Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0083-0380
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-12-01T05:00Z

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE STATUS OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT

	Table of Contents

U.S. Senate                                                             
                             Wednesday, March 1, 2006	

Committee on Environment and Public Works,                              
                    Washington, D.C.

STATEMENT OF:                                                           
                                                      PAGE

HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA	5

HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT	7

HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA	15

HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE	17

WITNESSES:

HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA	10

HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA	2

WILLIAM WEHRUM, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND
RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY	19

PAUL GOLAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY	22

ROBERT FRI, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL
BASES FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN STANDARDS	54

ALLISON MACFARLANE, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, PROGRAM IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY
AND SOCIETY, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY	58

ROBERT LOUX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEVADA AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR	61

DADE W. MOELLER, FORMER PRESIDENT, HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY	64

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE STATUS OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006

                                               U.S. Senate,

                    Committee on Environment and Public Works,

                                                Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 628, Senate
Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe [chairman of the committee]
presiding.

Present:  Senators Inhofe, Warner, DeMint, Jeffords, Boxer, Carper, and
Lautenberg.

Senator Inhofe. The Committee will come to order.  The hearing will come
to order.

I would like to make the announcement, with the concurrence of Senator
Jeffords that, when either Senator Harry Reid or Senator John Ensign
arrive for their brief statements, we are going to interrupt what we are
doing so they can be heard.  Okay?  I will go ahead and start, though,
with an opening statement.  You guys, watch out for them, will you?

Staff. Senator Ensign just walked in.

Senator Inhofe. Senator Ensign just walked in.  So we will recognize
Senator Ensign at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I may be a little out of
breath.  I just hiked up from the basement.  I guess that is about eight
floors.  So I apologize, but I appreciate your allowing me to testify
before your Committee on the second proposed rule concerning Yucca
Mountain radiation standards.

This rule, on its face, I believe doesn't make sense, and the closer one
looks, the worse it appears.  The EPA found itself in a very difficult
position.  The original EPA Yucca rule had been thrown out by a Federal
Court, which found its 10,000 year compliance period was not consistent
with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences.

The EPA could have simply modified its rule by extending it to cover the
time of peak radiation exposure as required by the Court.  We know why
the EPA did not do this.  It didn't do this because Yucca Mountain could
not be engineered to meet standard.  Yucca Mountain could not be built
if that was the case.  So, instead of putting forth a common sense
solution, the EPA proposed the weakest peak dose standard in the world,
a proposal opposed by the National Council of Radiation Protection. 
Again, when it comes to Yucca Mountain, sound science has been rejected.

There are those who believe Congress should ignore recommendations by
the National Academy of Sciences and simply lower the safety standards
for the storage of the planet's most deadly material.  Senator Reid and
I are committed to making sure that that doesn't happen.

Mr. Chairman, Yucca Mountain continues to be plagued with problems and
delays.  The Department of Energy no longer even pretends to know when
Yucca Mountain could open or how much it will cost.  DOE once again has
stopped work at Yucca Mountain after an NRC audit revealed that several
years of data collection was done with equipment that had not be
calibrated.  This data is critical to health and safety because it
relates to how water could enter the repository and cause corrosion of
the nuclear waste storage casks.

We need to find another solution to our Country's nuclear waste problem.
 We need to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to require the
DOE to take title of all spent nuclear fuel.  We need to invest in new
technologies at our national labs to recycle the waste without producing
weapons grade plutonium as a by-product.  Transmutation technology, for
example, which transforms radioactive products into less dangerous
materials and produces electricity as a result is quickly emerging as a
viable alternative.

Mr. Chairman, this new proposed radiation standard, like so much of the
so-called science of Yucca Mountain is a farce.  The EPA was forced to
create this ridiculous standard to make Yucca Mountain look
scientifically feasible on paper; it is not.  I believe this project is
dangerous and misguided, fraught with junk science and fraudulent data.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Senator Ensign follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Thank you for that excellent statement, Senator Ensign. 
You may either be excused or stay, whichever you would prefer.

Senator Ensign. I have other things pending, as all of us Senators do. 
Thank you very much.

Senator Inhofe. I am shocked.

Remind me if you see Senator Reid coming.  Anyone out by the door, do
you see Senator Reid coming?

I will go ahead and start with my opening statement, Senator Jeffords.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF OKLAHOMA

Today is our first oversight hearing on the status of Yucca Mountain,
the designated site for long term storage of high level nuclear waste. 
Before us today, we have the Department of Energy, the Environmental
Protection Agency, as well as other interested parties.  We will be
looking at a number of issues, including the status of EPA's revised
proposed standard.

The way the process is supposed to work is for DOE to construct and
operate the site in accordance with the radiation standards that EPA
sets and the NRC to regulate the facility.  There is a role for each one
of them.  This Committee has the sole jurisdiction over the EPA and the
NRC, and it is our responsibility to ensure that this site moves forward
in accordance with the law and that we can start shipping waste there as
soon as practical.

After personally visiting the site, I strongly support the storage of
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, and I encourage all members of the
Committee to visit the site.  It is amazing to witness and the amount of
research that has been conducted on this site.  It is certainly the most
well studied mountain in the world.  I do have a document here that is
almost the title of it, "The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet,''
if anyone would like to get some of our documentation.

How can we not support this site which has gained both national and
international scientific peer approval over 20 years and $8 billion
worth of scientific, environmental, and engineering fieldwork?  How many
more thousands of rock samples do we need to further reconfirm what is
already known about the site's engineered and natural barriers' ability
to contain radioactive materials for thousands of years?

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required DOE to provide a Federal
repository for used nuclear fuel no later than January 31st of 1998. 
Here we are, eight years after that deadline, and there is still no
central repository for spent nuclear fuel.  In fact, according to
current scheduling projections, the placement of waste underground at
the Yucca site would not take place until 2015 at the earliest, and then
only if it receives full regulatory approval and the budget requests are
met.  That leaves the United States at 17 years behind schedule.

Meanwhile, millions of American families and businesses have been paying
twice for this delay in the storing of nuclear fuel.  They pay once to
fund the Federal management of the used nuclear fuel at a central
repository and again when electric utility companies have to build
additional temporary storage capacity at nuclear power plant sites
because the Federal Government did not meet its obligation to begin
moving the used fuel in 1998.

As a result, since 1983, the American consumers have paid approximately
$18 billion for this nuclear waste fund through additions or add-ons to
their utility bills with really nothing to show for it.  Still, the
Federal Government continues to collect nearly $700 million a year from
electricity consumers.  Future generations of Americans__our children,
our grandchildren - will pay a high price for continued inaction.  We
owe it to the American people to do better.

Nuclear energy makes up roughly 20 percent of our Nation's energy mix. 
If we are going to continue to grow this economy, we need to take the
pressure off the natural gas, expand our nuclear capacity, and increase
our use of clean coal and clean coal technology.  In order to expand
nuclear capacity, we have to solve the waste issue which appears to be
more of a political issue than a scientific issue.

In addition to the Federal Agencies, we will hear from several
scientists, the State of Nevada, and of course, Senator Reid, who we are
expecting here in just a moment.

Finally, I would like to point out to my colleagues that we decided
against having the NRC testify today on the Federal panel since they
will be regulating DOE.  We will have them next week at the Nuclear
Safety Subcommittee Hearing, chaired by Senator Voinovich, if members
have specific questions for them about Yucca Mountain.

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Senator Jeffords?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF VERMONT

Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today, we are conducting a very important hearing to determine the
status of the Federal project to develop Yucca Mountain as a permanent
disposal site for the Nation's nuclear waste.

My State of Vermont, along with 39 other States, relies on nuclear
power for a large portion of its electricity generation.  It is an
important part of the energy mix.  Nonetheless, we must be realistic in
dealing with the downsides associated with nuclear power.

Over 30 years ago, as Vermont's Attorney General, I was concerned about
the impact of nuclear waste on our environment and the health care of
Vermonters.  As Attorney General, I fought to improve the safety
standards at Vermont Yankee by calling for the use of new technology
that dramatically reduced airborne radiation.

When the industry resisted, I required Vermont Yankee to enter into a
contract with the State to use the best available technology to control
radiation and to accept State monitoring, protecting the Connecticut
River and the people of Vermont.  The Atomic Energy Commission later
accepted these technologies as their industry standard.

Throughout my time in Congress, I have continued to work for a
comprehensive solution to our nuclear waste problem.  Back in 1977, I
introduced a bill in the House, calling for a comprehensive Nuclear
Waste Disposal Strategy.  I maintained then, as I do now, that finding
an effective solution to the waste problem is critical to the future of
nuclear power in this Country.  I supported the Yucca Mountain in the
past in the belief that it would resolve the problem and contain both
our past and future nuclear waste.

I have consistently supported a central storage solution for nuclear
waste.  I continue to believe that it is essential that we find a
permanent geologic storage site if we are to continue to produce nuclear
energy.

However, the truth is that Yucca Mountain will not provide the
solution, and the project faces many challenges.  It is now clear that
Yucca Mountain will only take part of the waste, leaving some, if not
most, of the waste that would be produced, sitting along the banks of
the rivers beside our small local communities and our largest population
centers.  Yucca Mountain will certainly not hold waste from any new
nuclear plants that the industry is planning to build.  This is not
adequate, and this is not acceptable.

Moreover, we will examine today that we should not try to beat a square
peg into a round hole by trying to make the science or regulations fit
our efforts to build the Yucca site.  If the agencies working through
the Yucca project cut corners, we will undermine to develop a sound
permanent and comprehensive solution to the problem of nuclear waste
disposal.  This will also lull us into a false sense of security,
believing that important issues related to disposal are taken care of;
they are not.

Americans need to know that, under a geological disposal solution, high
level waste will be stored safely and that we have set the highest and
the best standard to protect the environment and the human health where
we have to build future disposal sites.

I urge my colleagues to be diligent today, to be focused in their
questions and push for the answers about whether we are getting a real
and comprehensive solution to the nuclear waste disposal.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Let me interrupt you just for a moment.

At this point, we had announced, Senator Reid, that when you arrived,
we would stop our proceedings, and we would look forward to any
statement you would like to make.

Senator Jeffords, we appreciate your doing that.

Senator John Ensign has already been here and made his statement.

Senator Reid, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very, very much.  I tried
to get here.  I try to be on time; sometimes you can't be.  I appreciate
it.  And also, Senator Jeffords, thank you very much.

The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, I don't believe, Mr.
Chairman, will ever be built.  The project is mired in scientific,
safety, and technical problems.

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which called for
disposal of nuclear waste in a deep, geological repository that would
remain stable for thousands of years and directed DOE to pick the most
suitable site based on the natural geologic features of the site.  In
1987, Congress took action based on political expediency and limited
DOE's study to Yucca Mountain, eliminating the State of Washington and
the State of Texas, despite the fact the criteria in the act would
disqualify the Yucca Mountain site.

DOE has been studying the site, as I have indicated, for more than 20
years.  The studies are even today incomplete and don't provide a basis
for evaluating whether Yucca Mountain is a safe site for storing nuclear
waste and whether it can be transported safely across America's highways
and railways, and through our communities, past our schools and
hospitals and homes, and through major metropolitan areas.

Transportation of nuclear waste around the Country and to Yucca poses
hazardous to public health, economic, natural security, and
environmental safety from accidents and terrorist attacks which DOE has
simply not addressed at all.  Moving almost 80,000 tons of waste to
Yucca would involve about 53,000 truck shipments and 10,000 rail
shipments over about 25 years through cities and counties where nearly
250 million people:  Sacramento, California; Buffalo, New York; Denver,
Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; and the District of Columbia; and, of
course, Nevada.

Before he was elected the first time, President George W. Bush wrote, "I
believe sound science, not politics, must prevail in 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.''  Now,
President Bush, I am sorry to say, hasn't followed what he said he would
do because now it is obvious that unsound science is prevailing at Yucca
Mountain.

A few of the scientific problems, and these are only a few that we have
seen in the last year or 18 months:

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 recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences.

EPA published its revised standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain
high level waste dump which are wholly inadequate, do not meet the law's
requirements, and do not protect the public healthy and safety.  In
fact, EPA is proposing the least protective public health radiation
standard in the whole world.

Additionally, numerous scientific and quality assurance problems,
transportation problems, corrosion of casks, effectiveness of materials,
and many other things have caused DOE to suspend work on the surface
facilities and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a stop order
on the containers.

Additionally, DOE revealed the documents and models about water
infiltration at Yucca have been falsified, that is, there has been
cheating.  They whitewashed this problem, or tried to, but cannot
whitewash the DOE Inspector General's report that DOE continues to
ignore falsification of technical and scientific data on the project.

In numerous media reports, the Administration has confirmed that it is
preparing a legislative package that will remove health, safety, and
legal requirements__a clear admission that the project is a complete
public health, safety, and scientific failure.

It should be clear to anyone that the proposed Yucca Mountain project is
not going anywhere.  It will never open.  Yet, we must safely store
spent nuclear fuel.  So it is time to look at other waste alternatives.

Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, the technology is there to realize a viable,
safe, and secure alternative.  This can be fully implemented within a
decade or less if we now act.  The technology is onsite dry cask storage
containment.  Dry casks are being safely used at 34 sites throughout the
Country.  NEI projects 83 of the 103 nuclear reactors will have dry
storage by the year 2050.

I and Senator Ensign have a bill that would safely store nuclear waste
while we look for a scientifically-based solution, The Spent Fuel Onsite
Storage and Security Act.  Our bill requires commercial and nuclear
utilities to secure waste in licensed onsite dry cask storage
facilities.

There is no justification, absolutely no justification for endangering
the public by ruling that there are no problems.  There is no reason to
rush headlong towards a repository that is fraught with scientific,
technical, and geological problems when it can be stored safely and
securely in dry casks.

Our bill guarantees all Americans that our Nation's nuclear waste will
be stored in the safest way possible.  It is time we addressed the
problem at hand, the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, and stop
pouring taxpayers' money down the drain on a project that could endanger
all of our citizens.  The Yucca Mountain project is a failure, and I
will continue to do what I can to point that out to the public.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, one of the things I didn't want to take the
time for, because I know how rushed you all are, is that there are
members of Senate, some more than others, who are tremendously concerned
about costs, how much things cost.  Certainly, the presiding officer of
this meeting, the Chairman of this full Committee, has been concerned
about dollars ever since I have served with you.  You must take a look
at this waste of money with this project.  Right now, we have spent
upwards of $10 billion on nothing.  We have nothing for this.

And I would respectfully submit that this is not a game, saying we are
winners and losers.  Let us do the right thing.  Leave it onsite in dry
cask storage containers.  It will be safe there for at least 50 years,
and thereafter, we will have some idea of what to do with this.

The President of the United States is in India, trying to work out
something on the safe use of producing nuclear energy.  I have talked to
him about this.  I don't just, at hand, say that what he is doing is
wrong.  I think it is something we need to take a look at.  We need to
take a look at doing something similar to that in the United States, but
we have got to solve the waste problem.  Until we solve the waste
problem, and I think the way to do it cheaply, not by spending 10
billion but a few million dollars, is to store it onsite.  It certainly
would be the right thing to do in my opinion.

I appreciate the Committee's taking a look at this.

[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Senator Reid, thank you for that excellent opening
statement.  You certainly are invited to stay if your schedule would
permit or to leave if you are unable to do that.

Senator Jeffords, we did interrupt your statement.  If you would like to
start over, that would be fine, or just pick up where you dropped off.

Senator Jeffords. Where I left off, basically.

Senator Inhofe. Then that will be reflected in the record as if not
interrupted.

Senator Jeffords. Thank you.

[The complete statement of Senator Jeffords appears at a prior point in
the record.]

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.

Senator Boxer?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA

Senator Boxer. Hello, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, protecting public health and safety should be the primary
test in assessing nuclear waste disposal options, and with that measure
in mind, Yucca Mountain continues to fail the test in my view.

The focus of the hearing today is the status of the Yucca Mountain
project, including the establishment of radiation standards that will
ensure that public health and the environment are protected.  EPA's
first effort to establish radiation standards was largely struck down by
the D.C. Circuit for failing to comply with National Academy of Sciences
recommendations.  EPA's current proposal for radiation standards at
Yucca Mountain has yet to be finalized but has drawn criticism from an
expert on nuclear issues for failing to ensure that the public does not
face unacceptable cancer risks.

Technical problems with the Yucca Mountain project continue to raise
red flags.  A January, 2006 order from the Department of Energy has
stopped all work on the repository because of quality assurance
problems.  Whether the plan to address the problems is successful
remains to be seen.

On February 9, 2006, the National Academy of Sciences called for DOE to
further analyze and account for potential terrorist acts on the
transportation of nuclear waste before large shipments take place.  The
National Academy of Sciences also called for, among other things,
additional analysis of safety measures for high intensity fires.

Clearly, the potential risks associated with this project remain very
high.  My longstanding concerns about this project have not been
addressed.  My State of California is one of the most affected by the
Yucca Mountain project which is only 17 miles from the California border
and Death Valley National Park.  Studies have shown that the groundwater
under Yucca Mountain flows into Death Valley, one of the hottest and
driest places on Earth.  If radiation contaminates this groundwater, it
could be the demise of the National Park and the surrounding
communities.

The threat posed by nuclear waste transport in California is also clear,
and in the past I have laid that out.  Mr. Chairman, I won't do that
today.  I will spare you that, but I will say that over 7.5 million
people in California live within one mile of a possible nuclear
transport route, 7.5 million people.  That is more people than we have
in most of our States.

Yucca's geology also remains a concern.  Two active faults run through
Yucca mountain, though they don't cross the repository.  Quakes of 5.6
and 4.4 on the Richter Scale occurred in 1992 and 2002, just 12 miles
away from the site, just 12 miles away.

Strong science, good planning, and public confidence must be part of
any solution to the nuclear waste disposal problem.  We have not
achieved that at Yucca Mountain in my view.  A nuclear waste repository
poses dangers that have no parallel in human history.  We must not
short-circuit the vital scientific and public processes needed to
address these dangers.

No nuclear waste disposal project should move forward until the health
and safety of the public are assured, and I will do everything in my
power to make sure that this does not move forward unless I feel that
the health and safety of the public has been assured.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.

Senator Carper?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF DELAWARE

Senator Carper. I will be very brief.  I am glad we are having the
hearing.  I look forward to hearing from the next panel of witnesses,
and I was pleased to hear from at least one of our colleagues a moment
ago.

We all know we have a huge and growing reliance on foreign oil.  We have
a huge trade deficit.  It was about $750 billion last year.  Roughly a
third of that was attributable to the oil that we imported, in some
cases from places around the world where they don't like us very much,
and I am convinced they use our money to try to harm us.

We have had nuclear power plants now for less than 60 years.  If we
could figure out how to send a man to the moon back in the 1960s and do
it within less than 10 years, we ought to be able to figure out how to
safely dispose of nuclear waste so that we can, frankly, increase our
reliance on nuclear energy and reduce our reliance on fuels from other
places around the world.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.

We would ask now for our Number Two Panel, William Wehrum and Paul Golan
to take the table.  Paul Golan is the Acting Director of the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for the Department of Energy. 
William, is it pronounced Wehrum?

Mr. Wehrum. Wehrum.

Senator Inhofe. Wehrum, yes.  We have visited before, but I can never
pronounce it properly.  He is the Acting Assistant Administrator of the
Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, but has
just been nominated by the President to be the Assistant Administrator. 
We will look forward to having a hearing very shortly to hear you.

So if the two of you would like to go ahead and be heard, what we will
do at this time is dispense with any more opening statements from other
members who may come, which is a tradition of this Committee.  We would
like to ask you to try to hold your opening comments to maybe six
minutes, but your entire statement will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Wehrum?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WEHRUM, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Wehrum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Senator
Jeffords, Senator Boxer.  It is a privilege to be here.  I appreciate
the opportunity.

My name is Bill Wehrum.  I am the Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.  I am pleased to be here today to
provide you with an update on the status of EPA's public health and
safety standards for the proposed spent nuclear fuel and high level
radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

I would like to begin by providing the Committee with a short history of
the EPA's responsibilities and why we have proposed revised standards.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 described the roles and
responsibilities of Federal agencies in the development of disposal
facilities for spent nuclear fuel and high level waste.  EPA was
identified as the Agency responsible for establishing standards to
protect the general environment for such facilities.  In the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, Congress delineated EPA's roles and
responsibilities, specific to the Federal Government's establishment of
the potential repository at Yucca Mountain.

EPA's role is to determine how the Yucca Mountain high level waste
facility must perform to protect public health and the environment. 
Congress directed EPA to develop public health and safety standards that
would be incorporated into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing
requirements for the Yucca Mountain facility.  The Department of Energy
would apply for the license to construct and operate the facility, and
the facility would open only if NRC determines that DOE can meet EPA
standards.

In establishing EPA's role, Congress also stated that the EPA safety
standards are to be based upon and consistent with the expert advice of
the National Academy of Sciences.

EPA established its Yucca Mountain standards in June, 2001.  As required
by the Energy Policy Act, these standards addressed releases of
radioactive material during storage at the site and after final
disposal.  The storage standards had a dose limit of 15 millirem per
year for the public outside the Yucca Mountain site.  The disposal
standards consisted of three components:  an individual dose standard, a
standard evaluating the impacts of human intrusion into the repository,
and a groundwater protection standard.

The individual protection and human intrusion standard set a limit of 15
millirem per year to the reasonably maximally exposed individual who
would be among the most highly exposed members of the public.  The
groundwater protection standard is consistent with EPA's drinking water
standards which the Agency applies in many situations as a pollution
prevention measure.  The disposal standards were to apply for a period
of 10,000 years after the facility is closed.  Dose assessments were to
continue beyond 10,000 years and be placed in DOE's environmental impact
statement but were not subject to a compliance standard.

The 10,000 year period for compliance assessment is consistent with
EPA's generally applicable standards developed under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act.  It also reflects international guidance regarding the level
of confidence that can be placed in numeric projections over very long
periods of time.

Shortly after the EPA first established these standards in 2001, the
nuclear industry, several environmental and public interest groups, and
the State of Nevada challenged the standards in Court.  In July, 2004,
the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found in favor of the Agency
on all counts except one, the 10,000 year regulatory timeframe.

The Court did not rule on whether EPA standards were protective but did
find that the timeframe of the EPA standards was not consistent with the
National Academy of Sciences recommendations.  The National Academy of
Sciences, in a report to EPA, stated that EPA standards should cover at
least the time period when the highest releases of radiation are most
likely to occur within the limits imposed by the geologic stability of
the Yucca Mountain site.  It judged this period of geologic stability,
for purposes of projecting releases from the repository, to be on the
order of a million years.  EPA's 2001 standards required DOE to evaluate
the performance of the site for this period but did not establish a
specific dose limit beyond the first 10,000 years.

EPA proposed a revised rule in August, 2005, to address the issues
raised by the Appeals Court.  The new proposed rule limits radiation
doses from Yucca Mountain for up to one million years after it closes. 
No other rules in the U.S. for any risks have ever attempted to regulate
for such a long period of time.

Within that regulatory timeframe, we have proposed two dose standards
that would apply based on the number of years from the time the facility
is closed.  For the first 10,000 years, we would retain the 2001 final
rule's dose limit of 15 millirem per year.  This is the protection at
the level of the most stringent radiation regulations in the U.S. today.
 From 10,000 years to one million years, we propose a dose limit of 350
millirem per year.  This represents a total radiation exposure for
people near Yucca Mountain that is no higher than natural levels people
live with routinely in other parts of the Country.

One million years, which represents 25,000 generations, includes the
time at which the highest doses of radiation from the facility are
expected to occur.

Our proposal requires DOE to show that Yucca Mountain can safely contain
wastes, even considering the effects of earthquakes, volcanic activity,
climate change, and container corrosion over one million years.

The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on November 21st.
 We are currently reviewing and considering the comments as we develop
our final rule.  We held public hearings in Las Vegas and Amargosa
Valley, Nevada and in Washington, D.C.  We are considering comments from
these hearings, as well as all the comments submitted to the Agency's
rulemaking docket.  A document describing our responses to all comments
will be published along with the final rule.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the Committee and
present an update on EPA's Yucca Mountain standard.  This concludes my
prepared statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wehrum follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Wehrum.

Mr. Golan?

STATEMENT OF PAUL GOLAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. Golan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.  My
name is Paul Golan.  I am the Acting Director of the Department of
Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.  I appreciate
the opportunity to provide an update on the project today.

For more than 50 years, our Nation has benefitted greatly from the power
of the atom and from nuclear energy, but we have been left with a legacy
marked by the generation of accumulation of over 50,000 tons of spent
nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors and defense activities. 
There is a strong global scientific consensus that the best and safest
option for dealing with this waste is geologic isolation, including the
National Academy of Sciences which has generally endorsed the geologic
disposal option from as far back as 1957.

Yucca Mountain possesses features that make it very suitable as a
geologic repository.  And with this in mind, in 2002, Congress approved
the President's recommendation for the development of Yucca Mountain as
the Nation's high level waste repository.  The President's
recommendation was based on more than 20 years of scientific research
and recognizes that Yucca Mountain will provide a safer and more secure
location for the Nation's nuclear waste than the current temporary
storage facilities offer.

Allow me to address three topics this afternoon:  First, an explanation
of the clean-canistered approach to waste handling; second, where the
project is in developing a licensing schedule; and lastly, a discussion
of the proposed EPA Radiation Protection Standards.

Though this program had intended to submit a license application to the
NRC in December, 2004, a number of external and internal issues arose
that prevented that from happening.  In mid-2005, Secretary Bodman
directed a thorough review of our overall approach to the project to
determine if there were ways to run the repository better.  His guidance
to me was clear:  Make it simpler and safer.

Late last year, we announced a redirection to a predominantly
clean-canistered approach to fuel handling operations.  A single
canister would be used to transport, age, and dispose of the waste
without ever needing to reopen the waste package.  We believe that the
technical challenges can be resolved which will result in a simpler,
safer, and more reliable operation.

The clean-canistered approach will significantly reduce radiation risks
and exposures of contamination from handling spent fuel at the
repository and eliminate the need to handle spent fuel several times. 
It also eliminates the need for construction of two large dry fuel
handling facilities.  With this new approach, the spent fuel will be
handled primarily by the utilities.  The Department would take advantage
of commercial reactor sites with existing capability and skills.

We are working with industry today to develop canister specifications
which should result in a path forward that is easier to design, license,
build, and operate.  While this approach will have significant financial
and safety benefits, it does require additional time to redevelop and
revise portions of our license application.  Later this spring, the
Department expects to have a new design for the surface facilities that
support the canistered approach, and after approval by the Secretary, we
will incorporate that design into our baseline.

We are committed to developing a realistic schedule that will result in
the submission of a strong license application later this summer.  And
later this summer, we will publish our schedule for submittal of the
license application to the NRC.

As was mentioned before, in August of 2005, the EPA proposed revised
standards for Yucca Mountain.  Specifically, EPA proposed a radiological
exposure limit for the time of peak dose to the general public during
the one million year period following the disposal of waste at Yucca
Mountain.

As the Committee knows, there is limited temporary surface storage of
waste at 122 sites in 39 States across our Nation, including many of the
States this Committee represents.

Let us be mindful that the 70,000 tons of fuel that will be disposed of
at Yucca Mountain will have produced over 2,000 gigawatt years of
electricity.  As a result of this, according to a report issued by
scientists from the University of California- Berkeley, we are leaving
the future generations five billion tons of coal that would otherwise
have been consumed.  Additionally, we did not generate 700 million tons
of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and other pollutants including
650 tons of mercury that would have been released into the environment. 
The report also will find that there were 300 coal mining deaths avoided
as a result of using nuclear power instead of coal.  Nuclear energy will
also allow us to pass on to future generations a secure energy source
that is safe, reliable, and essentially emission-free.

The proposed EPA rule retains the existing 10,000 year individual
protection standard of 15 millirem per year and supplements it with an
additional standard of 350 millirem per year at the time of peak dose. 
The Department supports this approach.  A rule with two compliance
periods recognizes the limitations of bounding analyses, the greater
uncertainties at the time of peak risk, as well as the lessened
precision and calculated results as time and uncertainties increase.

Retaining the 15 millirem per year for the initial 10,000 years ensures
that the repository design will include all prudent steps, including the
use of engineered systems and natural barriers to limit offsite doses. 
Through the one million year performance period, the natural and
engineered barriers will continue to keep exposure levels low, below
what people receive today based on where they live or where they work. 
Importantly, this reflects a level of risk that society normally lives
with today and that the allowable dose for an individual at Yucca
Mountain, several hundred thousand years in the future, would be no
greater than the average dose of a resident of Denver or similar high
altitude location receives today.

Studies show that areas with higher levels of natural background
radiation have no greater rate of cancer or other radiation- linked
illnesses that have been detected in areas with lower levels of natural
background radiation.  I believe our license will provide the necessary
assurances that we can operate Yucca Mountain in compliance with the
performance requirements of the EPA and NRC.  We will demonstrate our
better approach to operate Yucca Mountain will be safe, carefully
planned, logical, and methodical.

Yucca Mountain is a good site, and there is a clear need for Yucca
Mountain, even if we could reduce the Nation's electricity consumption
by 20 percent and were able to shut down every commercial reactor and
nuclear power plant in the Country today.  We could spend another 20
years and several more millions of dollars and arrive at the conclusion
that we need to study Yucca Mountain more before we can proceed.  Moving
forward into licensing will allow an open public debate on the safety of
Yucca Mountain.

The waste is here today.  Let us not pass this burden on to our
children.  This is our responsibility, and we need to deal with it.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Golan follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Golan.

Mr. Wehrum, when do you expect to finalize the proposed rule?

Mr. Wehrum. We currently are in the process of reviewing comments that
were submitted during the public comment period and the testimony
provided during the public hearings.  Once we finish that assessment, we
will move into focused work on preparing the final rule, and we hope to
get that done by the end of this year.

Senator Inhofe. By the end of the year?

Mr. Wehrum. That is correct.

Senator Inhofe. All right, sir.  And I would like to ask you:  How
similar is the standard to comparable waste disposal standards in
Europe?  It is my understanding that we protect the 90th percentile
individual person which leads to an extremely conservative standard,
whereas Europe reaches 50, approximately the 50th percentile.  I would
ask you the question:  Is this too conservative and how did we arrive at
that?

Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Mr. Chairman.  We believe our approach is very
consistent with the approach that is used internationally, and certainly
several countries in Europe have similar sorts of standards in place. 
Our standard is based on an assessment of exposure to what we call the
reasonably maximally exposed individual.  We like our acronyms at EPA. 
That is the RMEI.

My understanding is that many of the international standards and those
in Europe apply a different methodology of identifying the potentially
affected population, and that would be a critical group type approach. 
So when you compare and contrast the relative differences between what
we are doing and what other countries in the world do, we believe that
there is actually a high level of consistency, and that we are, at least
with regard to the individual exposure, not being significantly more
stringent.

Senator Inhofe. I would ask the same thing about the million year
standard, placing the high priority on hypothetical long term hazards. 
It is my understand that, in doing this, you are assuming that
technology is going to be static during this period of time, is that
correct?

Mr. Wehrum. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Inhofe. Is that reasonable?

Mr. Wehrum. It __

Senator Inhofe. Can you think of any time in history that would, well,
scrub that.

[Laughter.]

Senator Inhofe. In my opening statement, Mr. Golan, I mentioned how the
DOE, the EPA, and the NRC interact in this process.  I would ask you: 
When do you expect the DOE to submit a license application to the NRC?

Mr. Golan. Sir, we are in the process of developing our design for the
surface facilities to handle primarily canisterized waste.  Once that
has been reviewed and approved by the Secretary of Energy, it is our
intent to publish a license schedule this summer.  So we would like to
get back to you after we have a chance to look at the design,
incorporate it into our baseline, and have a basis to provide you a
schedule.

Senator Inhofe. Is that assuming no litigation, that is not foreseen at
this time, would be there?

Mr. Golan. Our step in submitting the license application, again, I
think the litigation would come after that.

Senator Inhofe. I see, okay.  You heard Senator Reid when he was in
here, and he was talking about the amount of money and that we are all
concerned about the amount of money that is being spent.

I would ask you, on the other side of that:  What are the financial
impacts on the Federal Government for not opening a waste repository as
scheduled right now?  For example, I note that you have already lost
three lawsuits, one with TVA around $35 million, and I believe one with
the State of South Carolina, and one with Exelon.  What effect would
this have, financial effect?

Mr. Golan. Sure.  The estimated liability that the Government has for
not accepting waste in 1998 through 2010, so for a period of 12 years,
is estimated somewhere between two and three billion dollars.  After
that, we estimate that the additional costs for the incremental onsite
storage costs would be in the order of several hundred million dollars a
year extra on top of that.

Senator Inhofe. The reason I am concerned about this is that I know
this panel has heard me say several times that nuclear energy and the
expansion of nuclear energy and opening it up are absolutely necessary. 
There is no other way that we are going to become independent.  We need
clean coal technology.  We need oil and gas.  We need renewables.  We
need all of the above, but certainly a very important thing is nuclear
energy.

It seems to me some of us are old enough to remember back in the sixties
and seventies when there were a lot of protests going on.  There was a
perceived danger that was there.  Since we have been getting into all
the problems with clean coal, with coal and the ambient air problems
that we deal with on this Committee, it would seem to me, and it appears
to be, that a lot of the people who were opposed to the expansion of
nuclear energy back in those years are now recognizing that it is the
cleanest and the safest form that is out there.

I, certainly, as Chairman of this Committee, believe that and believe
that we need to get very aggressive in our licensing system and
encouraging expansion of nuclear energy in this Country.  When you look
at some of the European countries that are 80 percent nuclear, you just
wonder how we can do it without that expansion.  I don't think we can.

Senator Inhofe. Senator Jeffords?

Senator Jeffords. Excuse me.  Mr. Wehrum, I would ask you this about
the groundwater protection standards at Yucca Mountain.  EPA proposes to
stop the groundwater standard after the first 10,000 years when the
groundwater will become increasingly contaminated.  The EPA will protect
the public after 10,000 years by another part of the standard, but that
part of the standard is more than 23 times higher after 10,000 years
than it is before that time.  Why is the compliance period for
groundwater only 10,000 years?

Mr. Wehrum. Senator Jeffords, our strategy in proposing the regulation
is to take a two-pronged approach.  The first prong is to reiterate the
standards that were adopted in 2001.  We believe those standards were
fully protective of human health and safety and have the added benefit
that while 10,000 years is a very long period of time, it is a period of
time where we believe we have greater confidence in the analytical tools
that are available and our ability to predict with greater precision how
the repository will behave.  Beyond the 10,000 year period of time and
up to the million year period of time, our ability to analyze and
predict with great precision is much less.

A million years is a very, very long period of time.  It is
unprecedented given, certainly, our regulatory activity within the
Environmental Protection Agency.  So it is our belief that the proposed
standard of 350 millirem per year over the million year period is
appropriate, and is protective, and is consistent with our ability to
reasonably analyze and reasonably predict the behavior of the repository
and the material stored in the repository.

Senator Jeffords. Thank you.  Mr. Wehrum, the EPA is currently revising
its Yucca Mountain radiation regulations.  Some observers have suggested
that the legislation will be forthcoming from the Administration to set
a radiation standard at Yucca Mountain.  Given that EPA is set to
finalize its revised regulation in the coming months, it does not seem
wise to proceed with that legislation, does it?

Mr. Wehrum. Senator Jeffords, our current obligation under law is to
complete the Radiation Protection Standard that has been proposed, and
we will continue to press forward and attempt to complete that standard
as soon as we reasonably can.  I would defer to my DOE colleague on
questions about legislation and the possible desire to draft or propose
legislation.

Senator Jeffords. Mr. Golan, in July of 2002, Congress authorized DOE to
submit a license application for the Yucca Mountain project to the NRC. 
The law gave DOE 90 days to do so after the vote.  DOE promised to file
by December, 2004.  After repeated postponements, DOE no longer has a
date for submitting an application.  Presumably, that original
authorization has lapsed.  Doesn't DOE need to come back to Congress for
reauthorization?

Mr. Golan. I would have to get back to you on the authorization
question, Senator Jeffords.  We are in the process right now of putting
together a license application schedule, as I said, based on the clean
canister design.  That will meet the EPA Radiation Protection Standard. 
Again, that is another issue that arose after the 2002 date for Congress
to submit a license application.  So there are things that happened
after that authorization that we are factoring into the development of
our license application.

And again, we expect to have a schedule that will have a technical basis
to submit a solid license application this summer.

Senator Jeffords. DOE is pursuing a new nuclear waste reprocessing
program called The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership that could impact
the role of the Yucca Mountain project.  This program relies on
reprocessing technologies that are currently under development. 
Existing reprocessing technologies produce a by-product which is highly
radioactive sludgelike residue that must be solidified and sealed in a
stainless steel canister before it is shipped.  How long will it be
before these new reprocessing technologies are viable?

Mr. Golan. Senator Jeffords, as you mentioned, the Department did
propose The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership starting in Fiscal Year
2007.  In many ways, it is a continuation of efforts the Department has
been undergoing with the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, and the
Department has requested $250 million in Fiscal Year 2007 to continue
that and to accelerate it.

Impacts on Yucca Mountain over the long term would be tremendous and
positive.  If we could reduce the heat, if we could reduce the half-life
of the actinides, and of the fission products, and of the nuclear waste
at the site, and if we could reduce the volume, those would be definite
advantages of a reprocessing capability that does not separate purified
plutonium.

As you mentioned, these technologies are under development, and it is
going to be several decades before we go through engineering scale and
then through actual commercial industrial scale demonstrations here. 
You are right in terms of they will produce a by-product under any fuel
cycle scenario at Yucca Mountain where a deep geologic repository would
be needed.  We are proceeding along with developing the license
application for Yucca Mountain in parallel with the GNEP.  Again, we
would need it, even if all the technologies of GNEP prove successful,
and again there is about 13,000 tons of waste, defense-generated waste
located at Savannah River, Hanford, West Valley, and Idaho that is
vitrified or going to be vitrified that will ultimately end up at Yucca
Mountain.

Senator Jeffords. Thank you.

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.

Senator Boxer?

Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My Chairman takes a large picture view of this which I think is
important, making the point that we want to become energy independent,
and therefore we need to do this because we need to build more nuclear
power plants.  And I would just be a devil's advocate on this, much to
the surprise of my Chairman.

[Laughter.]

Senator Boxer. And I even surprise Senator Jeffords.

I think if you are a proponent of nuclear power, the worst thing you can
do, it seems to me, is not deal correctly or safely with the waste issue
because I would posit if there is just one accident, it could be so
horrific that it would be the end of nuclear power.  For example, if you
were moving the spent fuel on trucks, and there was a horrific accident
or a terrorist incident, and something horrible happened, and it never
made its way to Yucca Mountain but it polluted communities, killed
people, gave people cancer, and maybe terrorized a community, I would
say very quickly that nuclear power would not be what people turn to in
this Country.

So I think the way we deal with this is essential, and I think that
Senator Reid ought to be listened to.

Mr. Wehrum, I just have to say, your explanation of this court suit I
found very, shall we say, disingenuous.  I don't share the way you
analyzed it.  You said, we were upheld on everything but one count. 
Well, there were three counts.  The three counts dealt with the safety
standards.  One standard was individual protection or IP; the other was
human intrusion into the facility or HI; the third was groundwater
protection.  And guess what?  The Court threw this out on two out of the
three.  The only one that they upheld was groundwater, and that was the
one that was challenged by industry.

The Court found that there wasn't individual protection with the
standard, and there was possibility of human intrusion.  So that was a
disaster.

Now, you are going back.  You are writing another rule.  If you think
this thing is getting off dead center, I have to agree with Senator
Reid, this is a never ending situation because what you are thinking of
doing, I don't think responds to the Court.  We will see what the Court
says because you know there is going to be another lawsuit.  But from
what I hear you saying, you are not really correcting the issues.  This
thing has gone around in a circle.

Mr. Golan, you testified that President Bush has recommended using Yucca
Mountain as the Nation's nuclear waste repository, "based on more than
20 years of scientific research,'' is that correct?

Mr. Golan. Yes, ma'am, I did.

Senator Boxer. Okay.  Well, then I am very confused because on February
19th, just two weeks ago, Ken Mehlman, the Chairman of the Republican
National Committee told a Nevada newspaper, and I have the paper here,
that President Bush doesn't favor or oppose the site.  So is it still
your opinion that the President, in fact, does favor the site?

Mr. Golan. The President did send his recommendation to Congress, and
Congress approved that recommendation in 2002.  I have no reason to
doubt that the President has changed his opinion on Yucca Mountain.

Senator Boxer. Okay, okay.  Well, I think we need to let Mr. Mehlman
know that when he is in Nevada, he can't say the President doesn't
support it, and then you come here and testify to us that the President
supports it.  So at least let us find out what the truth is, and I am
going to say you are being truthful.  I just look at you, and I believe
that.

Senator Inhofe. You never say that about me.

Senator Boxer. You are always truthful.  I always think you are
truthful.  I just don't agree with you, but you are truthful.

[Laughter.]

Senator Boxer. Now, Mr. Wehrum, I have an analysis from Dr. Thomas
Cochran, a respected nuclear physicist, which shows that EPA's Proposed
Radiation Standard for 10,000 to one million years creates a one in five
risk of increased fatal cancers for the general population and a one in
four risk for women.  Do you believe that is an acceptable risk of fatal
cancers for the public?

Mr. Wehrum. The proposed standard of 350 millirem was based on an
assessment of natural levels that people currently live with safely in
other parts of the Country.  What we attempted to do is identify another
part of the Country that was comparable to Amargosa Valley, and that
area was Colorado.  What we found in the area of Colorado that we
investigated is the average natural exposure to radiation was on the
order of 700_

Senator Boxer. So I take that as yes, you think then that a one in five
risk of increased fatal cancers for the general population and a one in
four risk for women to get cancer is acceptable.

Mr. Wehrum. Senator, my testimony is that I believe that the standard we
have proposed protects individuals and protects the safety as we are
instructed to do by the standard.

Senator Boxer. First of all, it was kicked out of the Court.  So they
don't agree with you.  Second of all, Dr. Thomas Cochran says that you
are creating a one in five risk of increased fatal cancers for the
general public and a one in four risk in women.  Do you disagree with
his assessment?

Mr. Wehrum. Senator, as I said, my belief is that the proposed level of
350 millirem is protective of human health and safety.

Senator Boxer. Well, the Court already threw that out.  I am asking you
this question.  Do you agree with Dr. Thomas Cochran?

Mr. Wehrum. Senator, the Court did not have before it the proposed 350
millirem standard.

Senator Boxer. But what you are doing is now fooling with the time
period.  And I can guarantee, I believe if you want to discuss that,
they will throw it out because you are being a little cute here in what
you are doing, but that is beside the point.

My question is:  Do you agree with Dr. Thomas Cochran, a respected
nuclear physicist who says that there will be a one in five risk of
increased fatal cancers for the general population and a one in four
risk in women?  Your answer is that that is the same risk in a naturally
occurring environment.  This is not a naturally occurring environment. 
You are doing this to the people, and I am asking you:  Is that an
acceptable risk, yes or no?  Answer me, yes or no.

Mr. Wehrum. Senator, my answer is our proposed standard is 350 millirem
per year.

Senator Boxer. Well, I am sorry, you are not answering.  Yes or no?

Mr. Wehrum. I understand that, Senator, but we have many commenters who
have offered a variety of opinions on the standard that we have
proposed, that being one of them.

Senator Boxer. But your answer is it brings it up to the level of
naturally occurring radiation, and we are doing this to people.  I am
asking you if that is unacceptable, and you won't answer it.  You won't
answer it, and I think that speaks volumes to the people of Nevada.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer, we will have another round in just a
moment here.

Senator Boxer. I am fine.

Senator Inhofe. All right, we have been joined by Senator Warner. 
Senator Warner, in addition to his seniority on this Committee is the
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is, of course,
very interested in the subject at hand today.

Senator Warner?

Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I will just follow these
proceedings because it does relate overall to our defense and our
ability to look to this as a repository as planned over these very, very
many years.  So at this time, I may have questions to submit for the
record, and I thank the Chair.

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Warner.

Let me just follow up.  First of all, I do agree with the concern that
Senator Boxer has in terms of an accident.  I don't think we deal with
anything up here that you can't have some kind of an extreme scenario by
which there would be some tragic accident.  Nonetheless, we have been so
cautious in approaching this.  I just would ask either one of you:  Do
you think that we have been deliberate enough in pursuing this and
taking as many precautions as we can?

Mr. Wehrum. Mr. Chairman, I will take a first crack at that.  The Agency
takes its responsibility very, very seriously.  We did in the first
round of standard setting, and we continue to take that responsibility
very seriously in our effort to respond to the remand of the Court.  We
have experts in the field who are focused on these questions.  We have
made an intensive effort.

Senator Inhofe. Pull your microphone up.  Are you sure it is on because
I can hardly hear you up here?

Senator Jeffords. Many people in the audience are quite anxious to have
the benefit of your remarks.

Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Mr. Chairman.  Yes, Senator, I will speak more directly
into the microphone.

My point is that we take our responsibility very seriously, and we have
devoted significant resources including experts in the field, some of
the greatest experts in the Country we have available.  We have tried
very hard to solicit a wide range of input from everyone who has an
interest in this issue.  We know there are those who have a different
opinion, and it is important to us to understand that different opinion.

Our goal is to establish a standard, consistent with the law and
consistent with our obligation to protect human health and safety.  I
fully believe that we are doing that.

Senator Inhofe. Do you agree with him, proper precautions having been
taking place, Mr. Golan?

Mr. Golan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.  I think we have been deliberate,
and I also believe that the prescribed process through the licensing of
Yucca Mountain will provide additional opportunities for us being
deliberate.

Senator Inhofe. I see.  Mr. Golan, Senator Jeffords made the comment
that Yucca Mountain would only take part of the waste and will leave
some or most of the waste.  It is my understanding that Yucca Mountain
is currently designed to hold 70,000 metric tons of waste.  Could this
be expanded?  How would you respond to Senator Jeffords' remark that it
would just take part of the waste?

Mr. Golan. According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, there is statutory
cap of 70,000 tons.  That does not represent the technical capability of
Yucca Mountain.  Our Environmental Impact Statement analyzed for nearly
120,000 tons of waste into Yucca Mountain.  But again, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act is the limit on that, and it is based on an administrative
control.

Senator Inhofe. We had an excellent briefing on that when I was out at
Yucca Mountain.  I would certainly hope that many members can go and
take advantage of that.

Mr. Golan, Senator Jeffords talked about the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership program which is the reprocessing program.  I agree with the
President; we need to have that.  There are some people who are saying,
well, that is in lieu of the storage program.  Of course, I think that
should be clarified for the record, number one.

And number two, the sum, $13 billion that would be over the next 10
years spent on that program, can you give us some assurance that that
money would not be taken out of the Yucca Mountain program?

Mr. Golan. Sure.  On your first point, Mr. Chairman, the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership is not in lieu of Yucca Mountain.  Yucca Mountain is_

Senator Inhofe. I think that is very important to bring out because I
have had more people come up and say, well, this is a change.  It is
not.  We know that only about 10 or 15 percent is actually used, and
there is a lot left over, and a reprocessing that needs to take place
before final storage.

Mr. Golan. Yes, sir.  Under any fuel cycle scenario, a deep geologic
repository would be needed.  Additionally, the defense waste Senator
Warner was talking about that is at Savannah River, Hanford and at
Idaho, which has already been reprocessed, would be going to Yucca
Mountain.  So it has already been through that step.

The Administration has proposed a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 
It is going to be requesting funding through the budgetary process, not
through the Nuclear Waste Fund to fund those activities.

Senator Inhofe. So both of you would agree, I assume, that the GNEP
program should not deter the forward progress of Yucca Mountain.

Mr. Wehrum. Absolutely not, sir.

Mr. Golan. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Inhofe. Senator Jeffords?

Senator Jeffords. Mr. Golan, the Yucca Mountain repository is designed
to house 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.  As of 2003, there were
49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel onsite at the Country's nuclear
reactors waiting for permanent storage.  By the year 2035, the U.S. is
projected to produce 105,000 metric tons of nuclear waste, and that is
not including waste from any new plants we build.  Given this
projection, the Yucca Mountain repository would essentially be full as
soon as it opens, is that right?

Mr. Golan. Yes, sir.  Your numbers are basically correct, and we run
into the statutory capacity limit sometime later next decade.

Senator Jeffords. Is DOE considering a second disposal location, and
what is the timing of that decision?

Mr. Golan. Yes, sir, Senator Jeffords.  In accordance with the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, between 2007 and 2010, the Secretary is required to
provide a report to Congress, assessing the need of second repository. 
I think you will recall there are a couple dozen States that were
initially considered for the first and second round of repositories. 
The Department would certainly go back and look at those States as it
considered a second repository.

Senator Jeffords. What types of waste would be produced by the new
reprocessing technologies?

Mr. Golan. The new reprocessing technologies have to be proved out in an
engineering scale and an industrial scale, but they would produce far
less waste product that would need ultimate disposal, the way the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership has envisioned.  These would take out the
actinides, the plutoniums, and all the fissile materials and then reuse
those in fast flux reactors or fast spectrum reactors.  That waste that
was generated as a result of the fast spectrum reactors would be
reprocessed or recycled again and reburned in reactors.

So, depending on how this technology moves along, there could be 80
percent or more of the volume reduced as a result of the technologies
envisioned by the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

Senator Jeffords. What changes would be needed in the Yucca Mountain
project to accommodate this new type of reprocessing waste?

Mr. Golan. Senator Jeffords, under our current license application, we
contemplate disposal of the reprocessed waste that is at Savannah River,
Hanford, West Valley, and Idaho today.  That was reprocessed waste from
the defense and, in the case of West Valley, a pilot plant for
commercial reprocessing.  We have vitrified waste form down in Savannah
River and up in West Valley, New York.  We are working on vitrifying
waste forms at Hanford and at Idaho.

Those are already included in our license application, so they are
already included in the design.  In my opinion, it is a much better
waste form because you don't have criticality concerns.  The heat load
is significantly reduced.  So we have incorporated those waste forms in
our design.

If we would look into the reprocessing or the recycling on the
commercial side of the reactors, we basically have incorporated that
waste form.  What we would do is look at changing the mix in terms of
reprocessing waste or the defense waste versus the spent fuel, and we
would look at changing those. As we would decrease the amount of spent
fuel, we would increase the amount of reprocessed waste that would go to
Yucca Mountain.  But that waste form is already anticipated today.

Senator Jeffords. I asked, Mr. Golan, about the waste produced by the
Administration's proposed nuclear waste processing program.  Am I
correct in my understanding that we do not currently have environmental
regulations that would govern nuclear waste produced by a large scale
reprocessing program?

Mr. Golan. No.  We have environmental regulations that we would, the
Department would be obliged to meet.

Senator Jeffords. Mr. Golan, DOE recently released a report which
investigated the scientific issues behind the emails between USGS
employees which implied that scientific data on the Yucca Mountain
project had been falsified.  The accompanying press release said that
the report is "confirming the technical soundness of the infiltration
modeling work performed by the USGS employees.''

Sandia Laboratories, recently chosen to be the lead Federal laboratory
on the project, will now be conducting its own tests to verify the
results.  How will Sandia Laboratories ensure that similar mistakes will
not occur as they did with USGS?

Mr. Golan. Senator Jeffords, that is an excellent question.  One of the
reasons Sandia National Laboratory was chosen as the lead laboratory for
Yucca Mountain was its excellence in science for the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plan in Carlsbad, New Mexico.  We are working with Sandia to
ensure that the quality assurance requirements for the project have been
met.  We have actively engaged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

After Sandia completes its work on redeveloping of the computer model
for infiltrations, much like we did with the report that you are
referring to, we had a group of independent scientists __ these are
scientists independent of the Department of Energy __ evaluate and
review the report.  Before we replace the work that is currently in our
model with the Sandia work, we are going to follow that same process. 
It is called Trust But Verify Process.  It is a process that is used in
the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and the Commercial Reactor
Programs, and it is a process that we are going to make a practice in
this program.

Senator Jeffords. Thank you.  That is reassuring.

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.

Senator Boxer?

Senator Boxer. I know you will be happy to know I want to get back to
the safety standard.

Senator Inhofe. Excuse me, Senator Boxer.  I meant to go back and forth
here.

Senator Boxer. Yes, I will definitely yield.  I will definitely yield
and let you wait a while.

Senator Inhofe. All right.

Senator DeMint?

Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  It is okay?

Senator Inhofe. Yes.

Senator DeMint. I apologize for being late and missing a lot of the
testimony, but this hearing is of great interest to me.  South Carolina
has been the recipient of a lot of radioactive low level/high level
waste over the years with a promise__Yucca is part of that promise -
that one day this above ground storage, which is not only in South
Carolina but as you know all around the Country, thousands of tons of
nuclear waste.

There is some talk now that perhaps with the movement towards
reprocessing nuclear fuel that we no longer need Yucca as most of the
waste we are holding is not reprocessing material; it is material that
needs to be stored underground.  My concern is, in a lot of these
hearings, we seem to now be looking for a lot of reasons why we
shouldn't do Yucca.  The potential health risk, and we see the EPA
expanding its standards to a million years.  Incredible.

I would like to just ask maybe both witnesses:  Instead of talking
about the problems with Yucca, could you talk about the health risks of
not doing Yucca?  As we look at the above ground storage around the
Country, the possible leaks, the groundwater contamination that could
occur everywhere, what do you see as the risk of continuing this delay
and leaving the status quo in place, particularly as the United States
has recognized its need to develop more nuclear generation in the face
of an energy crisis?

We need to move ahead, yet we continue to be looking for every reason in
the world not to move ahead.  We have already studied Yucca Mountain
more than any other piece of ground that has ever been studied in the
world.  Could you, sir, just give me, what are your assessments of the
health risk of just leaving this waste where it is?

Mr. Golan. Sure, Senator DeMint.  In your State, not only do you have
the defense waste at Savannah River, but you have 3,500 metric tons, as
your State gets 55 percent of its energy from nuclear energy.

We assessed the option of doing nothing, and part of the option of doing
nothing was that we would have to repackage the spent fuel at the
reactor sites every hundred years.  Okay?

Now for the near term, there is probably not an incremental health risk
because the storage casks have been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for several decades.  But again, you bring up an interesting
point, that is, if we did not have Yucca Mountain and we would have to
store in perpetuity this waste at the surface next to the lakes and the
rivers and the waterways, it would present health risks several orders
of magnitude, in my opinion__again, we can point you back to our
Environmental Impact Statement__if we did not do the repackaging of the
waste very hundred years.

So we would be leaving a burden onto our children for the radioactive
exposure, the radiation exposure, for repackaging. And if we didn't do
that, then the casks and the way the fuel is packed over the course of
time, over the course of the centuries and millennia, would certainly
pose an environmental problem.

Senator DeMint. The site is a perfect dirty bomb site as far as the
ability of a terrorist to create a disaster by exploding some of that
material.  So, in addition to what might happen over natural aging over
time, we have an exposed target, not only in South Carolina but, as you
know, in many places around the Country.

Mr. Golan. Yes, sir.

Senator DeMint. EPA, are you going to help us get this done?

Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Senator, we will.  I am not aware that the EPA has done
an analysis of the sort that you have just asked about, of the risks
associated with managing waste in the current manner as opposed to
Yucca.  What I will say, just to reiterate, our job at EPA is to set
standards for the Yucca Mountain repository that are fully protective of
human health and safety.  I am convinced, it is my believe that we can
do that, and we will do that when we take final action later this year.

Senator DeMint. But you will do an assessment of leaving it in South
Carolina for a million years as well?

Mr. Wehrum. If Congress directs us to do that assessment, we would be
more than happy to do so.

Senator DeMint. Because I think we do need to look at our choices.  I am
afraid the way we are dealing with this now is we assume that we can
leave things the same and actually be safer than if we moved ahead with
what we have been trying to do for a number of years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Senator DeMint follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Well, I think that is an excellent point to bring up.  I
would encourage you to at least pursue doing such a study because we
have these questions, and we would like to be able to have some kind of
answer or maybe lead us to the appropriate body to do something like
this.  It would be very useful.

Thank you, Senator DeMint.

Senator Boxer?

Senator Boxer. This issue is complex because there is no good answer. 
You leave it where it is, it is an issue.  You start moving it, talk
about giving terrorists a chance at it.  That is what you would have to
do.  Put in on a train.  Put it on trucks.  So it is a complicated
matter.  If we do look at it, I think we need to look at both sides of
it.

The thing about this issue that is so intriguing is that when you are
dealing with what God has created, namely this world, and you take
responsibility for it because we are the stewards of this world that was
created, in my view by God, then you have to make sure that you do your
best to protect this world forever because that is our job.  If we don't
do the right thing here, we could jeopardize all of it.  So it is very,
very serious business here.  That is why I pressed you on the standard
because there is a moral question.

You said, when I asked you if you felt it was acceptable that one in
four people, one in four women gets cancer from a lifetime of exposure
to the radiation there, which is what we are being told by Dr. Thomas
Cochran, a respected nuclear physicist, and a man has a one in five
risk, you won't answer the question.  But I will ask it a different way.

Right now, we regulate low level nuclear waste disposal facilities at 25
millirem.  Do you think Congress ought to look at increasing that, that
risk, in future years?  Since you are perfectly willing to do it for the
high level waste, are you proposing that we do it for the low level
waste?

Mr. Wehrum. Senator, I will readdress the questions you previously
answered.

Senator Boxer. No.  Can't you just answer the questions I ask you,
please?  That would be so refreshing.

Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Senator.  I will answer this question, but I __

Senator Boxer. Thank you.

Mr. Wehrum. My belief is it is an apples and oranges situation.

Senator Boxer. Because?

Mr. Wehrum. We, as I explained a bit earlier, are proposing a
two-pronged strategy in our Yucca Mountain standard.  The first prong
deals with the relative near future, and by that, I mean between now and
10,000 years from now or at least 10,000 years from the time the storage
facility is closed and disposal occurs according to our regulations. 
The second prong addressing the much longer period of time from 10,000
years to one million years.  I believe, and we at the Agency believe,
that it is appropriate to have a value of 350 millirem per year for the
longer period of time that we are currently contemplating, that within
which the peak dose would occur, given the limits of geologic stability
of the Yucca Mountain site.

That 350 is based on a couple things.  One, as I mentioned earlier, is
it is based in part on our assessment of naturally occurring radiation
that people safely live with in comparable areas in other parts of the
Country.  It is also just based on the reality that projecting with
confidence over a million year period of time is a very difficult thing
to do.  We should not suggest to ourselves, and should not suggest to
the public that we are responsible to, a false precision associated with
our ability to know what is going to happen in a million years.

Senator Boxer. Sir, I really appreciate this, but I don't have time.  I
asked you a simple question.  You are not recommending changing the
level of exposure in low level radioactive waste sites.  To me, you can
call it apples and oranges, but it really makes the case.  You are doing
it this way as a way to get around the Court decision.  You are taking
two standards.  One, as you say, the relatively near future and one
further up, but yet we have these other standards.

Let me ask you this:  Are you going to go back and suggest to EPA that
they change their regulations?  Do you know what the acceptable risk is
typically in most of our regulations at EPA in terms of cancer risk?

Mr. Wehrum. It varies from standard to standard, Senator.

Senator Boxer. Well, I have the range.  Do you not know it?  Do you want
to tell us what it is?

Mr. Wehrum. I don't have the information that you have.

Senator Boxer. It is one in 10,000 to one in a million, not one in
five, not one in four.  So since you are so gung-ho about this deal, why
don't you go back and change the regulations as they apply to the low
level nuclear waste?  Why don't you go back and change the acceptable
risk in all these other deals?

Let us face it.  This is such a nightmare that we are abandoning all of
our traditions, all of our history in what we consider to be an
acceptable cancer risk.  Look, that is it.  Maybe some people think it
is fine; it has got to be done.  I happen to not think that way.

But I also want to say, all this talk about naturally occurring, as if
there are no cancers.  Do you know what happens to people who live in
areas that have naturally occurring radiation?  Do you think they are
cancer-free?  Do you know what percent of cancers they get?

Mr. Wehrum. I am sure they are not cancer-free, Senator.

Senator Boxer. You are correct, 18,000 U.S. deaths annually.  So you
talk about naturally occurring as if that is some glorious nirvana, but
it isn't.

Let me ask you, Mr. Golan.  "A January 9th, 2006, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission audit of an earlier audit by Bechtel on the corrosion rate of
casks concludes that the Bechtel audit was not effective'' - this is a
quote - "in identifying, documenting, and alerting DOE management to the
significance of the issues which were in noncompliance with quality
assurance requirements.''  Has DOE issued a stop work order on building
the casks until these problems are resolved?

Mr. Golan. Senator Boxer, the Department issued a stop work order on
the particular work activity for these humidity gauges.  So we did issue
a stop work on the affected work which I you are referring to.

Senator Boxer. Okay.  And what is the status now?  If I could just
finish this, and then I'll stop.

Mr. Golan. Sure.  We are conducting, my office, not Bechtel, is
conducting an independent investigation on what happened.

One of the things I will share with you, Senator Boxer, is I have a
stack of reports from the GAO, from the IG, from various other people
inside and outside the Department that have looked at the quality of
Yucca Mountain.  I have read all those reports, and they are missing one
thing.  They are missing accountability.  So I am going to hold the
folks accountable.

Senator Boxer. Good, good.  I knew I liked you.

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.

Senator DeMint, would you like a second round?

Senator DeMint. No, thank you.

Senator Inhofe. All right.  Well, I thank both of the witnesses for your
fine testimony.  You may be excused now.

We would ask our Panel Number Three to come up, which would be Robert
Fri, Chairman of the National Research Council for the Committee on
Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards; Ms. Allison MacFarlane,
Research Associate, Program in Science, Technology and Society, MIT; Mr.
Robert Loux, Executive Director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects, the Office of the Governor; Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Former
President of the Health Physics Society.

Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman?

Senator Inhofe. Yes?

Senator Boxer. May I submit further questions for the record?

Senator Inhofe. For this panel?

Senator Boxer. No, the previous panel.

Senator Inhofe. Of course.

What we will do here, we will only have one round of questioning because
of the time constraints, and we would like to have your opening
statement.  The same will go for you as went for the previous panel,
that is, your entire statement will be made part of the record, and we
would like to have you hold your opening statement down to close to five
minutes, if you could.

Mr. Fri?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT FRI, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, COMMITTEE
ON TECHNICAL BASES FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN STANDARDS

Mr. Fri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name is Robert Fri.  I have the
honor of having been the Chair of the National Research Council
Committee that produced the report on the Technical Bases for the
Standards at Yucca Mountain, the Academy report which has been referred
to already a couple of times in these hearings.

Let me summarize my statement by hitting on two major points.  First of
all, the Committee, which disbanded after it issued its report in 1995,
was very sensitive to the fact that science can only take you so far to
coming up with a standard.  At some point, policy has to step in and
make the final decisions.

And that is particularly true in the level of risk that the public is
willing to accept from Yucca Mountain or any other nuclear waste
facility.  Science can tell you a lot about the nature of the effects
and other matters, but the ultimate decision is a policy decision, and
the report did not, nor will I, be in a position to talk to you about
what the right answer is to that policy decision because science doesn't
get you that far.

The second point I would like to summarize has to do with this business
of 10,000 years versus a million years because, as you know, the most
recent remand by the Courts, that produced the most recent version of
the standard that EPA produced, really rested on that issue that was in
the Academy's report.  If I may, I am going to use this cartoon next to
me to try to explain a little bit about what is going on.

What you have to do after you set a standard is to do an analysis to see
if the repository will comply with it.  And so, you use computer models
to model the migration of the radioactive materials down to the water
table and throughout the water table to where human beings can come into
contact with it.

There are two big things you have to decide how to do in these so-called
compliance analyses.  One is to decide how long to run the model, and
the other is to decide on the exposure scenario by which individuals
come in contact with the radioactive material.

The Academy report said there is no scientific basis for stopping at
10,000 years, and that being the case, it is appropriate to continue
this analysis up to the point of peak risk or until the point at which
you don't think the models are going to fairly represent what is going
on geologically.  The panel, the Committee said that is probably on the
order of a million years.  We weren't trying to predict, and we weren't
suggesting that these models will predict what is going to happen in a
million years, much less what is going to happen in 10,000 years.  We
are simply saying that, in terms of doing the analysis, the way the
professionals do it, there is no scientific basis for stopping at 10,000
years.  Therefore, we selected a much longer time period for analysis.

The second issue is the exposure scenario.  How do people come into
contact with this radioactive material that gets offsite as it migrates
through the water table which they may do by drilling a well into it and
drinking the water, or eating vegetables that were irrigated with the
water, and the like?  The site at Yucca Mountain was picked because,
among other reasons, there aren't a lot of people there.

And so, the Committee said that we think the appropriate way to approach
this, just as a kind of statistical matter, is to have what is called a
probabilistic exposure scenario, to say that it isn't absolutely
necessary that somebody will come in contact with this stuff, but there
is a chance that they will and it ought to be modeled on a statistical
or probabilistic basis.

Now, EPA said, no, let us stick with the short time period, 10,000
years, but as the gentleman from EPA pointed out, they had this idea of
Reasonably Maximally Exposed Individual which is a deterministic
concept.  It says that that individual will become, will come into
contact with the material that is migrating offsite.  So you have these
two variables.

This little chart is sort of designed to suggest that.  The vertical
axis says Shorter Compliance Time at the bottom and Longer Compliance
Time at the top.  Across the top, it says Deterministic Exposure
Scenario and Probabilistic.

Now you really don't need to get into technical details but just to show
you what happened.  EPA said, down in the lower left hand corner, let us
have a shorter compliance time and the deterministic scenario, and the
Academy said, let us have a longer compliance and a probabilistic
scenario.  So they were kind of at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Now the Court said, you have to stick with the longer compliance time,
the million years.  So EPA basically had three options, it seems to me. 
One is to adopt a more probabilistic exposure scenario the way the
Academy did.  They elected not to do that because they want to stick
with this RMEI, this Reasonably Maximally Exposed Individual, which is
fine.  They could have tried to show that the two versions of the
standard are functionally equivalent, and they may be for all I know,
but that demonstration wasn't made.

So they are kind of stuck in the upper left hand corner, and that is a
place where the Committee did not want to be.  We actually considered
it.  We thought that was too conservative a place to be, given the
circumstances at Yucca Mountain.  So EPA finds itself in some place
where the Committee probably wouldn't have agreed that it should be.

EPA did not select the option of going with the million years and the
probabilistic exposure scenario.  What they did was, after 10,000 years,
to change the standard.  That does have the effect of releasing_

Senator Inhofe. If you could draw to a conclusion here in a moment, Mr.
Fri?

Mr. Fri. That is it.  I am done.

Senator Inhofe. That is it?

Mr. Fri. Yes.

Senator Inhofe. Thank you.

Mr. Fri. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fri follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Ms. MacFarlane?

STATEMENT OF ALLISON MACFARLANE, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, PROGRAM IN SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Ms. MacFarlane. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is an
honor to have the opportunity to address you on the issue of the status
of nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain.  I am a Research Associate
at MIT's Program in Science, Technology and Society, and I have a Ph.D.
in Geology from MIT.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jeffords, let me begin by emphasizing that,
in my expert opinion, the best solution to the problem of high level
nuclear waste disposal remains a geologic repository.  On this issue,
all countries with nuclear energy programs are in agreement, though none
has yet to implement such a facility.

In light of the push for more nuclear power in the United States, even
taking into consideration the President's proposed Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, it is highly likely that multiple Yucca Mountain type
repositories will be necessary.  Therefore, it is imperative that we
continue to work towards a solution to the problem of high level nuclear
waste.

Yucca Mountain is a relatively complex site, geologically, and this
complexity increases the uncertainties associated with predicting the
performance of the repository in the future.  The DOE has attempted to
predict the behavior of Yucca Mountain over time, using a complex
computer model called probabilistic performance assessment, which is
made up of numerous submodels.  The DOE has stated that it has validated
these submodels.  From the perspective of an earth scientist, it is not
possible to validate or verify models of earth systems.  This is because
earth systems are, by definition, open systems, accessible to exchanges
of matter and energy.  As a result, it is not possible to know all the
processes that might affect the system.

Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld probably put it best when he noted,
"There are no knowns.  There are things we know we know.  We also know
there are known unknowns.  That is to say we know there are some things
we do not know, but there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't
know we don't know.''  And it is the unknown unknowns that I am
concerned about here.

The DOE and the NRC will use the results of the performance assessment
to determine the suitability of Yucca Mountain.  They are forced to use
this complex model in part because the EPA standard requires these
agencies to show that the site will meet a specific dose limit over a
specified time period.  To do so, requires quantitative analysis and
thus the need for a performance assessment model.

Other countries have recognized the limitations of quantitative
performance assessments, including France and Sweden.

So what policy would best respond to the complex geology at Yucca
Mountain and the inability of performance assessment models to produce
verifiable results?  I have four suggestions.

First, there is a natural opportunity to make changes to our system or
site evaluation right now while the EPA standard is being reconsidered. 
Once the EPA standard is promulgated, the NRC and DOE will have to
adjust their regulations and can take this opportunity to rethink them.

Second, in making changes to regulations, the DOE and NRC should move
away from sole reliance on probabilistic performance assessment and opt
for a broader and more qualitative assessment scheme similar to that of
France and Sweden.

Third, work must continue on the Yucca Mountain site to determine
whether it will be suitable as a geological repository.  I suggest a
comparative analysis, using data that already exists for a number of
investigative repository sites around the world.

Fourth, if Yucca Mountain is found lacking in the comparison, Congress
would need to revisit repository siting.  In the United States, we are
fortunate to have a large Country with many geologically appropriate
locations for a nuclear waste repository that have arguably simpler
geology than Yucca Mountain.

For a repository to succeed, the process must be fair and perceived to
be fair by all participants.

A large amount of high level nuclear waste already exists in the United
States and requires disposal.  This problem deserves rapid and focused
attention for the betterment of our environment.  It is within our grasp
to solve this problem.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views.

[The prepared statement of Ms. MacFarlane follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. MacFarlane.

Is it Mr. Loux?

Mr. Loux. Loux.

Senator Inhofe. You are recognized, Mr. Loux.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT LOUX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEVADA AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR
PROJECTS, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Mr. Loux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I, too, am grateful for your
invitation on behalf of Governor Guinn.  I am testifying here on his
behalf.  I am Bob Loux, and I am the Executive Director of the Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects which is in the Governor's Office itself. 
The Agency was established in 1985 to carry out the State's statutory
oversight of the high level waste program under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act.

Since you have already indicated our written remarks will be submitted
for the record, I won't even ask that.

As to the status of the Yucca Mountain project, the most important and
obvious fact is that there is no current schedule or budget for DOE's
submittal of a Yucca Mountain repository license application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  As you already noted, by law, DOE was to
have submitted the application 90 days after the site recommendation was
confirmed by Congress in mid-2002, and the last announced date for site
application was December, 2004.

Even if a final EPA standard was in place today, DOE would be unprepared
to submit a license application because of its recently announced shift
to a single container approach for transportation, storage, and disposal
of radiated fuel.  This very same approach was rejected by DOE a decade
ago for being too costly and logistically too difficult to implement. 
So it will be interesting to see how DOE is going to approach it this
time.

The current change involves design and certification of new containers,
fundamental redesign of the Yucca Mountain surface handling facilities
because of the change in concept of operations, and shifting the complex
waste packaging operations to the reactor sites, some of which, maybe as
much 40 percent of the reactor sites, no longer have crane or rail
capacity access for the newly planned containers.

The probability of earthquakes damaging the operational facilities and
the renewed volcanism disrupting the repository are sufficiently high,
that radiological consequences of such events must be considered in the
repository safety assessments, and work on these topics is ongoing.

DOE is already currently unprepared to complete the license application
because scientific work critical to the NRC regulatory review is in
jeopardy.  The model for how water penetrates the mountain is being
redone because of quality assurance failures and allegations of
falsification of information, which still are being investigated by
Congressional Committee along with others including the Justice
Department.  Recently, the scientific work to determine the rate at
which disposal containers will corrode and release waste into the
environment has come into significant question as a result of an audit
of scientific experiments and their quality assurance.

The planned repository surface facility, including storage aging pads if
you would, is located beneath a military training and testing airspace
that is dedicated to National security.  Aircraft crash hazards remain
issues unresolved for the safety analysis and the license application.

DOE has yet, also, to complete a draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the 319 mile long rail line to Yucca Mountain.  It is also the
subject of litigation.  The expected costs of the line recently was
raised from $1 billion to $2 billion.  The corridor selected crosses
seven mountain ranges and traverses areas known to flash flooding.

By 2010, there will be enough generated waste to fill the statutory
capacity of Yucca Mountain.  Extremely costly strategies recently
announced to reduce the volume of waste won't be available for decades,
if ever, and I am speaking of the GNEP which we have been talking about.
 Expanding Yucca Mountain statutory capacity without having defined and
studied the expansion area is irresponsible from a safety perspective.

DOE is required by statute to maintain retrievability of the waste for
decades after in-placement.  It is unlikely this ability can be
demonstrated due to the high heat, radiation environment, and
deterioration of tunnel conditions.  In fact, in its 2007 budget
proposal, DOE is asking for funds to maintain and upgrade existing
tunnel facilities in just over 10 years after initial construction.

I hope I briefed you of the status of the Yucca Mountain project and
gave some insight why the schedule for the license application is
unknowable.  If the past 23 years of the program provides any message,
it is that the schedule in reality is largely unknowable.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with your statement early on that really no more
work is really necessary at Yucca Mountain, although it is not for the
same reasons.  I agree with that because most believe, independent
scientists, that the Yucca Mountain science is faulty.  It has been
recognized to be such by most independent scientists nationally and
internationally.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time and look forward
to questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loux follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Loux.

Dr. Moeller?

STATEMENT OF DADE W. MOELLER, FORMER PRESIDENT, HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY

Mr. Moeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Jeffords, and Senator
Boxer.  I appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of the views
of the Health Physics Society.

As all of you are aware and as we have heard here repeatedly this
afternoon, the current repository is essentially at a standstill.  There
are many wastes, of course, spread out in various locations throughout
the United States, and these materials will probably remain there until
this log jam is broken.

Rather than talk, though, about that past, I would like to talk about
the future, and I want to share with you what the Health Physics Society
would propose.  The key element of our proposal is that, rather than
seeking to dispose of the waste at this time, that the waste be stored
in the proposed Yucca Mountain for a time period of 100 years.

To ensure that the waste is not contaminating the environment, the
facility would have to be properly monitored, and they would throughout
that 100 year period, and with immediate warnings if anything has gone
wrong.  You know some of the canisters are deteriorating.  And under the
proposed policy, any waste packages showing signs of deterioration would
be promptly retrieved and stabilized.

Now at this point, I wanted to discuss two bases for our policy, and in
order to do so, Mr. Chairman, I have an enlarged picture of the graph
that is on the bottom of Page 4 of my testimony.  I would be glad, if it
is permissible, to have all of you have copies.

Senator Inhofe. We have a policy that any graphs used have to be
submitted in advance, but yours was.  So that will be all right.

Mr. Moeller. It was in my written testimony.

Senator Inhofe. Please use it.  Your clock is ticking.

Mr. Moeller. Okay, there are two bases for the proposed policy.  Storing
the waste for 100 years will enable us and our Nation to take advantage
of the many significant technological advances that you have already
heard Mr. Golan describe.  One of these is to begin reprocessing fuel
once again.

To demonstrate the benefits of reprocessing the fuel, I would like to
go through with you what is shown on the graph.  Now you see across the
bottom of the graph, it gives times in years.  That is on a logarithmic
scale.  It is 1 year, 10 years, 100 years.  It is 10 times the number of
the previous years as yo move from one division to the next.

At the upper left hand corner of the graph is the toxicity of the
radioactive waste that we are going to assume has been reprocessed and
that about 95 percent or 95 and a half percent of the plutonium has been
removed.

Now Mr. Golan said their newer techniques would be applied.  They would
improve on that, and they would remove more than just the plutonium,
most of the actinides and transuranics.

Well, if you look at the graph, after a period of time of slightly more
than a hundred years, the waste would be equivalent in terms of toxicity
to naturally occurring uranium ore which has  a concentration of 3
percent and 3 parts in every 100 are uranium.  Now after about 350
years, the radioactive waste will have decayed to the point where it is
comparable in its toxicity to uranium ore that contains two-tenths of 1
percent uranium metal.

Why do I cite that?  I cite that because that is that is the
concentration of uranium in the material that has been mined at, for
example, Grand Junction, Colorado and in the Grants, New Mexico region.

Now why has this decay occurred at such a rapid rate?  Well, in
reprocessing the fuel, you remove the cesium and the strontium- 90, the
cesium-137 and the strontium-90.  These have half-lives of 30 years.

Then why do I say 300 to 350 years?  Well, 300 years is 10 times a
half-life of either strontium or cesium.  If you take a half of a half
of a half of a half for 10 times, you don't have much left.  In essence,
it is essentially a stable mass that is left in terms of those two
radionuclides.

It decays on below that, and at a period of about 1,000, well, about
2,000 years, the toxicity of the decayed waste that has been reprocessed
is about 10 percent of the 2 percent uranium ore.  Now after that time,
you see the curve climbs, and it comes back up, and finally levels off
at the equivalency of about a two-tenths concentration of uranium ore.

Why does it climb back?  Because the uranium is gradually decaying now
and producing its decay products, and they are toxic.  Ultimately, the
top line would be that the most this reprocessed waste, the highest
toxicity it could ever reach would be equivalent to the original ore.

Have I had my six minutes yet?

Senator Inhofe. Yes, you have, if you could try to wind up, please.

Mr. Moeller. All right, I will finish then with that statement.  That is
the real gist of our argument, that if the waste is comparable to the
original ore__the original ore was near or at the surface of the Earth,
and the waste is buried more than 600 feet beneath the ground__what do
we have to worry about at all?

[The prepared statement of Dr. Moeller follows:]

Senator Inhofe. Okay.  Since you are still warmed up there, Dr. Moeller,
let me ask you a question.

Mr. Moeller. Certainly.

Senator Inhofe. During the last panel, Senator Boxer cited some very
high risk numbers based on EPA's proposed doses.  From a radiation
standpoint, can you derive quantitative risk numbers as high as Senator
Boxer quoted, considering the EPA's standard is 350 millirem?

Mr. Moeller. I am delighted that you asked me because I am pleased to
answer the question.

Senator Boxer, your estimate from Dr. Tom Cochran, whom I know very
well, sounds to me to be high.  But to answer your question, if indeed
his calculations were correct and the dose limit of 350 millirems a year
would increase the chances of a woman having breast cancer to one chance
in four in her lifetime, that is totally unacceptable.  No one would
approve that.

Now, on average, a member of the U.S. public, about 17 percent or so of
the members of the public today die of fatal cancers.  Some of those may
be due to radiation, but there are many other causes.

So my question, I believe, before I could further answer your statement
is that, if you will notice in my written testimony, I did an estimate
for 350 millirems, and I got about a 1 percent increase in the
probability of cancer.  Then when you take in the conservatism in that,
the true value is about half of 1 percent.

Senator Inhofe. I am sure that Senator Boxer will have some responses to
that.

Dr. MacFarlane, you were here when Senator DeMint was asking his
question, his concern__I wasn't even aware of what is happening in South
Carolina to the extent that it has been happening__but his concern about
the current policy of leaving things above or storing wastes in existing
sites until they can apply future technologies.

Wouldn't it still be better, though, for the next 100 to 300 years, if
that waste were put into Yucca Mountain in a fully retrievable state
rather than to leave it there as it is now?  Maybe I am misunderstanding
what your testimony was.

Ms. MacFarlane. No.  I guess what I am trying to say is, in terms of
interim storage, temporary storage, I think it is fine for a hundred
year timeframe.  I think we have a responsibility to deal with the issue
of nuclear waste right now.  It is an ethical responsibility, seeing how
we made this waste.

I don't agree with the proposals to sit around and wait until we have
better technology, and I think the best solution to this material is a
geologic repository, but I am not sure that Yucca Mountain is the right
location for a geologic repository.

Senator Inhofe. First of all, I see a political problem in your response
because I would hate, if I were in Jim DeMint's position, to have to go
home and say, it is all right for a hundred years; we will take care of
this problem.

You mentioned, I think you said that there are other sites that are
better than Yucca.  Did I misunderstand you?  If so, where are they?

Ms. MacFarlane. I think there are multiple sites all over the Country
that are probably better than Yucca.

Senator Inhofe. Name one.

Ms. MacFarlane. I don't want to end up naming specific sites and
frightening certain State people, but I think there are.  You could look
at __

Senator Inhofe. You are not suggesting one might be in Oklahoma, are
you?

Ms. MacFarlane. Oh, I am sure there are, for instance.

[Laughter.]

Senator Inhofe. All right.

Ms. MacFarlane. But the point is that Yucca Mountain violates one of the
main criteria of siting a nuclear waste repository which is that you
find a geologically stable location, and Yucca Mountain is neither
seismically nor volcanically stable.

Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.

Mr. Fri, the National Academy of Sciences issued a study in 2001,
reaffirming that the geologic repository is the best method for
permanent disposal of used fuel.  Has anything happened since that time
that they would have changed their position on that?

Mr. Fri. I haven't been a part of those studies since 1985, but I think
the general feeling is that the ultimate disposal site as a geologic
repository remains, as Dr. MacFarlane said earlier, the best option.

Senator Inhofe. I see.  I have a feeling you would have heard about it
if a change of position had taken place.

Senator Jeffords?

Senator Jeffords. I have no questions.

Senator Inhofe. All right, Senator Boxer?

Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, what I want to do is put in the record the
study of Dr. Cochran, the nuclear physicist, and I think that what I
would like to do is put in his little profile and then the one page of
work he did which came out with the cancer risks that I am glad to see
Dr. Moeller said was unacceptable because I certainly think it is as
well.  So we will put that in the record.

Senator Inhofe. Without objection, that will be in the record.

Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.

[The referenced material follows:]

Senator Boxer. First, I want to thank the panel very, very much.  As I
said, it is complicated.  We are dealing with issues here that just pose
tremendous risks, and any way you look at it, it is risky:  to leave it,
to move it, to store it.  But I come down on the side of the greater
risk is to go with Yucca Mountain for lots of reasons, and a couple of
you really have underscored that for me.

Mr. Loux, I understand DOE still needs to build a rail line to Yucca
Mountain, and that cost estimates for this line have increased from $800
million to more than $2 billion in the last year, and I have a newspaper
article that so states.  If DOE cannot finish the rail line prior to
accepting waste at Yucca, I understand DOE plans to temporarily use
trucks to ship the waste from the nearest railroad.

I would love to hear you give an opinion on how DOE's failure to
complete this rail line may impact Yucca Mountain operations, including
potential security or safety concerns.

Mr. Loux. Well, thank you, Senator.  We have grave doubts whether such a
line ever can be built, especially given that DOE is the one in charge. 
The costs have escalated.  We think they are going to go actually much
higher.

Senator Boxer. Higher than $2 billion?

Mr. Loux. Yes.  We think it is going to take a lot longer than DOE says,
perhaps maybe as long as a decade to complete.  Therefore,_

Senator Boxer. Who is going to pay for this rail line?

Mr. Loux. The ratepayers and the taxpayers.

Senator Boxer. Okay.

Mr. Loux. Ultimately, we believe that if Yucca Mountain should go
forward, that in the final analysis, most if not all the shipments will
be by truck.  As I mentioned in my testimony, a full 40 percent of the
reactor sites no longer have rail access into them.  So then you see a
problem with having to move that stuff to marshaling yards in Omaha,
Chicago, other sorts of places like that where you would have to
accumulate enough waste then to build a train to actually take it,
assuming the rail line was built.

Senator Boxer. Well, you have walked right into my next question
because I am very concerned about movement by truck.  I am concerned
about movement of this material in any way, shape, or form, but by truck
in particular.  California contains some main routes proposed for
transporting radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain.  A lot of other
States' waste will go through my State on the way there.

Last month, the National Academy for Sciences said that the DOE should
analyze their transportation plans to account for terrorist acts and
high intensity long duration fires.  What is your opinion on how well
DOE current transportation plan addresses these two vitally important
issues, long duration fires and the possibility of a terrorist attack?

Mr. Loux. Well, Senator, when you start out with the assumption that all
nuclear waste shipments are 100 percent safe and nothing can go wrong,
it biases your point of view about what the actual risks are.  That is
sort of DOE's opinion, that it all will be done safely, 100 percent
safely without any risk to anyone.  We find that to be contrary, and
that is what we found so refreshing about the actual National Academy
report because it was the first time that any of these government
agencies have said something other than the fact that this is 100
percent perfectly safe.

Senator Boxer. So when I ask you your opinion of how well DOE's current
transportation plan addresses the terrorism issue and long duration
fires, your answer is that they really don't address them.

Mr. Loux. It does not.

Senator Boxer. They just kind of shove it under the rug and say, we
don't need to look at it because this is so safe.  Is that what you are
basically telling me?

Mr. Loux. In general, yes.

Senator Boxer. Okay.  Can I have time for one more question?

Senator Inhofe. Sure.

Senator Boxer. Okay.

Ms. MacFarlane, in 1995, the National Academy report included a
reference to a prediction that the geologic stability of the Yucca
Mountain site was on the order of a million years.  You have done recent
research on this project.  I know you gave us sort of the Don Rumsfeld
answer, but I am going to pin you down a little more here.

Please give me your expert opinion on these two questions:  Is the
stability prediction based upon either current science or science from a
decade ago, and does it comport with our current understanding of Yucca
Mountain's geology, the fact that it will be stable for a million years?

Ms. MacFarlane. That is a good point.  I think it was based on science
from a decade ago.  Science has progressed in a number of ways.  One of
the things I would note about the National Academy study is__I think it
is Page 68 of the study itself - when they talk about their basis for
that statement, one of the things they don't mention is volcanism and
the potential for future volcanism.  We now know that there is
potential.  It is not very well bounded.  It is quite an uncertain
number, and it certainly becomes a lot more uncertain as you go out
towards a million years.

Senator Boxer. Thank you.  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the
opportunity.  As always, you were very generous to me.  Thank you.

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.  Let me just, I saw Mr. Fri
wiggling around a little bit during one of your questions, Senator
Boxer.  So let me give him a chance to perhaps answer.

Senator Boxer. Of course.

Senator Inhofe. It is true, I understand, that a recent National Academy
of Sciences study, studying the transportation of this waste, came to
the conclusion that there is "no real risk to public health and safety
in transporting the fuel.''  Now, it is my understanding, Dr. Boxer - I
said Dr. Boxer.

Senator Boxer. I will take it.

Senator Inhofe. Senator Boxer, that this study is less than a month old.
 So that would have taken into consideration the point that you bring up
about terrorists.  Mr. Fri, am I accurate in quoting from this study?

Mr. Fri. I am sure you are.  I was not a party to that study, so I don't
know what is in it.

Senator Inhofe. All right.

Senator Boxer. Well, I just think Mr. Loux __

Mr. Fri. The staffer at the Academy whispers in my ear, however, that
there may be a misstatement some place in there.

Senator Inhofe. I see.  I certainly wouldn't want to be guilty of that.

Well, thank you very much.  We had a very distinguished panel, and you
have been very patient to wait through a rather lengthy panel to get on,
but I appreciate the sacrifices you have made to be here.  We will leave
the record open.  So there will be questions for the record that will be
submitted to you, and we look forward to your answers at that time.

With that, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

 PAGE  1