that. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The chair appreciates your passion, and we are 

glad you are on the committee. 

So the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mr. Flores, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. It is OK. We have been there since 1725, so it will 

work out. 

Mr. Gilbertson, one quick question. What would happen if the 

Cheney disposal site is closed? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. Please repeat that, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. What would happen if the Cheney Disposal Cell is 

closed? 

Mr. GILBERTSON. If the chain? 

Mr. FLORES. Cheney. The one in Colorado. 

Mr. GILBERTSON. So I am not familiar with that disposal cell, 

and so I will take that question for the record. 

Mr. FLORES. It is the only location in the country that can take 

uranium mining tailings. So we will submit the question for the 

record and ask you to respond supplementally. 

That is it. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, seeing no other members wishing to ask questions, 

we would like to thank you for being here and thank you for answering our questions. Obviously, some of my colleagues are going 

to pose some questions, including myself, for you. We would hope 

you get those back to us in a timely manner, and you are dismissed. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So for our last panel, we have Mr. Noah Shaw, 

general counsel and secretary, New York State Energy Research 

and Development Authority. Sir, thank you for being here. I have 

learned a lot this morning, and I look forward to learning more. 

With that, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Your full statement 

has already been submitted for the record. 

21 

STATEMENT OF NOAH SHAW, GENERAL COUNSEL AND SECRETARY, NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 

Mr. SHAW. Good morning, Mr. Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, 

and members of the committee. My name is Noah Shaw. I am the 

general counsel of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or NYSERDA. It is my honor to be here today, 

not only to support the long-term reauthorization of funding for the 

cleanup of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, known 

as the West Valley site, but also to present you with facts regarding the defense origin of West Valley’s nuclear waste. 

Before I begin, let me just say that I appreciate Congressman 

Tonko’s opening statement, which tees up my testimony in which 

I will expand on the discussion of the defense origins of West Valley’s nuclear waste. 

Activities at the West Valley site began in the early 1960s when 

the Department of Energy’s predecessor, the U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, or AEC, provided a so-called baseload of spent nuclear 

fuel from defense-related sources. The intent was that such an arrangement would only be necessary until additional civilian nuclear plants could be constructed. But, ultimately, during the facility’s operation from 1966 to 1972, 60 percent of the fuel reprocess 

came from defense-related activities. About 80 percent of the plutonium and 99.8 percent of the uranium shipped out of West Valley 

went back to defense complex sites. 

In 1972, nuclear fuel services, which operated the facility, shut 

it down for upgrades and then never reopened it. NFS withdrew 

from the reprocessing business and turned West Valley, which was 

by then highly contaminated, over to New York State, which owned 

the property. 

In 1980, Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration Project 

Act, pursuant to which the Department of Energy has taken possession of more than 150 acres where the reprocessing activities 

took place and the Federal Government agreed to pay 90 percent 

of the cleanup costs. Two years later, in 1982, Congress passed the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which recognized the Federal Government’s responsibility for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste from the country’s atomic energy defense activities. 

Historically, the Federal Government has recognized that West 

Valley waste was from defense sources. The Congressional Record 

supporting the 1980 West Valley Demonstration Project Act includes many references to how and why the West Valley site’s 

cleanup is appropriately a Federal responsibility, given the site’s 

role in the country’s defense complex. And even the Department of 

Labor’s employee compensation program for work-related illnesses 

at DOE complex sites, which was set up less than 20 years ago, 

designates West Valley as an ‘‘atomic weapons employer.’’ 

However, in 1986, the Department of Energy Inspector General, 

without explanation, designated West Valley as a ‘‘commercial 

site,’’ in a report regarding the growing potential costs of the 

NWPA. This designation has been repeated by DOE ever since 

without any stated factual or legal support. 

West Valley is truly unique, as both the chair and ranking member have stated today. It is the only site managed by the Office of 

22 

Environmental Management with onsite waste that DOE calls commercial or where DOE asserts that the State is responsible for a 

disposal fee. West Valley also houses the only transuranic waste in 

the Nation, waste that was generated by DOE as part of its cleanup project that is prohibited from disposal at the Waste Isolation 

Pileup Plant, WIPP, in New Mexico. 

DOE’s designation of the West Valley waste as commercial not 

only creates a roadblock to completing the cleanup of the site, but 

it also means that scarce EM cleanup funds have to be expended 

for potentially perpetual storage of the TRU at West Valley. 

On January 13, 2017, DOE wrote to Congressman Higgins, after 

discussions between the Department and the New York delegation, 

to say that DOE had determined that it would consider whether 

West Valley waste could or should be disposed of with the remainder of the country’s similarly packaged waste. But despite its repeated attempts to discuss this matter with the Department since 

then, DOE staff has failed to engage. 

This is just the latest in a long history of DOE’s apparent resistance to addressing this matter. Repeatedly stating its ‘‘historical 

position’’ that it doesn’t own the waste and, therefore, isn’t responsible for its disposition, even though ownership, per se, is not a relevant question with respect to whether the waste is defense related 

or not. To say the issue is lingering may be an understatement, at 

least as far as New York and the surrounding communities are 

concerned. 

The State is left to conclude that legislation is the only path forward regarding how the West Valley waste will be disposed, just 

as, in 1980, Congress had to intervene regarding the responsibility 

for the site’s cleanup. 

A statutory designation of the West Valley waste as defense 

waste would finally allow it to be treated similarly to the other 

high-level and transuranic waste associated with our country’s 

atomic defense activities. This is the equitable outcome for these 

wastes for the site, and for the communities who have now hosted 

the site for generations. 

We also wish to emphasize the importance of funding authorization. Funding for the West Valley cleanup has been at an all time 

low in recent years. Appropriate funding levels allow for work to 

continue as contemplated by the Act, by the West Valley Demonstration Project Act. And in the absence of appropriate funding 

levels, work is delayed, adding to total project cost and timeframe. 

Thank you for your attention, and I am happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:] 

23 


32962.007
24 


32962.008
25 


32962.009
26 


32962.010
27 


32962.011
28 


32962.012
29 


32962.013
30 


32962.014
31 


32962.015
32 


32962.016
33 


32962.017
34 


32962.018
35 


32962.019
36 


32962.020
37 


32962.021
38 


32962.022
39 


32962.023
40 


32962.024
41 


32962.025
42 


32962.026
43 


32962.027
44 


32962.028
45 


32962.029
46 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much, sir. 

And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for opening questions. 

Enactment of H.R. 3053 would break the current impasse on our 

nation’s nuclear waste management program and provide a path to 

complete the Yucca Mountain repository, while allowing DOE to 

pursue temporary storage efforts in the meantime. Your testimony 

notes concern that a repository might not be available for decades, 

but with congressional support, the nuclear waste could be transported well within a decade. 

Do you support reconstituting DOE’s nuclear waste management 

program and moving forward with a repository and storage program to remove the West Valley waste? 

Mr. SHAW. We support a pathway for the West Valley waste, 

whether that pathway is an interim solution—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. We need your help here, right? I have this debate and discussion with locations all around the country. If you 

need it moved, you have to have a place for it to go. There is current law of the land, which is a Nuclear Waste Policy Act, amended 

in 1987, the national government assigned a location. That location 

has been politically blocked for about 9 years. We are unblocking 

it. 

It would be helpful for States to realize what the Federal law is 

and be helpful. A lot of the New York colleagues have been strongly 

supportive of the bill we just passed last week. It is kind of timely 

that you are here now. And so if you don’t want it there, you have 

to have a place to go. 

What we have done in H.R. 3053 is allow both options for completion, and I am going to—the follow-up question will show the 

timeliness of this. But we have accepted the premise that an interim is an important process in getting to a final repository. 

Without a national solution, you will be an interim site forever, 

right? And no one wants that. Science is a long-term geological repository, and so—I am not meaning to lecture, we are just asking 

for your help—— 

Mr. SHAW. I understand. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [CONTINUING]. In how we phrase this to your State 

and to the Nation. What is the current estimated timeframe for 

DOE to complete the decontamination and remediation of the West 

Valley facilities? 

Mr. SHAW. There is, as you may know, an ongoing supplemental 

environmental impact statement process with respect to the future 

of the site right now. The range of options includes, obviously, as 

you might imagine, a variety of timeframes for the completion of 

the project. I think the last EIS suggested that we could be looking 

at anywhere from 10 to 35 years. I think that we will know more 

about the likely timeframe once the SEIS process is completed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I think DOE has between 2040 and 2045, 

which would be the worst-case scenario. Based on the estimated 

work remaining and the timelines associated with DOE’s waste 

management program, it seems that the best and the most expeditious disposal path available to the State of New York is to have 

the Senate consider the bipartisan nuclear waste bill passed by the 

House just last week. 

47 

And, again, I wanted to thank my colleagues, obviously, and the 

ranking member who was very helpful in moving this forward. 

By the time West Valley is done, worst case 2045, the repository 

will be open and accepting long-term geological storage. So we are 

glad to have you there, and I would take back to your folks in the 

State that a positive response on the Nation trying to solve this 

problem for all 50 States is moving forward, and we would hope 

that New York State would be fully supportive. 

With that, I yield back my time, and I turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, Mr. Shaw, thank you again for your testimony and, again, 

thank you for your work on behalf of the residents of my home 

State of New York. It is helpful for the committee to have a full 

understanding of the history of the West Valley site. 

Can you explain what the effect would be on ultimate cleanup of 

the West Valley site if H.R. 2389 became law? 

Mr. SHAW. It would provide a pathway for both the transuranic 

waste and a practical pathway for the high-level waste. Right now, 

because of the commercial designation, the transuranic waste has 

no pathway, it can’t go to WIPP. And because of the application by 

DOE of the NWPA provisions regarding the disposal fee, we are 

looking at a cost to the State, at the time of an ultimate repository 

that may very well be prohibitive. So it would open the path for 

actually getting the waste off the site. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You also mentioned the—Mr. Gilbertson was asked 

about discussions, and he said that they are routine, they are ongoing. But I am understanding from your comments that some elements of that discussion have not occurred. 

Mr. SHAW. To be clear, the discussions that I believe Mr. Gilbertson was referring to are the discussions with respect to the ongoing 

environmental impact statement process. I commend our site staffs, 

they work well together on a daily basis. They work in the same 

building, a very close working relationship there. However, when 

it comes to this higher level question of the defense versus nondefense character of the waste onsite, we have attempted to engage 

and have not been provided much of a response. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you for that clarification. 

Earlier this morning, DOE mentioned that the Department does 

not and cannot own the waste at West Valley. Can you explain how 

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act considers waste ownership, and how 

it is or is not relevant to today’s discussion? 

Mr. SHAW. My reading of the Act is that it is not relevant. The 

question under section—well, the statement under section 8 of the 

Act is that the fee provisions do not apply to ‘‘any atomic energy 

defense activity or to any facility used in connection with any such 

facility.’’ 

I believe that the facts as we have stated them, and the facts 

that were considered by Congress in passing the Act back in 1980, 

clearly establish that the activities at West Valley were defense related. The question of ownership, while it may be consistent with 

the way DOE thinks about other sites, really doesn’t apply here, 

and it is a unique site with a unique history and a unique waste 

48 

profile. And, unfortunately, it doesn’t fit into the boxes that DOE 

usually applies. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And compared to some other sites in the 

DOE complex, West Valley is relatively small, that is, it does not 

have nearly as much waste as places like Savannah River and 

Hanford. Can you explain why Congress should step in and clarify 

the waste designation as defense related? 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you for the question. Precisely because of some 

of the themes that have been repeated here. It is a unique site. It 

doesn’t fit the usual equations that DOE has used in the past with 

respect to deciding pathways for waste. And after 30 years of attempting to reconcile this disagreement with respect to the defense 

nature of the waste, we don’t see another pathway forward. 

We have requested the calculation of the fee, as you have related 

numerous times, and that has not been forthcoming. We have requested a factual or legal analysis for the designation of commercial, and that has not been forthcoming, other than to say that it 

was provided for ‘‘commercial purposes.’’ 

I will say, lots of private contractors have been handling defense 

waste around the country and made a lot of money on it for a long 

time. That is not the question that needs to be answered when determining whether this material is defense related or not. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And I understand that the next phase 

of the environmental impact statement process for this site recently 

began. There were a number of community meetings and comments 

have been submitted. Can you summarize the reactions you have 

received and how they relate to this proposed legislation? 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you for the question. I think it is important to 

understand the full thrust of the community engagement and concern with respect to the site and how it relates to this bill. I was 

at the meetings. Large sectors of the community showed up from 

across the political spectrum to emphasize their concern about 

what would happen to the waste and, in particular, to say that it 

should be a cleanup, a full cleanup. 

Obviously, that is one of the options within the SEIS process that 

is being considered. However, there are a number of options within 

the SEIS process, including the full cleanup, that won’t be practically feasible unless this waste has a pathway. And the only way 

this waste can have a pathway is if it is designated as defense 

waste. 

Mr. TONKO. And the $75 million that is appropriated in fiscal 

year 2018 is also the level included in the Reed bill. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. What is the impact of underfunding West Valley? 

Mr. SHAW. Well, in the past, the funding levels have been down 

in the 60s. That differential between 75 and in the 60s doesn’t 

seem like a lot, however, when you consider that nearly more than 

a third of the budget is just to keep the lights on and keep it safe, 

that differential makes a big difference in the work that can be 

done on the site. There is a lot of work that is going to be happening over the course of the next 10, 15 years especially, as they 

start to go below grade in Phase II of the cleanup and, therefore, 

the need for sufficient funding is even more imperative going forward maybe than it has been in the past. 

49 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Shaw, thank you. And my best to the NYSERDA 

team. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair, seeing no other members wishing to ask questions, I 

would like to thank all our witnesses today. 

Before we conclude, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 

submit the following documents for the record: a statement for the 

record from Carmelo Melendez, director, Office of Legacy Management at U.S. Department of Energy; a letter from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; and a letter from 

Representative Scott Tipton. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. And pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record, and ask the witnesses to submit their response 

within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:00 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Good morning and welcome to our subcommittee hearing where we will discuss 

legislation to reauthorize certain Department of Energy (DOE) environmental cleanup projects. 

This Congress, the Energy & Commerce Committee, under the stewardship of 

Vice Chairman Barton and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Upton, has looked at 

several DOE programs with lapsed authorizations. Today, we will examine two of 

those projects within the jurisdiction of the Environment Subcommittee. 

DOE’s cleanup and disposal projects are not limited to high-level radioactive 

waste. The Department manages and monitors other environmental remediation 

projects such as sites authorized under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 

Program (FUSRAP), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA). 

My Oregon district includes the Department’s Lakeview Processing and Disposal 

Sites, which are overseen by DOE’s Office of Legacy Management. At this location, 

a uranium mill processed ore fifty years ago, leaving behind mill tailings to be sent 

to a nearby disposal cell for safekeeping. When Congress passed the Uranium Mill 

Tailings Remediation Control Act of 1978, this site in my district was included as 

one of the 22 inactive ore processing sites to be remediated by DOE. 

The bill sponsored by Representative Tipton extends the authorization of a similar 

disposal cell in his district and I am glad to support this effort. 

Additionally, I welcome Representative Tom Reed to speak about the bill to reauthorize an important remediation project in his western New York district at the 

West Valley site. West Valley was the location of the nation’s only commercial experience with reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Cleanup at the site continues today, 

over forty years after the site’s operations were terminated. 

The Department of Energy and New York State witnesses this morning will provide additional context about DOE’s ongoing activities at the site and remaining 

challenges, such as finalizing a disposal pathway for the project’s high-level radioactive waste. 

Last week—with a strong bipartisan vote in support—the House of Representatives helped pave the pathway for the restart of the Nation’s nuclear waste disposal 

program with the passage of HR 3053. This should help address some of these longterm challenges. Yet, there are further issues to resolve to deal with our nation’s 

legacy waste. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance these straightforward 

bills. Thank you and I yield back. 

50 


32962.030
51 


32962.031
52 


32962.032
53 


32962.033
54 


32962.034
55 


32962.035
56 


32962.036
57 


32962.037
58 


32962.038
59 


32962.039
60 


32962.040
61 


32962.041
62 


32962.042
63 


32962.043
64 


32962.044
65 


32962.045
66 


32962.046
67 


32962.047
68 


32962.048
69 


32962.049
70 


32962.050
71 


32962.051
72 

Æ 


32962.052