U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

57–848 PDF 2008

NEXT STEPS TOWARD PERMANENT NUCLEAR 

WASTE DISPOSAL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 15, 2008 

Serial No. 110–135 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

SUE D. SHERIDAN, Chief Counsel 

JOHN W. JIMISON, Counsel 

RACHEL BLESHMAN, Legislative Clerk 

DAVID MCCARTHY, Minority Counsel 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

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

Hon. Doris Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

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

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

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

Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Hon. Shelley Berkley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada 9 

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

Edward F. Sproat, III, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy .............................................................................. 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................................................ 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency ............................................ 38 

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

B. John Garrick, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ....... 44 

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

Marvin S. Fertel, Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer, Nuclear 

Energy Institute ................................................................................................... 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Anne C. George, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Public Utility 

Control; Chair, NARUC Committee on Electricity ............................................ 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Members of United States Senate and House of Representatives, letter of 

June 5, 2008 to United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, submitted 

by Mr. Matheson .................................................................................................. 90 

(1) 

NEXT STEPS TOWARD PERMANENT NUCLEAR 

WASTE DISPOSAL 

TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Boucher, Gonzalez, Matheson, 

Matsui, Upton, Hall, Whitfield, Shimkus, Shadegg, Walden, Burgess, and Blackburn. 

Staff present: John Jimison, Laura Vaught, Chris Treanor, Alex 

Haurek, Rachel Bleshman, David McCarthy, Amanda MertensCampbell, Andrea Spring, and Garrett Golding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BOUCHER. The subcommittee will come to order. Today we 

will receive testimony on the status of the Department of Energy’s 

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program, a matter of 

major concern to many, including the electricity consumers who are 

paying their funds into the nuclear waste fund. Congratulations 

should be extended this morning to Mr. Sproat, the Director of 

DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for his 

success in meeting his promised date of June, 2008 for submission 

to the NRC of the Yucca Mountain licensing application. Since it 

has now been submitted, it is appropriate we learn this morning 

about the overall status of the project, and the next steps that we 

can anticipate. 

While the submission to the NRC of the license application 

achieves an important milestone, the longstanding challenge of assuring adequate funding for the project remains of paramount concern. While in theory a balance of more than $20 billion resides in 

the nuclear waste fund in practice most of that money has been expended for other purposes. Each year the nuclear waste program 

has to compete for annual appropriations and actual appropriations 

have been only a fraction of the amount that the rate payers have 

contributed into the nuclear waste fund. 

For example, this year $750 million in rate payer contributions 

will go into that fund, but the Administration is only proposing 

that $494.7 million be spent on nuclear waste disposal, so $750 

2 

million going into the fund and rate payer contributions slightly 

less than $500 million to be spent on nuclear waste disposal and 

even that amount, approximately $500 million is divided between 

the civilian program that the nuclear waste fund was designed to 

finance and the Department of Defense’s nuclear waste disposal 

with an even contribution in the Administration’s proposal between 

the 2 programs. We will be interested in Mr. Sproat’s view of how 

this level of expenditure for the civilian program will affect his projections for opening the Yucca Mountain repository. 

We are also interested in knowing how the Administration’s 

funding request, if reflected in appropriations, will affect the NRC 

schedule for reviewing the license application. By law, the NRC has 

3 years to review and act on the application with the fourth year 

permissible under certain circumstances. Mr. Weber’s view whether 

the NRC will have adequate funding to achieve that schedule will 

be of interest to us. I appreciate the attendance of the witnesses 

this morning and look forward to their testimony, and pending the 

beginning of testimony from our witnesses, I am pleased now to 

recognize other members for their opening statements beginning 

with the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, ranking Republican 

on this subcommittee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important 

hearing on the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Our hearing today 

will largely focus on the Yucca Mountain repository as a solution 

to meet the government’s spent nuclear fuel obligations. Storing 

our supply of spent fuel in its current form deep inside Yucca 

Mountain isn’t the only disposal option available to us. I look forward certainly to future hearings that may focus on other possible 

solutions to our spent fuel disposal needs. 

Properly dealing with the spent nuclear fuel is the key to our 

coming nuclear renaissance. With our power needs growing and a 

desire for clean, zero emission power, we will need literally hundreds of new nuclear reactors over the next 50 to 75 years. Nuclear 

power is the cleanest, most efficient, most reliable source of electricity, and it must be at the forefront of our energy supply, but 

impossible without rationally dealing with spent fuel. 

Our current policy toward Yucca Mountain is charting us on a 

perilous course. With the Nation’s nuclear reactors in operation 

today, we will reach the statutory space limit for Yucca in just a 

couple of years, and it should be noted that the statutory limit of 

70,000 tons of spent fuel is artificially low. Scientists and other experts say that Yucca could hold perhaps twice that amount or 

more. 

Regardless of Yucca’s space limitations, we are long overdue to 

close the nuclear fuel cycle. Through advance recycling, we can 

turn spent fuel into new fuel while vastly reducing our disposal 

needs. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be treating nuclear 

power as a renewable resource. Nuclear is just as clean as solar or 

wind, and the fuel is in fact recyclable. And unlike solar or wind, 

nuclear provides round-the-clock, reliable baseload power. 

3 

With our current once-through fuel cycle an individual’s lifetime 

footprint of spent fuel is about the size of a pop can. Using proven 

recycling technology, we can reduce the volume of our high-level 

waste footprint by about 90 to 95 percent to that of a half dollar. 

It is my hope that we can take advantage of these technologies, 

and I certainly intend to work on bipartisan legislation with my 

colleagues to make sure that recycling can be part of the nuclear 

fuel cycle noting that Yucca must still have a place in this forward 

thinking strategy. 

To date, over $27 billion has been accumulated in the nuclear 

waste trust fund and about $8 billion has been spent. Every year, 

as the chairman indicated, 750 million more goes into the fund 

from rate payers and another billion dollars accumulates in interest. After an allocation of these resources one would think that we 

would have something to show for it, but to date we do not. 

Through budgetary sleights of hand and a flawed appropriation 

process that allows interest to trump national priorities, this 

money has not been fully spent toward its intended purposes. $750 

million goes into the fund every year but that money doesn’t come 

out. In fact, not only does the waste fund become a black hole in 

the U.S. Treasury, we are accumulating billions in liabilities estimated to reach some $7 billion by the year 2017. Ward Sproat, 

joining us today, deserves to be commended. He beat his actual 

deadline a year ago by about a month. 

The main problem that we faced with Yucca Mountain is the lack 

of appropriated funds. The waste fund must be taken off-budget to 

fix the problem. The appropriators and anti-nuclear activists have 

been playing games with our domestic energy security for far too 

long, and it is the American people who are getting stuck with the 

tab. 

France gets nearly 80 percent of its power, actually more than 

80 percent of its power, from nuclear. Using American technology 

they recycle their nuclear fuel. They even have enough electricity 

capacity to export it to their neighbors. Germany, on the other 

hand, decided to phase out nuclear power and now they are an importer of electricity. They have completely lost their energy independence. The U.S. is fortunate enough today to be energy independent when it comes to electricity needs, but without some policies for spent fuel management and new nuclear power coming online, we are headed down the road toward importing electricity at 

higher rates, much like we are importing oil. America’s working 

families deserve coherent policies to address our energy needs. 

It is imperative that clean, safe nuclear power is at the forefront 

as we seek to solidify our Nation’s energy supply and foster a new 

era of energy independence and reduced emissions. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Chairman Boucher, thank you for holding this important hearing on the disposal 

of spent nuclear fuel. Our hearing today will largely focus on the Yucca Mountain 

repository as a solution to meet the government’s spent nuclear fuel obligations. 

Storing our supply of spent fuel—in its current form—deep inside Yucca Mountain, 

isn’t the only disposal option available to us. I look forward to future hearings that 

may focus on other possible solutions to our spent fuel disposal needs. 

4 

With two nuclear plants literally just miles from my doorstep in southwest Michigan, I know firsthand the vital role nuclear power plays throughout the nation. I 

also know about our pressing need to deal with the growing quantities of spent nuclear fuel. As we await the completion of the Yucca repository, steps must be taken 

to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel. State-of-the-art dry cask technology is being 

used by plants across the nation, including the Palisades plant in my own backyard, 

to safely store its spent nuclear fuel on-site—for the time being. Given the numerous 

delays to Yucca, the Cook plant—also in my district—has begun plans to add dry 

cask storage to their site. 

Properly dealing with spent nuclear fuel is the key to our coming nuclear renaissance. With our power needs growing and a desire for clean zero-emission power, 

we’ll need hundreds of new nuclear reactors over the next 50 years. Nuclear power 

is the cleanest, most efficient, and most reliable source of electricity. It must be at 

the forefront of our energy supply—impossible without rationally dealing with spent 

fuel. 

Our current policy towards Yucca Mountain is charting us on a perilous course. 

With the nation’s nuclear reactors in operation today, we will reach the statutory 

space limit for Yucca in just two years. It should be noted that the statutory limit 

of 70,000 tons of spent fuel is artificially low. Scientists and other experts say Yucca 

could hold twice that amount—or more. 

Regardless of Yucca’s space limitations, we’re long overdue to close the nuclear 

fuel cycle. Through advanced recycling, we can turn spent fuel into new fuel, while 

vastly reducing our disposal needs. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be treating 

nuclear power as a renewable resource. Nuclear is just as clean as solar or wind 

and the fuel is recyclable. And unlike solar or wind, nuclear provides round-theclock, reliable base load power. 

With our current once through fuel cycle, an individual’s lifetime footprint of 

spent fuel is about the size of a soda pop can. Using proven recycling technology, 

we’ll be able to reduce the volume of our high-level waste footprint 95 percent to 

that of a Kennedy half dollar. It is my hope that we can take advantage of these 

technologies and I intend to work on legislation with my colleagues on both side of 

the aisle to make recycling part of our nuclear fuel cycle—noting that Yucca must 

still have a place in this forward thinking strategy. 

To date, over $27 billion dollars has been accumulated in the Nuclear Waste Trust 

Fund (fees plus interest) and about $8 billion has been spent. Every year $750 million more goes into the fund from ratepayers and another billion accumulates as interest. After an allocation of these resources, one would think that we have something to show for it. We do NOT. 

Through budgetary slights of hand, and a flawed appropriations process that allows NIMBY interest to trump national priorities, this money has not been fully 

spent towards its intended purpose. $750 million goes into the fund every year, but 

that money doesn’t come out. In fact, not only does the waste fund become a black 

hole in the US treasury, we’re accumulating billions in liabilities—estimated to 

reach $7 billion by 2017. Ward Sproat—joining us today—deserves to be commended. Two years ago, he said he would have the application done by June 2008. 

And despite the hurdles, he’s met that deadline. 

The main problem we’ve faced with Yucca Mountain is lack of appropriated funds. 

The waste fund MUST be taken off budget to fix this problem. The appropriators 

and anti-nuclear activists have been playing games with our domestic energy security far too long and it is the American people who are getting stuck with the tab. 

Let’s look at a case study from Europe—France gets 80% of their power from nuclear. Using American technology, they recycle their nuclear fuel. They even have 

enough electricity capacity to export to their neighbors. Germany, on the other 

hand, decided to phase out nuclear power. Now they’re an importer of electricity. 

They have completely lost their energy independence. The U.S. is fortunate today 

to be energy independent—when it comes to electricity needs. But without sound 

policies for spent fuel management and new nuclear power coming online, we’re 

headed down the road towards importing electricity at higher rates, much like we’re 

importing oil. America’s working families deserve coherent policies to address our 

energy needs. 

It is imperative that clean, safe nuclear power is at the forefront as we seek to 

solidify our nation’s energy supply and foster a new era of energy independence and 

reduced emissions. Not only will our environment be better for it, our national security will also be bolstered. Millions of households will be powered by zero-emission 

nuclear power and our nation’s economy will be powered by nuclear as well. I yield 

back. 

5 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Upton. The gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Waive opening. 

Mr. BOUCHER. The gentleman waives his opening statement and 

will have 3 minutes added to his questioning time for the second 

panel of witnesses this morning. The gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Matsui, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you very much 

for calling this hearing today, and for your continued focus on these 

important issues. I am very pleased to be here today and will just 

take a minute so we can continue on to the distinguished witnesses. I would like to thank today’s panelists for joining us to discuss the important subject of nuclear waste. I look forward to hearing all of your expert opinions. Mr. Chairman, my district has had 

a long history with nuclear power. After years of wasted costs and 

environmental security threats, the people of Sacramento voted to 

shut down Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in 1989. It is now fully 

decommissioned. 

I, as well as my constituents, continue to have a number of reservations about nuclear power, but the fact that this energy source 

does not emit greenhouse gas is exciting. We cannot simply accept 

it blindly without thoroughly investigating all consequences and 

outcomes. With that said, I fully realize that almost 20 percent of 

our nation’s electricity generation comes from nuclear sources. Because of that, we as a nation simply must resolve the ever growing 

problem of nuclear waste. I hope the witnesses here today can help 

this committee with suggestions and strategies that we can use 

going forward. 

We need to confront this issue, and we need to do so in order to 

protect the health, safety, and security of this country. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership and your commitment to 

these issues, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui. The gentleman 

from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to thank you 

for this hearing, and the focus on energy supply. I, like many of 

us, are disappointed at the rumors of coalition of bipartisan members outside of the Committee working to address the supply and 

not the best place where that should happen, which is here, because we have a bipartisan majority that could easily move a supply bill that would be accepted on the floor of the House. Having 

said that, we know electricity demand is going to continue to increase. We as a country can no longer say no to adding supply as 

part of our energy solutions. Just to keep up with the projected energy demand, we are going to need 52 new nuclear power plants, 

747 new coal plants. That is just to meet future demand—2,000 

new hydroelectric generators and 13,000 new megawatts of renewable power. 

6 

That is why we have been on the floor talking about Americanmade energy. Nuclear power is American-made energy. Nuclear 

power is American jobs. Nuclear power is if we are going to go into 

this debate of climate change, is the only way that we are going 

to get to any type of climate change numbers without rapidly increasing the cost. That would be devastating to the economy. We 

had a hearing last week on the carbon capture and sequestration 

bill, and a lot of the challenges to that bill, Mr. Chairman, was we 

had a fund that we were not going to allow the government to 

touch. Well, I think the nuclear trust fund which we control and 

we have collected millions of dollars from, and we were not putting 

that money to where it goes into the waste disposal, is a perfect 

example why we shouldn’t trust the Federal Government to handle 

the funds in your carbon capture and sequestration bill. 

Another reason we shouldn’t trust the government is, and I 

didn’t say it last week, was on the whole future gen debate. Here 

the government rolled out a great federal program to capture and 

sequester carbon and a coal emitting plant, and when industry and 

the international community got involved the Administration, my 

Administration, President Bush pulled the rug out from under the 

plan, so this is a perfect example. And the nuclear waste fund was 

used in the hearing last week in the debate about, trust us, give 

us the money, and we will make sure it then goes, but the nuclear 

waste fund is a perfect example of how we failed to do that over 

the years, and we are scrambling to just meet the minor demands 

on trying to get Yucca Mountain. 

I will end with this. If we cannot bury high-level nuclear waste 

under a mountain in a desert, we just can’t put it anywhere in this 

country, and so that is why we are glad that this National Government has already made a decision to move forward, and we will not 

allow people to rob the fund to stop that from happening. I yield 

back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As someone who recognizes the important role that nuclear power plays in our energy 

mix today and in the carbon constrained future, I recognize it will 

play an increasing role. I do have to voice serious concerns about 

the efficacy of a plan to store spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. This plan has always been fought with an abundance of faith 

and not enough fact. Energy utility companies have been promised 

a national repository for nuclear waste for the past 2 decades, and 

unfortunately the U.S. Government has been more than happy to 

act as though this is a reasonable plan to deal with what I believe 

is a very serious problem. 

In my home State of Utah, we have a hard time understanding 

why the transportation risks associated with moving nuclear waste 

to Yucca Mountain have never really been studied given that 95 

percent of the waste will go through my State if it is shipped by 

rail and 87 percent if we truck this waste. This is a huge concern 

to both me and my constituents. I oppose the plan to store nuclear 

7 

waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. First, I don’t think that because 

it is a small State in terms of population that that should have 

been the reason why it is being stored there, and I hate to say it 

but I think that has been a big factor. I think the politics of this 

issue have trumped science. Second, the waste is currently being 

stored safely on-site with plenty of room for more storage. In fact, 

the total amount of waste produced by the United States since 

1950 would occupy the space of one football field. And, finally, as 

I indicated, the transportation of this nuclear waste across the continent in my opinion creates more safety problems than leaving it 

where it is. 

Nuclear waste is currently stored where it is created in either 

dry cask storage or in water storage facilities. My opposition to 

moving nuclear waste does not mean I oppose nuclear energy as 

part of energy mix. As I said at the outset, I believe that technological advancements can help solve the problems we face with the 

storage of spent nuclear fuel. I just don’t think moving the waste 

to Yucca Mountain really solves the problem. When we start to 

think about a carbon constrained future, I think we should be even 

more concerned about nuclear waste storage because even if we 

were to magically open Yucca Mountain today, we wouldn’t have 

enough room for the waste we already have. 

Instead of throwing more money at this problem, I think it is unbelievable how much money we have thrown at it already. We 

should recognize the concept of some cost and we should move on 

looking at realistic solutions in the near term as well as a viable 

long-term strategy. I have introduced a bipartisan interim storage 

bill along with my colleagues, Ms. Berkley from Nevada, Mr. Cannon of Utah, and Mr. Bishop of Utah, that this committee should 

consider. Companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate 

by Senators Reid and Bennett. 

H.R. 4062, the Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage 

Act, would require the Federal Government to take responsibility 

for possession of storage, maintenance, and monitoring of the 

waste. Utilities would have 6 years to transfer spent fuel currently 

in pools into dry cask in order to allow sufficient time for cooling 

and construction. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is about to run out. 

I would like to submit my full written statement for the record, but 

again I would say there are other options we should be looking as 

a committee, and that is why I welcome this hearing taking place, 

and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Matheson. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your holding this hearing. You do a wonderful job on these hearings. It is always interesting to learn about where we are in various segments of the energy world. It seems to me that the longer 

we wait to open Yucca Mountain, the more it is going to cost rate 

payers, and the longer we wait, the more risk there is dispersed 

around the country for Americans. I have little faith that Yucca 

Mountain is going to move forward in a timely manner, especially 

8 

as long as there is a fairly active and able Nevada delegation working a way to prevent its opening, and I guess I respect that. I suppose if I were in your shoes, I might share similar views, but for 

the sake of the country it seems to me we need a safe and secure 

depository that can be safeguarded and where America’s nuclear 

waste can go, and the sooner the better. 

I noted this morning on WTOP they had, I believe it was the 

Maryland PUC Commissioner or somebody from the Public Utility 

Commission talking about how Maryland is going to run out of 

electricity at some point here and not be able to meet demand in 

the not too distant future. And I think potentially that is the problem around the country. And as we look at alternative energy 

sources, and I am a big advocate of those, I recognize there are limitations on how much wind or solar you can have, and certainly 

other countries around the world have been able to utilize nuclear 

energy although I think America may actually produce more electricity from nuclear power than any other country on the planet. 

So we are actually in the forefront. Now we just have to solve this 

disposal waste issue. I think that is essential. 

If we want to move forward on reducing our carbon footprint 

then we have to look to energy production sources that are not either hydrocarbons as in coal or gas, and certainly most of our peaking plants now are gas fired, and you are going to see continuing 

problems meeting that demand. And so it looks to me like in the 

future not only do we have to replace nuclear power plants we 

have, we have to turn to that energy source to safely provide additional non-polluting energy, but we need to get this storage issue 

resolved once and for all. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have 

to say as a footnote that I wish this subcommittee were also taking 

aggressive action right now to address America’s lack of energy and 

cost of energy, not just in terms of speculators and gougers but 

supply. 

And I know that you share some of those concerns as well, Mr. 

Chairman, in terms of adding to America’s supply. I think the time 

has come, times have changed, and, frankly, economy is up on the 

rocks, and a lot of it has to do with the lack of energy. And when 

you are paying $5.08 a gallon for diesel in Odell, Oregon or $4.39 

or whatever it may be at this moment, family budgets are getting 

killed, and this economy is suffering mightily. You find it at the 

food counter. You find it at the gas station. And this Congress 

needs to take real serious action about adding to supply and changing the dynamic of the world market. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Walden. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding 

this important hearing. I want to thank our witnesses, Ms. Berkley, and those on the second panel. We look forward to your testimony. Obviously, energy is one of the key issues facing our great 

country today, and we all recognize with the increasing demand for 

electricity in the future nuclear power must play an important role. 

9 

And it is quite disappointing that we still find ourselves in this 

quagmire relating to Yucca Mountain. I guess the legislation to 

first start studying Yucca Mountain was passed in 1982, 26 years 

ago, and we still do not have this issue resolved. It is unfortunate 

that the Federal Government through its general funds has to pay 

out awards to utilities because the government is not in a position 

to take all of this waste, and I think the judgments already exceed 

$400 million, and depending upon when the government is able to 

do it may lessen that figure or increase that figure. 

So this is a timely hearing. It is one that we must move forward 

to with great dispatch. It is one of the most important issues facing 

our country, I believe. And we also know that if the NRC does not 

believe that we are going to be in a position to dispose of this waste 

that they could reach a position where they may not license any 

more nuclear reactors. So it is a vitally important issue, and I 

thank the chairman for hosting, and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses this morning. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield. We turn 

now to our first witness of the morning, and that is the Honorable 

Shelley Berkley, who represents the First District of Nevada. Shelley, we are delighted to have you with us today. Without objection, 

your prepared statement will be made part of the record, and we 

will welcome your oral summary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Upton, and members of the Committee. It is a pleasure for 

me to be here, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. While the ranking member spoke of a nuclear renaissance, the 

people of the State of Nevada consider us going back to the Dark 

Ages. Nevada families are overwhelmingly opposed to our home 

State becoming this Nation’s nuclear garbage dump. Over the past 

26 years we have been fighting Yucca Mountain, Republicans and 

Democrats alike, for one simple reason. It is not safe. 

Nevadans know a bad bet when we see one. Opposition to Yucca 

Mountain at home remains as strong as ever, with polls showing 

more than 75 percent of Nevada residents saying they want to continue fighting this reckless and dangerous proposal. That is because we recognize the danger of burying radioactive toxic nuclear 

waste 90 minutes from the Las Vegas Valley, Nevada’s economic 

engine, home to more than 2 million residents and a destination 

that draws more than 40 million visitors from around the globe annually. Today you will no doubt hear much about the progress 

made on Yucca Mountain, including the submission of a license application to the NRC. 

I would also ask you to keep in mind the project’s bloated price 

tag, history of chronic delays, failed quality assurance program, 

and a long list of scientific and technical shortcomings that continue to plague Yucca Mountain. This includes e-mails sent by 

workers on the project containing statements such as this. This is 

a worker on the Yucca Mountain project: ‘‘In the end I keep track 

of 2 set of files, the ones that will keep QA happy and the ones that 

are actually used,’’ and ‘‘if they need more proof I will be happy to 

10 

make up more stuff.’’ There are 1,100 pages just like that. If you 

want to get chilled one day, read them. 

Is there any wonder Nevadans have an utter lack of confidence 

when the words ‘‘sound science’’ and ‘‘Yucca Mountain’’ are used in 

the same sentence. Allow me to list just a few of the unresolved 

issues. No radiation standard. A federal court struck down EPA’s 

original radiation standard of 10,000 years for Yucca Mountain. 

Current law requires that the standard covers at least 300,000 

years, the period of peak danger. Clean energy, I mean nuclear 

waste is radioactive. What is more dirty than that? The issue is 

key. This issue is key to determining Yucca Mountain’s performance, yet DOE filed its application without finalization of this important safeguard. Earthquakes and volcanoes, violent earthquakes 

and volcanoes have rocked Yucca Mountain in the past. There is 

no reason to think these threats will not occur again, and I know 

Mr. Shimkus speaks when he sees the desert southwest because he 

lives in the east, he sees a vast wasteland but the desert southwest 

has a very dynamic ecosystem that we may very well destroy. No 

canisters currently exist that are capable of storing waste. Should 

this magic canister appear plans call for billions of dollars of socalled drip shields to be added long after the waste has gone into 

Yucca Mountain. 

The State of Nevada has argued with good reason that installing 

these drip shields a century from now probably won’t be possible 

because the DOE’s plan which relies on robots that have yet to be 

invented. The Secretary of Energy actually had a press conference 

where he talked about an army of robots—this is like I, Robot in 

real life—going down into Yucca Mountain a hundred years from 

now because it is too radioactive and hot for human beings that 

these robots will somehow magically put the drip shields over the 

canisters that don’t exist either. Transportation dangers, 50 million 

Americans will be at risk from thousands of nuclear waste shipments barreling down America’s roads and railways, each a prime 

target for terrorists seeking to do harm hunting for materials to 

make a dirty bomb, and we know statistically when thousands of 

shipments involving high-level nuclear waste are barreling down 

our roads accidents will occur leaving families and our environment 

vulnerable to decades of this threat and exposing communities to 

millions of dollars in potential clean-up costs. 

And who pays for that? You and I, ladies and gentlemen, and 

millions of taxpayers in this country. Yucca Mountain is decades 

behind schedule. Shipments were supposed to begin arriving in Nevada in 1998. Today that date has slipped to 2020 or beyond and 

it will be 2050 or later before all current waste is shipped. The 

price tag for Yucca Mountain has ballooned and the cost is growing. I would note that it has also been nearly 2 years since DOE 

promised this committee it would provide an updated life cycle cost 

analysis for Yucca Mountain. This revised estimate was originally 

to be delivered in 2006. Promises were made not only to members 

of this committee but also to the GAO and my office. 

I would ask the DOE to explain why it has taken nearly 2 years 

to update this important cost analysis and why it fails to honor its 

pledge that this task would have been completed long ago. Up until 

this point, we have been told to expect figures approaching $80 bilVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:31 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-135 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
11 

lion, and I am anxious to learn what the new amount is going to 

be, not that 80 billion does not already qualify this project as a 

prime example of grade A radioactive pork. And let me suggest another thing to you. We are in the middle of a drought in the desert 

southwest. We have no water, and this project will take massive 

amounts of water. Where in heaven’s name do we plan to get it 

from? 

Waste does not have to be moved. Experts agree on one thing. 

Waste can safety remain on sight for the next 100 years in dry 

cask storage. This ready-made option costs a fraction of Yucca 

Mountain’s price tags and avoids the transportation risks. Remember, on-site storage is already being done and the fact remains that 

waste is going to stay at existing and former plant sites for at least 

another decade or more even under the rosiest of scenarios. This 

brings me, Mr. Chairman, to my key point. Those looking at alternatives to current nuclear waste policy should not rush to move 

waste to Yucca Mountain given the evolution and thinking that is 

now taking place. 

This includes interest in the construction of a U.S. reprocessing 

plant that would treat waste before it is sent to a repository. Such 

a scheme raises the question of how many times we are planning 

to ship high-level nuclear waste. Will it go to Nevada first only to 

be moved and sent to the reprocessing plant and then reshipped to 

my home State, and what about interim storage? Do we move it 

from the plants to regional sites to reprocessing and then back to 

Nevada? Leaving waste on-site while options are debated leave 

open future alternatives to burying this garbage in the Nevada 

desert. And what about the myth that we are consolidating the 

waste in one place? Here is what the nuclear industry does not talk 

about. Yucca Mountain will not eliminate nuclear waste at plants 

where power is being generated. This is a patently false claim used 

to justify a flawed policy. 

Simply put, as long as a nuclear power plant is operating nuclear 

waste will remain on-site. We are not creating one repository to 

hold all the waste for all time. We are just creating one more place 

where toxic waste will be stored. 

Mr. BOUCHER. If you could wrap up in just a short period that 

would be helpful to us. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Yes, I would be delighted to do this. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Let me mention one other very important issue before I relinquish my time. Nevada’s congressional delegation—and 

this is all the members, Republicans and Democrats alike—is challenging 100 million no-bid sweetheart contract for work on Yucca 

Mountain to a law firm with a blatant conflict of interest. Twice 

we have asked as a complete delegation for the Secretary of Energy 

to recuse the firm of Morgan Lewis, which is both suing the taxpayers on behalf of the nuclear industry, while also representing 

the Energy Department on taxpayers’ dollars. We have yet to receive an answer. This acknowledged conflict of interest has also 

raised red flags at the Justice Department, which has questioned 

the awarding of this no-bid contract, given the potential impact on 

cases involving huge liability claims. 

12 

The families that I represent, all the families of Nevada, deserve 

fair treatment in the Yucca Mountain licensing process, and the 

taxpayers of America deserve to have their financial interests protected. Morgan Lewis should be replaced and this $100 million contract put forward again with an open and fair bidding process. And, 

Mr. Chairman, anything you can do to help the State of Nevada 

with that issue, we would be very, very grateful. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Berkley follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today and please allow me to get right to the point. 

Nevada families are overwhelmingly opposed to our home state becoming this nation’s nuclear garbage dump. Over the past 25 years, we have been fighting Yucca 

Mountain for one simple reason: it’s not safe. 

Nevadans know a bad bet when we see one. I can report that opposition to Yucca 

Mountain at home remains as strong as ever, with polls showing more than 75% 

of Nevada residents saying they want to continue fighting this reckless proposal. 

That is because we recognize the danger of burying toxic nuclear waste 90 minutes from the Las Vegas Valley—Nevada’s economic engine, home to more than two 

million residents and a destination that draws 40 million visitors from around the 

globe annually. 

Today you will no doubt hear much about the ‘‘progress’’ made on Yucca Mountain, including the submission of a license application to the NRC. 

However, I would ask you to also keep in mind the project’s bloated price tag, history of chronic delays, failed quality assurance program, and the long list of scientific and technological shortcomings that continue to plague Yucca Mountain. 

This includes e-mails sent by workers on the project containing statements such as: 

‘‘In the end I keep track of 2 sets of files, the ones that will keep QA happy and 

the ones that were actually used,’’ and ‘‘If they need more proof I will be happy to 

make up more stuff.’’ 

No wonder Nevadans have an utter lack of confidence when the words ‘‘sound 

science’’ and Yucca Mountain are used in the same sentence. 

Allow me to list just a few more of the unresolved issues surrounding the proposed dump. 

No radiation standard: A federal court struck down EPA’s original radiation 

standard for Yucca Mountain. Current law requires that the standard covers at 

least 300,000 years—the period of peak danger. 

This issue is a key basis for determining Yucca Mountain’s performance. Yet DOE 

filed its license application without finalization of this important safeguard. 

Earthquakes and Volcanoes. Violent earthquakes and volcanoes have rocked 

Yucca Mountain in the past. There is no reason to think these threats cannot strike 

again. 

No canister currently exists that is capable of storing waste. Should this magic 

canister appear, plans call for billions of dollars in so-called drip shields to be added 

long after waste has gone into Yucca Mountain. 

The State of Nevada has argued, with good reason, that installing these drip 

shields a century from now probably won’t be possible because DOE’s plan relies on 

robots that have yet to be invented. 

Transportation Dangers: 50 million Americans will be at risk from thousands of 

nuclear waste shipments barreling down America’s roads and railways. Each a 

prime target for terrorists seeking to do harm or hunting for the materials to make 

a dirty bomb. 

And we know accidents involving high-level nuclear waste will occur, leaving families and our environment vulnerable to decades of this threat and exposing communities to millions of dollars in potential clean-up costs. 

Yucca Mountain is decades behind schedule: Waste shipments were supposed to 

begin arriving in Nevada in 1998. Today, that date has slipped to 2020 or beyond 

and it will be 2050 or later before all current waste is shipped. The price tag for Yucca Mountain has ballooned and with $4.00 gas, the cost is 

growing. I would note that it has also been nearly two years since DOE promised 

this Committee it would provide an updated lifecycle cost analysis for Yucca Mountain. 

13 

This revised estimate was originally to be delivered in 2006. Promises were made, 

not only to members of this Committee, but also to the GAO and my office. 

I would ask DOE to explain why it has taken nearly two years to update this important cost analysis and why it failed to honor its pledge that this task would be 

completed long ago. 

Up until this point, we have been told to expect a figure approaching the $80 billion mark and I am anxious to learn the new amount. 

Not that $80 billion does not already qualify this project as a prime example of 

Grade radioactive pork. 

Waste does not have to be moved. Experts agree on one thing. Waste can safely 

remain on-site for the next 100 years in dry cask storage. This ready-made option 

costs a fraction of Yucca Mountain’s price tag and avoids transportation risks. 

Remember, on-site storage is already being done and the fact remains that waste 

is going to stay at existing and former plant sites for at least another decade or 

more, even under the rosiest of scenarios. 

This brings me to a key point: Those looking at alternatives to current nuclear 

waste policy should not rush to move waste to Yucca Mountain given the evolution 

in thinking that is now taking place. 

This includes interest in the construction of a U.S. reprocessing plant—which I 

oppose—that would treat waste before it is sent to a repository. 

Such a scheme raises the question of how many times we are planning to ship 

high-level nuclear waste. 

Will it go to Nevada first, only to be removed and sent to a reprocessing plant, 

then re-shipped to my home state? 

And what about interim storage? Do we move it from the plants to regional sites 

to reprocessing and then to Nevada? 

Leaving waste on-site while options are debated leaves open future alternatives 

to burying this garbage in the Nevada desert. 

But what about consolidating the waste in one place? 

Here is what the nuclear industry does not want you to know: Yucca Mountain 

will NOT eliminate nuclear waste at plants where power is being generated. 

This is a patently false claim used to justify a flawed policy. Simply put: as long 

as a nuclear power plant is operating, some amount of nuclear waste will remain. 

We are not creating one repository to hold all waste for all time; we are just creating 

one more place where toxic nuclear waste will be stored. 

Under current law, Yucca Mountain is already full. No new waste from even a 

single new nuclear power plant can be sent to Nevada without lifting the cap now 

in place. This remains a key unanswered question in light of calls for dozens of new 

nuclear power plants to be built in coming years. 

This fact also highlights why nuclear power can never be called a clean source 

of energy when the waste created by these plants remains a threat for hundreds 

of thousands of years. Our nation’s energy future should be built on solar and other 

forms of green energy that do not create the type of deadly radioactive by-products 

set to be dumped at Yucca Mountain. 

Finally, I would note that Nevada’s Congressional delegation and the State are 

challenging a $100 million no-bid sweetheart contract for work on Yucca Mountain 

to a law firm with a blatant conflict of interest. 

Twice we have asked as a delegation for the Secretary of Energy to recuse the 

firm of Morgan Lewis, which is both suing the taxpayers on behalf of the nuclear 

industry, while also representing the Energy Department on the taxpayers’ dollar. 

We have yet to receive an answer. 

This acknowledged conflict of interest has also raised red flags at the Justice Department which has questioned the awarding of this no-bid contract given the potential impact on cases involving huge liability claims. 

The families of Nevada deserve fair treatment in the Yucca Mountain licensing 

process and the taxpayers of America deserve to have their financial interests protected. Morgan Lewis should be replaced and this $100 million contract put forward 

again with an open and fair bidding process. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions. 

SUMMARY

Nevada families overwhelmingly oppose Yucca Mountain. One simple reason: it’s 

not safe. 

Consistent 25-year opposition to Yucca Mountain remains as strong as ever. Polls 

show more than 75% of residents want to continue fighting proposal. 

14 

Nevadans recognize dangers of burying nuclear waste 90 minutes from Las 

Vegas—Nevada’s economic engine, home to more than two million residents and a 

destination that draws 40 million visitors annually. 

Must keep in mind Yucca Mountain’s bloated price tag, history of chronic delays, 

failed quality assurance program, and the long list of scientific and technological 

shortcomings that plague the project. Worker e-mails uncovered with statements 

such as: ‘‘In the end I keep track of 2 sets of files, the ones that will keep QA happy 

and the ones that were actually used,’’ and ‘‘If they need more proof I will be happy 

to make up more stuff.’’ 

Unresolved issues surrounding the proposed dump: No radiation standard. This 

issue is a key basis for determining Yucca Mountain’s performance, yet DOE filed 

its license application without finalization of this important safeguard. 

Violent earthquakes and volcanoes have rocked Yucca Mountain in the past and 

there is no reason to think these threats cannot strike again. 

No canister currently exists that is capable of storing waste. Plans also call for 

billions of dollars in drip shields to be added by robots that have yet to be invented. 

Transportation Dangers: 50 million Americans will be at risk from thousands of 

nuclear waste shipments. Each a prime target for terrorists. Accidents will leave 

families and communities vulnerable to threats and millions of dollars in potential 

clean-up costs. 

Yucca Mountain is decades behind schedule: Waste shipments were supposed to 

begin arriving in Nevada in 1998. Today, that date has slipped to 2020 or beyond 

and it will be 2050 or later before all current waste is shipped. 

Price tag for Yucca Mountain has ballooned. Congress has been told to expect a 

figure near $80 billion mark. Project already qualifies as a prime example of Grade 

‘‘A’’ radioactive pork. 

Waste does not have to be moved. Waste can safely remain on-site for the next 

100 years in dry cask storage. Costs a fraction of Yucca Mountain’s price tag and 

avoids transportation risks. Interest in U.S. reprocessing plant raises question of 

how many times waste would be moved. Leaving waste on-site while options are debated leaves open future alternatives to burying in Nevada. 

Yucca Mountain will NOT eliminate nuclear waste at plants where power is being 

generated. As long as a nuclear power plant is operating, nuclear waste will remain. 

We are not creating one repository to hold all waste for all time; we are just creating 

one more place where toxic nuclear waste will be stored. 

Yucca Mountain is already full. No new waste from even a single new nuclear 

power plant can be sent to Nevada without lifting the cap now in place. Key point 

in light of calls for dozens of new nuclear power plants to be built in coming years. 

Shows why nuclear power not a clean source of electricity. 

Nevada’s Congressional delegation and the State are challenging a $100 million 

no-bid sweetheart contract for work on Yucca Mountain to a law firm with a blatant 

conflict of interest. 

Nevada delegation has asked the Secretary of Energy to recuse the firm of Morgan Lewis. Conflict of interest has also raised red flags at Justice Department which 

has questioned no-bid contract given potential impact on cases involving huge liability claims. Morgan Lewis must be replaced and the $100 million contract put forward again with open and fair bidding process. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. You are very welcome. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. We appreciate your testimony here this morning. 

Thank you. We will turn now to our second panel of witnesses for 

the morning. Mr. Edward Sproat is the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste for the Department of Energy. Mr. Michael Weber is Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mr. Robert Meyers, the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator with the 

Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. John Garrick is the Chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Mr. Marvin Fertel is the Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

And Ms. Anne George is a Commissioner with the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control and Chair of the National AssoVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:31 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-135 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
15 

ciation of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Committee on Electricity. We welcome each of our witnesses this morning, and thank 

you for taking time to share your views with us on this matter of 

concern to many. Your prepared written statements will be made 

a part of our record, and we would welcome you oral summaries, 

and ask that your oral summaries be kept to approximately 5 minutes. And, Mr. Sproat, we have already commended you for your 

early filing of the application for a license with the NRC, and we 

will be happy to hear your testimony this morning regarding that 

and other matters relating to the status of the Yucca Mountain 

project. We welcome you and we will be glad to hear from you at 

this time. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. SPROAT, III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. SPROAT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Upton and members of the committee. Thank you very much for inviting me to address the Committee this morning. I would like to 

just talk about briefly the Department’s accomplishments over the 

past 2 years since my last appearance before this committee in 

July of 2006, and I would like to talk briefly about the challenges 

the Yucca Mountain program faces moving forward. In the hearing 

in July of 2006 when I was here, I gave you a number of intermediate milestones that need to be accomplished before we would 

be able to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. I also indicated that we would submit that license application by Monday, June 30, 2008, and I am very happy to acknowledge the fact that we met or beat all the intermediate milestones except the one that we missed by 2 weeks, and we submitted the application to the NRC on June 3 of this year. 

I am very pleased to say we accomplished those milestones and 

submitted that license application despite the fact that over the 

past 2 fiscal years we received $200 million less in appropriations 

than what the President had asked for in FY 2007 and 2008. And 

we were able to accomplish these significant milestones with significantly less dollars because of 2 things. One is that we made significant improvements in how this program is being managed in 

terms of its processes. We strengthened the management team. But 

the second key reason is because we have a great team that we 

have pulled together, both federal employees and contractors, who 

are very focused on making these milestones happen, and I believe 

we have turned the corner on the Yucca Mountain program in 

terms of having a top notch management team and contractor team 

working together to make this program move forward. 

This team that is going to be in place after I leave is very well 

positioned to be ready to begin construction on the repository 3 to 

4 years from now if the NRC gives us a construction authorization, 

which I believe that they will based on our high quality license application. Regarding new nuclear plants, which was referred to in 

a few of the opening statements, we have been working with the 

Department of Justice to develop an amendment to the standard 

contract so that those companies interested in building new nuclear 

plants could sign a contract with the Department of Energy to 

16 

allow them to get a license for those new nuclear plants. Suffice it 

to say we would not sign the existing standard contract given that 

it requires us to begin accepting fuel in 1998, but we have reached 

agreement with DOJ, and we have, in fact, started discussions with 

several utilities who are interested in building new nuclear power 

plants. I would be glad to talk about that amendment if the committee so desires. 

We also have completed 4 reports which are in the final stage of 

review, which I anticipate us issuing here in the next several 

weeks. That is an updated Total System Life Cycle Cost estimate, 

the Fee Adequacy Assessment for the nuclear waste fund, a report 

on Interim Storage as requested by the House Appropriations Committee early this year, and finally the report on the need for a second repository as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which 

requires us to submit a report to Congress on that subject by January 1, 2010. All 4 of those reports are to be released imminently. 

Let me just switch quickly to the key issues going forward for the 

program. Number 1 is funding, and I know this committee is very 

well aware of this issue. I heard it in several of the opening statements. Remember that we could be ready to proceed with construction of the repository in 3 to 4 years from now if we receive a construction authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

This program has been funded historically at levels of between $350 million to $500 million a year. That will not be sufficient to 

build and operate the repository, the Nevada rail line, and operate 

this repository. Based on our revised cost estimates, based on the 

design that we have submitted in the license application, and the 

cost estimates based on that design, we are looking at a budget authority requirement of between $1.2 to $1.9 billion a year for the 

construction period and into the operating period for the repository, 

so you can see there is quite a gap between the $350 million to 

$500 million that the program has received in the past versus what 

it is going to need to actually be constructed and operated. The nuclear waste fund has about $21 billion in it right now. It 

receives $750 million a year in fees from the utility industry, and 

interest is accumulating at about $900 million a year, but this committee is well aware of the flaws in the budgetary framework for 

that fund, and I am sure we will be talking about that later in the 

hearing. We have submitted legislation in the last 2 Congresses to 

try and fix this issue. Unfortunately, that legislation has gone nowhere, but quite frankly I believe that now that the license application has been submitted there will be renewed interest in both 

houses to see if this issue can be addressed. This is the key issue 

for moving Yucca Mountain forward. 

We have talked also briefly about the liability of the taxpayer associated with the government’s non-performance to the standard 

contracts. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not allow us to move 

spent nuclear fuel until the repository is in operation, and as a result if we don’t open the repository until 2020, which is now our 

best achievable date, we are estimating taxpayer liability to be 

about $11 billion at that stage of the game. Clearly, the least cost 

option for the taxpayer and for the ratepayer is to move forward 

and get Yucca open as quickly as we can. Other key issues that we 

are facing just so the committee is aware, and I will be glad to talk 

17 

about these if requested, land withdrawal. We do need to legislatively withdraw the land around the repository in order for the 

NRC to give us a construction authorization. That does require legislation. And water rights is another key issue and also the 70,000 

metric ton administrative limit on the capacity of Yucca Mountain. 

All of those have been addressed in the legislation that we submitted to Congress in the last 2 congressional sessions. 

To summarize, I believe we have made substantial progress with 

Yucca Mountain over the last 2 years, and we have submitted a 

very high quality license application to the NRC. I have every reason to believe and expect that we will get an authorization to begin 

construction for Yucca in the next 3 to 4 years, but we will need 

the help of Congress to restore access to the nuclear waste fund 

and the fees as was the original intent of Congress when the nuclear waste fund was established in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

I believe I have an excellent federal senior management team 

that will take this program forward after I leave, and I will be very 

happy to answer any questions the committee may have when it 

is my turn. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sproat follows:] 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Sproat. Mr. Weber. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. WEBER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. WEBER. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is my honor to be before you today to discuss the process 

that the NRC is using to review the license application submitted 

by the U.S. Department of Energy for a high-level waste repository 

at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The NRC takes no position at this 

time on whether the geologic repository can be built or operated 

safely at Yucca Mountain. That remains to be determined after our 

review of the license application. I want to assure you, however, 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that we will base 

our decision on whether to authorize construction on NRC’s comprehensive and independent safety review and the results of a full 

and impartial adjudicatory hearing. 

The NRC developed and maintains its high-level radioactive 

waste regulatory program, consistent with our responsibilities 

under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Energy Policy Act of 

1992. The Congress assigned the NRC the regulatory authority to 

determine whether to authorize construction of the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and evaluating DOE’s license application. 

NRC received that application, as Mr. Sproat said, on June 3, 2008. 

Before NRC can begin its full safety review, however, we must first 

decide whether to accept that application for review. NRC’s review 

process is depicted on the screen. NRC will first decide whether the 

application contains sufficient information for the staff to commence a detailed technical review. We must also decide whether to 

adopt DOE’s environmental impact statement. If NRC staff accepts 

the application for review, we would docket the application, begin 

our formal safety review, and publish a notice of docketing in the 

Federal Register. We expect to make this decision by early September. At that time, NRC staff would also determine whether to 

adopt the EIS, adopt the EIS in part and require further supplementation, or not adopt the EIS without further supplementation. 

A Notice of Hearing would also offer interested persons the opportunity to file petitions to intervene and to request a hearing. 

NRC’s evaluation of DOE’s license application is proceeding. The 

NRC staff is prepared to conduct a detailed independent technical 

review of that application. Supporting NRC in the effort is the 

NRC’s Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses associated 

with the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. The 

NRC staff would examine the license application to determine if 

the Department of Energy has shown the proposed repository 

would protect people and the environment in compliance with 

NRC’s requirements. The NRC would provide the opportunity for 

public hearings on DOE’s application that would follow well-established rules and procedures. NRC would decide whether to authorize construction of the proposed repository by objectively reviewing 

the information submitted, by making decisions on contested matters, based on the record before it, and by maintaining an open and 

public adjudicatory process. 

31 

As the applicant, the Department bears the burden of proving its 

safety and licensing case before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board during any hearing. The Board serves as the independent, 

adjudicatory arm of the NRC. Parties may seek review of the 

Board’s decisions to the Commission. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, NRC is also directed to establish safety and license regulations consistent with the standards for Yucca Mountain set by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. NRC stands ready to conform 

our regulations to the final EPA standards when they are published. Without these final additional EPA standards, the NRC 

staff believes that it could begin to review portions of the DOE license application if we docket that application. 

We could not, however, reach any decision whether to deny or 

grant the construction authorization of the repository without these 

standards in place. In summary, the Department bears the responsibility for demonstrating that regulatory and licensing requirements are met to protect public health and safety and the environment. The NRC must independently assess this demonstration before we can decide whether to authorize construction of the repository. NRC’s ability to reach this important decision in a timely 

manner depends on 3 things: EPA’s issuance of final environmental 

standards to which NRC can conform our regulations; timely and 

high quality responses to any requests for additional information 

that NRC provides the Department of Energy; and sufficient resources from the Congress for NRC to conduct its technical review 

and carry out its public hearing process. 

I can assure you that NRC is committed to conducting a full and 

impartial review of the Department’s application. Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss, and I look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:] 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Weber. Mr. Meyers. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. MEYERS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. MEYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I would like to begin by briefly describing EPA’s responsibilities for establishing standards for Yucca Mountain and why 

we have proposed revised standards. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982 initially prescribed the roles and responsibilities of federal 

agencies in the development of disposal facilities for spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level waste. EPA was identified as the agency responsible for establishing standards to protect the general environment 

for such facilities. In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress delineated the EPA’s roles and responsibilities specific to the Federal 

Government’s establishment of the potential repository at Yucca 

Mountain. 

Under that law, EPA’s role is to promulgate standards for the 

Yucca Mountain high-level waste facility in order to protect public 

health and safety. Congress specified that EPA is to develop these 

standards specifically for the Yucca Mountain site and as the only 

such standards applicable to the site. The standards are to be incorporated into the NRC licensing requirements for Yucca Mountain, and the facility would open only if, as mentioned previously, 

the NRC determines that DOE complied with the NRC regulations. 

In establishing EPA’s role, Congress also stated that the EPA safety standards are to be based upon and consistent with the findings 

and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. 

EPA established its Yucca Mountain standards in June 2001. As 

required by the Energy Policy Act, these standards addressed releases of radioactive material during storage at the site and after 

final disposal. The storage standard set a dose limit of 15 millirem 

per year for the public outside the Yucca Mountain site. The disposal standards consisted of 3 components, an individual dose 

standard, a standard evaluating the impacts of human intrusion 

into the repository, and a groundwater protection standard. The individual-protection and human-intrusion standards set of limit of 

15 millirem per year to a reasonably maximally exposed individual, 

or RMEI, which would be among the most highly exposed members 

of the public. 

The groundwater protection standard was consistent with EPA’s 

drinking water standards. The disposal standards were to apply for 

a period of 10,000 years after the facility is closed. Those assessments were to continue beyond 10,000 years and be placed in 

DOE’s Environmental Impact Statement, but were not subject to a 

compliance standard. The 10,000 year period for compliance assessment was consistent with EPA’s generally applicable standards developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It also reflected international guidance regarding the level of confidence that can be 

placed in numerical projections over very long periods of time. 

As the Committee may be well aware, in July, 2004, the Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia court circuit found in favor 

of the Agency on all counts except one, the 10,000 year regulatory 

timeframe. The court that the timeframe of EPA’s standards was 

39 

not consistent with the National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations. EPA proposed a revised rule to address the Appeals 

Court decision, and the proposed rule would limit radiation doses 

for Yucca Mountain for up to 1 million years after it closes. Within 

that regulatory timeframe, we propose 2 dose standards that will 

apply based on number of years from the time the facility is closed. 

For the first 10,000 years the proposal retained the 2001 final rules 

dose limit of 15 millirem per year, and this is the level of protection 

at the most stringent radiation regulations in the U.S. today. From 

10,000 to 1 million years, we proposed a dose limit of 350 millirem 

per year. 

In the time since the closure of the public comment period, we 

have considered and continue to consider the more than 2,000 comments we received on the proposed rule. A document putting forth 

our responses to all comments will be published along with the 

final rule. Since the draft final rule was submitted for OMB review, 

we have also engaged in productive discussions internally and with 

other federal agencies about the important and complex issues that 

have been raised. We look forward to concluding our analysis of the 

public comments and issuing the final rule. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and present this update on EPA’s Yucca Mountain 

standards. This concludes my prepared statement, and I will be 

happy to address any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyers follows:] 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyers. Dr. Garrick. 

STATEMENT OF B. JOHN GARRICK, CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR 

WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD 

Mr. GARRICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

good morning. My name is John Garrick. I am Chairman of the 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and a consultant specializing in the application of the risk sciences to complex technological 

systems. I am pleased to represent the Board at this hearing. I will 

summarize my written remarks and ask that they be entered into 

the hearing record. As has been discussed, Mr. Chairman, after 

many years of characterizing Yucca Mountain, DOE recently submitted a license application to the NRC. As has already been indicated this morning, Ward Sproat of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and his managers, engineers, and scientists deserve to be recognized for their hard work in achieving 

this major program milestone. 

The questions asked by the subcommittee in the invitation letter 

about what happens next are very timely. I will do my best to 

present the Board’s answers to the question as directly and concisely as possible. First, Mr. Chairman, as far as the timing of licensing decisions is concerned, NRC can respond better to those 

questions. The subcommittee also asked about the roles of the various groups going forward. The board’s technical role was established in the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

The board performs an unbiased, ongoing peer review of the technical and scientific validity of DOE activities related to implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

We take an integrated view of the many different elements of 

DOE’s program and focus on fundamental understanding as opposed to regulatory compliance. We report our findings and recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Energy at least 

twice a year. Because the Board is completely independent, it does 

not have a direct stake in the development of a Yucca Mountain 

repository, and it will not be a party to their licensing proceeding. 

That is as it should be. But we make the Board’s body of technical 

work available by posting its letters, reports, congressional testimony, and meeting transcripts on our Web site. Anyone can use 

this technical information including parties involved in the NRC’s 

licensing proceedings. 

Consistent with its congressional mandate, the Board will continue to report its integrated technical findings and recommendations to DOE and Congress. The subcommittee asked about technical issues that might cause delay or have budget implications. As 

part of the ongoing evaluation, the Board has identified several priority technical issues that if addressed could increase operational 

effectiveness or feasibility, enhance the technical basis for repository performance estimates, or improve fundamental understanding. I want to make clear, Mr. Chairman, that by identifying 

these issues the Board is not commenting on the sufficiency of 

DOE’s license application. NRC will make that determination. Furthermore, the Board did not uncover any issue that it believes 

would have prevented DOE from submitting its license application 

for regulatory review. I will begin by commenting on three 

45 

preclosure issues that in the Board’s opinion could significantly affect funding requirements and schedules. Subsequently, I will address some post-closure issues. 

First, DOE’s use of a canister known as TAD that can be used 

for transportation, aging, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel may 

have merit. However, a TAD that could be transported by truck 

does not currently exist, making the Nevada rail line necessary for 

transporting spent fuel to the repository. DOE has acknowledged 

that constructing a Nevada rail line may present significant institutional challenges. The board has recommended that DOE initiate 

contingency planning to identify alternatives that can be implemented if delays are encountered in building the rail line. Second, 

DOE assumes that 90 percent of spent nuclear fuel will arrive at 

the repository in TAD canisters. However, utilities may need incentives to use TADs and some nuclear plants may lack the necessary 

infrastructure to handle large TADs. Lower TAD utilization could 

adversely affect surface facility through-put and require construction of additional waste handling facilities or increase the amount 

of spent fuel placed in storage at the repository site. 

The Board recommends that DOE consider contingencies that 

could be implemented if TAD utilization rates are lower than the 

90 percent assumed. Third, repository performance estimates included in DOE’s total system performance assessment or TSPA depend on drip shields to prevent water and rocks from falling on 

waste packages. However, DOE assumptions about drift degradation and repository tunnel tolerances may make installation of the 

drip shields, as they are currently designed, problematic. Let me 

identify some examples of post-closure performance issues. They 

are the potential for deliquescence-induced localized corrosion of 

the waste packages during the thermal pulse, questions about the 

rates of general corrosion of waste packages, and the magnitude 

and variability of water recharge that occurs as a result of climate 

change. 

We also will continue to follow DOE’s work on seismicity and 

volcanism at Yucca Mountain. The Board believes that addressing 

these issues is feasible and could reduce uncertainty and strengthen the technical basis for DOE’s repository performance estimates. 

Mr. Chairman, even though DOE has made significant progress 

over the last several years in enhancing the technical basis for the 

assumptions and analyses in TSPA, when estimating repository 

performance for up to 1 million years some uncertainty is inevitable. Deciding how best to address such uncertainties can be challenging. DOE has addressed uncertainties by making what they 

consider to be conservative assumptions and using probabilistic 

representations of performance indicators, probability being the 

language of uncertainty. Another way to address uncertainty is to 

get more information so that the uncertainties can be reduced. In 

that regard, the Board has suggested design changes, contingency 

planning, and additional research. 

In answer to your question about schedules and budgets the different approaches require different time and resource commitments. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Board historically has not recommended changes in legislation and policy because it views its 

role as providing needed technical context and information for deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:31 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-135 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
46 

sion makers. The Board is very comfortable with its statutory mandate and takes very seriously. We look forward to continuing our 

technical peer review. On behalf of the board members, I thank the 

subcommittee for inviting us to participate in this hearing. We 

hope this information we have furnished today will be of use, and 

I will be pleased to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garrick follows:] 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Dr. Garrick. Mr. Fertel. 

STATEMENT OF MARVIN S. FERTEL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE 

Mr. FERTEL. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Upton, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on behalf of the nuclear industry. My testimony will focus on 

the following issues: the role of nuclear energy in U.S. energy policy; Yucca Mountain as an important part of an integrated approach to managing used nuclear fuel; Yucca Mountain licensing 

process; and finally, some suggestions on improvements to the federal used fuel management program. As many of you already said, 

the Nation’s 104 commercial nuclear power plans produce approximately 20 percent of our electricity and nuclear energy is by far the 

Nation’s largest source of electricity. It does not produce either 

greenhouse gases or other regulated air pollutants. 

There is a growing consensus that any credible program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and worldwide will require a portfolio of technologies and approaches and that nuclear 

energy is an indispensable part of that portfolio. While it is important to note that no new nuclear plants in the U.S. will be developed based on electricity market fundamentals the industry recognizes that the issue of safe and secure used fuel management is important to all stakeholders as they look at the benefits of nuclear 

energy towards meeting our electricity supply requirements and 

environmental goals. Congress should have continued confidence in 

the industry’s demonstrated ability to safely and securely manage 

used nuclear fuel. This performance provides a solid under pinning 

for the continued and expanded use of nuclear energy. NRC’s existing waste confidence rule provides a basis for addressing this issue 

in licensing proceedings. 

Absent the passage of legislation that codifies waste confidence 

from a national policy perspective, the basis for the existing NRC 

rule could be strengthened. Therefore, the industry believes that it 

is appropriate for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to update its 

waste confidence finding through rulemaking. In this regard, we 

look forward to the NRC expediting a rulemaking on this issue beginning this year. The renewed interest in nuclear energy has led 

to a dialogue and growing consensus that an integrated approach 

to managing used nuclear fuel is needed. This approach consists of 

the following elements: centralized interim storage; appropriate research, development, demonstration and ultimately deployment of 

advanced recycling technologies to derive additional energy from 

used nuclear fuel and reduce the volume, heat, and radiotoxicity of 

fuel cycle byproducts; and ultimate disposal of those byproducts in 

a repository. 

The growing interest in central interim storage and nuclear fuel 

recycling does not eliminate the need for geologic disposal of the residual waste products from recycling, though it certainly could significantly modify the waste forms, volumes, toxicity, and repository 

designs associated with the final disposal of those products. The 

June 3, 2008, submittal of DOE’s application to NRC to construct 

the Yucca Mountain repository represents a very significant step in 

55 

a robust and rigorous scientific process towards development of a 

disposal facility. As others have said, Ward Sproat and the Yucca 

Mountain project team ought to be complimented for their effort in 

completing and submitting the license application. Like our experience in licensing operating reactors and other fuel cycle facilities, 

we expect the Yucca Mountain licensing process will be fair, open, 

transparent, and rigorous. DOE must demonstrate to the NRC that 

the repository will protect public health, safety, and the environment. Otherwise, the repository will not be licensed. 

The industry intends to participate as a party to the Yucca 

Mountain licensing process to help support a transparent, rigorous, 

and timely process, and to protect industry and its customers interest. Turning now to improvements to the used fuel management 

program. The Yucca Mountain licensing process is only one part of 

a larger effort to safely and securely manage used nuclear fuel. The 

first improvement needed reflects the need to allow the use of the 

nuclear waste fund for its intended purposes. Consumer commitments to the fund plus interest totaled $30 billion since 1983. To 

date, only a fraction of this money has been allocated for its intended purposes. Changes to how the contributions are made to 

and disbursements are taken from the fund are necessary. 

Second, a more effective management structure is needed to assure that all three elements of the integrated used fuel management program are effectively and efficiently carried out. Making 

the fund available will not by itself lead to success. Congress 

should consider alternative management structures for implementing the integrated used fuel program that allow private sector 

principles and public-private partnership arrangements to be effectively applied to better program management and implementation 

in the future. Industry urges the Committee to hold hearings to explore potential future funding and management options for implementing this more comprehensive used nuclear fuel program. In 

closing, I would again like to thank this committee for its diligence 

and commitment to insuring that our nation continues to benefit 

from the electricity provided by nuclear power plants and for its 

help in improving the implementation of and confidence in our nation’s used nuclear fuel management program. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fertel follows:] 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Fertel. Ms. George. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE C. GEORGE, COMMISSIONER, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL; 

CHAIR, NARUC COMMITTEE ON ELECTRICITY 

Ms. GEORGE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Upton, members of the subcommittee. As the chairman indicated, 

I am a Commissioner from the Connecticut Public Utility Control 

Department, and as well I am a member of the NARUC Electricity 

Committee and Chairman of the Electricity Committee. I am testifying today on behalf of NARUC. NARUC’s goals in the nuclear 

waste area are well known. Our members have been here several 

times and in other committee forums, and our message has been 

very consistent. Simply put, the Federal Government needs to meet 

its obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to accept spent 

nuclear fuel from utilities and other nuclear generators in a timely 

manner for safe disposal. 

The Nation’s ratepayers have upheld their end of the bargain struck in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by providing more than $27 

billion for use in constructing a nuclear waste repository. Connecticut ratepayers alone have paid $766 million into the fund. Additionally, NARUC believes that the nuclear waste fund should 

only be employed for its intended purpose. Monies in the fund 

should be utilized for the sole purpose of supporting the opening of 

the Yucca Mountain facility in a timely fashion. NARUC was very 

encouraged with the filing of the Yucca Mountain construction license application. We commend the DOE for their work on this 

project of unprecedented scale. But as we move forward, we feel 

there is a critical need to address the financial basis for the program that will offer greater certainty than the year-to-year suspense of the current appropriations process. As many of the members in their opening statements commented, this current appropriations process doesn’t seem to work well for this large scale 

project. 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act created a well-designed fund that 

was intended to collect fees based on generation of electricity from 

nuclear sources sufficient to pay for the safe disposal of commercial 

spent fuel in a geologic repository. However, in reality the fund is 

not operating as intended. There is no connection between the revenue collected from the country’s ratepayers and appropriations for 

the project. The appropriations that have been made available to 

the repository program have continuously been reduced by Congress, and we acknowledge and appreciate past attempts by the 

Energy and Commerce Committee to reform the way in which appropriations are made from the nuclear waste fund, and we also 

appreciate that the Administration has twice proposed legislative 

remedy through the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act. 

However, none of these reforms have moved forward to actual 

passage and NARUC is concerned that the current appropriations 

process will not be adequate to support the timely design and construction of the project. I believe Mr. Sproat laid out well the budgetary disconnect between what the appropriations have been and 

what the program needs are. I am going to just touch on a few 

other matters of concern for NARUC members briefly. We encourVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:31 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-135 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
63 

age the DOE to develop a plan for DOE to move spent fuel from 

the decommissioned reactor storage sites that exist around the 

States. We have one such site in East Haddam, Connecticut, the 

former Connecticut Yankee facility. With the removal of the spent 

fuel, these sites can be fully decommissioned and reclaimed for 

other beneficial uses. 

Also, many people are fearful of the perceived risk of transportation of spent fuel and other high-level radioactive material. 

NARUC believes that education and nuclear waste transportation 

is vital to increasing understanding and public confidence in the 

transportation of spent nuclear fuel. In conclusion, we are pleased 

that the matter of the safety and suitability of the proposed repository is before the NRC, which is the agency designated by law and 

with expertise to make those determinations. It goes without saying that NARUC wants the repository to meet all safety and health 

standards. At this time, I will wrap up, and I want to thank the 

Committee for its attention. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. George follows:] 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, Ms. George, thank you very much and thank 

each of the witnesses for your testimony here this morning. Mr. 

Sproat, let me begin my questions with you. There is currently in 

law a 70,000 ton statutory limit on the capacity of Yucca Mountain. 

On what is that limit based? Was it an arbitrary decision or was 

it based on some technical characteristic of the site? 

Mr. SPROAT. Well, Mr. Chairman, that limit is in the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act, and since I wasn’t around at that point in time, 

I don’t know exactly all the logic but all of our studies including 

our environmental impact studies indicate that the technical capability of Yucca Mountain repository is at least twice that, and there 

have been some studies done by the Electric Power Research Institute to indicate 3 to 4 times that amount. I will say, however, that 

we are about ready to issue a report on the need for a second repository, and one of the things that report will point out is that in the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act as it is currently written, that 70,000 

metric ton limit on Yucca only applies until a second repository 

goes into operation. If a second repository is licensed and goes into 

operation somewhere else in the U.S. that 70,000 metric ton limit 

on Yucca expires. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Meaning that it is eliminated? 

Mr. SPROAT. That is correct. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Meaning that more waste could then be stored at 

Yucca? 

Mr. SPROAT. That is correct. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And that is current law? 

Mr. SPROAT. That is current law. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Dr. Garrick, do you happen to know whether or 

not there was some technical reason related to the characteristics 

of the site itself that that 70,000 ton limit was chosen? 

Mr. GARRICK. No. The board—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. That is a sufficient answer. My time is a little limited so let me just move on to something else. It is just a curious 

matter as to why that number was said, and I am looking for some 

rationale for it. At the current level, I think the U.S. Government 

has already assumed about $250 million in liability to the electric 

utilities for not having met the commitment which matured in 

1998, that the high-level waste be taken by the Federal Government from those utilities. And obviously that sum will grow over 

time, which leads to the question of whether or not it might be 

more cost effective to have an interim storage facility that would 

be under government ownership that would then take that waste 

and store it in one central location. 

I think another argument potentially for doing that is that the 

central storage of that waste might be safer than keeping the 

waste at a variety of sites around the country, each of which might 

have its own particular vulnerabilities. Mr. Sproat, what is your 

view of that, first in terms of cost effectiveness and then secondly 

in terms of whether or not a central facility might be safer? 

Mr. SPROAT. Mr. Chairman, we have completed our report on the 

interim storage option that the House Appropriations Committee 

asked us to prepare, and it is in final review. Essentially what that 

report is going to say is that, number 1, in order for the Department to have the authority to proceed with interim storage at a 

78 

central location, we would need additional legislative authority. 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act specifically does not allow us to take 

commercial spent nuclear fuel until Yucca Mountain is operational. 

We do have authority to take—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, understanding we would have to pass another law to make that possible. Let us get to whether or not it is 

a good idea. First, what is your judgment on that? 

Mr. SPROAT. I don’t believe so, and I will tell you why. Number 

1 is that, first of all, we would have to find a site for it, and while 

some folks have said, well, we will find a local community that 

would be willing to host it, I would say that Nye County in Nevada, 

which is the host county for the Yucca Mountain repository, would 

like to host the repository, but the State is obviously, as Ms. Berkley talked about, is very much opposed. The siting of an interim location and the gaining of not only local acceptance but State acceptance and surrounding State acceptance is very problematic, 

and when you take a look at realistically, number 1, could that be 

done and, if so, how long it would take, at the point where we are 

now 3 to 4 years away from possibly being ready to begin construction of Yucca Mountain. I don’t believe it is a cost effective solution. 

Mr. BOUCHER. All right. That is a thorough answer. Thank you. 

Mr. Meyers, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the original EPA health and safety radiation standard, 

and required that you formulate one based on a million year time 

horizon. Where are you in completing that work and do you have 

a projected date by which that standard will be completed, realizing that it has to be used by the NRC in reviewing the license 

application? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are well aware of our role 

and responsibilities in this matter. We did go out in response to the 

district court case. We have been in an interagency review and a 

number of discussions, and we would be hopeful to resolve those 

discussions in a timely fashion. So we anticipate we will complete 

our duties under the law and promulgate a final standard. 

Mr. BOUCHER. By what date? I am sorry. 

Mr. MEYERS. I probably cannot give you a specific date, sir. I 

would like to do that, but I am not in a position to do that. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Can you give me a suggested timeframe within 

which you might do that? 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, this Administration is committed to finishing 

its work so—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. During the course of this Administration? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, that is a very good answer. Thank you. My 

time has about expired. Dr. Garrick, I have one additional question 

for you. A number of the members of this subcommittee have expressed an interest in exploring the possibility of having nuclear 

waste reprocessing, and there are many technical issues that are 

associated with the potential for moving to that strategy. Before 

any further consideration could take place of that, I think we would 

have a range of technical questions that we would need to have answered. Does your organization have any history of looking at that 

issue and is it within your charter to consider and perhaps answer 

the questions associated with reprocessing? 

79 

Mr. GARRICK. Our Board has not looked at reprocessing. We have 

looked at—we have been pretty much focused on the issues associated with implementing the act and how it is being implemented 

at the current time. The board certainly has technical capability to 

address a much broader scope of questions relating to waste and 

waste handling than just analyzing the Yucca Mountain project, we 

have not been asked to do that. 

Mr. BOUCHER. But if we were to pose questions to you, you are 

in a position to respond? 

Mr. GARRICK. Yes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, that is good to know. Thank you. My time 

has expired. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up 

on two of your questions. First of all, Mr. Sproat, the question was 

raised about the 70,000 metric tons of waste in terms of a cap. You 

indicated a couple ways that the cap could be lifted. What are the 

estimates in terms of how much the repository physically can hold? 

Mr. SPROAT. In our current documents, and because the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act places that 70,000 metric ton limit on it our license application only analyzes or designs the repository to that 

limit. But our environmental impact studies looked at, I believe it 

is 130,000 metric tons, and indicated that would not have any adverse environmental impact of that level. We at the Department 

haven’t evaluated anything higher than that, but the geologists tell 

me who know the site pretty well, there is plenty of room to go 

larger than that. 

Mr. UPTON. OK. Mr. Meyers, you indicated that you thought that 

the radioactivity standard would be done yet this year or at least 

by January 19 of next year. Mr. Weber, if they don’t issue a final 

radioactivity standard, will you be able to complete your review of 

DOE’s license application? 

Mr. WEBER. No, sir. 

Mr. UPTON. OK. Mr. Sproat—I just wanted a yes or no. There 

are a number of us that have supported taking the nuclear waste 

fund off-budget. If we were able to take it off-budget, could you tell 

us how that might expedite construction of the repository? 

Mr. SPROAT. We are at a point now where now that we have a 

preliminary design that we have submitted with the license application, the shortest potential critical path to get us to opening the 

repository in the best achievable schedule is 2020. And we have rebaselined the program based on receiving flat funding at about 

$495 million a year for this year and the next 3 years. But then 

at that point in time ramping up the funding to approximately $2 

billion a year, and it varies from year to year. Every year we don’t 

hit that funding profile that date will push out. 

Mr. UPTON. So, Mr. Weber, if the energy and water appropriation 

bill freezes things at the ’08 level, which I guess is likely to do 

based on what we are seeing in terms of the appropriations committee now, how will that affect—how will even a 1-year freeze impact the review of the license application? 

Mr. WEBER. It will put the NRC’s ability to complete the construction authorization decision in 3 to 4 years in peril. At that 

level of funding which already started in fiscal year ’08 it is reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:31 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-135 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
80 

duced below what the NRC projected would be necessary in order 

to support the 3 to 4 year review. 

Mr. UPTON. By about a billion dollars? 

Mr. WEBER. No, sir. Our appropriations are far less than—— 

Mr. UPTON. No, but the shortfall being about a billion dollars? 

Mr. WEBER. I believe in fiscal year ’09 the House Appropriations Committee boosted by $36 million, which puts us in the range of 

support on an annual basis that we would need to meet the 3 to 

4 year review cycle. 

Mr. UPTON. OK. Ms. George, has your organization taken a stand 

on taking the funding off-budget? 

Ms. GEORGE. Yes. It is something that we have supported in the 

past and we continue to support. We think that as Mr. Sproat indicated, when you look at what the program costs are and what is 

being appropriated the match isn’t there obviously and the best 

way to handle that is to take it off-budget. 

Mr. UPTON. And I look at my State of Michigan, we have a number of different sites with nuclear reactors, two in my district. One 

is using a dry cask storage. Another one is about ready, they received a license review to do that. We have one facility that is 

closed as well up in the northern part of the peninsula and they 

are storing high-level nuclear waste there. How long do you think 

these—has NARUC looked at the number of different facilities 

around the country, 104, I think, different active reactor facilities? 

Have you all taken a stand in terms of how long you want that 

high-level nuclear waste stored in those temporary sites? 

Ms. GEORGE. At those individual sites? 

Mr. UPTON. Correct. 

Ms. GEORGE. I don’t think that we have actually—the membership has looked at the exact length of time. No, I am being told. 

I think most of the members are concerned about that, that dispersement of the storage at the individual sites, and several States 

have been in litigation with the Department of Energy over the 

moving of spent fuel to a permanent repository, and so the membership’s goal is to move it as quickly as we can, and we see the 

budget issues as being the biggest impediment right now to getting 

to that permanent repository. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Thanks very much. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Upton. The gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, is recognized for 8 minutes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. 

Sproat, Mr. Weber, Mr. Meyers, especially, I represent half of San 

Antonio, Texas. CPS Energy is the municipally-owned utility, part 

owner of the south Texas nuclear project, and a pro-advocate and 

partner with NRG on that application that is pending out there, 

one of the first in a long time. I am sure that you all are aware 

that the utility, especially a municipally-owned utility, is a tremendous investment just in the application stage, huge, and for us because it is municipally-owned that means that you have the city 

council that is involved, the ratepayers. It is very political, unlike 

maybe other situations. But what I am hearing here today is probably going to cause some concern. My fear is that it will be used 

and seized upon as an argument against expanding our portfolio to 

include greater nuclear capacity, which makes a lot of sense to me. 

81 

Mr. Weber, your testimony was that if everything doesn’t go according to plan, and Mr. Sproat, I think you really are going to be 

considering alternatives in the interim site, storage site, and so on, 

so I think we are relegated, committed to the process. But what 

Mr. Weber is saying is if things don’t go accordingly and there is 

an approval or there is delay then that application sits there in 

limbo and delays what you are already viewing as a time process 

or time line to approve an application indefinitely, is that correct? 

Mr. WEBER. If you heard that I said we were going to put it in 

limbo—no, no, you didn’t say you were going to put it in limbo but 

it does have a consequence. What is the consequence? 

Mr. SPROAT. We will review the application should we docket it 

later this year. What will happen if the NRC is not given sufficient 

appropriated funds to support that review is it will stretch out that 

review schedule. At this moment, we are preparing options for the 

Commission in light of those projected resource forecasts so that 

the Commission can decide which approach it wishes to take. We 

are committed to fulfill our statutory responsibility to the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, but we need to do 

it responsibly and responsibly to the NRC is to ensure the safety 

and the security of those that would be directly affected by the repository. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And that is understood. I mean one thing is funding, that you are adequately funded to go ahead and proceed with 

what your duties and responsibilities, and then those are predicated on obviously safety and health concerns and such. I think we 

all understand that. But I think walking away from this hearing 

today because I know I am going to be hearing from my folks back 

home as to what was the end result of what we heard here, are 

we on track, when will all this—because let me see if I got this 

straight, Mr. Sproat, if everything is according to plan, everyone is 

funded, the plans are up to muster, everything, you are looking at 

something being operational in 2020, is that correct? 

Mr. SPROAT. That is the best achievable date if everything went 

right, including the key issue of us receiving essentially an unrestrained cash flow for funding on the shortest possible critical path. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. And, Mr. Weber, if 2020 is not the target date, how does that impact the review and the approval of an 

application for expanding the south Texas nuclear project or any 

other project in the United States today? 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Gonzalez, you may be familiar with the waste 

confidence proceeding that the Commission undertook decades ago 

now. The staff was recently directed by the Commission to go back 

and revisit that Waste Confidence finding and we have recommendations now pending before the Commission, including options for the Commission to consider. I think it is important to 

point out that as part of Waste Confidence, the NRC determined 

back in 1990 that spent nuclear fuel could be safely stored with 

minimal to no environmental impact for at least 100 years, so we 

have confidence that the material could be stored safely during 

that interim period should there be a delay in the opening of the 

repository. 

82 

There is still a need for the repository, and that is why we are 

doing our part to do the licensing review if we accept the application. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So let me see, if south Texas came aboard in the 

’70s, we got 30 years so we got about 70 years to play with where 

we are going to be OK then. But what I am saying is I think delay 

doesn’t really work to anyone’s benefit, and I am going to share the 

concerns expressed by some of the individuals today, some of my 

colleagues, unfortunately, that I think that regulatory delays and 

such and implementing what we are going to have as a permanent 

site, now whether that was prudent or not, picking one huge site 

even though there may be another one in the future in retrospect 

maybe not but we are really faced with this. But the problem is 

that this particular aspect of nuclear energy is being capitalized as 

an argument against expanding our nuclear capacity. We really 

don’t need that at this point in time so your responsibility and duty 

is huge. It could very well determine where we are going. 

And I don’t know whether further judicial action may take place 

where you have a court that is going to—you may have a judge 

that simply says you still don’t have anything in place as a permanent storage so there are some concerns here and by judicial edict 

you could actually delay further implementation. This is actually 

pretty scary, but I am going to go back and finish up in the last 

couple of minutes with just a question to the first 3 members—the 

witnesses, I am sorry, Mr. Weber, Mr. Meyers, and Mr. Sproat, and 

that was what my colleague and the ranking member actually alluded to, and that was about alternatives. In his opening statement, he made some reference to alternatives. Do we have any 

other options other than what we presently have on the table, and 

of course with the opposition as expressed vigorously by Congresswoman Berkley. Do we have any other options that are realistic, 

that would be timely and feasible? 

Mr. SPROAT. I will take my first cut at answering that, Mr. Gonzalez. I believe the answer to that is today, no. The Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act set up the Federal Government direction on spent nuclear fuel with disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel and highlevel nuclear waste from the defense sector in a repository. That 

is the only direction that the Department of Energy has at this 

stage of the game. It is the only direction it has had for the last 

20 years, and we have finally gotten to the point where we are 3 

to 4 years away from knowing whether or not that path is successful or not. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Weber and Mr. Meyers, do you all have an 

opinion as to alternatives? 

Mr. WEBER. I would concur with Mr. Sproat. That is the law of 

the land as defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If there were 

a need to revisit that, the leadership would come from the Congress as advised from the agencies that are before you. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Meyers. 

Mr. MEYERS. As I stated in my opening testimony, our role here 

is to develop standards specific to the site and applicable to the site 

so that we are operating under that very specific authority in the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

83 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The information you glean from the roles that 

you presently play though I think are important if in fact somewhere along the way someone is going to say are there alternatives, so I know you have that in mind. I don’t think we are 

going to get any word on that today, but I am going to yield back 

and thank the chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my colleague from Texas’s line of questioning because you are complying 

with legislation that we passed, and the answer to my colleague’s 

question is based upon the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Another 

question could be, what legislative changes can we do to move more 

rapidly, what processes? We know we need more electricity generation for the future. We know that nuclear power should be part of 

the portfolio. I have been told—we passed loan guarantees in the 

2005 energy bill as an incentive. I have also been told that the 

most important thing that we could do is move aggressively to open 

Yucca Mountain by the nuclear power industry. It sends a signal 

to the industry that we are not going to force them to hold this 

stuff that we have agreed to take forever to a point. 

So I have a couple questions. Mr. Sproat, why don’t we consider 

the Yucca—first of all, I want to respond to my colleague, Ms. 

Berkley. I live in the Midwest, not the east, and I live down state 

in Illinois, not in the Chicagoland where all our nuclear power 

plants are except for one, but I have been to Yucca Mountain, and 

it is a mountain and it isn’t a desert and there is nobody around 

there. That is true. Where in the greater Chicagoland, I imagine 

there are 10 nuclear power plants with a population of about 91⁄2

million people around. This doesn’t take a hard jump. So why don’t 

we consider doing a couple things. If we have to go to interim storage, why not interim storage at the Yucca Mountain site? 

Mr. SPROAT. Mr. Shimkus, if we were to go with interim storage 

that would be the place that would make most sense to put it because we would eventually have to move the waste there anyway. 

However, in current law the Nuclear Waste Policy Act specifically 

prohibits the development of interim storage at the Yucca Mountain—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great, because my time is limited. Let me highlight that, Mr. Chairman. Current law. These guys are constrained 

by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If the citizens were listening to 

this debate, they would just be bonkers. Since 1982 doing this to 

where we are at today to 2020. No wonder we have energy issues, 

and no wonder we have energy problems. 

But I would think it would make sense, and it would also be 

great for the great State of Nevada if we had an interim site, we 

did a reprocessing facility right there, and then the high-level remaining residue could go right into the mountain. It is clear and 

we need to change the law to do that. Ms. George, we have talked 

about last week again going back to the other bill on carbon capture and sequestration about the roles of the Utility Commission 

on rates and what you have done. And, of course, the rates that 

you have agreed to allow to be charged to go to this fund was also 

part of our debate. Why isn’t there a movement by the Utility 

84 

ommissioners to say the Federal Government has overcharged, 

they are not paying foCr the site, we are going to drop that rate 

off the bill? Why don’t you get some federalism backbone and call 

our bluff? 

Ms. GEORGE. Well, we have tried to do that by actually preventing the rates to be collected. We haven’t gone that far but that 

is the purpose of me being here today and NARUC, we passed several policy resolutions. We have been here on the Hill testifying numerous times on this. I agree with you, it is outrageous that ratepayers have had to pay this fund for this number—this rate for 

this number of years. And we are getting to a point definitely 

where we are fed up with this now getting to the point of not approving the rate as not being fair and reasonable because it is not 

going to the intended purpose. Obviously, that is something that 

would be the next step. But we have a federal law in place that 

allows for these costs and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But that is a thing that the State commissioners 

and the State could decide to do. You could decide that so much 

money has gone to this fund, so little has been paid out, the Federal Government is not meeting its obligations, we are not collecting it for the Federal Government anymore. States could make 

that decision. I am just doing this based upon our debate last week 

of this other proposed bill on this charging and this regulatory 

issue on the transmission to help incentivize carbon capture and 

sequestration. My opening statement talked about, why trust us 

when we have this Nuclear Waste Policy Act that has been a disaster? It speaks to probably letting the private sector do it versus 

us. 

Ms. GEORGE. And I understand what you are trying to get to. 

The way the process is set up the utilities make the payments and 

then the costs are passed through in the rates, and so it is very 

difficult for the Utilities Commissions to not allow that portion. It 

is built into the rates, and so I think what you are suggesting—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We are just looking for help, and this testimony 

is great but sending price signals I think is even a stronger message. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 2 or 3 lines 

of thought I will try to fit into the 5 minutes. First of all, I would 

like to ask unanimous consent to insert for the record a letter sent 

by the Nevada Senate and House delegation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 5, 2008, relative to the license application. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Without objection. 

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

Mr. MATHESON. And I wanted to read 1 paragraph from this letter because I think people might find this pretty interesting. It has 

to do with one of the engineering firms that was looking at bidding 

on DOE’s contract to design the transportation aging and disposal 

cast part of the project. They withdrew from bidding and when 

they withdrew they said the following. One reason for reticence in 

this matter is the materiality of the project which as configured is 

a mission impossible. Consider DOE’s mandate that the aging modVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:31 Sep 02, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-135 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
85 

ule at the geological repository operations must be able to remain 

stable under the ecosites design basis earthquake. At 3 times the 

acceleration due to gravity the Yucca quake will turn an array of 

freestanding casks into a chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts. A computer simulation of a freestanding earthquake 

available upon request from us will convince the reader of this publication that pigs will fly before the cask will stay put. 

And that is what one engineering firm thinks about one of the 

technical aspects of this project, and I think it is important for us 

to put on the table that not all these issues have been resolved as 

of yet. The issue on interim storage, I just wanted to emphasize the 

bill I mentioned earlier has to do with on-site interim storage. It 

is not creating the new interim storage facility some place in America. It is talking about leaving it on-site where it is today. And I 

thought that the point Mr. Shimkus made about we have been sitting around since 1982 when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was 

passed, things have changed since 1982. Dry cask storage didn’t 

exist in 1982, and it does exist now as a bona fide technology. 

And so I would ask, first of all, Mr. Sproat, have you at DOE 

evaluated the cost effectiveness. Because I know the Chairman earlier asked about cost effectiveness of different options, he asked 

about the cost effectiveness of interim storage facility if it was a 

separate facility, but I want to know about whether the cost effectiveness of leaving the waste on-site and dry cask storage is a 

method we could use. 

Mr. SPROAT. Mr. Matheson, it really becomes a question of, so for 

how long are you going to leave it there, and when would the Federal Government take up the cost of guarding it, storing it, and 

eventually it is going to move, and the longer you leave it there the 

more it is going to cost to eventually move it to wherever you are 

going to move it to. So I don’t see interim storage on-site with federal ownership being a cost effective solution because in fact it is 

not a solution. 

Mr. MATHESON. Has DOE even evaluated the cost effectiveness? 

Mr. SPROAT. We do that because right now under the current 

legal construct, we are being held liable for incurred incremental 

cost at the utility—— 

Mr. MATHESON. Have you evaluated the cost effectiveness of 

looking at putting it on-site, dry cask storage, for let us say another 

100 years? 

Mr. SPROAT. Not at every site, no. 

Mr. MATHESON. OK. I wanted to make sure of that. Mr. Fertel, 

I notice the Nuclear Energy Institute has predicted that 83 of our 

country’s 104 nuclear power plants, that is 80 percent of the existing plants, will have on-site dry cask storage by the year 2050. The 

nuclear industry may very well be preparing for a future where 

Yucca Mountain isn’t your only option for your waste. If the Yucca 

repository is never built, will that be the end of the nuclear power 

industry in the United States? 

Mr. FERTEL. I mean the Yucca license application just went in. 

The NRC will review it. We believe that it is certainly licensable 

but they need to determine that, so there is always the possibility 

in our country that something doesn’t get a license from a health 

and safety standpoint so, no, it is not the end of nuclear power. 

86 

What we need to do then is find alternatives if Yucca Mountain is 

not licensable. We should go forward and see if it is licensable. And 

what you are seeing we are projecting is because DOE has not been 

able to begin to move used fuel starting in 1998 and basically our 

sites have to put in dry cask storage, and that is why PUCs are 

allowing the waste fund contributions to go forward. If I can just 

respond to something—— 

Mr. MATHESON. I am really running out of time. I would be 

happy for him to respond to Mr. Shimkus if the Chairman will 

grant us more time, but let me ask one more question. Mr. Sproat, 

you have indicated to Congress that you would provide a life cycle 

cost estimate for the Yucca Mountain project. In July of 2006 you 

promised this committee that type of item in a report. In March, 

2007, DOE gave Congress a budget project promising to submit a 

life cycle cost report by late 2007. In October, 2007, you reiterated 

that a report was coming during a hearing for the House Budget 

Committee. When do you think DOE will finally deliver the life 

cycle cost estimate? 

Mr. SPROAT. Within the next 2 to 3 weeks. That report is done, 

but we are planning on releasing that report at the same time that 

we are releasing the required annual fee adequacy assessment. In 

other words, based on that total system life cycle cost estimate, we 

take a look at the adequacy of the 1 mill per kilowatt hour fee. We 

are releasing both of those reports at the same time because I 

think that way the Congress will get a total picture in terms of the 

cost impact and the fee impact of the cost of the repository based 

on the design we have submitted to the NRC. 

Mr. MATHESON. We anxiously await that report, Mr. Chairman. 

I have used my time. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Matheson. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

all of our witnesses. I want to begin by saying I am somewhat frustrated. As I have watched this Congress unveil itself, I have noticed that every significant bill, every politically charged bill, every 

major piece of legislation, and this seems to be a growing trend, 

that we move through the floor that we move through as a suspension, and it is usually coupled with a motherhood and apple pie 

vote plus a terrible vote for the minority and nobody wants to allow 

any amendments and nobody wants to allow any regular order. 

And I hope that the committee chairman and subcommittee chairman on the majority side are beginning to get frustrated at that 

breakdown because I don’t think that is a process that serves the 

country very well, and it makes me wonder why I spend my time 

listening in hearings. I know I learn a lot from these gentlemen, 

but it is not one thing to learn it. I need to also be able to use that 

knowledge to work, to shape legislation that benefits the American 

people. 

So with that caveat, let me begin by saying in a certain way I 

want to echo the words of Mr. Shimkus, which is that I think if 

American were truly watching this hearing today, they would be 

saying, excuse me, 1982 to 2020, and I think they would really be 

saying, are any of these witnesses or any of those members of Congress reading the daily news because we are in a crisis in this 

87 

country. We have just discovered that oil has gone through the 

roof. We know that at least a substantial number of Americans believe greenhouse gases are threatening our planet, and nobody is 

kind of awake. Nobody has recognized that nuclear power holds 

tremendous potential. 

Last weekend I was home in my district, spent some time with 

a group of people socially, and I got literally jumped by the people 

I was with by saying why aren’t you doing more with nuclear, why 

are you letting it sit there, why is France so ahead of us, why is 

Japan so far ahead of us, and they are kind of looking at me and 

saying I think you guys are completely negligent. You are not doing 

anything. You are not moving quickly enough. And you are kind of 

operating today in the world we had at least 2 years ago or maybe 

more, which is energy prices are reasonable. Americans can’t afford 

energy as it is. We can’t afford not to produce more domestic energy. We can’t afford to set ANWAR aside. We can’t afford to set 

off our coastal regions, and we can afford to drag our feet on nuclear. 

And they are looking at me and saying what is it about today’s 

reality you haven’t figured out because we can’t do that any longer. 

It was one thing to indulge ourselves in taking oil shale and saying 

we are never going to produce it in the United States when gas 

prices were $1.75, $2.25, $2.50, maybe $3.00, but, Congressman, 

they are not $3.00 now. They are not even $4.00 now. They are not 

even $4.10. That may be the average but across the Nation in 

many places they are way higher than that and you guys seems to 

be just kind of walking through past the graveyard paying no attention, so I guess my question for any of you that would like to 

answer is if the chairman of this subcommittee or the chairman of 

the full committee were to say to you today, the presidential candidates have embraced nuclear. Nuclear is where we need to go 

and need to go rapidly. How quickly could you produce a report for 

us saying here are things you can do to dramatically speed this 

process up to get fuel storage in a central location where it is away 

from the population of Chicago and to get it done in X years and 

how small can that number be because I think 2020 as the earliest, 

which you posited today, is unrealistic given the change in the political dynamic we have seen in the last 90 days. Are there any of 

you what would like to respond to that? 

I have people at home saying we need an Apollo project on energy, and I don’t hear any Apollo project on energy sediment from 

any of you and maybe you haven’t been given an opportunity to 

say, well, Congressman, here is what we can do. I am giving you 

that opportunity. 

Mr. SPROAT. Congressman, I appreciate the opportunity. I will 

take a first cut. For those of us who are very strong supporters of 

nuclear power in this country the reason I took this job is I very 

strongly believe that this country needs more nuclear energy. It 

has to be part of the strategic energy mix. 

Mr. SHADEGG. So do I. 

Mr. SPROAT. In my time in the industry everybody who has been 

a valid anti-nuclear advocate asks the same question, well, what 

about the waste? That is the key argument of why we shouldn’t 

build any more nuclear power plants. Well, we are 3 to 4 years 

88 

away from answering that question and putting it to bed finally. 

And I and my team have been working very hard to get this license 

application together to get a design for the repository that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will find acceptable. I believe we have 

done that. And, unfortunately or fortunately, that is how long the 

process has been set up by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And I 

can’t speak for Mr. Weber, and he can’t forecast how the NRC process is going to come out, but I do believe we have set this country 

on a path of potential success of having an approved repository in 

the next 3 to 4 years, so the issue of what about the waste is no 

longer a question to be asked of the nuclear industry and nuclear 

power in this country. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Will a slow budget process by this Congress slow 

that down or keep it at that number, and would it get faster if we 

did an Apollo project and gave you the money you needed? 

Mr. SPROAT. It will not get faster. It cannot get faster than 2020. 

In other words, that is the fastest it can go. Even if Mr. Weber 

completes his review in 3 years, we get the funding request per the 

cash flows at the numbers I sent up here before, 2020 is the earliest, and, quite frankly, that is at risk because of litigation. We 

know there is going to be additional litigation, and we know there 

are other issues that the State of Nevada and others will bring up, 

particularly around water rights and transportation, but it can be 

done. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Anybody else want to comment? 

Mr. FERTEL. I think, Congressman, let me just posit that if we 

do an Apollo project it probably should be focused on supply and 

we should deal with the waste, but I would not throw all my energy on to waste. Waste is managed very safely right now. I think 

Ward said it right. Opponents to nuclear energy always say what 

about the waste. Actually, people in our industry say that sometimes. We are focused on the wrong thing. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I think I heard somebody today, I think Mr. 

Weber said we can store it for 100 years with the technology we 

have right now. 

Mr. FERTEL. And we don’t want to do that. We do want it moved, 

and we need to move forward. As the Ranking Member said, there 

is a lot of thinking and smart thinking about maybe recycling that 

we should be looking at, and as Dr. Garrick just mentioned geologic 

repositories are basically unanimously supported by the scientific 

community as the ultimate place to go with waste. What we need 

to do is move forward in a plausible way. I think for the American 

public, you are going home and speaking to them, they are looking 

for plausibility and action. The action we need in this country right 

now in electricity space is supply, improved transmission, improved 

supply, and that is everything from renewables to nuclear power. 

And your discussion on carbon sequestration that Mr. Shimkus 

mentioned, clearly you can do it technically but we are just not 

sure you can do it on the scale you need to do it. So as a Nation 

our challenge in the electricity supply side is to—that is the Apollo 

project I would honestly think we need to look at, and I think the 

thought of changing some of the waste legislation to make it more 

plausible would also be very helpful not just from a licensing of 

89 

Yucca but for also looking at alternatives that have been mentioned. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shadegg, and I want 

to thank each of our witnesses for the time you have spent with 

us today and your very thoughtful responses to our questions. And 

to the 3 agencies represented here, let me thank you for your diligence. You are doing the very best that you can with serious constraints from a budgetary perspective. That is particularly true of 

our first 2 witnesses, and we acknowledge that and appreciate your 

work on behalf of the public. With that, thanks to each of the witnesses, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

90 

91 

92 

Æ