STATUS OF THE YUCCA 

MOUNTAIN PROJECT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 15, 2006 

Serial No. 109-71 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2006 

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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

27-589PDF 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(EX OFFICIO) 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

 Ranking Member 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO)

(II)
CONTENTS 

Page 

Testimony of: 

Sell, Hon. Clay, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ...................................... 15 

Additional material submitted for the record: 

Sell, Hon. Clay, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, response for the 

record.............................................................................................................................. 33 

(III) 

(1) 

STATUS OF THE YUCCA 

MOUNTAIN PROJECT 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall (chairman) 

presiding. 

 Members present: Representatives Hall, Shimkus, Otter, Sullivan, 

Burgess, Barton (ex officio), Boucher, Markey, Engel, Capps, Allen, and 

Dingell (ex officio). 

 Staff present: Annie Caputo, Professional Staff Member; Sue 

Sheridan, Minority Senior Counsel; Bruce Harris, Minority Professional 

Staff Member; and Peter Kielty, Legislative Clerk. 

MR. HALL. It looks like everybody is here. All right, Mr. Boucher. 

All right, the subcommittee will come to order, and I would like to 

welcome Deputy Secretary Clay Sell to this committee. Without 

objection the subcommittee will proceed pursuant to Committee Rule 4E, 

which allows members the opportunity to defer opening statements for 

extra questioning time, if they would like. We would like that, and I am 

sure that the witness would like that. The Chair recognizes himself for 

an opening statement. First, I want to thank Ranking Member Rick 

Boucher, Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, and the full 

committee for their help in setting up this hearing. 

 Yucca Mountain is a very necessary solution for how to dispose of 

our Nation’s nuclear waste. We can’t allow this program to falter. We 

owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to live up to the 

commitment to build a safe and secure repository. Anything short of 

that, I think, shrinks our responsibility to future generations and forces 

them to cope with our failure and threatens the viability of nuclear 

energy to meet their energy needs. There are those who wouldn’t object 

to that happening, that failure taking place, and we just absolutely have 

got to see that it does not take place. 

 It is also an issue of fairness, making sure that our constituents get 

what they pay for. Right now utility rate payers are paying into the 

Nuclear Waste Fund to build a repository for spent fuel disposal. 

However, taxpayers are beginning to shoulder the burden for DOE’s 
2

failure in accepting spent fuel for disposal. Of the more than 60 lawsuits 

against DOE for this delay, DOE has settled two and lost one. So far the 

cost to the taxpayer is around $141 million over the last two years. 

These numbers are only going to increase as more of these lawsuits are 

resolved, potentially costing taxpayers as much as a half a billion dollars 

each year for waste that should already be stored in Yucca Mountain. 

This means that rate payers are paying for a service they haven’t received 

and taxpayers are footing the bill for the delay. 

 Today’s hearing is an opportunity for us to examine the problems 

facing Yucca Mountain. The Administration may propose legislation to 

solve some of these challenges, and I encourage my colleagues to use 

this hearing to gain a better understanding of the issue before us in 

preparation for possible legislative action. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Ralph Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RALPH HALL, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND AIR QUALITY

The Subcommittee will come to order. I would like to welcome Deputy Secretary 

Clay Sell to this Committee. Without objection, the Subcommittee will proceed pursuant 

to Committee Rule 4(e), which allows Members the opportunity to defer opening 

statements for extra questioning time. 

The Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. First, I want to thank 

Ranking Member Rick Boucher, and Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell of 

the Full Committee for their help is setting up this hearing. 

Yucca Mountain is a necessary solution for how to dispose of our nation’s nuclear 

waste. We can’t allow this program to falter. We owe it to our children and 

grandchildren to live up to the commitment to build a safe and secure repository. 

Anything short of that shirks our responsibility to future generations, forces them to cope 

with our failure, and threatens the viability of nuclear energy to meet their energy needs. 

It is also an issue of fairness: making sure that our constituents get what they pay 

for. Right now, utility ratepayers are paying into the Nuclear Waste Fund to build a 

repository for spent fuel disposal. However, taxpayers are beginning to shoulder the 

burden for DOE’s delay in accepting spent fuel for disposal. Of the more than 60 

lawsuits against DOE for this delay, DOE has settled two and lost one. So far, the cost to 

the taxpayer is $141 million over the last two years. These numbers are only going to 

increase as more of these lawsuits are resolved, potentially costing taxpayers as much as 

a half a billion dollars each year for waste that should be stored in Yucca Mountain by 

now. This means that ratepayers are paying for a service they haven’t gotten, and 

taxpayers are footing the bill for the delay. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity for us to examine the problems facing Yucca 

Mountain. The Administration may propose legislation to solve some of these 

challenges, and I encourage my colleagues to use this hearing to gain a better 

understanding of the issue before us in preparation for possible legislative action. I 

remind all Members of the opportunity to ask questions for the record following the 

hearing. I have asked the committee staff to quickly pull together those questions that 

come in. Deputy Secretary Sell, I ask you to please respond to those questions as soon as 

you can. I look forward to working with you, and listening to your testimony today. 
3

 MR. HALL. I remind all members of the opportunity to ask questions 

for the record following the hearing, and without objection they will be 

allowed and authorized, and I thank the witness. He has agreed that he 

will honor those as we submit them to him, and I have asked the 

committee staff to quickly pull together these questions that come in. 

Deputy Secretary Sell, I am going to ask you to please respond to these 

questions as soon as you can in a reasonable length of time. I thank you 

and I look forward to working with you, and I certainly look forward to 

hearing your testimony today. And the time it took to prepare it, the 

years that you have made yourself available, the vast experience you 

have behind us that you are giving to your Nation, I thank you for it and I 

think everybody ought to really appreciate it. At this time I would 

recognize Mr. Boucher for an opening statement. 

 MR. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me thank you also for convening today’s hearing on the problems of the 

Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Program. 

 Given the Administration’s recent budget request, which includes 

both funding for Yucca Mountain and for a new proposed program 

entitled the “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,” I think a status report 

to this committee from DOE is clearly in order at this time. I strongly 

support the Yucca Mountain Repository Program, and I am concerned 

about a number of matters that are affecting the now long delayed 

opening of this facility. Let me just review a little bit of that history. 

 In 2002, Yucca Mountain was certified as the site for the Nation’s 

repository for spent nuclear fuel; however, there currently is not a 

projected date on which the facility’s operations will commence. The 

Nuclear Waste Act set an original date of 1998 for opening of the 

repository, and by missing that date, the Department of Energy was 

found to be in breach of its obligation to open at that time. More 

recently, the Department has indicated that it hoped to file a license 

application for Yucca Mountain with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission by December of 2004, and then to begin accepting waste at 

the site in 2010. The target for filing the license application was missed 

and the Department no longer believes the date 2010 for opening the 

repository is realistic. 

 Now, I understand that the delay in filing for the license can be 

attributed to a number of legitimate concerns, such as a court invalidation 

of the Environmental Protection Agency standard for radiological 

protection, a standard which is currently being revised. And in addition, 

the Department is undertaking a review of the design of the repository. 

Despite the legitimacies of this delay, I am concerned that the 

Department is at this point unable to provide an estimate of when the 

license may be filed and of when the repository will be open. Perhaps 
4

Mr. Sell can advise us with regard to the Department’s current thinking 

on these matters. 

 In addition, the longstanding issue of funding for the Yucca 

Mountain Project continues to be of concern. While the balance in the 

Nuclear Waste Fund is currently $19 billion, annual appropriations for 

the Yucca Mountain work are only a small fraction of the amount that 

rate payers are contributing to the fund on an annual basis. This year, for 

example, the Administration has proposed a total of $544 million for the 

Nuclear Waste Disposal Program, but only $156 million of that amount 

derives from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The balance of it actually comes 

from the Department of Defense. Congressional budget rules place the 

Nuclear Waste Fund on budget, and expenditures are subject to annual 

appropriations, which themselves are governed in a general way by the 

category allocations that come from the Budget Resolution. As a result 

of that structure, spending requests for Yucca Mountain have to compete 

with funding requests for other Department of Energy programs, and that 

obviously provides difficulty when appropriations are being considered 

by the Appropriations Committee. 

 Over the past number years, legislative proposals to take the Yucca 

Mountain fund, that Nuclear Waste Fund, off budget have been debated 

by this committee, but have come to no resolution, largely because of 

opposition coming from other committees in the Congress, the Budget 

Committee and the Appropriations Committee. And so we remain in a 

circumstance where we have to compete with other DOE programs to get 

annual expenditures from a fund that is funded by rate payers of the 

utilities. 

 I very much look forward to Mr. Sell’s testimony today. Hopefully, 

he will give us projected dates for filing the license application with the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and also perhaps a projected date under 

which this repository can at long last be opened. I also look forward to 

hearing more from him about the Administration’s proposed Global 

Nuclear Energy Partnership, and I want to echo concerns that were 

voiced by a number of members of this committee during the hearing 

with Secretary Bodman last week about the effect that the new GNEP 

Program may have on the Yucca Mountain Program. While I understand 

that the Administration has touted its new proposal as being 

complimentary to the Yucca Mountain Repository Program, it remains 

unclear if the Department has the financial and personnel resources to 

carry forward both programs simultaneously. And I think that we have 

to be very careful about authorizing the origination of a new massive 

program such as GNEP at a time when the Yucca Mountain Program 

itself has undergone delay after delay and is certainly at the present time 

not sailing along very smoothly. 
5

 So, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of ground to be covered with regard 

to Yucca Mountain, and I think this hearing is, in fact, very timely and I 

want to commend you for organizing it and thank Mr. Sell for being our 

witness this morning. Thank you, and I yield back. 

 MR. HALL. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Otter. 

 MR. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to Mr. Dingell. 

 MR. HALL. Excuse me. Would you pardon me a minute? I didn’t 

note that Mr. Dingell is here. Mr. Dingell, we recognize you at this time, 

the Ranking Member. 

 MR. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, you are most gracious. I thank you 

and I commend you for holding this hearing to examine the status of the 

Department of Energy’s program to develop a repository for the disposal 

of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This program has been 

underway since Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 

It has collected something like $25 billion from the ratepayers and it is 

pivotal to our country’s ability to depend on nuclear energy now and in 

the future. As a matter of fact, this program has been around almost as 

long, Mr. Chairman, as you and I have, and it means that it is probably 

within, perhaps, 10 years or 15 years of retirement age. I would also like 

to welcome Deputy Secretary Clay Sell, welcome, whom I hope will be 

able to enlighten us on the current state of the program. 

 I would observe that many of the problems at Yucca Mountain, 

missed deadlines, litigation resulting for program delays, difficulties with 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation standards, and funding 

issues, predate you and your tenure and that of Secretary Bodman at 

DOE. While you and the Secretary are to be commended for tackling 

these problems, I must say that several recent events, on the watch of this 

Administration, cause me serious concern. 

 First, I am concerned that DOE currently cannot even provide 

Congress with an updated estimate of either the date on which it plans to 

file an application for a license with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, or the date on which we might expect that the repository 

will open. I hope your testimony will lead to some answers to those 

questions. I understand that DOE has undertaken a broad internal review 

of its Yucca Mountain Program. While this recalibration may improve 

the program in the long term, I would observe, as my old daddy used to, 

the perfect often is the enemy of the good, and continued delays can 

undermine the public and congressional confidence. 

 Second, as I have stated in the past, I am concerned about the 

adequacy of the program funding and the possibility that the Nuclear 

Waste Fund is subject to abuse. I had hoped that the Department would 

send up location in time for the Congress to consider it during this 
6

abbreviated legislative session, which I am told will consume 

approximately 60 working days. But I would observe that I have hopes, 

but I would observe that I lack optimism on this matter. 

 I would like to go on record once again with my concern that Yucca 

Mountain receive adequate annual appropriations, and my support for the 

legislation to prevent pillaging, both of the $19 billion in past rate payer 

contributions in the corpus of the Nuclear Waste Fund and future 

contributions. I would observe that this has been seen by both the 

Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, our dear friends 

on the Budget Committee and the Appropriation Committee, as a 

wonderful place for money to be taken from to be applied to other 

purposes. 

 Finally, I reiterate the concerns I voiced to Secretary Bodman last 

week at the full committee budget hearing about Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership, with which, I understand, you are deeply involved. In my 

tenure in this committee, I have seen a number of ambitious and costly 

energy programs undertaken with great hopes. A few of these have 

succeeded, but many have failed. I hope this program proves to be 

useful. I remain concerned, however, that it may prove to be simply a 

distraction for the Department that prevents it from fulfilling its 

responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the 

recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005. I would observe that seeing 

the legislative language and having hearings on this would be immensely 

useful in understanding what it is that is going on at the Department. 

 It is always tempting, I have observed, to undertake shiny new 

programs, rich in the theoretical promise, but we do have only one 

Department of Energy. I would be much more comfortable if this new 

initiative entailed a Yucca Mountain license application having been 

filed with NRC and legislation to protect the Nuclear Waste Fund had 

been enacted, and settlements have been reached with utilities to staunch 

the bleeding from legal damages for program delay. And I would 

observe that this program is hemorrhaging money because of litigation, 

because the money has been diverted and because the government has 

not been able to address these problems. 

 As it is, there are multiple outstanding questions about when the 

Yucca Mountain Program will go forward, whether ratepayers will ever 

see the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of their responsibility to pay 

into the waste fund, and whether or not the fund can be protected from 

raids by the Committee on Budget and the Committee on Appropriations. 

The last week, which probably requires--rather, this last task, which 

probably requires legislation, is unlikely to succeed without significant 

and unwavering support from the Administration, including the Office of 
7

Management and Budget, which has yet to send a bill up to aid the 

Congress in its efforts. 

 Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your patience with me, I want 

to thank my colleagues for their patience with me, and I want to observe 

that I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Secretary, the answers to the 

questions that I have raised here, and I hope that we will be enabled by 

this meeting, and others like it elsewhere and here, to make some 

progress on addressing the problems that we are talking about today. Mr. 

Chairman, I thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. John D. Dingell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to examine the status of the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) program to develop a repository for the disposal of 

nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This program has been underway since 

Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; it has collected something like 

$25 billion from ratepayers; and it is pivotal to our country’s ability to depend on nuclear 

energy now and in the future. 

I would like to welcome Deputy Secretary Clay Sell, whom I hope will be able to 

enlighten the Subcommittee on the current state of the program. Certainly many of 

Yucca Mountain’s problems – missed deadlines, litigation resulting from program delays, 

difficulties with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) radiation standards, and 

funding issues – predate your and Secretary Bodman’s tenure at DOE. While you and 

the Secretary are to be commended for tackling these problems, I must say that several 

recent events on your watch cause me grave concern. 

First, I am concerned that DOE currently cannot even provide Congress with an 

updated estimate of either the date on which it plans to file an application for a license 

with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the date on which we might expect 

the repository to open. I understand DOE has undertaken a broad internal review of its 

Yucca Mountain program. While this recalibration may improve the program in the long 

term, the perfect often is the enemy of the good and continued delays can undermine 

public and Congressional confidence. 

Second, as I have stated in the past, I am concerned about the adequacy of program 

funding and the possibility that the Nuclear Waste Fund is subject to abuse. I had hoped 

that the Department would send up legislation in time for Congress to consider it during 

this abbreviated legislative session, and I remain hopeful if not optimistic. I would like to 

go on record, once again, with my concern that Yucca Mountain receive adequate annual 

appropriations, and my support for legislation to prevent pillaging of both the $19 billion 

in past ratepayer contributions in the “corpus” of the Nuclear Waste Fund and future 

contributions. 

Finally, I reiterate the concerns I voiced to Secretary Bodman at last week’s full 

Committee budget hearing about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, with which I 

understand our witness has been deeply involved. In my tenure on this Committee, I 

have seen a number of very ambitious and costly energy programs undertaken with high 

hopes. A few of these have succeeded, but many have failed. I hope this program proves 

useful. I remain concerned, however, that it may prove a distraction for the Department 

that prevents it from fulfilling its responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982 and the recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
8

It is always tempting to undertake shiny new programs, rich with theoretical 

promise, but we only have one Department of Energy. I would be much more 

comfortable with this new initiative, if a Yucca Mountain license application had been 

filed with the NRC, legislation to protect the Waste Fund had been enacted, and 

settlements had been reached with utilities to staunch the bleeding from legal damages 

for program delays. 

As it is, there are multiple outstanding questions about when the Yucca Mountain 

project will go forward, whether ratepayers will ever see the light at the end of the tunnel 

in terms of their responsibility to pay into the Waste Fund, and whether or not the Fund 

can be protected from raids by the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 

Appropriations. This last task, which probably requires legislation, is unlikely to succeed 

without significant and unwavering support from the Administration, which has yet to 

send up a bill to aid Congress in its efforts. 

With that, I thank my colleagues and look forward to the Deputy Secretary’s 

testimony. 

 MR. HALL. I thank the long-time, venerable Chairman of this 

committee. The Chair recognizes Governor Otter of Idaho for an 

opening statement. 

 MR. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to yield my 

opening statement for question and answer time later on. Thank you. 

 MR. HALL. Fine. The Chair recognizes the good doctor from Texas. 

 MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will do likewise, 

other than that I want to say welcome to the Deputy Secretary and I 

appreciate everything you have done with the Administration. Thank 

you. 

 MR. HALL. Now, if we have that same response from Mr. Markey, I 

would be surprised, but we will offer Mr. Markey the opportunity to say 

a few words. Mr. Markey. 

 MR. MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Yucca Mountain 

nuclear waste dump proposal is in a shambles, and it is a shambles 

created both by the law under which this program operates and the 

willful mismanagement of this program by the Department. 

 In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to limit 

the Nation’s search for a permanent geological nuclear waste repository 

to Yucca Mountain, Nevada. That decision was not based on science, it 

was based on politics, on the fact that the congressional delegations from 

the other States previously under consideration were able to use their 

political muscle to pass the nuclear queen of spades on over to the State 

of Nevada, as chosen by this committee; a politician. It is inevitably a 

fool’s errand when real scientists are asked to validate scientific 

decisions made by politicians for reasons of political expediency. And 

that is the cause of the entire mess right from the beginning, that this 

committee selected Nevada, not scientists. 

 And so after 20 years of studies, we still don’t know whether the site 

is safe, let alone whether we can safely transport all of the waste from the 
9

reactor sites across our roadways and railways to the mountain. What we 

do know is that if Yucca Mountain opens, we will have to move almost 

80,000 tons of waste to the site. That would require about 53,000 truck 

shipments and 10,000 rail shipments over about 25 years through cities 

and counties where nearly 250 million people live; Sacramento, 

California, Buffalo, Denver, Chicago, and of course Nevada. 

 Before he was elected the first time, President Bush wrote: “I believe 

sound science, not politics, must prevail when it comes to the designation 

of any high-level nuclear waste repository.” And he went on to write: 

“As President, I would not sign legislation that would send nuclear waste 

to any proposed site unless it has been deemed scientifically safe.” Once 

elected, however, President Bush did not follow his pledge. It is clear 

that unsound science is prevailing at Yucca Mountain and in the Bush 

White House. Consider some of the scientific problems that have come 

to light. The court threw out EPA’s first radiation protection standards 

because they were not strong enough to protect the public from radiation 

exposure and they failed to follow the recommendations of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 

 EPA responded to this court decision by issuing proposed new 

standards for the Yucca Mountain site which are wholly inadequate, do 

not meet the law’s requirements, and do not protect the public health and 

safety. In fact, EPA is proposing the least protective public health 

radiation standard in the whole world. And numerous scientific and 

quality assurance programs, transportation problems, corrosion of casks, 

effectiveness of materials, and many other issues caused DOE to suspend 

work on the surface facilities and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

issue a stop order on the containers. And DOE has been forced to 

acknowledge that documents and models about water infiltration at 

Yucca have been falsified. 

 So what is the Administration’s response to these failings? 

Apparently the Administration is going to try to rewrite the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act to cook the books in order to legitimize the selection of 

Yucca Mountain, even though it can’t pass muster based on the scientific 

and technical standards in current law. At the same time, the 

Administration is coming in with a pie-in-the-sky Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership that it claims will provide us with a new technological magic 

bullet that will make all of Yucca Mountain’s failings fade away. This 

GNEP Program is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that will bust the 

budget, undermine our Nation’s nuclear nonproliferation policies, and 

not provide us with a realistic solution to the nuclear waste problem. 

 It is time for Congress and the Administration to recognize the 

Yucca Mountain Project is not going to work and that we need to go 

back to the drawing board to come up with better alternatives to deal 
10

with the Nation’s nuclear waste problems; that we do not sacrifice sound 

science for political expediency. This Administration is destroying our 

nuclear nonproliferation policy. We know it is willing, on this past sixyears record, to compromise environmental standards in their vain effort 

to bury all the nuclear waste in the United States in this site in Nevada, 

but unfortunately, we will still be here 20 years from now. This is my 

30th year in Congress, so I intend on spending my 50th year in a hearing 

on this very same subject, and I think that the chances of that coming to 

pass are very high given the record of this Administration. I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. OTTER. [Presiding] The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

chair would recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps. 

 MS. CAPPS. Thank you to my colleague from Idaho. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I welcome the witness, Secretary Sell, here today. Mr. 

Chairman and Mr. Secretary and others, Yucca Mountain continues to 

pose a threat to public health and safety. This subcommittee must take 

seriously its commitment to oversight and address the serious concerns 

raised by the Yucca Mountain Project. First and foremost, we must 

ensure that both public health and the environment are protected by 

establishing appropriate radiation standards. EPA’s first attempt at doing 

so failed to comply with the National Academy of Sciences’ 

recommendations, and the D.C. circuit subsequently struck down the socalled standards. Sadly, EPA’s current standard proposal, which is still 

not finalized, also falls short. One nuclear expert has warned that the 

standards would not adequately protect the public from cancer risks. 

 Technical and logistical problems continue to plague the project as 

well. The Department of Energy halted all work on the site in January, 

as we know, because of quality assurance problems, and further concerns 

about potential terrorist acts on the transportation of nuclear waste 

continue to reduce confidence in the Yucca Mountain Project. Last 

month, NAS called on the Department to analyze this potential threat. 

As you know, California and my constituents bear a disproportionate 

share of the risks since the project is less than 20 miles from out State’s 

border. Even leaving aside potential terrorist attacks, moving any 

nuclear waste through California across our roads and waterways should 

give us all pause. 

 I have a nuclear plant in my district. Contained within the reams of 

DOE documents on Yucca Mountain are the plans to load barges of 

nuclear waste from Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in my district. 

The barges would steam down through the Santa Barbara Channel, on 

the way to Ventura County, where the waste would be off-loaded and 

transported by truck to Nevada. I am deeply concerned about planning 

for such a scenario because I don’t believe it has been very thorough. 
11

Let me cite just one example. The dry-cask storage containers that will 

carry this waste are tested to withstand submersion in water. I haven’t 

found any tests, submersion tests, for these casks at anything like the 

depths of the Santa Barbara Channel where the barges would travel. So 

what happens if there is an accident there and a number of these concrete 

containers find themselves at the bottom of the channel, a channel which, 

by the way, is prone to earthquakes, as is Diablo Canyon? Will they be 

able to withstand the depths? Can we retrieve them? And how safe 

would the channel and the surrounding area be? This scenario could be 

played out in different forms in congressional districts across this 

country, only maybe it is an accident in a town or on the side of a 

mountain. 

 I don’t believe we should be subjecting communities across the 

country to the dangers Yucca Mountain presents. I have little faith in the 

scientific studies behind this project, that they are sound, and not much 

more faith that it can be carried out safely and effectively. So I propose 

that we do this the right way, with strong science, thorough planning, and 

adequate public input. And so I thank you for holding the hearing and 

the witness for being here today. I yield back. 

 MR. OTTER. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Shimkus of Illinois. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will wait for my 

questions. 

 MR. OTTER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel. 

 MR. ENGEL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman for convening this 

important hearing on the status of the Yucca Mountain Project. Like 

many members in Congress, my beliefs regarding the use of Yucca 

Mountain as a nuclear repository site has evolved over the years. 

Although I have supported the use of Yucca Mountain in the past, I now 

have serious reservations about the viability of this project and I hereby 

withdraw my support. 

 Nearly 20 years have passed since Congress first selected this site for 

the long-term geological disposal of the Nation’s radioactive waste, and 

the planning for actually utilizing this site has been fraught, as my 

colleagues have mentioned, with problems and has lacked full 

transparency. We have been told that the DOE still has no projected date 

to commence operations at Yucca. The repository is being redesigned 

again and before work can start, a new license will need to be obtained 

from the NRC. And from that point, the NRC could take another three 

years to decide whether to authorize construction at Yucca Mountain. A 

once firm date of 2010 for Yucca Mountain to accept nuclear waste has 

long since been abandoned. Before construction even begins, DOE must 

upgrade roads, improve the electric supply, communications and the 

transportation around Yucca Mountain; so even more delays. 
12

 This begs the question, what exactly is taking so long and where is 

all the money going? Six and one half billion dollars have already been 

spent from the Nuclear Waste Fund on the Yucca Mountain Program, 

with very little to show from it. Further, while DOE has conservatively 

estimated it will take about $58 billion more to complete the project, that 

figure is met by widespread doubt in every sector. Additionally, the 

longer DOE fails to accept spent fuel, the higher the costs will be relating 

to settling lawsuits from utilizes who counted on DOE fulfilling their 

commitment to accept the spent fuel. Since missing the original January 

31st, 1998 deadline, DOE has been served with over 60 lawsuits and has 

already paid out $141 million to settle some of them. In this time of 

scarce resources, the government cannot afford to lose any money such 

as this. 

 I look forward to hearing from the Deputy Secretary about how he 

envisions the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and how that 

will be integrated with the Yucca Mountain Project, as well as the latest 

legislation the Administration is working on to facilitate the licensing, 

construction, and operation of Yucca Mountain. In short, it is a mess. I 

can no longer support this kind of mess. Our effort to safely dispose of 

nuclear waste must have a clear plan with responsible stewardship of the 

taxpayers money, and I again welcome the secretary to our 

subcommittee, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. OTTER. The gentleman yields back. There is no other members 

of the committee here, so members of the committee, I would like to 

introduce you to Mr. Clay Sell. Since February 2004, Mr. Sell has 

served as the Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, 

specializing in coordinating and promoting the President’s legislative 

agenda in the United States Senate, with a primary focus on policy area 

of the energy and natural resources budget and appropriations. 

Previously, Mr. Sell had served on the Bush-Cheney transition as part of 

the energy policy team. And from 1995 to 1999, he served on the staff 

of Congressman Mack Thornberry, our colleague from Texas, 

functioning the last two years as the congressman’s Administrative 

Assistant. Mr. Sell, welcome to the committee. Mr. Sell was sworn in as 

the Deputy Secretary on March 21st, 2005. We welcome you to the 

committee and await your remarks. Mr. Sell. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLAY SELL, DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY 

MR. SELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a 

pleasure to be here today to provide an update on the Department-- 
13

 MR. BOUCHER. Mr. Sell, could you move your microphone just a bit 

closer? That would help. 

 MR. SELL. Closer or further? 

 MR. BOUCHER. Yes, a little closer to you would help. 

 MR. SELL. Is that better? 

 MR. BOUCHER. That is much better. Thank you. 

 MR. SELL. It is a pleasure to be here today to provide an update on 

the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project. If I may, I would 

like to submit my written statement for the record and provide a few 

summary remarks. 

 MR. OTTER. Without objection and hearing none, so ordered. 

 MR. SELL. The President has stated a policy goal of promoting a 

great expansion of nuclear power here in the United States and around 

the world. The reasons for this are obvious. The Department of Energy 

projects that total world energy demand will double by 2050. In 

focusing specifically on electricity, projections indicate an increase of 

over 75 percent in global energy consumption in the next two decades. 

Nuclear power is the only mature technology of significant--to provide 

large amounts of completely emissions-free base-load power to meet this 

need; thus, a significant expansion of nuclear power will allow us to 

meet both our energy and environmental goals. 

 I believe the United States is on the verge of a nuclear renaissance, in 

many respects, due to the provisions enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. And on that note, I would like to thank and acknowledge the work 

of the members of this committee for your efforts in crafting and passing 

this important piece of legislation. As a result of that, I believe new 

plants will be built; however, we need many new plants and the only way 

to ensure a significant amount of new plant construction in this country is 

to finally resolve the issue of spent fuel. To do so, we must license and 

operate the Yucca Mountain site as soon as possible. 

 In my remaining remarks, I would like to focus on four main points. 

First, the importance of Yucca Mountain as a matter of national policy; 

second, an explanation of how we have redirected the program; third, the 

recent proposed Environmental Protection Agency radiation protection 

standards; and fourth, the Administration’s forthcoming Yucca Mountain 

legislation. 

 First, on the importance of the Yucca Mountain. Today’s spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level waste is being temporarily stored at 122 sites 

in 39 States across our Nation. As the members of this subcommittee 

know, the U.S. Government is obligated by law to consolidate and 

dispose of the 50,000 metric tons of spent fuel already generated, as well 

as the 2,000 additional tons being generated annually. As of late, there 

has been some speculation over whether or not we still need Yucca 
14

Mountain, in light of the waste minimization benefits of the 

Administration’s recycling proposal that was included in the recently 

announced Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The simple fact is this: 

Yucca Mountain is needed under any cycle scenario. As successful as 

the new recycling technologies may be under GNEP, there will always 

be a waste byproduct that needs disposal. This Administration is 

committed to the success of the Yucca Mountain Project and we will not 

waver from that position. 

 As part of that commitment, last year we announced a redirection of 

the project to focus on safety, simplicity, and reliability. This included 

adopting a predominantly clean canistered approach to spent fuel 

handling operations. Under this approach, a single canister would be 

used to transport, age, and dispose of the waste without ever needing to 

reopen the spent fuel package. We also announced that in order to better 

organize and focus our scientific work, Sandia National Laboratory was 

chosen to act as the lead laboratory on the project. Also, last year the 

EPA proposed a revised radiation protection standard. The revised 

standard retains the existing 10,000 year individual protection standard at 

15 millirems per year; it retains that and it supplements it with an 

additional one million year standard applicable at the time of peak dose. 

The proposed standard, even one million years from today, keeps the 

exposure limit at what residents of Denver, Colorado already receive as a 

result of high levels of naturally occurring background radiation. These 

changes and programmatic redirections have resulted in schedule 

changes. Later this summer the Department expects to have a new 

design for the surface facilities at Yucca, as well as a schedule for 

submission of the license application to the NRC that supports this 

approach. 

 To compliment our new project direction, the President’s 2007 

Budget stated that the Administration would send to Congress proposed 

legislation to facilitate the licensing, construction and operation of the 

repository at Yucca Mountain. The proposal is currently undergoing 

final review, but we expect to address the permanent withdrawal of land 

around Yucca Mountain, as well as needed funding reform, in the 

legislation. This potential legislation, coupled with the waste 

minimization benefits of recycling spent fuel, could postpone, 

indefinitely, the need for the United States to begin a second repository 

siting and development effort. As this committee is well aware, there are 

more than two dozen States where we would look to site a second 

repository. 

 In conclusion, there is an undeniable need for Yucca Mountain. To 

meet this need, the Department is taking steps today to ensure that we 

develop and construct the safest, simplest repository that we possibly 
15

can, based on sound science and quality work. But we must also have 

the help and support of the Congress and of this committee to remove 

funding uncertainties and other constraints that have hindered consistent 

progress. On this, we look forward to working closely with this 

committee on the forthcoming legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This concludes my opening statement. I look forward to taking your 

questions. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Clay Sell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLAY SELL, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF ENERGY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here today to 

provide an update on the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project. 

For more than 50 years, our Nation has benefited greatly from nuclear energy and 

the power of the atom, but we have been left with a legacy marked by the generation and 

accumulation of more than 50,000 metric tons of commercial and defense generated 

spent nuclear fuel and high level waste. Today, I will address the following topics in my 

opening statement: 

• First, the importance of Yucca Mountain for the Nation 

• Second, an explanation of the clean-canistered approach 

• Third, the selection of Sandia National Laboratories as the Project’s lead 

laboratory 

• Fourth, a discussion of the proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Radiation Protection Standards 

• Fifth, the development of a baseline and schedule for the Project 

• Sixth, an update on potential Yucca Mountain legislation 

The Importance of Yucca Mountain to the Nation 

There has been a lot of speculation whether or not we still need Yucca Mountain in 

light of the announcement of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) or the 

possibility of longer term on-site storage of waste at reactor sites. 

The clear answer is, yes, we still need Yucca Mountain. In fact, we need Yucca 

Mountain today more than ever. This Administration and the Department of Energy are 

committed to aggressively moving forward with Yucca Mountain. 

Yucca Mountain is consistent with the global consensus that the best and safest 

long-term option for dealing with high-level waste is geologic isolation. The National 

Academy of Sciences has spoken on this topic and has endorsed geologic disposal since 

1957. 

Yucca Mountain is the key to reducing our dependence on foreign and fossil sources 

of energy, as nuclear power is the only technology that is mature and capable enough 

today to handle a significant increase in base load and is also reliable, clean, safe, and 

emissions-free. Nuclear power offers this country a tremendous resource and a means 

towards energy security—if we are able to deal with the waste issue. 

Today spent nuclear fuel and high level waste is being temporarily stored at 122 

sites in 39 States across our Nation. In 2002, Congress approved President George W. 

Bush’s recommendation for development of Yucca Mountain. That recommendation was 

based on more than 20 years of scientific research indicating that Yucca Mountain 

provides a safer and more secure location for the Nation’s nuclear waste than the current 

temporary surface storage facilities, many of which are located near lakes, rivers, and 

waterways. 
16

Yucca Mountain is needed even if the technologies of GNEP exceed its initial 

expectations, and Yucca will be needed under any fuel cycle scenario. As successful as 

we may be with GNEP, there will always be a waste bi-product that needs disposal as 

part of the recycling activities. 

Moreover, we need Yucca Mountain as soon as possible so we can start fulfilling 

our obligation to consolidate and dispose of the 50,000 metric tons of spent fuel already 

generated, as well as the 2,000 additional tons being generated annually. Simply put, we 

must move forward with Yucca Mountain.

The Clean-Canistered Approach 

In mid-2005 Secretary Bodman directed a thorough review of the Department’s 

overall approach to design, licensing, and operation of the Project to determine if there 

were better ways to run the repository. 

Late last year the Department announced a redirection to a predominantly cleancanistered approach on spent fuel operations. Under this new approach, a single canister 

would be used to transport, age, and dispose of the waste without ever needing to re-open 

the spent fuel package. We believe that this approach will be a simpler, safer, and more 

reliable operation. 

The clean-canistered approach will significantly reduce the risks of radiation 

exposure and contamination from spent fuel handling operations at the repository. With 

this plan, the spent nuclear fuel primarily will be packaged for disposal by the utilities 

that generated the waste. This approach offers the advantage of having those who know 

most about the waste - the generators - be responsible for placement in canisters and 

packaging. We would thus take advantage of commercial reactor sites with existing 

capability and skills. The Department will not need to build new equipment and train 

operators for a capability that already exists in the private sector. We are working with 

industry to develop the specifications for a canister that can contain commercial spent 

nuclear fuel after it is discharged from the reactors and cooled. In addition to requiring 

fewer, cleaner, and simpler surface facilities, the new facility approach should be easier 

to design, license, build, and operate. 

While this approach will have significant short-term and long-term benefits, it will 

require additional time to redevelop and revise portions of the license application. Later 

this summer the Department expects to have a new conceptual design for the surface 

facilities at Yucca Mountain that support this approach. 

Sandia Lead Laboratory 

The Department also announced that Sandia National Laboratory will act as the lead 

laboratory to coordinate and organize all scientific work on the Project. Since this 

Project represents one of the major scientific and technical challenges of our time, we 

want to ensure that we take full advantage of the great resources in our national 

laboratories. Additionally, to ensure that we keep a critical eye on our work, we are 

continuing efforts to instill a “trust but verify” culture. Part of this effort will lead to the 

formation of a University-based consortium to independently review key aspects of the 

Project to ensure objectivity and impartiality. 

Proposed EPA Radiation Protection Standards

On August 22, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a 

revised “Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca 

Mountain” in response to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit which vacated portions of the existing EPA standards. Specifically, 

EPA proposed a radiological exposure limit for the time of peak dose to the general 

public during one million years following the disposal of radiological material at the 

Yucca Mountain site. 
17

The proposed rule retains the existing 10,000-year individual protection standard of 

15 mRem/year to the reasonably maximally exposed individual, and supplements it with 

an additional standard applicable at the time of peak dose. This proposed rule includes 

two compliance periods and recognizes the limitations of bounding analyses, the greater 

uncertainties at the time of peak risk, and the increased uncertainty in calculated results 

as time and uncertainties increase. Retaining the existing 15 mRem/year standard for the 

initial 10,000-year period ensures that the repository design will include all prudent steps, 

including the use of engineered and natural barriers, to minimize offsite doses during the 

first 10,000 years after disposal. These natural barriers, and to some extent the 

engineered barriers, will continue to operate throughout the million-year period, keeping 

exposure levels low. In fact, this level of exposure reflects a risk that society already 

lives with today - the maximum peak dose at Yucca Mountain would be no greater than 

the level currently received by residents of Denver, Colorado due to the city’s higher 

levels of naturally occurring background radiation. 

Development of a Baseline and Schedule 

Although the Yucca Mountain Program had intended to submit a license application 

to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in December 2004, a number of issues 

arose that prevented this, including development of the amended draft EPA radiation 

protection standards as discussed earlier, redesign of the surface facilities to handle 

primarily canistered waste, and other matters that need to be addressed before we are 

ready to submit a license application. We believe that submission of our license 

application should not be driven by artificial dates. We are committed to developing a 

realistic schedule that will result in the submission of a strong license application to the 

NRC. We expect to receive and review our new design this spring and, after its approval 

by the Secretary, incorporate it into our baseline. Later this summer, we anticipate we 

will publish our schedule for submittal of the license application to the NRC. 

Proposed Yucca Mountain Legislation 

To complement the current approach and assure confidence in moving forward with 

Yucca Mountain, the President’s 2007 Budget stated that the Administration will send to 

Congress proposed legislation that would facilitate the licensing, construction and 

operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain. 

The proposal is still in the interagency review process. We can expect it to address 

the permanent withdrawal of land around Yucca Mountain as well as needed funding 

reform. This potential legislation, coupled with the potential of GNEP for waste 

minimization, could postpone indefinitely the need for the U.S. to begin a second 

repository siting and development effort. As the committee may recall, there are more 

than two-dozen States where we would look to site a second repository. 

Enactment of this important proposal will help demonstrate that the Nation can 

dispose of nuclear materials in a safe, reliable, and efficient manner, and will help 

advance the Nation’s energy security, and national security objectives. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, there is a clear National need for Yucca Mountain, even if we could 

reduce our National electricity consumption by 20% and were able to shut down every 

commercial reactor and nuclear project in the country today. We are taking steps to 

ensure that we develop and construct the safest, simplest repository that we possibly can, 

based on sound science and quality work. I believe that our license application will 

provide the necessary assurances that we can operate Yucca Mountain in compliance 

with the performance requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We will also demonstrate that our approach to 

operations will be carefully planned, logical, and methodical. 
18

 MR. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Sell, for that opening statement, and 

the chair would recognize himself for the first five minutes to begin the 

question and answer period. Mr. Sell, I am sure other members of the 

committee who are not here would want to submit questions to you and I 

would ask you now that if they do submit those questions to you, that 

you would respond, for the record, to those questions in writing. They 

are going to write little notes to you, little love notes, probably, but 

probably not. 

 MR. SELL. I will respond whether they are love notes or otherwise. 

 MR. OTTER. Thank you. Because Yucca Mountain has been 

designated as the location of the Nation’s permanent repository and 

because of the preparations that have already been made, is there any 

chance that the Department would support legislation authorizing the 

Department to establish an interim storage facility very close to Yucca 

Mountain? 

 MR. SELL. Mr. Chairman, the Administration and this Department 

has an open mind as it relates to interim storage. Under the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act which governs our activities today, it is our view that 

we do not have authority, as it stands now, to proceed with interim 

storage, but we certainly have an open mind as to that possibility, if it be 

the will of Congress. 

 MR. OTTER. So in other words, if I understand you right, in order to 

keep the contracts that the Department of Energy and the Department of 

Defense have made with at least the State of Idaho, and some scheduling 

programs that they have already made with other sites, that if the 

legislation were advanced to Congress to establish an interim storage site 

close to Yucca Mountain, in proximity to Yucca Mountain, that the 

Administration would not oppose that. 

 MR. SELL. We would certainly look forward to working with the 

Congress, and I think it is certainly possible that we would support that. 

 MR. OTTER. Is sometime later this summer the closest we can get to 

a potential revealing of a date and new standards for Yucca Mountain? 

 MR. SELL. In short, Mr. Chairman, yes, because we want to be quite 

sure that when Secretary Bodman and I put forward a revised schedule, it 

is one that we are confident we will be successful with and it is one that 

we are confident will ultimately result in the granting of a license by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We are revising the program with the 

goal of absolute success in mind, and we would ask the indulgence of the 

committee to allow us to take this next few months to finalize the 

schedule that we would then like to come brief the committee on. 

 MR. OTTER. In order so that we don’t have a replay of what 

happened with the first standards, is the Department of Energy now 
19

working with the EPA to establish the new standards so it is not 

challengeable in the courts? 

 MR. SELL. Well, the requirement to set the standard is one that goes 

to the EPA and not to the Department of Energy. We will be the licensee 

that will be required to meet that standard. The standard that is now out 

for comment is one that we think is--it is one that we believe we can 

license the facility to and we would look forward to proceeding with the 

license application under that standard. 

 MR. OTTER. Thank you. The Yucca Mountain Program recently 

assumed ownership of a large cell at the Idaho National Lab. Do you 

know how the Department of Energy intends to employ and use that? 

 MR. SELL. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I understand the 

question. 

 MR. OTTER. The cell that the Department of Energy recently 

assumed ownership over at the Idaho National Laboratory, I was 

wondering if you could advise myself and the committee on what intent, 

what future intent does the Department of Energy have for the use of that 

building? 

 MR. SELL. This is a new building that could potentially be used for 

the consolidation of material. 

 MR. OTTER. It could? 

 MR. SELL. Did I understand that correctly? 

 MR. OTTER. It could? Is that your intent? 

 MR. SELL. This is a facility, if I understand the facility correctly that 

you are talking about, this is one that has previously been used for the 

storage of material. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a 

previous decision made to consolidate material elsewhere and remove 

material out of that facility. I believe last year the Congress directed 

through the Appropriations Bill that we reconsider the use of that facility 

for the consolidation of material, and that a review is going as we speak, 

a review which has not resulted in any conclusions. 

 MR. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Sell, and my time is up. The chair 

would recognize the Ranking Member. 

 MR. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. 

Sell, thank you for appearing today and for your testimony. I have just 

several brief questions for you. You have indicated in your testimony 

that the Department of Energy will apply to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for the Yucca license, you believe, sometime this summer. 

Can you project a date for us? Can you project a month when you think 

that application will be filed? 

 MR. SELL. If I may clarify? 

 MR. BOUCHER. Yes, please do. 
20

 MR. SELL. Congressman Boucher, this summer we expect to provide 

the Congress and this committee a revised schedule as to when we would 

make the application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So this 

summer we will have a better idea on what the schedule is, but the 

license application will not be made this summer. 

 MR. BOUCHER. Do you think it will be made this year? 

 MR. SELL. Once again, we are seriously reviewing what we think is 

possible and what we think we can be successful with and what our 

requirements are to meet that. That review is not complete and I would 

not want to prejudge the determination that we will make as to the 

appropriate time to make the license application. 

 MR. BOUCHER. When this summer will you be in a position to give 

us this further briefing? 

 MR. SELL. I believe we are projecting that to be in the June, July 

time frame. 

 MR. BOUCHER. June, July time frame. So, Mr. Chairman, perhaps 

we could have a subsequent hearing in that time frame, in order to 

receive some indication from the Department of Energy about when the 

license will be applied for, and perhaps at that point be able to project a 

date when you actually could have this repository open. 

 MR. SELL. I would look forward to the opportunity to testify at a 

future hearing on that. 

 MR. BOUCHER. Okay. You have also indicated that the 

Administration may be formulating legislation that could be submitted to 

the Congress that would help move the Yucca Program forward. Can 

you give us any indication of when that legislation might be submitted? 

 MR. SELL. I believe when Secretary Bodman testified last week, he 

indicated that that legislation would be forthcoming within a month, and 

that is still our belief. 

 MR. BOUCHER. When that legislation is received here, will it 

address funding reform? If it is going to address funding reform, are you 

going to propose to take the Nuclear Waste Fund off budget? And 

assuming that you are, which is what we have been trying to do for a 

number of years here, will your proposal to take it off budget differ in 

material respects from the legislation we have considered here in the 

past? 

 MR. SELL. We are looking at a number of options that would 

provide greater funding certainty, which has been a chronic problem for 

this program. At a minimum, what we intend to propose would be 

consistent with the legislative proposals we have made in the last two 

years, which would effectively make the annual receipt to the Nuclear 

Waste Fund directly available to the program. I appreciate that there are 

strong views from this committee that the entirety of the waste fund 
21

should be taken off budget, and we are looking at that, but I can’t say 

with any confidence that that is a proposal we will be able to make and 

that we will be able to include. But certainly we want to provide as 

much funding certainty as possible, and we would look forward to 

working with the committee on the appropriate way to do that. 

 MR. BOUCHER. Well, let me say I am one of those who has strong 

views on that matter and I would encourage you, as you are formulating 

this proposal, not only to take the fund off budget prospectively so that 

annual contributions made by rate payers would immediately be made 

available to the Yucca Program in that year, but that you also protect the 

approximately $19 billion which is deposited in the Nuclear Waste Fund 

today, which, in the absence of some statutory guarantee that it will be 

made available, it may never be appropriated for that purpose. So I hope 

you will take care of the $19 billion that the rate payers have already put 

into this program, as well as what they will contribute to it in the future, 

and I don’t expect you to comment on that, but that is advice. 

 MR. SELL. Well, if I may comment? 

 MR. BOUCHER. And please do, yes, if you care to. 

 MR. SELL. I certainly share with you the firm commitment that the 

contributions that the rate payers have made, the roughly $18 billion, be 

used exclusively for the Yucca Mountain Project, and that the money be 

set aside in a way that we can have confidence that that will occur, and 

that as much funding certainty be provided as possible so that we can 

eliminate that variable which has affected our ability to make consistent 

progress on the project. 

 MR. BOUCHER. Well, thank you. That is encouraging to hear and I 

hope your legislative proposal reflects that intention. You were recently 

quoted as saying that the one mil per kilowatt hour fee that rate payers 

are paying currently into the Nuclear Waste Fund may not be sufficient, 

which suggests that the Department of Energy may be considering an 

increase in that one mil per kilowatt hour fee. Are you considering such 

an increase? Do you think one will be forthcoming? If so, when and 

how much will it be? 

 MR. SELL. Each year, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the 

Secretary of Energy must make a determination as to whether the mil fee 

is appropriate. The Secretary reviewed material this year and he made 

the determination that the fee as it is presently being collected is in fact 

appropriate and sufficient, but we will continue to make that 

determination, as we are required to do, annually in the coming years. 

 MR. BOUCHER. And so you are not currently anticipating an 

increase? 

 MR. SELL. To directly answer your question, we are not anticipating 

or proposing an increase. 
22

 MR. BOUCHER. Okay. Mr. Chairman, may I have your indulgence 

for one additional question? Perhaps-- 

 MR. HALL. The chair will give you another minute. 

 MR. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to get your 

sense of how you could go forward simultaneously with a vigorous 

Yucca Mountain Program and also be launching what is also a very large 

additional waste program, and that is the so-called GNEP. Do you think 

you have the resources, both from a financial and a personnel standpoint, 

to do both together? 

 MR. SELL. We are confident in that as we proceed on these two 

initiatives, that we will either have or we will go get the management 

personnel and technical resources to effectively manage these two 

programs, and we are also seeking from the Congress the financial 

resources to pursue these two programs. I think, to put it in the right 

context, we believe that the world and this country needs a dramatic 

expansion of nuclear power, and that means something from a waste 

management standpoint. And if we only keep nuclear electricity 

generation at 20 percent for the balance of the century, we will have to 

build the equivalent of nine Yucca Mountains, if we stay with the current 

disposal strategy. So it is our view that we should begin now to work in 

partnership with other advanced fuel cycle States to develop the 

technologies that would allow us to optimize, over the decades to come, 

the use of Yucca Mountain. We have to have it now, because we want to 

hopefully just build one. 

 MR. BOUCHER. Well, I understand the purpose, Mr. Sell, and I will 

say to you that I am a little bit skeptical that you are going to be in a 

position to go forward simultaneously with a vigorous Yucca Program 

and this one at the same time. That is a debate we will have another day, 

I am sure, but I wanted to get your sense about whether you thought you 

actually could do both together, given the resource limitations that I 

know you face. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence and thank 

you, Mr. Sell. 

 MR. SELL. Thank you. 

 MR. HALL. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Shimkus. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank my 

colleague, Dr. Burgess, for allowing me to jump ahead of him, also. I 

think I am going to owe him in the future, but it is great to be here. I 

think the Yucca Mountain debate as far as--is that a suitable location is 

sound public policy, which we voted on the floor. My question is how 

expeditiously can we move, and a lot of our frustration here is that, you 

know, we want to move. We want to open this thing and we need to get 

this nuclear waste out from the numerous locations we have it around the 
23

country. And the other is, if we don’t expand nuclear power in this 

country, we are going to expand coal generating facilities. Now that is 

okay by me. I am from coal regions in Illinois, but I think my 

environmental friends would have a beef with that. So this is a valid 

issue and you are going to have members who are very strongly in 

support of Yucca Mountain, very supportive, but we have got to move. 

We have to go to see some progress, and that is our frustration. 

 A couple questions. Secretary Bodman stated just last week here 

before us that the Administration would propose legislation to address 

Yucca Mountain within a month. If Congress does not act on your 

legislative proposal this year, what specific activities would be impacted? 

 MR. SELL. Well, certainly, from a funding certainty standpoint, over 

the last several years the Administration has consistently received a 

funding level below what we have requested. And so each year that 

passes where that is the case, the program is affected. Other than that 

issue, I don’t know that there would be a direct affect in this year if the 

Congress failed to enact legislation, but we certainly want to be in a 

position to make progress on this program as quickly as possible. We 

know that legislation is required to do that and we would look forward to 

working with the Congress to get that passed as quickly as possible. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. So you would say that the schedule for the 

commencement of the repository operations could be affected if we don’t 

move on legislation? 

 MR. SELL. Absolutely. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the 

submission of a project decision schedule to be updated as appropriate. 

In light of the many changes to the program in the last few years, when 

does DOE plan to submit a revised project decision schedule? 

 MR. SELL. We intend to brief the committee on a revised schedule in 

June or July of this year. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. Last week, Secretary Bodman also said that DOE has 

begun its evaluation of the need for a second repository, an evaluation 

that DOE is required to present to Congress beginning in 2007. If the 

Department has to begin looking at a second repository, which sites 

would you consider? 

 MR. SELL. I can’t answer that in any way other than to expect that 

the Department would start with the numerous sites in the 22 States that 

we had previously reviewed, many of those on the east coast and 

throughout the mountain west. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. And if and when you all decide to move in that 

direction, I am assuming you will provide the committee with a list of the 

possible sites? 

 MR. SELL. I am sure we will do that. 
24

 MR. SHIMKUS. It might provide some more support for Yucca 

Mountain once we start evaluating other locations around the country. 

Just a wild guess on my part. To what extent would a required report on 

the need for a second repository be shaped by the progress on GNEP? 

 MR. SELL. Well, it would be shaped by whether the Nuclear Waste--

you know, it has been 19 years since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was 

amended in any way, and we are going to seek amendments in this 

legislative proposal which could affect the decision to seek the second 

repository. And if that is the case, then that may affect the schedule. 

Otherwise we will proceed with that analysis for a report in the 2007 to 

2010 time frame. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. I mean, this is a really important debate because if 

we don’t revise the legislative schedule, the stored spent fuel, if we do 

allow reprocessing of that cask, how much would we through the 

reprocessing diminish? So you know, you take a cask, you have got the 

current level, and now we reprocess. How much is left? What 

percentage? 

 MR. SELL. Well, the key thing--do you mean how much would 

recycling-- 

 MR. SHIMKUS. Right. It is a historic debate because, obviously, we 

reprocess and we are going to have--the debate will be more storage 

available. 

 MR. SELL. The thing that drives the capacity of a geologic 

repository is the heat load and the radiotoxicity. And through recycling, 

and that is a combination of separating material and then burning it down 

in fast spectrum reactors, we can reduce the heat load and radiotoxicity 

by two orders of magnitude. So it is our judgment that if we can 

successfully demonstrate and then deploy recycling technologies, we 

would have sufficient capacity within the physical constraints of Yucca 

Mountain for the disposal of all nuclear waste for the balance of this 

century. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. How much more are we likely to know in the 

prospects for success in this technology development by the time the 

report is issued? 

 MR. SELL. It is the hope of this Administration, the expectation, to 

do a significant amount of work to understand better the technologies so 

that we can make a judgment before the end of this term as to whether 

we should proceed forward to continue to demonstrate these 

technologies. The technologies we know we can do. The UREX-plus 

separations process we have demonstrated in the laboratory. Fast 

reactors, we have built many, or several, in this country, and many have 

been built around the world. The key challenge is qualifying fuel for 

burn-down in a fast reactor. That is the key R and D challenge and we 
25

need to determine whether we can do that on an economic cost scale that 

would prove to be commercially attractive. That is a significant 

challenge, but it is one we are going to proceed expeditiously with, with 

the help and support of this Congress, so that we can make a 

determination, a better determination as to how to proceed by the end of 

2008. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And my last question is, can you briefly 

talk about the reclassification of fees and the offsetting collections for the 

repository program and how this could help accelerate the opening of the 

repository? 

 MR. SELL. The reclassification of fees would allow us to take the 

roughly $750 million which today goes into the Nuclear Waste Fund and 

has to be appropriated out, it would allow that $750 million to go directly 

to the project. And so that amount, coupled with the contribution from 

the Defense Nuclear Waste Fund, would provide much greater funding 

certainty to the program in the critical next few years. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

 MR. HALL. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Dingell. 

 MR. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. Mr. 

Sell, last week Secretary Bodman testified that the Administration plans 

to send up a bill to the Congress proposing changes in the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act of 1982. When will that be done? 

 MR. SELL. As Secretary Bodman said last week, we hope to have 

the legislation up within a month. 

 MR. DINGELL. Hope? Hope? 

 MR. SELL. Well, Mr. Dingell, I will go beyond hope, I will even say 

I expect to have it up within-- 

 MR. DINGELL. By what date? 

 MR. SELL. If it was completely within my control, Mr. Dingell, I 

would be confident giving you an exact date, but because we are working 

through the interagency process, I can only tell you what my expectation 

is. 

 MR. DINGELL. Approximately, what are your expectations, please? 

 MR. SELL. My expectation is, we can have the legislation up within 

a month. 

 MR. DINGELL. Okay. Now, does the Administration want the 

Congress to pass legislation on Yucca Mountain this year? 

 MR. SELL. Yes, we do. 

 MR. DINGELL. All right. Is that legislation before the Congress in 

proper legislative and finished form? 

 MR. SELL. It is not before the Congress today. 

 MR. DINGELL. When will that happen? 
26

 MR. SELL. Well, we will submit it to the Congress and then we 

would hope to work with the Congress in finding an appropriate cosponsor. 

 MR. DINGELL. Is there a date that you can give me on this? 

 MR. SELL. Mr. Dingell, unfortunately, I cannot give you a better 

date than what I have previously said. 

 MR. DINGELL. Now, I find myself confronting a curious conundrum 

here. Does the Administration expect the Congress to consider 

legislation before DOE provides the information coming out of the 

internal program review, or are we going to wait until we complete the 

program review? It appears to be sensible to have all the facts before we 

proceed to legislate. What is the answer to that question? 

 MR. SELL. I believe that we think and we would propose to work 

those issues in parallel with the Congress; that we would submit 

legislation for your consideration at the same time-- 

 MR. DINGELL. Does it occur to you that we ought to have the 

program review completed before the legislation is considered by the 

Congress so we can know what we are doing? 

 MR. SELL. I think it is helpful, but I do not think it is necessary that 

the complete information-- 

 MR. DINGELL. Well, that leaves us in a position where we may 

legislate one way and your internal review will either tell us we should 

have done it differently or will require careful cooking of the review. I 

find neither of these appetizing prospects. 

 MR. SELL. It is our desire to put our proposal and as much 

information that would allow the Congress to comprehensively consider 

that proposal. We would like to put as much information as possible 

before the Congress and work with the Congress to amend the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act. 

 MR. DINGELL. It is a good lawyer’s answer. Now, will the 

legislation be sent up here before the estimates have been filed with NRC 

by DOE, or will that indicate when you expect to be able to open Yucca 

Mountain? 

 MR. SELL. We expect to have the legislation up within a month. We 

do not expect to have revised program plan finalized and before the 

Congress until June and July, and we hope those are the next two dates 

coming and we hope to work with you to get the legislation passed as 

quickly thereafter as possible. 

 MR. DINGELL. I find myself afflicted with a concern that we will 

thereupon be compelled to function with an information void against a 

target which is perhaps moving and possibly even moving the wrong 

direction. What do you say about that? 
27

 MR. SELL. Mr. Dingell, the frustration that I know this committee 

feels is one that I enjoin and it is one that the Secretary feels strongly. 

We feel frustrated. We are frustrated by the performance of this 

Department. 

 MR. DINGELL. I want you to understand, first of all, I have limited 

time, but second of all, I want you to understand that I share your 

frustration and these remarks are not necessarily critical, but they are 

necessary to understand what is going on. Now having said that, Mr. 

Paul Golan testifying before the Congress today on Yucca Mountain 

refers to a clean canistered approach to spent fuel operations. He says 

that work on the pending license application for Yucca Mountain will 

include the following approach: a single canister would be used to 

transport, age, and dispose of waste without ever needing to reopen the 

spent fuel package again. 

 Now, I find that this, together with the Administration’s package 

with regard to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, this is 

going to be, according to what the Administration says, this is going to 

have the potential to reduce the amount of high-level waste that is stored 

in a nuclear bomb. Your testimony at page seven alludes to this concept. 

Now, Mr. Sell, there seems to be some incongruence between these two 

statements. On the one hand, we have you and Mr. Golan pushing for a 

design that minimizes contact with high-level waste and saying that the 

spent fuel canister need never been reopened. On the other hand, with 

the GNEP, we have the DOE and you suggesting that reprocessing under 

GNEP will indicate a loss of waste going into Yucca Mountain. How do 

we rhyme those two statements? 

 MR. SELL. A significant amount of the spent fuel that this country 

has generated over the last 50 years will not be a candidate for recycling 

under any scenario. 

 MR. DINGELL. So you are going to just recycle new waste, is that it? 

 MR. SELL. Well, once waste has been about 15 years old, it presents 

a more challenging prospect to recycle that than newer waste. 

 MR. DINGELL. Understand, this is not criticism. I am just asking 

information. Now, quickly, can you tell us where you and when you, 

under GNEP, at the DOE will have the waste reprocessed? Will it be 

done at the utility sites, at Yucca Mountain, or at some other place? 

 MR. SELL. Well, if we can prove out the technologies, and we need 

to, that is a significant engineering challenge. If we can demonstrate 

those technologies, and then if it makes sense for us to commercialize 

those technologies, an appropriate process would occur to determine the 

appropriate site for those recycling facilities. 

 MR. DINGELL. So this is not at this time known? 

 MR. SELL. It is not known. 
28

 MR. DINGELL. All right. Mr. Chairman, you have been most 

gracious. Thank you and thank you, Mr. Sell. 

 MR. HALL. The Chair recognizes Dr. Burgess, the gentleman from 

Texas. 

 MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Deputy 

Secretary, thank you and I appreciate your indulgence. I know it has 

been a long afternoon. But continuing on the line that the gentleman 

from Michigan was just pursuing, with the transportation, aging and 

disposal canisters, that is a new approach? 

 MR. SELL. It is an old idea but a new approach. 

 MR. BURGESS. And has this redirection using those transportation, 

aging, and disposal canisters, has that had an effect on the timing of the 

cost of the license, the review of ground construction, and operations? 

 MR. SELL. That has an impact on it as well as the activity related to 

the radiation standard, the funding issues, and quite frankly, the other 

issues that have come up as it relates to the quality assurance of the work 

in the program over the last year. All of those matters, coupled with the 

review of the program that the Secretary directed, have affected and will 

affect our schedule for the license application. 

 MR. BURGESS. And how will it affect it? Will it delay it? 

 MR. SELL. You know, previously, just a few years ago, the 

Department had indicated that a license application would be made in 

December of 2004. That did not occur. And we are working to make a 

license application to the NRC that will be successful as quickly as 

possible. If one only wanted to make a license application, we could do 

that very quickly, but we want to make sure that when we make it, we 

have a high degree of confidence that we will in fact be successful. 

 MR. BURGESS. Yes. I would point out, we are going the long way to 

December of 2004 at this point. Last year, in preparation for the 

certification, the licensing support network, several e-mails from the 

United States Geological Survey employees indicated that proper quality 

assurance procedures had not been followed for their research on water 

filtration into the repository. Currently, is there action being taken to 

verify or recreate this data and the models that they worked on? 

 MR. SELL. There is. We intend to recreate the work. That is one of 

the things that we have asked Sandia National Lab to do. I would note 

that in our substantial review of the work, we did not find any of the 

substantive conclusions incorrect. In fact, they are consistent with many 

other studies as it relates to water infiltration. We did identify problems 

with the quality assurance methods that were used. And because we 

want to ensure that we proceed in the most responsible way possible, we 

are going to redo those models and resubmit those as part of our license 

application. 
29

 MR. BURGESS. Now, if I understand the concept correctly, the 

recycling program and Yucca Mountain are proceeding along parallel 

tracks, but they are interdependent in that you already have spent nuclear 

fuel that will basically take up the space that is available at Yucca 

Mountain, and without the reprocessing program, another Yucca 

Mountain would be necessary fairly quickly, is that correct? 

 MR. SELL. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act put a 70,000 metric ton 

limit on Yucca Mountain, and it is our projection that by roughly 2010 or 

2012, the Yucca Mountain, as specified under the act, will be fully 

subscribed. That is one of the issues that we may seek to address in the 

legislation. And we also believe that if we can, over the coming decades, 

commercialize the recycling technologies, that would allow us to greatly 

optimize the use of that one Yucca Mountain so that it would serve and 

perhaps permanently defer a decision on a second repository. 

 MR. BURGESS. Is, now, a country like France that utilizes a good 

deal more nuclear power than the United States, do they reprocess their 

spent fuel? 

 MR. SELL. France reprocesses as well as the United Kingdom, 

Japan, Russia, China, most of the other great nuclear economies all have 

commercial reprocessing activities. 

 MR. BURGESS. Is that technology developed in France or was it 

developed in this country? 

 MR. SELL. All of the reprocessing technology that is used around the 

globe today is based on the PUREX method which was developed here 

in the United States as part of our weapons program to produce and 

separate plutonium. 

 MR. BURGESS. Is there an economy to be found by going for offthe-shelf technology that is already utilized in other countries that is 

working, or is there a downside to pursuing that? 

 MR. SELL. In our judgment, Mr. Burgess, the commercial 

reprocessing technologies that are used around the globe today are not 

preferable because they separate pure civilian plutonium, which 

represents a significant proliferation risk. And so what the President has 

proposed is that we work to develop the next generation of recycling 

technologies that will be much more proliferation resistant than the types 

of reprocessing technologies that are used around the globe today. And 

that is one of the reasons we want to work in partnership with the other 

nuclear economies, to benefit from the advances that they have made, but 

also to work with them in phasing out the existing PUREX-based 

reprocessing technologies which, in our judgment, present a significant 

proliferation threat. 

 MR. BURGESS. Is the discussion with India, would that be for the 

proliferation resistant reprocessing? 
30

 MR. SELL. The announcement that was made with India, they have 

made a commitment. They never signed the Nonproliferation Treaty. 

They have made a commitment to put a great number of their nuclear 

facilities under safeguards, which is a considerable improvement. And in 

return, we have made a commitment to change the Atomic Energy Act so 

that we can engage in nuclear cooperation, including fuel cells with India 

and to strengthen the strategic relationship and quite frankly, the 

economic relationship between our two countries. As it exists today, the 

agreement between the United States and India does not relate 

specifically to recycling or reprocessing. 

 MR. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, you have been very indulgence. I 

will yield back my time. 

 MR. HALL. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the 

Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton, for as 

much time as he wants to consume. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, I will take five minutes, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Secretary, for being here. First, I 

want to make sure that my opening statement is put in the record. 

 MR. HALL. Without objection, sir. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Thank you Mr. Hall and Mr. Boucher for having this hearing on the status of Yucca 

Mountain. As you know, I feel very strongly about this issue and remain committed to 

carrying out our nation’s nuclear waste policy and building a repository at Yucca 

Mountain. 

 Our nation has invested 23 years and $9.0 billion into a repository to solve our 

nuclear waste problem. The amazing part is, as time passes, this project gets further and 

further behind. Yucca Mountain was supposed to open in 1998, isn’t open yet, and won’t 

open by 2010. With DOE amassing more liability costs with each passing year, it’s time 

we get an explanation as to where DOE’s priorities are. 

The license application is four years overdue and DOE has no projection of when it 

will be submitted. DOE also has no projection of when the repository will open. DOE 

has been working since last August on a legislative proposal to resolve the repository’s 

outstanding issues, but hasn’t produced it yet. In the meantime, DOE has been focused 

on developing their GNEP proposal that represents a fundamental shift in nuclear waste 

policy, without any warning to Congress. 

In 2007, payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund will be approximately $750 million. 

The Nuclear Waste Fund will earn over a billion dollars in interest, and the balance in the 

Fund will be nearly $20 billion. Yet in the Administration’s budget for FY’07, only $156 

million will be used for the repository program. However, that same budget also 

proposes $250 million for the new GNEP proposal with funding requests expected to top 

$700 million for FY’08 and ‘09. Let me be clear – I oppose tapping the Nuclear Waste 

Fund for GNEP activities. 

I encourage DOE and the administration to keep a strong focus on Yucca Mountain. 

If Congress needs to take further action to get the Yucca Mountain project set once and 
31

for all, I and many bipartisan Members of this Committee are ready to work with you. 

Personally, I’m willing to tolerate this pursuit of the GNEP dream, but not at the expense 

of a nuclear waste repository. CEOs and boards are watching, waiting for a signal that 

the executive and legislative branches will do their part. Until we send that signal, we 

may not see any new plants built. I know you share that goal, so let’s give confidence 

that the waste issue is solved. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Mr. Deputy Secretary, I think you 

know that the last several years the government has paid about $140 

million or $141 million dollars in settlement claims because of the 

Department of Energy’s inability to dispose of the existing commercial 

spent fuel. Do you have an idea or an estimate of what will be paid over 

the next five years for these claims? 

 MR. SELL. As far as damages claims as a result of not taking the 

waste, I do not have an exact estimate, but I would like to provide the 

best information I have for the record. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, we would like to have that estimate and 

we would also like to have the Department’s proposal on how to 

reimburse the Judgment Fund, and we would also like to know where 

these costs are reflected in the President’s Budget. 

 MR. SELL. Mr. Chairman, under the existing law or operations of the 

Judgment Fund, payments out of the Judgment Fund are not reimbursed 

by the Department of Energy. The Judgment Fund is handled separately 

from our budget and I believe that is the way it will continue to be 

handled. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Who is responsible for the Judgment Fund if 

not the Department? Where is the money coming from? 

 MR. SELL. Ultimately, the money comes from the taxpayers. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. No, I mean, but what agency? 

 MR. SELL. I believe, Mr. Chairman, the Judgment Fund is 

administered by the Department of Justice. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So there is no Department of Energy role in 

requesting funds for that fund? 

 MR. SELL. That is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. I am going to be sending, in the very 

near future, a written request to you and Secretary Bodman to prepare a 

life cycle estimate for comparing our existing waste policy based on 

Yucca Mountain and this new GNEP reprocessing approach. I am 

skeptical of GNEP, but I at least think we ought to compare apples and 

apples when we look at the cost. Do you have a comment on that or do 

you just want to wait until you get my letter? 

 MR. SELL. Well, I will look forward to your letter, but if I may, I 

would like to make a comment. This is something that we looked 

seriously at and it affected our thinking as we were seeking to develop 
32

the policy and make a judgment as to whether this was something that 

was worth pursuing. We think it is absolutely worth pursuing 

particularly for the potential nonproliferation benefits that it can yield. 

But even on a cost basis, we found that if the cost of uranium fuel is fully 

loaded with the ultimate cost of disposal, we think, you know, uranium 

fuel costs less than $100 per kilogram, but we think the disposal cost is at 

least $600 per kilogram, and we expect the commodity cost of uranium 

to increase substantially as the demand for it increases with an expansion 

of nuclear power. So in a world with many more nuclear power plants 

than we have today, we think that the cost of our once through policy, 

with disposal costs loaded in, is no less than what the cost of a recycling 

program would be. We think they are very comparable from a cost 

standpoint and we look forward to elaborating on that in our response to 

your letter. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Somebody may have asked this, but 

when do you expect to present to this committee and to the Congress a 

legislative proposal on Yucca Mountain, on funding and maintaining that 

program? 

 MR. SELL. As Secretary Bodman indicated last week, we hope to 

have that legislation to the Congress within a month. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Within a month, okay. Well, we always are 

glad to see you and we look forward to working with you on a lot of 

these issues. And with that, I am going to yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for holding this hearing. 

 MR. HALL. I thank Chairman Barton for yielding back. And one of 

the benefits of being Chairman is that all the questions that I want to ask 

have been answered pretty well. But the purpose, of course, of the 

hearing is to gain an understanding of the current situation and 

connections to the GNEP proposal, reasons for further delays, and issues 

that might require legislation, and I think you have covered those pretty 

well. You have adequately told us of the importance of Yucca Mountain, 

and I think everybody realizes that pretty well. The benefits of GNEP 

for the Yucca Mountain Project is something we might want to discuss 

for just a moment or so. And if GNEP is successful, will there be a need 

for Yucca Mountain? I think that almost speaks for itself because, 

physically, Yucca Mountain’s capacity is limited by heat generation from 

nuclear waste. If their capacity is limited by that, then spent fuel can be 

reprocessed to reduce waste volume and remove the heat-generating 

elements, then Yucca Mountain’s capacity might increase significantly, I 

am told, and I think that is basically in your testimony. 

 Another question I have heard asked is, it is not my question, but I 

have heard it, is GNEP is evidence that the Administration is backing 

away from its commitment to Yucca Mountain, and it seems to me that it 
33

is certainly not backing away from it, that it is lending R&D to it to make 

it more adequate and maybe to prevent having additional Yucca 

Mountains. Do you want to enlarge on that in any way? In other words, 

it is not a slow clear give to those that oppose Yucca Mountain. We 

don’t want to ever go down that road. We have got to finish it, we have 

got to complete it, and if you have any remarks to make about what 

GNEP will do for Yucca Mountain, I would like to hear that and that will 

be the only question I have. 

 MR. SELL. You have said it and I will briefly elaborate on it. We 

regard, really, GNEP as an opportunity to develop the recycling 

technologies that will allow us to optimize, from a waste management 

standpoint, it will allow us to optimize the use of the Yucca Mountain 

geologic repository for decades to come and perhaps even beyond the 

century. But those technologies themselves will take decades to get to 

commercialization, and we need to have success on Yucca Mountain 

much, much quicker than that so that we can start moving fuel there and 

quite frankly, earn the confidence from the American people, the 

taxpayers, and the nuclear industry, that we can meet our obligations to 

take fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. So Yucca Mountain 

remains the top and quite frankly, kind of the greatest remaining 

uncertainty as it relates to nuclear power in the United States, and we 

intend to work over the course of the next three years to resolve that 

uncertainty. 

 MR. HALL. Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your 

time and thank you for your service. All right, with that, we are 

adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY THE HON. CLAY SELL, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HALL 

Legislative Proposal

Q1. Secretary Bodman stated on March 9th that the Administration would propose 

legislation to address Yucca Mountain “within a month.” According to press 

reports, Secretary Bodman made a statement on March 28th that he is 

“...hopeful we will get it out by the end of April...” When will the 

Administration propose legislation to the Congress? 

A1. The Administration’s legislative proposal, the "Nuclear Fuel Management and 

Disposal Act" was submitted to Congress on April 5, 2006. 
34

Q2. If Congress does not act on your legislative proposal this year, what specific 

activities would be impacted? How would the schedule for commencement of 

repository operations be affected? 

A2. The program activities identified in the President’s FY 2007 budget are not 

contingent on the passage of legislation. The opening of the repository will be 

dependent on a number of factors, including when the license application is 

submitted, how long it takes to receive construction authorization and a license 

amendment to receive and possess waste on site, the level of funding available, 

and other factors including many that are outside the control of the Department. 

The legislative proposal contains a number of provisions, to facilitate the 

licensing, construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain. In 

particular, land withdrawal is a regulatory prerequisite for issuance of a license. 

Q3. Legislation has been proposed that would give DOE the authority to take title 

to commercial spent fuel at utility sites and store it there indefinitely. What is 

the Administration’s position? 

A3. I understand that Senators Reid and Ensign have proposed legislation to 

authorize DOE to take title to spent nuclear fuel at utility sites as a way to 

reduce the Government’s liability for its delay in disposing of spent nuclear 

fuel and resulting money damages in that litigation. However, because the 

Government would accept liability and responsibility for commercial reactor 

waste on privately owned sites regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC), taking title to all spent fuel at all 72 reactor sites in the 

Nation within five years would be substantially more costly to the Government 

than paying out delay damages. For example, removing all five-year cooled 

fuel from spent fuel pools could cost as much as $6 billion over the next five 

years, would expose nuclear plant workers to needless radiation exposure and 

would provide no increase in safety. Moreover, the proposed legislation would 

further postpone the day when the Department begins to fulfill its 

responsibilities to take and dispose of commercial spent fuel currently located 

at reactor sites around the country. 

Q4. What issues are being considered in the Administration’s Yucca Mountain 

legislative proposal? 

A. Will it have provisions related to the GNEP program? 

B. Why would legislation be necessary to address these issues? 

A4. The Department’s legislative proposal, the "Nuclear Fuel Management and 

Disposal Act" was submitted to Congress on April 5, 2006. It does not contain 

provisions related to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative. 

Capacity of Yucca Mountain 

Q5. Yucca Mountain’s current capacity is limited by law to 70,000 metric tons. 

A. Based on technical factors, what is the physical capacity of Yucca to 

accommodate spent fuel? 

B. Is this physical capacity adequate to directly dispose of all the spent 

fuel from the existing fleet of nuclear plants? 
35

C. Is this physical capacity adequate to directly dispose of spent fuel 

from any new nuclear plants that might be built? 

A5. The environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Yucca Mountain repository 

evaluated the cumulative effects of disposing of approximately 120,000 metric 

tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste at Yucca Mountain site. The 

physical capacity of Yucca Mountain has not been fully assessed; however the 

Department believes the capacity may be significantly greater than the amount 

analyzed in the EIS. As such, the physical capacity of Yucca Mountain is 

adequate to dispose of all the waste that currently exists, and would be 

sufficient for the disposal of all the spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste that 

is expected to be generated in the future from the existing fleet of nuclear 

plants. The ability of Yucca Mountain to dispose of spent fuel from new plants 

will be dependent on the number of new nuclear plants developed in the future 

and the results of further site characterization activities in other potential 

emplacement areas within Yucca Mountain. 

Q6. To what extent will the required report on the need for a second repository be 

shaped by progress on GNEP? How much more are we likely to know on the 

prospects for success in this technology development by the time the report is 

issued? 

A6. As required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Department of Energy is to 

submit a report on the need for a second repository between January 2007, and 

January 2010. The Department is currently in the planning phase for the 

development of that report. The report will address the technical progress of 

GNEP technology development at the time of its issuance. Given the timetable 

for determining the feasibility of the GNEP technologies, it is unlikely that the 

report could assume the commercial deployment of those technologies in the 

near term. On the other hand, removal of the 70,000 metric ton limitation 

would have a major effect on the need for a second repository in the near term. 

Q7. Please list the amounts and types of defense waste and spent fuel planned for 

disposal in Yucca Mountain. Please list all other defense waste and spent fuel 

that requires disposal in a geologic repository that exceeds the current 

allocation for Yucca Mountain. 

A7. The repository is being designed to accommodate 7,000 metric tons of spent 

nuclear fuel produced from the Department of Energy weapons production and 

Department of Navy research and test reactors, and naval nuclear propulsion 

programs and vitrified defense high-level waste from the reprocessing of spent 

fuel. 

The Department’s total inventory is approximately 13,000 metric tons heavy 

metal, comprised of around 2,500 metric tons heavy metal of spent nuclear 

fuel, including 65 metric tons of naval spent fuel and approximately 10,500 

metric tons of DOE high-level waste. 

The Department’s ability to dispose of its high-level radioactive waste currently 

is constrained by the provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that imposes a 

70,000 metric ton limit and requires the tonnage of the high-level radioactive 
36

waste to be based not on the actual volume of waste but rather on the volume of 

the spent fuel from which it was generated. 

License Application

Q8. What impact will the GNEP program have on the content and filing 

date of Yucca Mountain license application? 

A8. The GNEP initiative is a separate activity within the Department and is not 

expected to have any impact on the initial Yucca Mountain license application. 

If the advanced technologies that are being consider under the GNEP program 

are proven feasible and deployed, DOE will take appropriate action to revisit 

the license granted by NRC to accommodate the waste generated by GNEP. 

Q9. In the past year, a decision was made to redirect the approach taken to handling 

fuel at the repository to a “clean” approach utilizing a single canister for 

transportation, aging, and disposal (TAD). Please explain this new approach. 

What impact has this redirection had on the timing and cost of license review, 

program construction, and operations? How does it differ from the 

Department’s previous failed attempt to use Multi-purpose Canisters? 

A9. The new clean-canistered approach is cleaner, simpler, and safer. Workers at 

the Yucca Mountain site will be handling primarily canistered waste, not 

individual fuel assemblies as previously planned. These canisters will provide 

workers with another contamination barrier. For example, when routine 

maintenance is required in the canistered operating facilities, workers will not 

have to deal with radiological contamination as they would with individual fuel 

assembly handling operations. 

The Department anticipates that it will be able to announce a schedule for 

submission of the license application this summer after we have considered 

what changes will be needed in the license application to take the canistered 

approach into account. This re-direction was not the cause of the delays. 

Additional time for the development of the license application is needed to 

address a number of issues, including the expected issuance of the 

Environmental Protection Agency standards, actions to improve the quality 

assurance of the Program, and to ensure the license application is developed to 

the degree required for docketing by the NRC. The cost of re-directing the 

program to the canister approach has been minimal as compared to the cost 

savings that can result in simplier operations over the 40 years of operations at 

the repository. 

The opening of the repository will be dependent on when the license 

application is submitted, how long it takes to receive construction authorization 

and then a license amendment to receive and possess, the level of funding 

available, and a number of other factors. 

 We believe the new approach represents a technically simpler and safer 

operation. A similar initiative in the mid-1990s, referred to as the multipurpose canisters (MPC) approach, was discontinued as a result of budget 

reductions. 
37

Q10. Last year, the NRC denied certification of the Licensing Support Network. 

What steps are being taken to address this situation? When will the Network be 

ready for certification? 

A10. After NRC rejected the certification of the LSN in August 2004, the 

Department took several actions. First, a large archive of emails from inactive 

and external users was reviewed, and relevant documents were added to the 

LSN collection. Second, we reviewed documents that had been designated as 

privileged to ensure their proper classification and we removed a large number 

from the privileged category. Third, we continued our processes to collect and 

identify relevant documents that are required to be produced in the LSN in 

anticipation of a new certification. 

The LSN is currently being kept up to date through monthly submittals of 

relevant documents. The date for the LSN recertification has not been 

finalized, however, NRC regulations require the Department to certify the LSN 

at least six months prior to submittal of the license application. 

Q11. Last year, in preparation for certification of the Licensing Support Network, 

several emails from USGS employees indicating that proper Quality Assurance 

procedures had not been followed for their research on water infiltration into 

the repository. What actions are being taken to verify or recreate the data and 

models that they worked on? When will that work be completed? What is 

being done to improve quality assurance procedures and ensure adherence to 

those procedures? 

A11. The U.S. Geological Survey emails, while not directly involving data collection 

and technical work, have caused the Department to review the work contained 

in two reports, Simulation of Net Infiltration for Present-Day and Potential 

Future Climates and Analysis of Infiltration Uncertainty, which currently 

support the Total System Performance Assessment for the license application. 

The Department has conducted an evaluation of the potential technical impacts 

resulting from questions raised by the emails. The Evaluation of Technical 

Impact on the Yucca Mountain Project Technical Basis Resulting From Issues 

Raised by E-mails of Former Project Participants report concluded that, while 

the emails do not suggest a misrepresentation by certain individuals of the 

underlying science, they appear to imply circumvention and/or 

misrepresentation of compliance with Yucca Mountain Project quality 

assurance requirements. Consequently, we have implemented remedial actions 

to address both potential technical and quality assurance issues associated with 

the supporting data, implementing software, and process models called into 

question. 

 The Department has tasked Sandia National Laboratories to review the existing 

infiltration model and to prepare a new model. After Sandia completes these 

tasks, its work will be independently checked by experts outside the 

Department. We have been very clear that it is vital to properly carry out this 

work, and we will take the time necessary to do so. 
38

Q12. Please update the Committee on the efforts by the EPA and the NRC to issue 

an updated radiation standard for the repository. 

A. Is DOE confident that Yucca Mountain can meet the revised 

standard? 

B. How will the ultimate resolution of the radiation standard impact the 

licensing process and the repository’s design, cost, and schedule? 

A12. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rule applies a sensible 

technical approach and is appropriately tempered by reasonable policy 

judgments such as the inclusion of a reasonable expectation test. The proposed 

EPA standard beyond 10,000 years is equal to, or lower than radiation doses 

that are routinely experienced by millions of people today based on where they 

live or what they do. If the revised standard proposed by EPA is codified as 

proposed the Department is confident that the Yucca Mountain repository can 

meet the proposed revised standard. Of course, demonstrating regulatory 

compliance with a standard hundreds of thousands of years in the future will be 

a first of a kind exercise for both NRC and DOE and is likely to require the 

expenditure of considerable time and resources by both entities. 

The Department expects to have a schedule for submission of the license 

application later this summer after we have had a chance to review and 

incorporate proposed design changes for the clean-canistered approach to fuel 

handling facilities. This schedule will reflect the estimated time needed to 

address a number of issues, including for example, incorporating the final EPA 

standard. While the revision of the EPA standard has had an impact on the 

schedule for submitting the license application, the Department does not expect 

that the revised standard will necessitate design changes or the incurrence of 

any significant additional costs other than those associated with dealing with 

contentions on the post 10,000 year period in the licensing proceeding. 

Q13. How is DOE preparing to address the rigors of the NRC license review 

process? What licensing expertise does DOE currently have within the 

OCRWM? 

A13. As the Department continues to develop the repository design, safety analysis, 

and license application, it is also developing plans for defense of the 

application in Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings and Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews. This planning includes identification 

of our expert witnesses and preparation of information that may be needed to 

respond to contentions raised by other parties to the licensing proceedings. 

Prior to submitting the license application, the Department plans to have in 

place procedures and processes to respond to NRC’s requests for additional 

information once the license application is submitted. Since the NRC staff 

anticipates only an 18 month review period prior to the hearings, the 

Department needs to be able to respond to Requests for Additional Information 

rapidly and comprehensively. A thorough legal and regulatory review process, 

combined with timely interactions with the NRC during the pre-application 

period, will help the Program develop a license application that the NRC can 

docket, review and adjudicate in the three year period required by the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act. 
39

 The Department currently has staff, both Federal employees and contractors 

with experience in the licensing of nuclear facilities before the NRC. In 

addition, DOE has retained the services of an experienced law firm with 

extensive experience in nuclear facilities licensing and NRC regulation. 

Management 

Q14. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the submission of Project Decision 

Schedule to be updated as appropriate. In light of the many changes to the 

program in the last few years, when does DOE plan to submit a revised Project 

Decision Schedule? 

A14. We are working on an update of the Project Decision Schedule and plan to 

complete it in FY 2007. 

Q15. Last week, Secretary Bodman said that DOE has begun its evaluation of the 

need for a second repository, an evaluation that DOE is required to present to 

Congress beginning in 2007. If the Department has to begin looking at a 

second repository, which sites will you consider? Please provide a list of those 

candidate sites for the record. 

A15. The Department will develop a report between 2007 and 2010 on the need for a 

second repository, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Potential 

identification of sites is premature until the report on the need for a second 

repository is submitted to the Congress and a decision is made whether to 

proceed with a second repository program. However, it is reasonable to assume 

that the Department would initially look at the 21 states considered for the first 

or second repository during the early 1980s. These states include: 

Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington 

and Wisconsin. 

Q16. When does the current contract for the repository program expire? What are 

the Department’s plans for re-competing that contract? 

A16. The base period for the contract with Bechtel SAIC expired April 1, 2006. The 

contract includes options for up to five one-year extensions. The Department 

exercised the first one-year option (through March 31, 2007) and is considering 

exercising the second one-year option (April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008) 

to ensure completion of critical in-process work related to the license 

application submittal. The acquisition strategy for work beyond March 31, 

2008, is being evaluated by the Department to determine the best path forward, 

including competition. 

Q17. In the last two years, the Federal Government paid $141 million in claims or 

settlements resulting from DOE’s inability to dispose of commercial spent fuel. 

How much do you estimate will be paid over the next five years? Since these 

costs are being paid from the Judgment Fund, will DOE be required to 
40

reimburse that Fund? Where are these costs reflected in the President’s 

Budget? 

A17. The amount of damages due utilities from the Government is currently a matter 

in litigation. However, the Department has estimated that the Government’s 

liability for delaying the acceptance of spent fuel from 1998 to 2010 is between 

$2 billion to $3 billion. For each year that the Yucca Mountain is delayed 

beyond 2010, the Government’s liability could be up to $500 million per year 

in costs that the commercial utilities will incur for the construction and 

maintenance of storage on their sites. As the Department cannot predict when 

these costs will be paid either for a court judgment or for a settlement, the 

Department cannot quantify what portion of this liability will be paid over the 

next five years. Funds paid to utilities to settle litigation against the 

Government for the Department’s delay came from the Government’s 

Judgment Fund at the Department of the Treasury, which has a permanent 

indefinite appropriation and which, under current law, the Department of 

Energy is not required to reimburse. 

Q18. DOE has suggested that their liability for failing to accept commercial spent 

fuel beginning in 1998 may cost $500 million per year. Private Fuel Storage 

was recently licensed to build an independent spent fuel storage facility in Utah 

and estimates that they could serve DOE’s needs for about $60 million per 

year. Is DOE exploring this possibility? If not, why not? 

A18. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) directs the Department to develop a 

permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. 

Because PFS is a privately funded facility operated by the private sector outside 

the scope of the NWPA, the statute prohibits DOE from providing direct 

funding to that entity. Additionally, the facility does not address the Nation’s 

need to permanently dispose of radioactive waste. 

Q19. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, new nuclear plants must sign standard 

contracts with DOE for the disposal of spent fuel before they can receive a 

license from the NRC. Under what circumstances and conditions would DOE 

be able to sign Standard Contracts for the disposal of spent fuel from new 

reactors, considering the liability the Department faces for failure to execute 

their liability under the existing generation of contracts? 

A19. The Department is prepared to begin discussions with interested utilities to 

develop the terms and conditions of a new contract for the disposal of spent 

nuclear fuel from new commercial nuclear power reactors. The Department is 

confident that it will be able to successfully complete these activities to support 

the licensing of new nuclear power plants. The Department expects any new 

contract would take into account that acceptance of spent fuel would be 

dependent on removal of the 70,000 metric ton limitation or construction of a 

second repository. 

Q20. I understand that Secretary Bodman has publicly stated concern about whether 

the existing mil per kilowatt-hour that utilities pay to fund Yucca Mountain 

may NOT be adequate to cover the costs of building the repository. What is the 
41

basis for that statement? When will DOE planning to update its Total System 

Life Cycle Cost Estimate? 

A20. While the project is still in the design phase and annual spending does not 

exceed the net income into the fund (fees plus interest), an increase to the mil 

levy on the production of electricity from nuclear power does not seem 

warranted or justified. The Nuclear Waste Fund currently has approximately 

an $18 billion corpus which continues to grow every year. In FY 2006, the 

Fund took in $736 million in the mil levy fee as well as $849 million in 

investment income (for a total of $1.585 billion) while only $148.5 million was 

appropriated from the Fund by Congress for use at Yucca Mountain. This 

means that there was over $1.4 billion generated for the Fund in FY 2005 but 

not spent. 

 The program is planning to develop new cost estimates once the Department 

selects new designs for surface facilities that incorporate the clean-canistered 

approach and that are approved by the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory 

Board. Decisions on the designs are expected this summer. 

 

Q21. Administration witnesses have consistently testified that it is important to move 

forward with the Yucca Mountain project regardless of the outcome of the 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). One of the reasons relates to 

defense waste. 

A. Under current schedules, when will defense waste and spent fuel be 

ready for shipment to the repository? 

B. If the repository is not built, how will this waste be handled? 

A21. (A) Each Department of Energy site (Hanford, Savannah River, and 

Idaho National Laboratory), which expects to ship spent fuel or highlevel waste to the repository, will place the waste into disposable 

canisters. These canisters are designed to be transported to the 

repository and accommodate disposal in waste packages at Yucca 

Mountain. Currently Savannah River has high-level waste that has 

been vitrified, but Hanford and Idaho have not yet vitrified their highlevel waste. Current plans developed by the Office of Environmental 

Management for each site are summarized in the table below. 

SITE Date of Capability to Date of Capability to 

 Ship HLW Canisters Ship SNF Canisters 

Savannah River 2012 2015 

Hanford Site 2020 2018 

Idaho National Lab 2022 2015 

(B) If a repository were not built, the waste would continue to be stored 

at the current sites. 

Q22. The Department has previously submitted a legislative proposal to reclassify 

the fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund to make those offsetting collections 

that could only be used for the repository program. If Congress enacted such a 

reclassification proposal, how much would this accelerate the date for opening 

the repository? 
42

A22. The budget requirements to construct and operate the repository are estimated 

to be between $1 billion and $2 billion annually through operations. The 

Yucca Mountain project is currently funded, on average, at the $500 million 

level, of which, on average, is approximately $200 million from the Nuclear 

Waste Fund. Without funding reform to encourage full appropriation of the 

funds generated by the mil levy fee, the Department will not have sufficient 

funds to construct the repository and related infrastructure in a timely manner 

and operation of the repository at expected levels will be delayed many years. 

Q23. $544 million was requested to fund the Yucca Mountain program for FY’07. 

How much of that funding will be spent within the State of Nevada? 

A23. Approximately $343 million would be spent in the State of Nevada. This 

would include funds for State and local government oversight activities, 

payments equal to taxes, University of Nevada research, our management and 

operating and other project contractors, and Federal salaries for staff located in 

Nevada. 

 

Q24. Please list all circumstances under which DOE has authority to conduct interim 

storage of nuclear waste and spent fuel. 

A24. DOE has authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (AEA) 

(42 U.S.C. 2075), to accept spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in certain circumstances. 

Pursuant to this AEA authority, the Department has accepted and stored U.S. 

supplied foreign research reactor fuel at various DOE sites. DOE has also used 

this authority to accept for research and development purposes small amounts 

of SNF such as parts of the Three Mile Island melted reactor core and other 

damaged SNF. DOE also has accepted commercial SNF under contracts that 

pre-dated enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). 

Enactment of the NWPA did not affect the Department’s authority to accept 

and store SNF not covered by the Standard Contract mandated by the NWPA. 

However, in enacting the NWPA, Congress did provide a detailed statutory 

scheme for commercial SNF storage and disposal that, by its specificity, 

severely limited the Department’s commercial SNF storage and disposal 

options and, in effect, prevents the Department from currently undertaking 

interim storage of commercial SNF to meet the NWPA-imposed disposal 

contract obligations. Section 135 of the Act authorized the Department to enter 

into contracts to assist or provide temporary storage of small amounts of SNF 

until a repository was available. This authority expired in 1990. Section 141 of 

the Act authorizes the Department to site, construct and operate a Monitored 

Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility, but restricts DOE’s ability to pursue this 

option by linking any activity under this section to almost unattainable 

milestones. 42 U.S.C. 10155-10157. For example, before the MRS can be 

constructed, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must have issued a 

construction authorization license for the main repository; until the main 

repository starts accepting SNF, the quantity of spent fuel stored at the MRS 

site cannot exceed 10,000 MTUs; after the main repository starts accepting 

SNF, the total quantity of SNF at the MRS site cannot exceed 15,000 MTUs at 

any one time, and the MRS cannot be located in Nevada. 
43

Repository Operations

Q25. The Yucca Mountain EIS includes an assumption that the repository will 

remain open with the ability to monitor waste performance and retrieve it if 

appropriate for at least 50 and as many as 300 years. What are your current 

assumptions with respect to this aspect of repository operations? 

A25. The Yucca Mountain environmental impact statement (EIS) assumption was 

based on two considerations. First, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

regulations require that the repository must be able to retrieve spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level waste for a period of 50 years following initial 

emplacement. Second, the Department desired to ensure that the repository 

could be physically maintained and monitored to allow future policymakers to 

decide when to permanently close the repository. At the time the EIS was 

prepared, the Department believed that up to 300 years was a conservative 

timeframe. 

Considerations such as the costs and technical feasibility of maintaining the 

underground emplacement drifts for 300 years, and the need to protect the open 

repository from adversaries, have caused the Department to revise this 

assumption. Currently, the Department intends that the repository be capable 

of remaining open for up to 50 years following completion of emplacement of 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. This will simplify the ability to 

provide drift stability, reduce the timeframe to protect the spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level waste while the repository is open, allow the repository to meet 

thermal limits for emplacement, and reduce the cost of maintaining the facility 

in an open condition. 

Q26. Please describe the improvements to site infrastructure that you plan to 

accomplish with the FY 2007 request. 

A. Why must this work be done now? 

B. Can all of these site infrastructure activities be undertaken in advance 

of receiving a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

begin construction of the repository? 

C. Do you have any communication from the NRC stating that position? 

A26. In order to assure the safety of the workers and visiting members of the public 

at the Yucca Mountain site, the Administration plans to make needed safetyrelated replacements or improvements to the existing infrastructure. Among 

other things, the Department would be replacing or making improvements to 

the fire detection, alarm, rail, and ventilation systems, and underground fire 

fighting capability in the tunnel. These safety-related activities would also 

involve the construction of three new temporary buildings to replace existing 

trailers, temporary work shops, and tents. 

These safety-related activities would also include removal of the muck pile (the 

tailings from the excavation of the tunnel) from its current location in order 

address safety the storm water flooding of the temporary buildings that have 

been constructed on the muck pile. The muck pile would be used as fill 

material to support other infrastructure activities such as road construction or 

repair and pad foundation construction. 
44

The National Environmental Policy Act review for these proposed activities has 

not been completed, and we have not commenced our formal consultations with 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding these proposed activities. 

Q27. Please describe the improvements to transportation infrastructure that you plan 

to accomplish with the FY 2007 request. Why must this work be done in 2007, 

considering that the repository is not likely to open before 2012? 

A27. Most of the assets required for safe and secure transportation have long 

procurement lead times. The design, testing, certification and fabrication of 

new casks are expected to take five years. In addition, construction of a 300 

mile long rail access to the repository will be both expensive and time 

consuming. The long lead times and high cost of developing the transportation 

infrastructure are prime reasons for beginning development early and spreading 

the costs over multiple years. Approximately half of the $68 million requested 

for transportation development in FY 2007 is targeted for final design and 

construction of the rail line to the repository. The other funds are targeted for 

procuring long lead assets (casks and rail cars) as well as developing the 

communications, security, routing and emergency preparedness support needed 

for safe and secure shipments. 

Q28. Are existing laws and regulations governing the transport of spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level waste adequate to ensure public health and safety during DOE’s 

extensive shipping campaign to Yucca Mountain? How many nuclear waste 

locations will not be accessible by rail in the timeframe that DOE expects to 

begin transport to Yucca Mountain? What options exist for those sites NOT 

accessible by rail? 

A28. The Federal government and nuclear industry have been shipping nuclear 

material, nuclear waste, and spent nuclear fuel since the early 1950s. In that 

time, over 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been conducted without 

any harmful release of radioactive material. That safety record is largely due to 

the stringency of current laws and regulations. In February of this year, the 

National Academy of Sciences issued a draft report titled, “Going the Distance? 

The Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 

in the United States” and stated that “Current international standards and U.S. 

regulations are adequate to ensure package containment effectiveness over a 

wide range of transport conditions.” The legislation proposed by the 

Administration is not intended to replace this framework or to change the 

Department’s long standing practice of working with States, Indian tribes and 

local governments utilizing their expertise to ensure safe and secure 

transportation and of providing them financial and other assistance, as 

appropriate. Rather the legislation clarifies DOE can use its authority under the 

Atomic Energy Act to ensure a single comprehensive framework and identifies 

the mechanism for dealing with requirements that conflict with this framework. 

Of the 72 commercial sites from which DOE will ship spent nuclear fuel, 24 do 

not have direct rail access. There are several options for shipping rail sized 

casks from these sites, including moving the large rail casks on special “heavyhaul” transporters to nearby rail yards and transferring them to a train for the 

rest of the journey, or shipping truck sized casks on flatbed trailers in standard 

legal weight, or permitted overweight, configurations. Another option would 
45

be to load the rail cask onto a barge at sites with navigable water access and use 

the waterway to ship the load to a nearby railhead. Studies of inter-modal 

shipment options from sites without rail access to a railhead are being 

supported by the Department in collaboration with state regional groups. 

Q29. Is DOE confident that repository performance is understood in an adequate 

level of detail to satisfy the rigorous scrutiny of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s review? Is OCRWM undertaking any additional scientific work 

to increase understanding of natural or engineered barriers, or radionuclide 

transport? If so, please describe this work, its current funding level and future 

projections. 

A29. Yes, DOE is confident that after over 20 years of testing and analysis, the 

repository performance is understood to an adequate level of detail for the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to make a determination that a 

construction authorization can be granted for a repository at Yucca Mountain. 

When the President recommended Yucca Mountain for development as a 

repository in 2002, the NRC had issued its notice of sufficiency on November 

13, 2001, stating that there would be sufficient information available at the time 

of a potential license application such that development of an acceptable 

license application would be achievable. The NRC had reviewed the responses 

DOE provided to questions on Key Technical Issues and concluded that the 

responses, and additional information that would be in the license application, 

would meet the requirements for the licensing process. 

Additional work is underway to increase our understanding of how the natural 

and engineered barriers perform, and how radionuclides might be transported. 

Both DOE and NRC understand that additional confidence in our estimates of 

performance will be gained over time as we construct, operate and monitor the 

repository. NRC requires that DOE have in place a Performance Confirmation 

(PC) Program to continually evaluate the technical basis for our performance 

projections. DOE has issued a Performance Confirmation plan and begun the 

process of migrating long term testing and monitoring activities that started 

during site characterization into the PC Program. DOE will continue to collect 

and analyze scientific data related to performance of the engineered and natural 

barriers from now until closure of the repository. 

In FY 2006 funding for postclosure performance activities is approximately 

$79 million, this includes funding for Performance Confirmation, as well as 

funding to extend our current estimates of performance from the 10,000 years 

in the current NRC regulation to the 1 million years that EPA has proposed in 

the revision to its standard, to analyze changes resulting from recent design 

changes, and to support the University of Nevada, and Nye (NV) and Inyo 

(CA) counties in conducting independent scientific analyses. We plan to 

continue scientific activities in future years in order to refine our understanding, 

provide added confidence in our models, and incorporate new information as 

appropriate. Funding requirements are expected to remain about the same until 

a construction authorization is issued, and then decrease to about $30 to $50 

million per year. 
46

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) 

Q30. What is the importance of the Yucca Mountain project to the future of nuclear 

power? 

A. What are the benefits of GNEP for the Yucca Mountain project? 

B. If GNEP is successful will there still be a need for Yucca Mountain? 

C. Isn’t GNEP evidence that the Administration is backing away from 

its commitment to Yucca Mountain? 

A30. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) technologies, when demonstrated, 

could have a significant positive impact on the Yucca Mountain repository 

including the reduction of waste volume, radiotoxicity, and heat load. 

Successful commercial deployment of GNEP spent fuel recycling technologies, 

however, is many years, even decades in the future. DOE does not intend to 

delay fulfilling its obligation to begin consolidating and disposing of the 

approximately 50,000 metric tons of commercial spent fuel already generated, 

as well as the approximately 2,000 metric tons being generated each year. 

DOE plans to proceed with licensing, constructing and operating the Yucca 

Mountain repository as planned. If GNEP technologies are successfully 

deployed commercially, DOE will take the necessary steps to make the 

repository accommodate the changes in the waste stream. 

While the potential waste minimization benefits of GNEP on Yucca Mountain 

could be positive, any changes to the operation of the Yucca Mountain 

repository would occur only after GNEP technologies have been adequately 

demonstrated. Today, there will be no changes in the license application under 

development, and we will proceed with our current plan for the existing waste 

inventory as well as the waste being generated. 

The Administration is not backing way from its commitment to Yucca 

Mountain. On the contrary, the Government has the obligation to take and 

dispose of the Nation’s waste, and our mission is to provide permanent 

geologic disposal under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The GNEP 

initiative is a separate activity within the Department and, as such, does not 

detract from the Department’s commitment to build a repository at Yucca 

Mountain. A repository will be needed under any fuel cycle scenario. 

Q31. What is the projected cost of the GNEP program over its lifetime? 

A31. The Department’s preliminary, order-of-magnitude estimate of costs for the 

GNEP initiative range from $20 billion to $40 billion. This includes the cost of 

Nuclear Power 2010 and Yucca Mountain over the next ten years as well as the 

cost of demonstrating integrated recycling technologies. The preliminary, 

order-of-magnitude costs associated with the demonstration of technologies 

would be substantially less, and have previously been estimated to range from 

$3 billion to $6 billion over the next ten years to bring those technologies to the 

point of initial operations. In 2008, the Department will have more refined 

estimates of the cost and schedule to complete the full 20-year demonstration 

effort. 
47

Q32. Your testimony before Senate Appropriations states, “we will be looking for a 

sizable portion of GNEP costs to be shared by our partners and industry starting 

in 2008”. What aspects does the Administration envision the industry funding 

and how much funding would the industry be expected contribute? 

A32. Industry and international partners have significant experience and capabilities 

that would support various aspects of the GNEP initiative. While specific 

funding levels have not been set among possible participants, it is anticipated 

that cooperating on the development of these advanced recycle technologies 

would enable the U.S. to leverage its investment with fuel cycle partners, 

increasing the U.S. investment several fold. 

Q33. What are the GNEP funding requirements for FY 2008 and succeeding years? 

Does the Administration believe that this funding profile can be accommodated 

within the existing DOE budget? If so, what offsetting reductions in DOE 

activities is the Administration considering? Considering that both GNEP and 

the Yucca Mountain programs will require dramatic funding increases in 

roughly similar timeframes, how can DOE accommodate those competing 

requirements within its budget? 

A33. The Department is currently developing more detailed cost estimates and work 

scopes for the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program. The more detailed 

cost estimates will be used to identify the funding requirements for its 

implementation. 

DOE expects to request sufficient funding to support GNEP and, in particular, 

the timely evaluation of the technical feasibility of various technologies taking 

into account competing priorities and budgets. While no decisions have been 

made at this stage concerning whether there would be offsetting reductions in 

other programs, the Department is committed to seeking full and adequate 

funding for Yucca Mountain programs and has no intention to divert funds 

from Yucca Mountain programs to GNEP. In particular, the Department 

believes the Nuclear Waste Fund should be used for its intended purpose and 

provide the basis for appropriations at levels that will result in beginning 

operation of the repository at Yucca Mountain as soon as possible. 

Q34. According to DOE’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposal, the United 

States would provide nuclear fuel services to other countries including the 

return of spent fuel for reprocessing. Where will the ultimate waste product be 

disposed? 

A34. We do not envision accepting spent fuel pursuant to the GNEP initiative until 

there is sufficient advanced recycling capability available in the U.S. At that 

time, we would have to consider the conditions under which the U.S. could 

reprocess another country’s spent fuel. 

Q35. Deputy Secretary Sell testified that up to 90% of existing commercial used fuel 

could be recycled. What is the basis for this estimate? 
48

A35. The Department’s technical experts are confident that a very large percentage 

of existing or future U.S. inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel may be 

suitable for recycling if the GNEP technologies ultimately prove to be 

successful. Some of the inventory of commercial spent fuel is known at this 

time to be not suitable for recycle using the separations technology under 

development by the Department. This inventory includes the Three Mile Island 

damaged fuel, the graphite fuel from Fort St. Vrain, and other non-oxide-based 

fuels. 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN 

Q1. Mr. Sell, in your written testimony you highlight the Department’s intention to 

move towards a clean canister approach. 

A. Why is it necessary to repackage spent fuel that is already in NRC 

licensed canisters? What is wrong with the existing canisters? 

B. Do you intend for this approach to be applied to decommissioned 

plants? 

C. If yes, how do you anticipate decommissioned plants transferring 

spent fuel to new canisters if their facilities are completely closed and 

in some cases destroyed, except for the existing spent fuel storage 

containers? How is it logistically possible to make these transfers? 

D. Do you anticipate that ratepayers will pay the cost of these transfers 

to new canisters, even at decommissioned plants? 

E. Will you commit to making the movement of fuel from 

decommissioned plants a priority, if not first priority, in any scenario 

where Yucca Mountain becomes operational? 

A1. The Department is moving to implement a clean-canistered approach to spent 

fuel acceptance at the Yucca Mountain repository. Currently, we are 

developing the performance specifications for this canister. These 

specifications will include materials and features that are necessary to provide 

for the long-term isolation of the waste in the repository. The Department 

understands that the current generation of dual-purpose canisters, which were 

licensed by the NRC for storage and transportation of spent fuel, do not 

incorporate the features required for long-term waste isolation. As such, spent 

fuel stored in dual-purpose canisters would have to be repackaged prior to 

disposal. 

The other issues raised by part B through E of your question are currently the 

subject of ongoing litigation against the Government, and I cannot comment 

further at this time. 

Q2. Eight members of the New England Delegation sent a letter to Secretary 

Bodman, dated December 8, 2005, asking him to address what we feel is the 

Department’s failure to live up to its obligation to remove spent nuclear fuel 

from decommissioned plants in New England. The Secretary’s response, dated 

March 7, 2006, did not even contain the words “New England” in it. It 

certainly gave no specifics about the Department’s plans to remove spent fuel 

from the region. 

A. Mr. Sell, please describe, in detail, the Department’s plan to fulfill its 

obligation to remove spent nuclear fuel from New England. 
49

B. Mr. Sell, please provide all pertinent data the Department has on its 

plans to remove spent fuel from decommissioned plants in New 

England, including the data and any and all memos and records of 

discussion that led to the formulation of Secretary Bodman’s March 

7, 2006 response to the New England Delegation letter of December 

8, 2005. 

A2. The Department remains committed to develop the Yucca Mountain repository 

as expeditiously as possible to allow for the receipt of commercial spent 

nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors. The specific issue of 

priority acceptance of spent fuel from decommissioned reactors raised by your 

question is currently the subject of ongoing litigation against the Government, 

and I cannot comment further at this time. 

○