Source: https://pt.scribd.com/document/333272463/HOUSE-HEARING-109TH-CONGRESS-NUCLEAR-WASTE-STORAGE-AND-DISPOSAL-POLICY-AND-HYDROELECTRIC-LICENSE-EXTENSION-AND-ENERGY-EFFICIENCY-LEGISLATION
Timestamp: 2020-01-29 10:02:48
Document Index: 50478887

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63']

HOUSE HEARING, 109TH CONGRESS - NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL POLICY, AND HYDROELECTRIC LICENSE EXTENSION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEGISLATION | Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository | Deep Geological Repository
Congressional Hearing Held: 2006-09-13
salvarSalvar HOUSE HEARING, 109TH CONGRESS - NUCLEAR WASTE STOR... para ler mais tarde
SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
Serial No. 109-138
31-463PDF
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
Vice Chairman FRED UPTON, Michigan CLIFF STEARNS, Florida PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi Vice Chairman VITO FOSSELLA, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri STEVE BUYER, Indiana
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania MARY BONO, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon LEE TERRY, Nebraska MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey MIKE ROGERS, Michigan C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho SUE MYRICK, North Carolina JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
Ranking Member HENRY A. WAXMAN, California EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
BART GORDON, Tennessee BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California BART STUPAK, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland GENE GREEN, Texas
DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado LOIS CAPPS, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine JIM DAVIS, Florida JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California
JAY INSLEE, Washington TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chairman
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi VITO FOSSELLA, New York
MARY BONO, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon MIKE ROGERS, Michigan C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia Ranking Member MIKE ROSS, Arkansas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland GENE GREEN, Texas
LOIS CAPPS, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine JIM DAVIS, Florida HILDA L. SOLIS, California
Hon. Edward F., Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Luis A., Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
.................................................................................................................... Wise, Hon. Stan, Chairman, Georgia Public Service Commission, on behalf of
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners .........................................
Company, on behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute ..........................................................
Boyd, Michele, Legislative Director, Public Citizen
.......................................................... Otter, Hon. C. L. “Butch”, Member, U.S. House of Representatives ................................ Mollohan, Hon. Alan B., Member, U.S. House of Representatives
................................... Robinson, Mark J., Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Additional material submitted for the record:
F., Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, U.S. Department of Energy, response for the record
.............................. Luis A., Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, response for the record
Wise, Hon. Stan, Chairman, Georgia Public Service Commission, on behalf of
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, response for the record
Company, on behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute, response for the record ...................
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY,
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph M. Hall (Chairman) presiding. Members present: Representatives Hall, Norwood, Shimkus, Otter, Murphy, Burgess, Barton (ex officio), Boucher, Markey, Green, and Dingell (ex officio). Staff present: David McCarthy, Chief Counsel for Energy and the Environment; Kurt Bilas, Counsel; Annie Caputo, Professional Staff Member; Elizabeth Stack, Policy Coordinator; Peter Kielty, Legislative Clerk; Sue Sheridan, Minority Senior Counsel; and Bruce Harris, Minority Professional Staff Member. MR. HALL. The committee will come to order. I would like to, of course, welcome all the witnesses to this committee with a particular warm welcome to fellow members, Congressman Otter and Congressman Mollohan. A warm welcome to all of them but to our associates, we always like to see them come before the committee. Without objection, the subcommittee will proceed pursuant to committee rule 4E, which allows members the opportunity to defer opening statements for extra questioning time. I recognize myself for an opening statement. First, I want to thank Ranking Member Rick Boucher and Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell of the full committee for their help in setting up this hearing. Nuclear and hydroelectric energy are the mainstays of our Nation’s energy supply and resolving these issues before us today is just absolutely critical to insuring that our country continues to receive the benefits of these clean energy sources.
First, let me comment on nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is a necessary solution for hazardous disposal of our Nation’s nuclear waste. I have said before, and said it before and before and before, we owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to live up to the commitment to build a safe and secure repository. Today’s hearing is an opportunity for us to hear from the stakeholders regarding their opinions on the various legislative proposals regarding nuclear waste storage and disposal, and any additional recommendations that they might have. I know many people are frustrated with the length of time we have been working on this issue and how much longer it will be until the repository opens. I think that frustration leads people to question whether Yucca Mountain will ever open and to suggest that we proceed with interim storage instead. I have supported interim storage provisions in the past at Yucca Mountain. We should not allow the pursuit of interim storage to slow progress in the repository. After addressing nuclear issues, we will turn to five bills that provide for hydroelectric license extension. These bills address seven projects in five States and have been introduced by Republicans and Democrats. Our first hydro panel will consist of two of our colleagues, Congressman Butch Otter from Idaho, and Congressman Alan Mollohan from West Virginia to discuss the bills that they have introduced to extend the licensing for projects in their States. We will also hear from Mark Robinson of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on FERC’s view on these five bills. I encourage my colleagues to use this hearing to gain a better understanding of the issues before us in preparation for possible legislative action. I remind all members have the opportunity to submit questions for the record following the hearing. I ask the witnesses to please respond to these questions as soon as you can. I look forward to working with you and listening to your testimony today, so as we get underway I will recognize Mr. Boucher for an opening statement. [The prepared statement of Hon. Ralph M. Hall follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RALPH M. HALL, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
The Subcommittee will come to order. I would like to welcome all of the witnesses to this Committee with a particularly warm welcome to our fellow Members, Congressmen Otter and Mollohan. Without objection, the Subcommittee will proceed pursuant to Committee Rule 4(e), which allows Members the opportunity to defer opening statements for extra questioning time. The Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. First, I want to thank Ranking Member Rick Boucher, and Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell of the Full Committee for their help in setting up this hearing. Nuclear and hydroelectric energy are mainstays of our nation’s energy supply. Resolving the issues before us today
is critical to ensuring that our country continues to receive the benefits of these clean energy sources. First, let me comment on nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is a necessary solution for how to dispose of our nation’s nuclear waste. As I’ve said before, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to live up to the commitment to build a safe and secure repository. Today’s hearing is an opportunity for us to hear from stakeholders regarding their opinions on the various legislative proposals regarding nuclear waste storage and disposal, and any additional recommendations they have.
I know many people are frustrated with the length of time we have been working on
this issue and how much longer it will be until the repository opens. I think that
frustration leads people to question whether Yucca Mountain will EVER open and to suggest that we proceed with interim storage instead. I’ve supported interim storage provisions in the past, at Yucca Mountain. However, a short term fix should not detratct from the focus and resources needed for the long-term solution – the pursuit of interim storage should not slow progress on the repository. After addressing nuclear issues, we will turn to 5 bills that provide for hydroelectric license extensions. These bills address 7 projects in 5 States and have been introduced by Republicans and Democrats. Our first panel will consist of two of our colleagues,
Congressman Butch Otter from Idaho and Congressman Allan Mollohan from West Virginia, to discuss the bills that they have introduced to extend the FERC licenses for projects in their States. We will also hear from Mark Robinson of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on FERC’s views on these 5 bills.
I encourage my colleagues to use this hearing to gain a better understanding of the
issue before us in preparation for possible legislative action. I remind all Members of the opportunity to submit questions for the record following the hearing. I ask the witnesses to please respond those questions as soon as you can. I look forward to working with you, and listening to your testimony today.
MR. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend you for convening today’s hearing on our nuclear waste disposal and storage policies, as well as on legislation providing for hydroelectric license extensions in several selected circumstances. I will focus my comments this afternoon on the nuclear waste portion of today’s hearing. This is a matter of great concern to many stakeholders including the electricity consumers who are paying every year into the
I was pleased to learn during our hearing in July on the status of the
Yucca Mountain program that the Department of Energy has developed a new schedule and plans to submit a license application in the year 2008 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the opening of the repository expected to follow in the year 2017. While I am encouraged by the new schedule that DOE has put forward and even more encouraged by its apparent determination to meet that schedule, we are all still awaiting the receipt of an accompanying anticipated funding stream statement, and we hope we will be receiving that statement in the near future. That will be the schedule of money that will flow to DOE and to this program that would be required to meet the new schedule.
The longstanding matter of funding for the Yucca Mountain project continues to be of great concern. While the balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund is currently approximately $19 billion, annual appropriations for the Yucca Mountain program are only a fraction of the amount annually contributed by the ratepayers. This year, for example, the Administration has proposed $156 million for civilian nuclear waste disposal, but $750 million in rate payer contributions will go into the Nuclear Waste Fund during the current year. These monies are not walled off and protected and are therefore being spent for other purposes in order to fund the Federal government’s general operations, and that was never the intent at the time that ratepayers were taxed with funding the nuclear waste disposal program. Over the past several years several legislative proposals to address the funding mechanism have been debated by this committee but because of objections from other committees no resolution has been reached on ways to secure funding to this project. I would say again it is a matter of paramount importance. It is in my view essential to secure for the Yucca Mountain project not only future rate payer contributions into the Fund, but also the existing balance of approximately $19 billion which has been paid for the purpose of establishing the repository. And as we consider legislation to secure future contributions, I think it must have a component that assures that the Yucca Mountain project receives the full balance, approximately 19 billion, currently residing within the Fund. A number of new proposals have surfaced in recent months including the establishment of possible interim storage facilities and also the global nuclear energy partnership, a program which would promote nuclear waste reprocessing. I am interested in hearing about the potential merits of both of these proposals, but let me say that I am somewhat skeptical about the ability of DOE simultaneously to fund and staff those new efforts while continuing to meet the new schedule for opening Yucca Mountain. And I hope that our witnesses today will offer some comments on how that might happen if either or both of these new programs are put into effect. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. MR. HALL. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes Dr. Norwood, the gentleman from Georgia, for an opening statement. MR. NORWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today on a very important energy issue including nuclear and hydroelectric power issues. I have been a strong supporter of these types of power since coming to Congress and would very much like to see their expansion in these areas to promote clean, renewable power and diversification in our Nation’s energy portfolio. Unfortunately, I think that we keep seeing the same opposition from the
usual suspects. These folks who oppose the energy bill oppose offshore exploration, oppose domestic resources in Alaska, oppose expanding refineries, and even oppose wind power when it hurts their vacation home view. Yet, they are the first to vilify oil companies when trying to bring my product to market first to make us beholding to international energy moguls and the first to cry when their winter heating bill goes up or their power blacks out because of lack of infrastructure. Now we have the expansion of nuclear power before us, and as we have for some time, and the delays continue. I for one come from a State that is ready, is willing, is able to expand our nuclear power infrastructure, but the industry and the expansion are hamstrung by the failure to achieve some certainty that a plan will be in place for proper safe disposal of nuclear waste, all the while power bills slowly are creeping up and waste piles up. This is a security issue. It is a power issue. It is an infrastructure issue, and it is a jobs issue. I would have thought that we could have agreed on all of these things, but clearly we do not. I look forward to this hearing. I look forward to being reassured by Mr. Sproat that after my visit to Yucca Mountain in 1995 he might actually open it and hopefully before 2008. Finally, I would like to welcome my friend and fellow Georgian, Mr. Stan Wise, who serves our home State with both dedication and distinction. I appreciate his service to Georgia and our constituents appreciate his efforts on their behalf back home. I know that he will be an able and informative witness for us here on this second panel. Thank you for coming today, Stan, and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HALL. Thank you, Dr. Norwood. The Chair recognizes Dr. Murphy, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for an opening statement. MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing. As you know, we are in the unfortunate and tragic position in the United States of funding both sides in this war we are immersed in, a war that has been going on for some 30 years, curiously as long as we have also not been building nuclear power plants, building oil refineries, exploring for oil and natural gas to a very limited
In the meantime, countries like Iran take our oil money that
people pay for every time they fill their tank and they have recently given I believe it was about $100 million worth of aid to Hezbollah in their fight against Israel. We have countries like Venezuela who openly embrace other terrorist supporting Nations saying that they also see the United States as their enemy, all the while taking money from our citizens to fund their hostile comments and their hostile activities. The only way we can combat this is to have a diverse source of energy in this Nation that
includes exploring for our own sources of oil off the Atlantic Coast, the Gulf Coast, the Pacific Coast, the Rocky Mountains in Alaska, and stop delaying this for the sake of politics and really see that we have to have some energy independence here, diversify our energy sources to include such things as clean coal technology which we have been funding but we need to move forward more aggressively on that, and also diversity with other sources, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear being among them. If we fail to do that, we are continuing to send money to people who use it against us to kill our citizens, people who are part of a network who have promised to kill some four million adults and two million children as part of their war against us. This is a serious undertaking. I am pleased that as a result of our energy bill, companies like Westinghouse Electric are now working actively to build nuclear power plants. But of course we can’t move forward on that unless they have a place to put the nuclear waste. A large part of the solution to America’s energy problem is American energy, and the more we see energy independence by diversifying our sources through such things as nuclear, clean coal, domestic source of oil, and other renewables, the better off we are as a Nation. Like most Americans, I am tired, I am sick and tired of having hostile Nations dictate our economy while we sit back and here and argue politics instead of working on energy policy. This issue of Yucca Mountain is a major issue for our energy independence and the sooner we understand it is a major issue for our American peace the sooner we will move forward in doing the right thing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HALL. Thank you, sir. The Chair recognizes Honorable John Dingell for an opening statement. Mr. Dingell, welcome. MR. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, you are most courteous. MR. HALL. You are worth waiting for. MR. DINGELL. We will see after I finish this statement if you still want to hold that view. MR. HALL. I may want to revise my statement. MR. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing. I applaud the attention which the subcommittee and the full committee have brought during this session to the Department of Energy’s DOE Yucca Mountain waste repository program. This program is long delayed. It has undergone an internal review which I hope will get it back on track so the DOE can prepare and file the license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the near future. It is important that this committee and this subcommittee stay on top of these changes, and I commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Chairman of the full committee for your doing this.
I am pleased to have Director Sproat before the subcommittee today. While past delays in the program are regrettable, it was good to learn at our last hearing in July that Mr. Sproat believes DOE will be in a position to file an application by 2008 and potentially to open the repository in 2017. I am pleased that Tony Earley, a personal friend, and the Chairman and CEO of DTE Energy Company in my home State of Michigan will be testifying today on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute. The nuclear industry has upheld its end of the bargain in terms of channeling funds into the Nuclear Waste Fund. I appreciate the support that the industry gives on funding reform and on other things related to these matters. This is sorely needed to protect it and the ratepayers’ investment. I hope that industry will support my efforts to find the means of halting the diversion of the $19 billion in the Fund, which sadly remains vulnerable to raids by the Budget and the Appropriations Committees, which is regularly diverted to other purposes for the reasons best understood by the Budget and Appropriations Committees. Today’s hearing may shed light on questions surrounding the issue of centralized interim storage. The idea surfaces from time to time and indeed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act included a very narrow and specifically drawn version which expired in 1990. Similarly, during the 106 th Congress the committee referred the bill authorizing DOE to construct a strictly limited interim storage facility in Nevada. While interim storage may hold promise, we should not lose sight of the fundamental trade off that the Congress has waged in past debates that interim storage not grow so large as to undercut incentives for completing the repository. Those who suggest the time has come to abandon this concern should be prepared to explain why ratepayers should be asked to pay for both the repository program and one or more interim storage facilities which will have substantial cost in addition to the cost of on-site storage. This brings me, Mr. Chairman, to my last observation. For years DOE has provided information to this committee projecting funding needs for the Yucca Mountain project for the following decade. This has enabled members to assess whether or not the program funding will be adequate and when DOE will need access to the corpus of the Nuclear Waste Funds to meet peak spending needs. To date, DOE has not provided Congress with updated cost estimates that reflect the programmatic changes announced in July, and I hope that this hearing today will help us get some of that information. To be sure, I would rather that the Department take the time needed to get it right, rather than to hurry this information. The lack, however, of updated cost estimates precludes members from making an informed judgment about
legislative proposals for centralized Federal interim storage. DOE did not include interim storage in its legislative proposal, and I share the concerns that several of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle expressed about the effect of such a new initiative and the impact it could have on DOE’s resources. In terms of process, a policy change of this magnitude is best considered by the regular order. If not, the product is likely to be disappointing and will make matters worse. It would be a shame if the Congress saddled DOE with another layer of responsibilities that resulted in still more delay and still more litigation. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your kindness. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my time. MR. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. The Chair notes the presence of Mr. Barton, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I recognize you, Mr. Chairman, for an opening statement. CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Hall, for holding this hearing. Nuclear energy and hydropower both play crucial and growing roles in meeting our Nation’s energy needs. Solving the nuclear waste issue and facilitating hydroelectric licensing are crucial steps to insuring that these clean energy sources continue to be available. Two months ago your subcommittee heard testimony from the Department of Energy on the new schedule at Yucca Mountain. Meeting that ambitious schedule will require legislative action and funding. Mr. Sproat is here today. I am going to let you know that I remain committed to helping you meet that schedule. I am going to go everything I can to help you be successful in meeting that schedule. I realize that 2017 is a long way off, but there is a growing desire on the part of some to pursue interim storage. As Chairman Hall has commented, I have also supported interim storage in the past at Yucca Mountain. However, building interim storage facilities in as many as 31 States is not something that I support, and I don’t think the House will support it. I think it is unrealistic. I think it depletes the Nuclear Waste Fund, and I think it does not meet our obligation to the ratepayers who have paid for Yucca Mountain. To the extent interim storage is appropriate, let us locate it at Yucca Mountain. The ratepayers that have paid into the waste fund for all these years are counting on Congress to do our part by building the repository. We owe them the value of that facility. We also owe it to our future generations to take care of the spent fuel that we already have on hand. In the process we should not preclude future generations from applying advance technologies that almost certainly will be developed. You don’t have to be a nuclear engineer to know with certainty that future generations will almost certainly discover more effective solutions to the
nuclear waste issue than we have today. As knowledge accumulates, new ideas will emerge and progress will happen. Therefore, I strongly believe that we should proceed with licensing and constructing the repository at Yucca Mountain in a way that maintains flexibility for future generations to incorporate the improvements that they devise. The National Research Council has issued a report back in 2003 that was entitled one step at a time. It proposed a concept called adaptive staging. I am intrigued by the proposal and intend to study it further. Staged development of repositories is a concept that is gaining support internationally. It may provide a flexible framework for incorporating future innovations without delaying the current repository. As I have said before, I remain committed to doing everything I can as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee to help the Department of Energy meet the 2017 time table for opening the Yucca Mountain repository. There are legislative provisions that must be passed to accomplish that. I expect if there are other provisions that could be passed it would be helpful. In the coming months I hope to work with Mr. Dingell on a legislative package to put the Yucca Mountain program on a path to success. Support for Yucca Mountain has been bipartisan in this
committee and in the House. It is my goal that the work we do on this issue will continue to be bipartisan. We should not let politics get in the way of addressing this important issue. The subcommittee today is also going to take up five bills, or review five bills, to extend their licenses to begin the construction of seven hydroelectric projects. Last year’s Energy Policy Act contained important provisions regarding hydroelectric project licensing to encourage more
I see that the first panel after this panel
contains two Members of Congress, Representatives Otter of Idaho, who is a member of this committee, and Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. I look forward to their testimony. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Thank you, Chairman Hall for having this hearing. Nuclear energy and hydropower both play crucial and growing roles in meeting our nation’s energy needs. Solving the nuclear waste issue and facilitating hydroelectric licensing are crucial steps to ensuring that these clean sources of energy will continue to be available. Two months ago this Subcommittee heard testimony from the Department of Energy on the new schedule for Yucca Mountain. Meeting that ambitious schedule will require legislative action and funding. Mr. Sproat, I remain committed to helping you meet that schedule and will do everything I can to give you the tools you need to succeed. I realize 2017 is a long way off and that there is growing desire on the part of some to pursue interim storage. As Chairman Hall already commented, I have also supported
interim storage in the past: at Yucca Mountain. However, building interim storage facilities in as many as 31 states in NOT something I support. It is unrealistic, depletes the Nuclear Waste Fund, and does not meet our obligation to the ratepayers who have paid for Yucca Mountain. They’re counting on Congress to do our part by finally building the repository. Not only do we owe THEM the value of the facility, we also owe it to future generations to take care of the spent nuclear fuel that our generation has benefited from. However, in the process we should not preclude future generations from applying advanced technologies that they will develop. You don’t have to be an engineer to know with certainty that future generations will discover more effective solutions to the nuclear waste issue. As knowledge accumulates, new ideas will emerge and progress will happen. Therefore, we should proceed with licensing and constructing the repository in a way that maintains flexibility for future generations to incorporate the improvements that they devise. The National Research Council issued a report in 2003 entitled, “One Step at a Time” which proposed a concept called, “Adaptive Staging.” I am intrigued by the proposal and intend to study it further. Staged development of repositories is a concept that is gaining support internationally and may provide a flexible framework for incorporating future innovations, without delaying the repository. As I’ve said before, I remain committed to doing everything I can to help DOE meet their 2017 opening date for the repository. There are legislative provisions that must be passed to accomplish that and I expect there are other provisions that would be helpful. In the coming months, I hope to work with Ranking Member Dingell on a legislative package to put the Yucca Mountain program on a path to success. Support for Yucca Mountain has been bipartisan on this Committee. It is my goal that the work we do on this issue will continue to be bipartisan. We should not let politics get in the way of addressing this important issue. The Subcommittee will also take up 5 bills to extend the FERC licenses to begin the construction of 7 hydroelectric projects. Last year’s Energy Policy Act contained important provisions regarding hydroelectric project licensing to encourage more hydroelectric generation. I see that the first hydro panel consists of 2 members of Congress – Representatives Butch Otter of Idaho and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Allan Mollohan of West Virginia. I look forward to their testimony. It is always encouraging to hear from people who want to see new energy facilities in their States.
MR. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I recognize Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois, for an opening statement. MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. I want to welcome our panel. This is an important hearing. I agree a lot obviously with the Chairman and even the Ranking Member. Divide and conquer is a strategy to delay, confuse, and stop the expansion of nuclear power in this country. That is why we were so excited, Mr. Sproat, when you gave your testimony and committing a time line. I want to join my Chairman in saying anything we can do to meet the 2008-2017 we want to do because the best signal we can send to the nuclear industry is that we are serious. We are serious about Yucca. This interim proposal is just ridiculous. If we think that each State is going to not delay, confuse, obfuscate, I can’t even say the word, this process and delay interim storage for decades like the attempts that have
been at Yucca Mountain, we haven’t been in Washington very long, so I want us to move forward. You have got a lot of supporters here. You can count me as one of them, and I look forward to working with you to achieve that end so that we can diversify our energy portfolio for all the reasons that members have already mentioned before. We want a competitive, electricity generation market. That means coal. I am from a leading coal State. That means nuclear and natural gas and hydroelectric. You want them to compete, and you don’t want to disenfranchise any of those competitors. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. MR. HALL. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Otter, the gentleman from Idaho, for an opening statement. MR. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would to welcome the panel. Thank you for being here today. I would associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Shimkus and also our Chairman, and all those other remarks that says basically we are not much in favor of interim storage. The future of energy, I believe, in this country is nuclear. And the future of nuclear energy in this country is how we treat our waste. Can we clean up the messes that we have got? Can we take care of the messes that we would create? And to delay and to try to now establish an interim storage scheme which would actually delay the final resting place of the nuclear waste that we have, I think is a terrible mistake not only in terms of promises made and promises not yet kept, but I think it is also a terrible mistake in terms of how we are going to be able to view the role in which nuclear energy can play in the future in the United States. I am aware and I am sure you too, sir, are aware of an agreement that we have in Idaho on the removal of nuclear waste, and there is a time line on that. And that time line since its inception of that contract is 12 years now and certainly that agreement between the Department of Defense and Energy and the State of Idaho did allow for some time lines to be stretched, but it is getting perilously close now to an irreversible trend. And so I would join the rest of my colleagues in total support of going forward with permanent storage and getting those projects underway so that we really do have a future for nuclear energy in this country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. [Additional statements submitted for the record follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding our third Nuclear Waste hearing in the 109 th Congress. It’s about that time when people start looking to pass all kinds of legislation in lame duck omnibus appropriations bills, so it is a good idea for our Committee to be paying close attention to this issue.
The scope of the challenge of nuclear waste has been well documented by this Committee and elsewhere, but the language in the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill is a new wrinkle we must confront. Many on this Committee are very concerned with this language. By starting from scratch on new “interim” storage facilities at unknown locations, we are likely undercutting the Yucca Mountain project. With DOE and Congress struggling so hard to get Yucca moving, it’s hard to see how the federal government has the time and resources to set up any more nuclear storage facilities. If we switch course and pursue an interim nuclear storage facility, we run the risk of eliminating all the momentum behind Yucca Mountain. Some Yucca opponents support the Senate language, and they probably view this proposal as a strategy to delay Yucca Mountain indefinitely. As a result, it is going to be very difficult to site an interim facility since any area that is chosen will suspect they’re the new permanent facility. An interim facility will likely be smaller than Yucca Mountain which likely means that some nuclear waste will remain at on-site storage facilities for even longer than expected. Some facilities may be stuck with their waste because the interim facility won’t be big enough to take care of everyone, but it will be big enough to take away Yucca’s momentum. DOE needs to take a leadership role in the appropriations negotiations this year and do what is best for the entire nation’s safety and reliable electricity supply. If DOE sits on its hand on the sidelines it will be much easier for anti-Yucca elements in the Senate to sneak in through the back door and kill the Yucca Mountain project which Congress approved overwhelmingly. If that happens, the pro-nuclear Bush Administration may go down in history as the Administration that did the most damage to the future of nuclear power in America. Thank you and I yield back.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Thank you for convening this important hearing on nuclear waste storage and disposal policy. First and foremost, I would like to welcome from Michigan Mr. Tony Earley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of DTE Energy to the Committee. Mr. Earley, in your important role serving as Chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Committee welcomes your expertise on this important issue facing our region and the entire nation. Mr. Chairman, my home state of Michigan has four nuclear waste storage sites. Yet Michigan is also the home of the Great Lakes which contain 20 percent of the world's fresh water. I can assure you that Michiganders are very interested in securing and opening the permanent nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada to get this hazardous material off of the shores of our precious lakes. Many of the provisions found in H.R. 5360 would take important steps to continue moving this process forward. This bill would go a long way toward providing certainty that the Yucca Mountain facility is progressing, ensure the funding stream already created goes toward Yucca as intended and by clarifying the licensing process. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for convening this important hearing. I look forward to working with you going forward on this issue.
MR. HALL. Thank you. We are very fortunate to have two gentlemen who are very much in the mix of discussions who we have here today. We appreciate once again your coming to our aid and giving us the advice that you are going to give us. Edward F. Sproat, III, Director of Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, I recognize you at this time hopefully for 5 minutes but whatever it actually takes to summarize yours and then we will ask questions. I recognize you, Mr. Sproat.
STATEMENTS OF HON. EDWARD F. SPROAT, III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND LUIS A. REYES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MR. SPROAT. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Boucher, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about H.R. 5360, which is entitled the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act, and on behalf of the President and the Secretary, I would particularly like to thank Chairman Barton for his introduction of this important piece of legislation. Let me talk about--I am very encouraged by what the committee said this afternoon regarding your support for Yucca Mountain, and I want to talk specifically about what can we do for you to help make this happen, and that is what I want to talk about in 5 minutes or less. Two months ago I came before this committee, and I laid out the new best achievable schedule for the Yucca Mountain project showing that we believed under optimum circumstances the best achievable date of opening Yucca Mountain is March of 2017. I got criticized in a number of quarters about how unrealistic that schedule was, and I want to make it very clear that the schedule is best achievable, not most probable, and there is a difference. And I want to make it very clear that the legislation that the Administration sent up here to Capitol Hill back in the spring and here in the House as H.R. 5360 is absolutely positively critical to making that March, 2017 date. I can tell you unequivocally that if we don’t get that legislation, I have a zero chance of making that March, 2017 date, and I am prepared to go into some of the details as to why that is the case, and so that is why I am here, to try and make that case to you about how important that piece of legislation is to allow us to open that repository by March of 2017. There have been a number of discussions about this legislation, and there are a number of misconceptions out there about what it is
asking for and what it is intending to do. I am going to hit the highlights very quickly and try and put it in plain English because there are a number of--it is very legalistic in a number of ways, and I want to try and keep it very simple and very straightforward. Number one is around the waste fund; this legislation is not about taking Yucca Mountain off budget. It is not about taking away from Congress its right of appropriations for Yucca Mountain. This is about making the annual receipts in the Nuclear Waste Fund and characterizing them as discretionary. And what that allows the various appropriations committees to do is to take that money, the receipts as they come in, appropriate them for Yucca Mountain without impacting the committee’s budget limits that they are given for the budget process. It does still maintain congressional control of the appropriations process over Yucca Mountain so that is very important to understand. Just one last point on money before I move on. There have been a couple questions raised about the cash flows which you asked about when I was here 2 months ago. The cash flow estimates for the Yucca Mountain project are in the final stages of being put together through the entire construction period of the project. We are bringing in an outside, independent architect engineering firm to do an independent review of the methodology and the numbers that we have for that. I expect that independent review to be done in early October. Once that is done, we will present that to you in an appropriate forum so that you have those cash flows, but that is where we stand with that right now. I understand you would like to have those as soon as possible but we want to make sure they are right. The second issue in the bill concerns land withdrawal, and to make it very simple, in order for the NRC to license the repository, DOE as the licensee needs to show that it has control of the repository area. I can’t do that unless that land is withdrawn from public use and public access, and what the legislation allows us to do is give the Secretary of Energy control that way and make determinations how it is to be used. That is critical to the licensing process of Yucca Mountain. The third area is removal of a 70,000 metric tons limit on the capacity of Yucca Mountain. Right now with the current fleet of nuclear plants and with the license extensions they have open, we will have Yucca Mountain totally committed within the next several years. What this legislation is proposing is to remove that administrative limit that is in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and allow the NRC to determine during the licensing process what the maximum allowable capacity of Yucca Mountain should be. What I can tell you is that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act also requires me to report to Congress between January 1, 2007, and 2010, if I believe, there is a need for a
second repository. If we do not remove this administrative cap, I can tell you I will present a report to the Congress certainly during my tenure that says we need a second repository , national repository, if that 70,000 metric ton limit is retained. The next issue is around water, and this is about can we get the water we need to operate and construct Yucca Mountain, and we are not trying to usurp the State of Nevada’s water rights here. What we are asking for is the Congress to declare Yucca Mountain in the public interest because right now the State of Nevada legislature has declared it not in the public interest and therefore the State water engineer cannot give us a permit to withdraw water. So all we are asking is that the Congress declare Yucca Mountain in the public interest, basically overriding the Nevada legislature’s alternate determination and then allowing us to go in front of the State water engineer and present our case. That is all we are asking for. We are not trying to usurp Nevada’s rights in terms of control of their water. In terms of waste confidence, this is an issue that a number of people have talked about. This is about trying to make it very clear so that the NRC and the Congress believe that the disposal of spent nuclear fuel is an issue that the NRC does not need to consider in their environmental impact statements for new plants or for license extensions of existing plants. This is an issue of vital importance to the industry and to our ability to move forward with nuclear energy in this country. The sixth area is around transportation, and there has been a lot of misinformation around this issue also. Very simply, the Department of Energy already has authority to transport spent nuclear fuel and high level waste under the Atomic Energy Act. What we are asking for is authority under that Atomic Energy Act to use an existing Department of Transportation pre-emption process so that, if we get to a locality that is obstinate and not willing to work with us in the planning process to allow us to plan the transportation routes, that we can use the existing Department of Transportation pre-emption process, which is very well developed and very complete. This gives us an alternative process to work around any obstructions we might get at a local level. We are not asking for, nor do we have any plans not to work very directly with county, State, local, and tribal members in planning the transportation routes. That is what we have done in the past. That is what we plan on doing in the future. But we need this alternative pre- emption process that the Department of Transportation has in place so that we can apply it to our shipments. There is also a request to clarify our capability to build infrastructure for the rail line to Yucca Mountain. And just to be clear about that, we believe we already have the authority to do these things. What we are trying to be clear about is that these
actions are connected to Yucca Mountain, but we believe, and we are trying to clarify, that we have the authority to do these activities before receipt of a construction authorization from the NRC, without prejudicing the NRC decision-making process for the construction authorization. That is the focus of this. It does not in any way affect NRC’s authority over the nuclear safety aspects of licensing Yucca Mountain. This is strictly about the connected actions and allowing us to start activities like building the Nevada railroad spur prior to issuance of a construction authorization for Yucca Mountain by the NRC, and that is important to be able to meet our schedule. The last area that I just want to talk about very quickly is the several issues associated with trying to clarify Federal authority over duplicative regulatory review processes. One is around air quality. We are asking that the EPA be given authority to regulate our air quality permits for Yucca Mountain and not the State of Nevada. Secondly, for the materials to be buried at Yucca Mountain, right now the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, applies. It is a law that is very focused on shallow burial of hazardous wastes. It is our contention and belief that NRC licensing of the materials that we are putting into a deep geological repository is a much more stringent set of regulations than what the RCRA law would require, and we are asking elimination of the duplicative reviews and regulatory frameworks that both RCRA and NRC regulations would require. And then finally for those infrastructure improvements that I talked about before, we just want to clarify that EPA has authority over the environmental impact statement reviews of those connected actions. So in summary, Mr. Chairman, the President, the Secretary, and I all believe that this legislation is critical to achieving that schedule that I gave you 2 months ago for opening Yucca Mountain by March of 2017, and we respectfully request that the Congress act on this legislation. [The prepared statement of Hon. Edward F. Sproat, III follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD F. SPROAT, III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 5360 entitled the “Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act.” Enactment of this bill would significantly enhance the Nation’s ability to manage and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. I thank Chairman Barton for taking up this critical issue and introducing the legislation. Over the last 50 years, our country has benefited greatly from nuclear energy and the power of the atom. We need to ensure a strong and diversified energy mix to fuel our Nation’s economy, and nuclear power is an important component of that mix. Currently more than 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is located at more than 100 above- ground sites in 39 states, and every year reactors in the United States produce an
additional approximately 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel. In order to ensure the future viability of our nuclear generating capacity, we need a safe, permanent, geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. Recently the Department announced its plans to submit a License Application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by June 30, 2008, and to initiate repository operations in 2017. This opening date of 2017 is a “best-achievable schedule” and is predicated upon enactment of the pending legislation. This proposed legislation addresses many of the uncertainties, currently beyond the control of the Department, that have the potential to significantly delay the opening date for the repository. I would like to briefly summarize the bill’s provisions for the Committee. First, the most important factor in moving the Yucca Mountain Project forward is the ability of the Department to have access to the Nuclear Waste Fund to ensure adequate funding is available to meet the requirements necessary to construct and operate a repository. By making a technical budgetary scoring change, the proposed legislation would correct a structural budget problem by changing the budgetary treatment of the Nuclear Waste Fund fee, from mandatory receipts to discretionary offsetting collections equal to annual appropriations from the fund. Funding for the Program would still have to be requested by the President and Congressional appropriations from the Fund would still be required. Second, to meet NRC licensing requirements it will also be necessary for Congress to approve the permanent withdrawal of the lands needed for the operational area of the repository. The bill would withdraw permanently from public use approximately 147,000 acres of land in Nye County, Nevada. The Department is confident that the permanent withdrawal of land would meet the NRC licensing requirement for the Yucca Mountain repository and would help assure protection of public health and the environment. Third, to promote efficient management and disposal of the current and projected future inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel located at reactors throughout the United States, the proposed legislation would eliminate the current statutory 70,000 metric ton cap on disposal capacity at Yucca Mountain and allow for maximum use of the mountain’s true technical capacity. By eliminating an artificial statutory limit and allowing the NRC to evaluate the actual capacity at Yucca Mountain, this provision would help provide for safe isolation of the Nation’s entire commercial spent nuclear fuel inventory from existing reactors, including life extensions, and may postpone the need for a second repository elsewhere until the next century. In addition, the proposed legislation includes a number of provisions that would promote prompt consideration of issues associated with the Yucca Mountain repository or would address other matters that have the potential to cause delays in moving forward with the Yucca Mountain Project. First, the proposed legislation contains provisions that would provide for a more streamlined NRC licensing process by amending the licensing process in several respects. In particular, the legislation would make clear that an application for construction authorization need not include information on surface facilities other than those facilities necessary for initial operations. The bill would also establish an expedited one-year schedule and a simplified, informal process for the NRC to consider the license amendment for the Department to receive and possess nuclear materials as well as for other future license amendment actions. The bill would also direct that the NRC, consistent with other provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, need not consider in its environmental review any actions taken outside of the geologic repository operations area; this will help focus the licensing process. Second, the proposed legislation would permit early initiation of infrastructure and pre-construction activities at the Yucca Mountain site for utility, communications, and safety upgrades, and the construction of a rail line to connect the Yucca Mountain site
with the national rail network prior to receipt of an NRC construction authorization for the repository. Construction of repository surface and sub-surface nuclear facilities would still require a construction authorization from the NRC. Third, the proposed legislation includes additional provisions that would simplify the regulatory framework for the repository. In particular, the legislation would designate the Environmental Protection Agency as the appropriate agency to issue, administer, and enforce any air quality permits required in connection with the Yucca Mountain repository. Material owned, transported and stored in NRC-licensed containers and NRC-licensed materials at Yucca Mountain would also be exempt from Federal, State, and local environmental requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The intent is to ensure that dual regulatory requirements do not apply to the same waste streams, once they are ready to be shipped to a repository for disposal. These provisions would simplify the regulatory framework for the repository without compromising environmental protection or safety. Fourth, the proposed legislation would address the use of water needed to carry out the authorized functions under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. This legislation would allow the Department to be treated like a private business in requesting water access, resulting in non-discriminatory treatment of the Department. The State of Nevada would still review and administer water allocation to the Department under this provision. Fifth, the proposed legislation would address transportation and ensure the expedited movement of shipments to Yucca Mountain. In this regard, the legislation would provide the flexibility for the DOE to regulate the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the repository in the same manner that we currently conduct transportation of nuclear weapons. The Department has been transporting such nuclear materials safely for many years. In addressing this issue, we are not proposing to change in any way our route planning activities with State, Tribal and local authorities or how we work with them on emergency planning, training, and education. This provision would reflect our longstanding commitment to transporting nuclear material in a manner that meets or exceeds NRC and Department of Transportation requirements for transportation of comparable material. Likewise, it would permit continuing our longstanding practice of working with State, Tribal and local governments, transportation service providers, and other Federal agencies to utilize their resources and expertise to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the proposed legislation would promote the licensing of new nuclear facilities by addressing the need for a regulatory determination of waste confidence by the NRC in connection with proceedings for those new nuclear facilities. This provision directs the Commission to deem that sufficient capacity will be available to dispose of spent nuclear fuel in considering whether to permit the construction and operation of a nuclear reactor or a related facility.
Nuclear power has been demonstrated to be a safe, reliable, and efficient source of power. Enactment of the proposed legislation is necessary to allow the Yucca Mountain Project to move forward and to advance the Nation’s energy independence, energy security, and national security objectives. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the Members of this Committee on this legislation to facilitate the construction and operation of the repository and to ensure the continued development of safe, clean, and efficient nuclear power in this country. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time.
MR. HALL. Thank you. Mr. Luis, Reyes, we recognize you, Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for an opening statement. MR. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discuss our capability to regulate the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Specifically, I plan to address some of the national spent fuel management strategies embodied in various legislative proposals currently under consideration by Congress. Since I plan to summarize my testimony, I will ask that my full statement be entered into the hearing record including an update for page six. MR. HALL. Without objection. MR. REYES. It is important to make clear at the outset that because of our role in the regulation of spent nuclear fuel and our potential role in considering an application for a high level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the Commission has not taken a position on most of the provisions in these legislative proposals. Therefore, I would like to focus on the impact certain of the proposals will have on the NRC. We have reviewed the language contained in the Senate appropriations bill and believe that the existing regulatory infrastructure could accommodate the alternative approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel. We believe that we may be able to review and license concurrently the large number of facilities anticipated in the bill. However, in order to do so, we will need sufficient funding, the receipt of high-quality license applications, and considerably more time to review and adjudicate the applications. We have also reviewed S. 2610 and note that some provisions in the bill could affect the timing of our review of a Department of Energy application for authorization to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. Specifically, S. 2610 will require us to reach a final decision on receipt and possession within 1 year with the possibility of a 6-month extension. Such a requirement wouldn’t allow us enough time to complete both our safety review and the required adjudicatory proceeding in 1 year. The changes to a national spent fuel management strategy that are being considered in the various bills involve shipping spent fuel. The provisions in the bills may affect the transportation roles of the Department of Energy and the Department of Transportation. They do not appear to affect our role with respect to certifying casks as specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
The NRC believes that the existing transportation regulatory infrastructure can accommodate the various legislative actions being considered. However, as with the other topics addressed in this testimony, our ability to complete this work will depend upon sufficient appropriations and submittal of complete high-quality applications. In conclusion, the Commission understands the importance of addressing the storage, transportation, and disposal of high level radioactive waste in a systematic and integrated manner that is safe, timely, and efficient. We urge Congress to assure that sufficient appropriations be made available to adequately fund regulatory infrastructure activities and increased staffing prior to receipt of new license applications. Provided that we receive sufficient resources and staffing levels are maintained and appropriate time is given to the agency to conduct its technical reviews and adjudications, we believe we can reach decisions on the relevant applications in a timely fashion, assuming high-quality license applications are received. On behalf of the Commission, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to working with you on this legislation, and I will take any questions you may have now. [The prepared statement of Luis A. Reyes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LUIS A. REYES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) capability to regulate long-term and short-term spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal. Specifically, I plan to address some of the national spent fuel management strategies that are being considered in S. 2589, the “Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act;” S. 2610, a bill “to enhance the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste, and for other purposes;” and Section 313 of H.R. 5427, the “Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2007.” It is important to make clear at the outset that, because of the NRC’s role in the regulation of spent nuclear fuel and the potential application for a high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the Commission has not taken a position on most of the provisions in these legislative proposals. Therefore, I would like to focus on the impact the following proposals would have on the NRC.
Spent fuel storage and transportation are and can be accomplished both safely and securely, consistent with the current regulatory framework, regardless of the number of sites and their locations. The NRC has stated in its Waste Confidence Decision that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impact in its spent fuel storage pool or at either on site or off site interim storage facilities for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operational life of the reactor. In general, the Commission concluded that, if stored properly, spent fuel presents a low
risk to the public during normal operation or under potential credible accident conditions
and can be stored safely in either wet or dry storage systems without significant environmental impact for at least 100 years. It is important to note that the threat of sabotage has always been a factor in the design and licensing of spent fuel storage facilities. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the NRC issued Orders to licensees to implement additional security measures, and undertook a comprehensive reassessment of the security of commercial nuclear facilities including those for spent fuel storage. Since 9/11, NRC has issued Orders to licensees to implement additional security measures. Dry spent fuel storage casks are robust structures, which are highly resistant to significant damage, and we are confident that storage of spent fuel in dry casks remains a safe and secure spent fuel management strategy. Spent fuel pools are strong structures constructed of very thick steel-reinforced concrete walls with stainless steel liners located inside protected areas. The NRC’s domestic safeguards program is focused on physically protecting and controlling spent nuclear fuel against sabotage, theft, and diversion. The NRC supports efforts to address interim storage issues in a timely manner. Nuclear power plants need to increase their spent fuel storage capacity to support plant operations. In order to maintain operational capability in the spent fuel pool, including full core off load capability, spent fuel must periodically be moved to dry cask storage. There are currently 43 licensed independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs), and we expect in the next few years that this number will grow to over 50, as more power plants contend with filled spent fuel pools. The 43 current sites have successfully loaded and stored over 800 casks. An exceptional safety record has been achieved using dry cask storage technology. Safety and security are the key elements in a comprehensive spent fuel management strategy. We must also be cognizant of the need for efficiency and effectiveness in every element of spent fuel handling, storage, and transport systems. The NRC believes that instituting canister and infrastructure standards will make storage and transportation both safer and easier, facilitating interoperability among handling and loading activities at different reactors and ISFSIs. Standards will also improve the ease with which these activities can be licensed. Canister and infrastructure standards should be developed with input from industry, taking advantage of lessons learned from previous designs. The legislative proposal in H.R. 5427, as approved by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, includes new consolidation and preparation (CAP) facilities as part of a new national spent fuel management strategy. This proposal would significantly affect the NRC’s spent fuel storage oversight program and resource needs. Specifically, H.R. 5427 calls for a high number of new storage facilities to be reviewed and licensed by NRC in a very short time span. Currently, the NRC has neither the monetary resources nor the necessary employee resources to support the technical review and adjudication of a large number of concurrent storage license applications as considered in H.R. 5427. Also, the time frames in the draft legislation, which must allow for license preparation by the applicant, environmental and safety reviews by NRC and completion of associated hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, are very short and likely not achievable. The NRC has reviewed the proposed legislation and believes that the existing regulatory infrastructure could accommodate the alternative approaches outlined in H.R. 5427. Although the NRC believes that it may be able to review and license a large number of new facilities anticipated in H.R. 5427 concurrently, the following items would be necessary prerequisites for success: sufficient funding; receipt of complete, high-quality license applications; and considerably more time to review and adjudicate the applications. NRC believes that centralized storage or storage at multiple sites in different locations can be achieved safely, consistent with our regulatory system. One must approach spent fuel management as an integrated system, balancing the very small risks associated with storage and transportation components. The Commission is open to
working with our stakeholders in support of a systematic and integrated approach that is safe, timely, and efficient.
The NRC believes that the current, well-established transportation regulatory system is protective of public health and safety. Spent nuclear fuel has been safely transported in the United States for more than 30 years. There has never been an accident involving the transportation of spent fuel resulting in a radiological release or death or injury from radiation. The National Academy of Sciences recently completed a three-year study that concluded that the radiological risks of spent fuel transportation are low and well understood and that the existing regulations are adequate to ensure safety. Any of the changes to a national spent fuel management strategy that are being considered (such as in S. 2589, S. 2610, and H.R. 5427) will involve shipping spent fuel. Federal regulation of spent fuel transportation is shared by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the NRC. Generally, NRC does not regulate the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) shipments of radioactive material; however, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires DOE to utilize NRC-certified casks for spent fuel shipments to a repository and to follow NRC’s advance notification requirements. The Commission has reviewed and certified a number of package designs which could be used to transport spent fuel. Provisions of S. 2589, S. 2610, and H.R. 5427 may affect the transportation roles of DOE and DOT, but do not appear to affect the NRC role to certify casks as specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Section 313(c) of H.R. 5427 calls for licensing of DOE’s spent fuel shipments by NRC and DOT. This means that NRC’s physical protection requirements would be applicable to all of the DOE’s shipments of spent nuclear fuel, and to this extent H.R. 5427 will increase NRC’s responsibilities. The NRC believes that the existing transportation regulatory infrastructure can accommodate the various legislative actions being considered. The transportation aspects of the various options and facilities do not present new or inherently different technical challenges. New transportation packages will need to be designed and certified to address: DOE initiatives on transport, aging, and disposal canisters; new types of spent fuel; or existing spent fuel that is not covered by current designs. As with the other topics addressed in this testimony, the NRC’s ability to complete this work will depend upon sufficient appropriations and the submittal of complete, high quality applications.
The NRC understands the importance of addressing disposal of high-level radioactive waste in a manner that is both safe and timely. The NRC has a record of moving responsibly and promptly to meet its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. To prepare for conducting an independent safety review of a Yucca Mountain application, the Commission continues to conduct pre-license application activities aimed at providing guidance so that DOE can provide a high quality application. NRC is confident that we will be ready to receive an application if submitted in 2008 as is currently proposed by DOE. We are also confident that we will reach a timely decision on the application provided that the application is complete and of high-quality. The NRC offers the following comments on provisions in the proposed legislation, S. 2610, that could affect the timing of the NRC’s review of a DOE application for an authorization to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. The proposed legislation would require the NRC to reach a final decision on receipt and possession within one year (with the possibility of a six-month extension). This proposed requirement does not give the NRC sufficient time to complete its necessary proceedings. First, the NRC cannot complete both its safety review and the adjudicatory proceeding in one year. In particular, NRC will need to
conduct a hearing. Even under the informal hearing process proposed in S. 2610, the NRC would need to adjudicate issues raised by participants that are admitted as contentions by the licensing board. It is difficult to predict the amount of time it will take to complete the review and adjudicate issues in controversy without knowing the scope and number of issues that will require adjudication as well as the number of parties involved. Second, the proposed legislation’s provision regarding surface facilities could be read to provide for staged consideration of surface facilities. In this case, the NRC would review certain facilities during the construction authorization phase and other facilities during the later receipt and possession phase. Facilities that otherwise could have been reviewed in the construction authorization phase might be shifted to the receipt and possession phase, increasing the scope of review for that phase despite the reduced time allowed for that review. S. 2589 and S. 2610 also contain a provision requiring the NRC, in deciding whether to permit the construction or operation of a nuclear reactor or any related facilities, to deem, without further consideration, that sufficient capacity will be available in a timely manner to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. H.R. 5427 contains a similar provision. The NRC does not object to these provisions of the legislation.
The NRC fully understands the importance of addressing the storage, transportation and disposal of high-level radioactive waste in a systematic and integrated manner that is safe, timely, and efficient. We would urge the Congress to assure that sufficient appropriations be made available to adequately fund regulatory infrastructure activities and increased staffing prior to the receipt of license applications initiating licensing activities. Provided sufficient resources and staffing levels are maintained and appropriate time is given to the Agency to conduct the necessary technical reviews and adjudications, we believe that we can reach decisions on the relevant applications in a timely fashion, assuming high-quality license applications are received. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look forward to working with you on this legislation.
MR. HALL. We thank you, Mr. Reyes. Mr. Sproat, are you familiar with the concept called adaptive staging by the National Research Council? MR. SPROAT. I haven’t read the report, Mr. Chairman, but I am aware of the concept and have done some reading about how other countries have utilized or are thinking of utilizing a concept like that. MR. HALL. Are you in position to maybe give us a good idea of how it could be applied to the Yucca Mountain program? MR. SPROAT. It is interesting, Mr. Chairman. When I was in front of this committee about 5 years ago when I was still with Excelon, somebody asked me a question very similar to that in terms of how do you think the licensing process for Yucca Mountain should proceed, and my thoughts on that haven’t really changed very much since then. The way the current licensing process for Yucca Mountain exists under 10 C.F.R. Part 63, it is a multi-step process that requires a construction authorization first, an operating license second, and then a decision that actually permanently closes the repository, third.
Unfortunately, the way Part 63 is written right now all of the requirements that the repository has to meet including how it needs to perform up to a million years into the future, depending how the EPA standard is resolved, all of that analysis has to be shown, reviewed, and verified prior to receipt of a construction authorization. As Chairman Barton, I believe, said earlier this afternoon, we are going to know a heck of a lot more about the mountain, how it reacts, about new technologies that we haven’t even thought about 50 years from now, 75 years from now, than we do now. So, it makes sense to me that we take a similar approach here. Unfortunately, as 10 C.F.R. Part 63 is written right now, it really is a very front-end loaded process. And just to give you an example, in Part 63 there are criteria along the different steps of the process that the Commission needs defined before they can make a decision. Unfortunately, in Part 63, for the decision to close the repository, there are actually no acceptance criteria for the Commission to find have been met before they make a decision to close, and so it is left undefined in the current regulatory process. MR. HALL. What would it take for DOE to implement the concept if you have gone that far into it? MR. SPROAT. Well, we couldn’t implement a concept ourself. It really is the NRC’s regulations under 10 C.F.R. and in this case it is 10 C.F.R. Part 63 as it is currently written. It is the regulatory construct for licensing Yucca Mountain, and that regulatory framework would have to be changed. MR. HALL. And how would it impact the repository schedule and resources just in your opinion? MR. SPROAT. I guess it is too early for me to be able to answer that question. It would really depend on how it would change. MR. HALL. Mr. Reyes, in the industry’s testimony they indicate that the interim storage could be licensed expeditiously. How many licenses has the NRC issued for away from reactor independent spent fuel storage installations? MR. REYES. There has been only one facility that has been licensed away from reactors. MR. HALL. How long did that take? MR. REYES. It took us about 8 years from application to final issue of the license. MR. HALL. What do we have to hope for and to look to in future issuances? MR. REYES. We could expedite the process. This particular example, the application was changed by the applicant several times, so there were hearings that required a lot of work by the staff, so we hope
we could do it in a faster way but with only one example it is hard to know how long it will take us. MR. HALL. What is a reasonable explanation for it taking that long? MR. REYES. Well, I mentioned in my testimony emphasis on high- quality applications. That particular application, the design was changed through the process, and the hearings identified technical issues that needed to be pursued. We think a facility away from a reactor that has a good application, 2 years perhaps with an extension of 6 additional months would be sufficient. MR. HALL. I think my time expired. I recognize Mr. Boucher. MR. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank both of our witnesses for their testimony today. And, Mr. Sproat, again let me say how much I admire your determination and confidence to move this program forward. Along with others who have spoken from this panel, I also strongly support the Yucca project and wish you well and offer you assistance as you move the project forward. When do you think you will have your funding schedule to be submitted to us? MR. SPROAT. I believe it should be very close--no later than the beginning of November. It should be around the end of October because we have it basically built now, but we are bringing in an outside, experienced company to do an independent review of our construction schedule, the cash flows associated with it so when we give you something that is more than just DOE saying here are the numbers. MR. BOUCHER. That is a timely submittal, and we will certainly look forward to receiving it and reviewing it, and then having further discussions with you. I noted your support in your testimony for the Administration’s bill that has been put forward, and I also find most of the provisions in that measure to be constructive, but I want to ask you questions about two of the provisions of the bill. One thing the bill does not do is protect the $19 billion corpus that is currently in the Nuclear Waste Fund, monies that have been paid into the Fund to date and not appropriated for the Yucca Mountain project. So my question to you is this. Can you build the Yucca Mountain project and have it open by 2017 only using the prospective payments of about $750 million annually that will be coming into the Fund? Over the 10-year period between now and 2017 that is about $7.5 billion. Is that going to be enough for you to build Yucca Mountain? MR. SPROAT. Well, we don’t have the final cash flows yet, but to maintain that best achievable schedule that we put out, where we would be both building the repository and building the transportation infrastructure, particularly the rail line, it is highly likely that we will exceed that amount in certain peak years of funding probably, but I
wouldn’t expect to reach that peak funding profile for probably about another 10 to 11 years from where we are right now. MR. BOUCHER. Well, you are supposed to have it open 10 years from next year and so at some point surely short of 10 years from now you would reach a peak funding profile. MR. SPROAT. You are correct. I am wrong in that number. I got the math wrong. It is probably closer to 6 to 7 years out in terms of where that peak funding would occur. MR. BOUCHER. Okay. So what you are saying is you are going to need some of this $19 billion that is within the corpus of the Fund itself. If the Administration’s bill doesn’t protect that money, what is your solution to that going to be? MR. SPROAT. Well, I am not sure if it doesn’t--I certainly can’t address whether it protects it or not. I know there have been an awful lot of discussions and a lot of--at least within the Department we believe that there are a number of things that we can’t use that fund for and so, from my perspective, I believe the Fund is protected. MR. BOUCHER. Mr. Sproat, there is nothing in the legislation that would require that these monies be set aside and reserved exclusively for the Yucca Mountain program and therein lies the basic problem. And so based upon the testimony that I am hearing today, I think we can probably anticipate you coming to the Congress and asking not only for the $750 million that will flow prospectively into that fund for your Yucca Mountain project, but also general appropriations on top of that. MR. SPROAT. For the next--between now and the time we reach submittal of the license application in the next 2 ½ years, the request that we proposed in the legislation for access to the annual receipts will be enough to get us through license application submittal for sure. At some point in time after that--and once I get the cash flows completed, I will be able to tell you with much more certainty exactly when--that amount of required funding would be exceeded. MR. BOUCHER. All right. Well, fair enough, and this is a subject to be continued, but let me simply reiterate our concern that the legislation does not protect this $19 billion and assure that whatever portion of it you have to have you actually can get at the time that you need it. The second issue that I want to raise with you is that provision of the legislation that would essentially deem that there is sufficient capacity at Yucca Mountain to give waste confidence with respect to the opening of new nuclear plants in the United States. I ask these questions from a perspective of one who supports the opening of new nuclear power plants. I think this has to be a part of our energy mix going forward, and additional nuclear power helps us with energy independence issues and with global warming concerns, and a
range of other policy objectives, and so I think it is necessary. I am a little bit concerned, however, that the legislation says that we as Congress will simply make what is a technical determination that there is sufficient capacity at Yucca to accommodate all of the waste that will flow from newly licensed facilities. This is a decision that the NRC has the authority to make and has historically been making, and in fact has already, I am told, found from a technical standpoint that there is sufficient capacity up until the year 2025, and the NRC has continuing authority to adjust that estimate and make additional findings as events warrant. Why is not that ability of the NRC to make these determinations sufficient? Why are nuclear generating companies not likely to get through a licensing process in the absence of Congress actually making a factual determination that I frankly think we can’t make with regard to deeming sufficient capacity?
MR. SPROAT. That is a very good question.
concern is quite as limited to the issue of is there capacity in Yucca Mountain. I think it is a little bit broader issue in terms of do we as a country have reasonable assurance that we have a path to dispose of or otherwise utilize our spent nuclear fuel coming out of our nuclear fleet. One of the things that is different today than where we were a year ago, with this issue is that we have as an Administration policy, said we are going to move forward with GNEP and with closing the fuel cycle. Now there are a lot of questions around exactly the time line for that, how long that is going to take to proceed. But what we are arguing is that given that we have made a decision that we are just not going to take all fuel and put it in the ground forever, and that given the progress we are making and the schedules we have set for moving Yucca Mountain forward, there is a reasonable amount of data there for the Congress to make a determination that, in terms of a national level determination on waste confidence, do we have a good idea--do we have confidence that we know what we are going to do with spent nuclear waste? We think the answer is yes. The question of capacity of Yucca Mountain is a little bit, at least the way I view it, is a little bit of a separate issue of the 70,000 metric ton limit and getting that lifted.
MR. BOUCHER. Okay. Well, let me turn to Mr. Reyes, and ask you a couple of questions about the idea of interim storage. In your statement you say that you support efforts to address interim storage generally. You also say that it could be accommodated within your regulatory structure, but you also say that you do not have the financial resources or the human resources with which to implement a regulatory program for interim storage, and so what you are basically saying is you can do it but you would have to have the money to do it with. MR. REYES. That is correct.
MR. BOUCHER. Have you received any kind of assurance from shall we say the sponsors of this provision and the Senate appropriations bill that would mandate an interim storage program that you are going to be appropriated the money in order to carry this forward? MR. REYES. We have had no discussions on that subject so we have no information regarding our budget, but we would have to receive appropriations or budget starting in fiscal year 2007 based on the proposed schedule. MR. BOUCHER. So you would actually have to have money next year and we are now debating the FY 07 appropriations bills. We are in the season for doing that. Do you see anywhere in any of the various appropriations bills an appropriation that would give you the money you need to do this in FY 07? MR. REYES. There is a discussion of a very modest amount, but let me give you how much of an impact this could be. If you end up with 30, some away from reactor facilities that have to be licensed in a short amount of time, you are talking in the order of $300 million and a couple hundred FTE, full-time equivalents, so that in that worst case scenario there is a very significant impact. MR. BOUCHER. Is there anything in any of the appropriations bills that would even get you started with this? MR. REYES. No. MR. BOUCHER. No. All right. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. SHIMKUS. [Presiding] I always enjoy Mr. Boucher and his great questions. I would like to now recognize the doctor from Georgia, Dr. Norwood. MR. NORWOOD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sproat,
I am glad to see you back. We had you, I think, in July. MR. SPROAT. Yes, sir. MR. NORWOOD. You had been on the job about 3 weeks at the time.
I am wondering how you feel about it now. MR. SPROAT. Even better. MR. NORWOOD. Are you as positive now that you will be able to open Yucca Mountain by 2017? MR. SPROAT. As I said in the beginning of my opening statement, if
I can get this legislative package that we have sent up here to the Hill to
address some of these key issues around some of the issues that we need to get fixed around Yucca Mountain, my answer is yes. MR. NORWOOD. You heard Chairman Barton talk about the interim storage. You are going to have to put it at Yucca to get it through this committee. I just want you to know. We can probably go along with a lot of the stuff that you want to do in there, but I don’t think you are
going to find us very willing to store it around the country on an interim basis. MR. SPROAT. Well, just for clarification the Administration has not proposed that, sir. MR. NORWOOD. Yeah, but I know who did. Let me ask you if I may, have you had any time to look back or ask any questions over at the Department of what they have been doing the last 10 years? MR. SPROAT. Yes, I have, sir. MR. NORWOOD. I mean it borders on criminal, I think. How much money have we spent on Yucca in the last 10 years, do you know that? MR. SPROAT. I don’t have the exact numbers. MR. NORWOOD. When you all look it up, tell him, then he can tell
MR. SPROAT. Around $9 billion. MR. NORWOOD. Nine billion dollars. Almost a billion a year. MR. SPROAT. Yes. MR. NORWOOD. And what have we gotten for that? MR. SPROAT. We have a lot of scientific information and understanding of the mountain, of its geology, how it developed in the past and how we expect it to perform in the future, and we have a draft license application and a first cut at design of the surface facilities that quite frankly weren’t adequate to docket the license application back in 2004. And so we are fixing the inadequacies in terms of that surface design and in terms of the further analysis of the mountain and how it is going to perform, or at least how we project it to perform out in the--not only beyond 10,000 years but out to a million years, which is what the current EPA draft standard requires us to do. So there is a lot of analysis still being done with that scientific data that has been collected over those years to put together that license application that I need to send to the NRC in 22 months. MR. NORWOOD. My questions are based on a thought that keeps running through my head. The American people built the Pentagon in 16 months. We have spent $10 billion in 10 years and now we are saying we have got to have 10 more years to keep doing analysis. Does that bother you any or is it just me? MR. SPROAT. No, no, it would certainly bother me, and let me just clarify we are certainly not going to spend the next 10 years doing analysis. What we are doing now is design and the actual completion of the license application based on the analyses that have been done. And then we are going to spend the next at least 4 years defending that license application through the NRC licensing process. MR. NORWOOD. Four years, Mr. Reyes? He got to spend 4 years over there defending his application?
MR. REYES. I think the legislation called for 3 years, but you have to remember there will be a lot of hearings involved in this process so it is more than a technical review. We have to defend our decision that it is technically sound which we are ready to do upon the application but it does take time, sir. MR. NORWOOD. So we could build two Pentagons by the time he defends his application. I mean something is wrong with this basically that we can’t be a little more efficient. I have no idea what you do over there. I have no idea what the rules are. All I know is that that is an inordinate amount of time. Didn’t you just say earlier that a year and a half--I am sorry I didn’t hear all of it, but you said something to the effect that a year and a half wasn’t going to be near enough time for you to do something. MR. REYES. This is a license for a facility for interim storage away from a reactor. MR. NORWOOD. So you want 2 ½ years to do that? MR. REYES. Yes. MR. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I can’t do anything. I yield back. MR. SPROAT. Mr. Norwood, if I could just clarify. MR. NORWOOD. Yes, sir, Mr. Sproat. MR. SPROAT. The cost numbers, that was $10 billion over the life of the program, not $10 billion total cost over the last 9 or 10 years, so I just wanted to clarify that. MR. NORWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Sproat. MR. SPROAT. It doesn’t make it any better. MR. NORWOOD. No, it doesn’t. And I am counting on you. You come from the real world. I am counting on you to get this done and I am sure you can get it done before 2017. MR. SPROAT. I will do my best. MR. NORWOOD. Thank you, sir. MR. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes Dr. Murphy from Pennsylvania. MR. MURPHY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and thank you both for being here. I wanted to follow up on some of these aspects too in terms of these other sites because I recognize we are trying to balance our needs to build more nuclear power plants and also dealing with this spent fuel. For example, on these temporary sites will they all be the same size or different sizes, and how much would each one cost? MR. REYES. Well, the States will have to decide where they will have to put the interim locations and you have a lot of combinations. You have States which have operating reactors and licensed storage facilities at the reactor. You have States that have no reactors but do have storage facilities because there used to be an operating reactor there.
So under the bill, as I understand it, the States will have to make a decision where to put the interim storage. MR. MURPHY. But how much will each one of these facilities cost? MR. REYES. I can only give you the review cost through the licensing process. I think the industry would be in a better position to talk about the cost of building it. MR. SPROAT. I am probably the only one in the room that actually was involved with designing and constructing an interim spent fuel storage facility, but that was at a reactor so it was on land we owned and from the time we decided to do it to the time we actually completed construction was probably in the neighborhood of about between 5 and 6 years; but that was a relatively simple approach compared to what we are talking about here, where it is away from reactors. They have to do an environmental impact statement. You have to have control of the land. It is more than just designing it and licensing the interim storage facility itself, which is pretty straightforward. It would obviously depend on the size, but you are talking at least, at least, $15 million a piece and that may be low depending on the amount of litigation and licensing time and processing time to finally get approval to actually build it. The cost to build these by themselves is not that significant. It is basically a concrete pad with a fence, multiple fences, security systems around it, and the infrastructure to bring the spent fuel casks to the pads so the construction itself of the facility is not that-- MR. MURPHY. The facility would have to be pretty secure in terms of bomb proof? MR. SPROAT. The design bases for those facilities, at least the ones we built, I would not classify them as bomb proof but in terms of what the design basis threats are, I can’t talk about those. MR. MURPHY. Basically similar to what we have at nuclear power plants? MR. SPROAT. Yes. MR. MURPHY. But you are saying it would be $15 million. How many years would it take? You said 5 or 6 years? MR. SPROAT. Actually the critical path on building a facility away from the reactor would be the siting process, both the environmental impact statement and whatever litigation would be associated with the environmental impact statement and the NRC licensing process. Once you have that, the actual construction itself assuming the transportation infrastructure, was relatively simple. You could probably do it in a year, a year and 18 months. MR. MURPHY. Construction in a year and 18 months. MR. SPROAT. Yes.
MR. MURPHY. And all the other processes could add another 5 or 6 years to that? MR. SPROAT. Yes. MR. MURPHY. If we have 5 or 6 years worth of helping attorneys and engineers and then a year and 18 months of actually building it, and yet the actual use of Yucca Mountain is 10, 11 years away, that seems pretty close, and we would spend several billion dollars along the way to build these interim facilities. MR. SPROAT. That is the conclusion I drew. I think the last time I was here the committee asked me that exact same question, and that is what I said. It is pretty close time-wise, depending on how these interim storage facilities are sited and where they are sited, and the amount of time it takes to actually get a license to build them. MR. MURPHY. So in closeness of time wise, and this is an issue I remember coming up before, and I am wondering if we have changed much, and that is it will cost us a lot of money. They will be ready just before Yucca Mountain will be opening anyway and so why are we doing this? I guess that we all--that is the question. MR. SPROAT. That is a valid question. MR. MURPHY. And do we have an answer? Will we have one today on that? MR. SPROAT. I don’t. MR. MURPHY. Okay. On that point, I don’t have any more questions either. MR. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. MR. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up my colleague from Pennsylvania because that is my concern. And I have a district in Houston and we benefit from having a small portion of our electricity generated by nuclear power, and I think in our country we know that we have to have lots of ways to heat and cool our homes and nuclear power has to be an increasing use of it. My concern is that if we follow the path of Senate appropriations and we build this interim facility for nuclear waste, will that facility likely hold all the nuclear waste that is currently being stored at our own site power plants? Is that interim possibility, will it store what we have at South Texas or Glenrose in Texas or elsewhere? MR. SPROAT. I am not sure, as I read the appropriations bill language from the Senate, I don’t believe it is that specific in that it specifies sizes or locations. It gives a broad direction in terms of a number of potential, up to a certain maximum number, sites to be funded. It would depend on each State. As I understand the proposal, it would depend on each State to determine location and size of those
facilities. Now one of the things I would clarify is that even if interim storage facilities are built, they would be built to handle spent fuel that has already come out of spent fuel pools at reactors and put into casks so they would strictly be dry storage in cask facilities. We would still have spent fuel at the reactor sites in the spent fuel pools. MR. GREEN. But that is--I understand that because that was stated anyway. Does your office have the resources and ability to begin work on new interim storage facilities without losing the focus on the progress on Yucca Mountain? MR. SPROAT. Not at the current time. MR. GREEN. So you would need more resources. Since it would be difficult to pursue two nuclear storage projects at once, do you believe the effort behind this recent interim storage legislation is an intentional effort to delay or kill Yucca Mountain? MR. SPROAT. I really have no opinion on that. I can’t speak to that,
MR. GREEN. Mr. Reyes, if Congress and DOE go down the path of limiting the amount of interim storage capacity and progress on Yucca slows or halts, what will be the impact when you are reviewing applications for new reactors to new or existing nuclear power plants? MR. REYES. The Commission has stated that we believe there is a confidence and solution to the waste would be obtained in this country so it would not have an immediate impact on the new license application but I think if you talk to the industry in their mind they want more confirmation than that before they invest money, so I think it is a decision from the private industry that it is looking for more confirmation that there is a final solution. MR. GREEN. Both TXU and NRG Energy have announced plans to expand ours we have in Texas, and again we have to have lots of different ways to heat and cool our homes so both in South Texas and Comanche Peak. Can they go forward with their plans without Yucca Mountain on track? MR. REYES. Yes. They can go forward. I think as a business decision you have to wonder if that is a good decision, but technically we can review and issue a license for new applications without having the issues that we are discussing fully resolved, but it raises a question with the industry as committing the resources, whether that is a good business decision. MR. GREEN. Well, again, if we don’t have nuclear then we are going to see even more coal-fired plants. That may be okay for some parts of the country but some folks in Texas would rather not have that type of coal, and nuclear is a non-polluting substitute although again in Texas we
like to use natural gas, but since we are still worried about our chemical industry we don’t want to compete with that. MR. MURPHY. We like coal in Pennsylvania. It is a nice thing. MR. GREEN. I imagine you all like coal in Pennsylvania. We used to like natural gas until we almost were running out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you. I recognize myself for a couple minutes. Mr. Sproat, how many of our nuclear facilities are almost at maximum capacity of their interim storage on site, do you know that? In the energy bill there was a couple that we were at risk of having to make that tough decision of closing because they had no place to then move because they are almost at max capacity. Do we know that number? MR. SPROAT. Just so I am clear, Congressman. Is your question around maximum capacity in their spent fuel pool or their interim storage facilities? MR. SHIMKUS. Well-- MR. SPROAT. Let me try and answer your question the best I can without--because I don’t know the exact numbers. But, for example, the plant that I was directly involved with licensing, building, and running, Limerick is currently going through--its spent fuel pool is going to be full within the next 24 months. Limerick Unit One came on line in 1984 and Limerick number two came on line in 1987 or 1988. So that kind of gives you an idea after plants have been on line between 15 to 16 years is when their spent fuel pools are becoming full. At that point in time they need to have an interim spent fuel storage facility licensed on site and ready to start unloading their fuel pools and putting those fuel bundles in their casks. MR. SHIMKUS. Let me ask, when was the last nuclear power plant built in this country because you are talking about 20 years so when was the last-- MR. REYES. The last one licensed was in 1996 but that plant took a long, long time to construct. MR. SHIMKUS. So there are probably about 42 sites that have dry cask storage. MR. REYES. The issue I think if I could form the issue a little different, there is no limit to dry cask storage at the site, but it is a large investment. If you are operating the facility and you don’t see a final solution in the horizon you want to have the capability to unload the fuel from the reactor for maintenance and repairs, et cetera, et cetera. You want to keep that flexibility. So because there is no final solution on the horizon you could continue to invest in dry cask storage. It is a large investment. It has to be reviewed by the NRC. It takes several years to go through the environmental review process and the safety process so it
is a never-ending process where the industry pays to the Nuclear Waste Fund, and in addition to that they have to pay to-- MR. SHIMKUS. They are paying twice. MR. REYES. They are paying twice. They pay for our-- MR. SHIMKUS. With no assurance of any final solution as to the promise the Federal government made years ago. MR. REYES. That is correct. MR. SHIMKUS. And that is what those of us who support moving sooner rather than later has tried to get additional risk off because we do believe that nuclear power ought to have a role. Again, I would say because I am from a coal State too, a diversified portfolio, that we are competitive, and it addresses a lot of the concerns. In the bill, not in the proposed changes, we have been talking about the 70,000 metric tons. That was established by the-- MR. SPROAT. Nuclear Waste Policy Act. MR. SHIMKUS. By legislators. MR. SPROAT. That is correct. MR. SHIMKUS. We said that amount. MR. SPROAT. Yes. MR. SHIMKUS. And I think part of the problem that sometimes we have here is--again that was guys like me, a MVA military guy, former high school teacher, no real--there wasn’t any--we didn’t do any scientific analysis to say 70,000 metric tons, did we? MR. SPROAT. Not that is apparent to any of us, no. When the environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain was done, it was analyzed for 120,000 metric ton capacity; so we have already analyzed the environmental impact of storing up to that much in the mountain. What we are asking for in the legislation is that as part of the licensing process, let us do analysis presented to the NRC and let the NRC license-
MR. SHIMKUS. You are proposing that we actually use science to maybe make the debate of what should be stored t there? MR. SPROAT. Well, that and engineering too. MR. SHIMKUS. And engineering too. Good. And I would obviously agree with you. I think there is some outside analysis that says that there could be more than 70,000 metric tons. Obviously, there has to be a lot more research, but that would address this second debate which it is going to force your hand should we not do anything which then as Dr. Norwood said would be more money, more time. And I think one of the reasons why we dipped in to the Federal policy makers have used the funds, and it depends on how you talk about budgeting and trust funds and where are the dollars really going because we haven’t set a secure policy to even convince ourselves that we are going to build Yucca
Mountain, hence, we can rob and use these other dollars or forestall the tough decisions on spending until we actually see some positive movement that we are going to have to spend these dollars. I would say it is partly the fault of Federal legislators for not being aggressive and being committed because there is a delay aspect here that a lot of people would like to see to stop progress. So my time has expired. The Chair recognizes my colleague and friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey. MR. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Reyes, a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report found that “Under some conditions a terrorist attack that partially or completely drained a spent fuel pool could lead to a propagating zirconium cladding fire and the release of large quantities of radioactive materials to the environment.” We know that Al Qaida wants to do that if they can get away with it, hijack a plane, a small plane, and dive bomb into one of these facilities without a containment dome around it. The National Academy concluded that it would be feasible to reduce the risk of a spent fuel fire by rearranging the spent fuel in the pool so that hotter fuel assemblies weren’t so densely packed together. My understanding is that doing such rearranging would not take much time or cost much for the licensees to do. Has the NRC ordered its licensees to take this step or begun a rulemaking to require that it be done? MR. REYES. All the fuel has been changed accordingly so instead of waiting for Federal processes the utilities understood the recommendation from the National Academy of Science and those pools today reflect that approach. It is called a checkerboard approach where you allow for the heat dissipation to be maximized. MR. MARKEY. And that is now the policy of every single nuclear power plant in the United States? MR. REYES. That is correct. MR. MARKEY. Does that include all of the nuclear power plants that are retired as well? MR. REYES. They have a different issue there. For example, if you think a facility that has been retired for over 10 years the cooling is at such a point that the academy did not address those because the heat dissipation is not relevant to the issue. MR. MARKEY. Mr. Reyes, the National Academy also recommended other measures to better secure spent fuel pools from terrorist attacks. Those included, one, limiting the frequency of off loads of full reactor cores into spent fuel pools, two, requiring longer shut downs of the reactor before any fuel is off loaded, three, providing enhanced security when such off loads are made, and, four, development of a redundant and
diverse response system to mitigate loss of pool coolant events that would be capable of operation even if the pool or overlying building were severely damaged. Has the NRC fully implemented each of those recommendations as well? MR. REYES. Most of those recommendations have been implemented. In fact, in some cases they have been enhanced. MR. MARKEY. Which of these have you not implemented? MR. REYES. The particular one about enhancing security during some of the transfers because the security is already there so I think when they wrote--the academy report is kind of dated. We have taken a lot of action since then, but if you take the essence of the recommendations, we have acted on all of them. MR. MARKEY. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Sproat, on August 16, 2006, the Department’s Inspector General issued a report on the Office of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management’s corrective action program. This report found that your office has not been effectively managing and resolving conditions adverse to quality at the Yucca Mountain project, specifically the DOE Inspector General found “over 100 potential conditions were not being managed in the corrective action program which should have been. More than half of the significant planned corrective actions had not been implemented in a timely manner, and corrective actions were not always effective and that conditions continued to recur even after management reported that appropriate corrective actions had been taken.” This DOE IG report is a blistering indictment of your office’s management and oversight over the Yucca Mountain project, and it is only the latest of a series of critical reports revealing real problems at the Yucca Mountain project. Just last January the NRC blasted Bechtel for measurements that they were making in corrosion. We could go down the list. In light of the ongoing problems with your existing program and the clear problems in the Department’s management why should this committee enact the Administration’s proposed bill to further weaken environmental and procedural protections aimed at protecting the environment and insuring a sound scientific and technical evaluation of the site and its ability to be licensed by the NRC? MR. SPROAT. Congressman, first of all, I would say that I would disagree with your characterization of the proposed legislation as a weakening of the oversight. What we are trying to do is very clear about NRC’s maintaining their oversight and control of the licensing process for Yucca Mountain. MR. MARKEY. You want to exempt Yucca from RCRA, preempt State environmental and public safety laws, deem that waste confidence exists where it does not, and allow for construction to begin before all
licensing questions are addressed. Why should we grant you all of those additional authorities, exemptions, from a process that already apparently doesn’t work and further weaken what little public safety and public participation already exist? MR. SPROAT. Well, how I view the issue that you raise, Congressman, which is a very valid issue, around the effectiveness of the corrective action process and the quality processes within this project over its life, I acknowledge that those problems have existed in the past and still exist to some extent today. And what I am here to tell you is that I am personally invested and involved in fixing them. And the corrective action program, I have been on the job now for 10 weeks. I have been personally involved with meetings on that to get it fixed and fixed right. MR. MARKEY. And that is good, and I think what you should do is honestly, and I appreciate the difficulty of your job after only 10 weeks, I think that we should have this hearing after you fixed all the problems. Then we should come back and talk about what additional legislative authority we are going to give you. But I think it would really be a mistake for this committee to know that there is an incredible boostering, scalding indictment of existing management of policies and then to give even further latitude to this agency. And so that would be my point to you, sir. You didn’t create the problems, but we have to see how good a job you do in cleaning up the mess. MR. SPROAT. I understand. MR. MARKEY. And you can’t tell us right now that with 100 percent confidence you are going to be able to do that. So I think that we should wait to be honest with you. It would be the prudent way to go. And that we should deal with these issues in a way that reflects the seriousness of the problem that exists right now. The DOE corrective action program is akin to the Holy Roman Empire. It wasn’t holy, it wasn’t Roman, and it wasn’t an empire, and you can say the same thing about a DOE corrective action program. They just don’t exist as they have been examined by the Inspector General, and I think that we should take that into account before we move forward. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. MR. HALL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Barton. CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am certainly willing to yield to Mr. Otter, who has been here the entire time. MR. OTTER. I just got back. CHAIRMAN BARTON. Oh, you just got back too. I don’t mind going ahead of you then.
MR. OTTER. I just wanted to say that it wasn’t until the Government of Rome got so big that it was no longer an empire. I yield back. CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Hall, I just have one basic question. I have introduced at the Administration’s request the Yucca Mountain bill, and I would like to ask Mr. Sproat how the Senate Energy and Water appropriations line on interim storage would impact their proposal for Yucca Mountain. MR. SPROAT. At this stage of the game, Congressman, I don’t see that proposal having a direct impact on this legislation. I was asked a question earlier as to whether or not if that legislation was passed as is, appropriations language was passed as is, do I have the resources available to me right now to execute that as well as Yucca Mountain. My answer is no. That is probably the best answer I can give you. CHAIRMAN BARTON. Then it has to impact it. I don’t see the House, Mr. Hobson on the appropriations process or myself as the authorizing Chairman saying we will take the money for Yucca and spend it on interim storage. I don’t see that happening. We want to get Yucca done and then if we need to do some interim storage in the interim, fine. MR. SPROAT. We are fully committed to making Yucca Mountain happen. I am fully committed to making it happen and the less distractions I have the better. CHAIRMAN BARTON. And I assume you wouldn’t say it if it is not a true statement, then we need to convince our friends in the Senate to work with us on getting a Yucca bill done as soon as possible. MR. SPROAT. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BARTON. Because there is a limited amount of money, and the sooner we get the permanent repository the better off we all are with the legislation that funds it and operates it. MR. SPROAT. We agree. CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. MR. HALL. Thank you, sir. Mr. Otter. MR. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to reiterate in my earlier statement I am fully in support of going forward with Yucca Mountain with all due haste. There were a couple of things you said in your opening statement though that I find concerning. You indicated several things that had to happen and amongst those were the superseding the State’s perhaps laws on environment and water and clean air, safety, and a few other things. Maybe my friend, Mr. Markey, threw in a few others that I haven’t heard. And you said you thought you had the authority for that. MR. SPROAT. No. MR. OTTER. I am just trying to clarify.
MR. SPROAT. Obviously, there are different issues with each of those aspects. For example, on water, the issue there is the State, the legislature, the State of Nevada has declared the Yucca Mountain project not in the public interest, and therefore the State water engineer by law in Nevada cannot give us, the Department of Energy, any water withdrawal permits that we need to construct or operate Yucca Mountain. MR. OTTER. Yes, and I am glad you brought water up because that was the one that concerned me more than anything else, and I am fully aware that sometimes States will engage in law making to simply stop something that they don’t want to happen in their State. MR. SPROAT. And that has happened in this case. MR. OTTER. And I wish perhaps in Idaho’s case we had done that in a few cases like with wolves. But anyway that is another subject. What does concern me though is have you tried to buy existing water rights from other water users that would have prior rights? MR. SPROAT. We have been forced to do some temporary water buying from California. We have trucked water in but, as of right now, we have not attempted and we don’t have access to other water rights in that area. MR. OTTER. And you do know how much water you would need and for how long you would need it? MR. SPROAT. Yes, we do. Yes, we do. The figures I have been told are that during the construction of Yucca Mountain we need the equivalent of 4 days of usage of water by Las Vegas. That is over the 8 to 10 year construction period. Now that equates to a certain number of acre feet, and I don’t have that figure with me, but that just gives you some relative sense of the usage that we are anticipating needing during the construction period which is the peak period of water usage. After construction, water usage would drop way down. MR. OTTER. Well, I am sure that you are familiar with that water in the west is extremely valuable. MR. SPROAT. Yes, I am. MR. OTTER. So then I go back when there are existing water rights and there would be existing water rights that either farmers or ranchers themselves would have that would seem to me to be fertile ground for establishing or at least buying temporarily a water right, and especially if it is only 4 days of usage during the construction period that Las Vegas would use, but Las Vegas uses a lot of water. I fully understand that. But on the total scheme of things holding up an entire project for that, especially one as important as this and one as needful as this, I just get a little concerned about giving any Federal agency the authority to take over water rights within a State.
MR. SPROAT. I totally agree. Just for clarification purposes, we are not asking to take over water rights. What we are asking is the Congress to say Yucca Mountain is in the public interest of the country, thereby overriding the State legislature’s adverse determination. The legislation will allow us to go to the State water engineer, present our permitting requirements, explain what we need, and allow the State water engineer to make a determination within the State regulatory framework to allocate water to us. Right now we can’t even get in the door because the State legislature said it is not in the public interest and the State water engineer can’t even review the application. MR. OTTER. Okay. Well, that is much different than the impression that I got from your opening statement, and I am glad we got that clarification. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. HALL. I think that covers the questions, and we do thank you two gentlemen for your very valuable information and your time. Thank you for your preparation and for attending. MR. SPROAT. Thank you. MR. HALL. And we assure you that we will see you again. You are excuse. We will have the second panel. Our second panel this afternoon on the nuclear waste disposal question is the Honorable Sam Wise, Chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, from Georgia representing the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Also, Ms. Michele Boyd, Legislative Director, Public Citizen, Washington, D.C., Mr. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at the DTE Energy Company, on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute. The Honorable Stan Wise, begin.
STATEMENTS OF HONORABLE STAN WISE, CHAIRMAN, GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS; ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR., CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DTE ENERGY COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE; AND MICHELE BOYD, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC CITIZEN
MR. WISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and, Dr. Norwood, thank you for your very kind comments in your opening remarks. I am Stan Wise. I am Chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, and I am here today on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, most often referred to as NARUC. In addition, my testimony reflects the views of the Georgia Public
Service Commission. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear with you this afternoon. The issues that you are addressing in this oversight hearing are very important to NARUC’s membership and to my State, and I am grateful to have this opportunity to present our point of view concerning the disposition of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power plan sites that is intended for ultimate disposal at the Yucca Mountain geologic repository. I would like to summarize my testimony, and have the full statement entered into the record. We continue to be concerned with delays in progress on the repository program. It has been 4 years since Congress approved developing the Yucca Mountain site and the next major milestone was for Department of Energy to submit a license application to NRC to authorize construction. And while we had hoped that the license application might occur in 2005 the latest schedule now shows that it will occur no later than June of 2008. That was not welcome news for the directors of the repository program and we must respect his assurance that additional time is needed to provide a defensible and dockable license application. NARUC’s primary concern is the need to reform the matter in which the Nuclear Waste Fund is managed. We believe that the repository schedule cannot be met without greater financial resources, and although the Nuclear Waste Fund was well designed and nuclear waste policy as the mechanism for the commercial share of repository disposal cost to be rate payer financed that is not the way that the Fund is currently being used. In the present fiscal year, $750 million in fees were expected to be paid by utilities from ratepayers into the Fund and yet Congress has appropriated only $99 million for the same period. That means that 87 percent of the fees that are collected are not being used for their intended purpose. We are told that the excess over appropriation is added to the balance on the Nuclear Waste Fund, and that it has grown to over $18 billion. We are concerned that the money is either gone or at best represents a collection of IOUs that future Congresses may or may not appropriate when it is needed to later fund the repository. Congress has considered various legislative remedies that might make a more direct connection between annual revenue and appropriations. If not, the assurance of the purported balance will be available in the future, but those efforts have fallen short. The Administration now proposes to reform the process with the proposed Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act and whether by this proposal or by some other means it achieves the same objectives we urge the Congress to enact that bill this year and bring greater financial stability to the repository program.
We were disappointed to learn that last week the bill will not be taken up by the Senate this year. There are two other aspects of spent fuel management that are before Congress, and I would like to comment on them. Totally contrary to the intent of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and existing contracts with utilities to remove spent fuel from reactor sites is Senate 2099. That bill would authorize DOE to take title of spent fuel and dry cask storage and maintain it at reactor sites for unspecified period at a cost that is likely to be in the billions of dollars per year. Keeping the waste on site is not what the utilities and/or the ratepayers have paid over $25 billion for. That bill should be rejected. Finally, there is a consideration of having the Government provide some form of interim storage away from reactor sites. NARUC has urged Congress and the DOE to consider interim storage for as long ago as it was evident that DOE was not going to meet the 1998 mandate of the waste acceptance set in statute and in contracts. We believe that it would have made more sense to provide the added storage capacity at one or a small number of storage sites ideally designed and built for that purpose rather than to have each utility retrofit additional storage at reactor sites. Since such storage was only made necessary by the continued failure of the Government to meet the disposal schedule we never envisioned that the Nuclear Waste Fund would be used for such expenses. And when the House proposed last year an interim storage plan for DOE installations on a short schedule, we thought it would be worthwhile although we were concerned that the Nuclear Waste Fund would be used for initial planning. This year the House appropriations bill would provide $30 million, not from the Nuclear Waste Fund, but sought to make storage a part of a broader, integrated spent fuel recycling initiative pursued by DOE. And when the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bills included the proposal to have DOE search for a site in each State with a commercial nuclear reactor for possible development of an interim storage facility for 25 years for regional facilities it took many States by surprise. I know it did in Georgia. And as indicated in a letter to Chairman Barton in July, NARUC continues to believe that it might be better to move some spent fuel from the present storage sites to a central location selected and built for safe and secure interim storage, and we question whether that is needed in all 31 States that have reactors. As far as sites go, the Senate bill rules out the two locations that seem to make the most sense, Yucca Mountain and the already licensed private fuel storage facility in Utah. We need to know more about the cost and benefits before we consider whether it is appropriate to use the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for interim storage, and until H.R. 5360, or something like it reforms the
Nuclear Waste Fund appropriations process, a dollar spent for interim storage is a dollar not available for developing the repository. There was also a decision in 2002 in the 11 th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals that indicates that the Fund may only be used for disposal of interim storage, and it is not an act of disposal. So let me summarize what we are in favor of in the Nuclear Waste Program. We urge reform of the Fund so that collected fees are available for their intended purpose as proposed in 5360. DOE needs to press on with the licensing of Yucca Mountain. Central interim storage away from reactor sites that does not interfere with developing a repository and meets as cost benefit test. Research and further study of all aspects of advanced reprocessing as proposed in the GNEP initiative. Infusing a sense of urgency in spent fuel repository development as the other provisions of H.R. 5360 support. And just so there is no mistake, let me summarize what we are opposed to. The continued diversion of the Nuclear Waste Fund fee payments. Having DOE take title of spent fuel to be retained at reactor storage sites. Use of the Nuclear Waste Fund for interim storage, and certainly not as long as appropriations for interim storage means fewer appropriations for the repository. Putting as many as 31 States through a concurrent site search for interim storage before the cost and benefits of the proposed consolidation and preparation facilities have been determined. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Hon. Stan Wise follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. STAN WISE, CHAIRMAN, GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS
NARUC supports:
1. Reform of the Nuclear Waste Fund so that collected fees are available for their intended purpose, as proposed in H.R. 5360.
NARUC strongly opposes:
4. Putting as many as 31 States through a concurrent site search for interim storage before the costs and benefits of the proposed “consolidation and preparation” facilities have been determined.
Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Boucher, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Stan Wise. I am the Chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission. I also am the immediate past president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). I am testifying today on behalf of NARUC. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. The issues that you are addressing in this hearing are very important to NARUC’s membership and my State, and I am grateful to have this opportunity to present our point of view concerning the disposition of spent nuclear fuel currently stored at nuclear power plant sites that is intended for ultimate disposal at the Yucca Mountain geologic repository. I would like to summarize my testimony and have my full statement entered into the record as if fully read. NARUC is a quasi-governmental, non-profit organization founded in 1889. Its membership includes the State public utility commissions serving all States and territories. NARUC’s mission is to serve the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of public utility regulation. NARUC’s members regulate the retail rates and services of electric, gas, water, and telephone utilities. We are obligated under the laws of our respective States to ensure the establishment and maintenance of such utility services as may be required by the public convenience and necessity and to ensure that such services are provided under rates and subject to terms and conditions of service that are just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. NARUC’s goals in the nuclear waste area are well known and have been stated before this and other Congressional committees on a number of prior occasions. NARUC believes that the federal government needs to meet its obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, to accept spent nuclear fuel from utilities and other nuclear generators in a timely manner for safe disposal. NARUC further believes that the nation’s ratepayers have upheld their end of the bargain struck in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by providing, either directly or through income generated on prior payments, over $25 billion for use in constructing a nuclear waste repository. Finally, NARUC believes that the Nuclear Waste Fund should only be employed for its intended purpose and that the monies in the Nuclear Waste Fund should be utilized, along with appropriations from the Department of Defense budget, for the sole purpose of supporting the opening of the Yucca Mountain facility in a timely fashion. The basic principles underlying NARUC’s approach to the nuclear waste issue provide a solid foundation for future policy decisions concerning the nuclear waste program. Two years ago, the repository program seemed to be very close to having the repository license application completed for submittal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during 2004, but was further delayed due to the need for the Environmental Protection Agency to revise the radiation standard to be used in the license review. In addition, there were some difficulties between DOE and the NRC in meeting the documentation certification requirements of the Licensing Support Network (LSN) that many of us outside the government did not fully understand. And there was the revelation that there may have been some records falsification by some employees of the United States Geologic Survey who had worked on the project. Since then, EPA has issued their proposed revised radiation standard and has concluded the public comment period. We don’t know the status of the LSN documentation but the USGS and DOE records investigations seemed to be concluded, with the program scientific work reaffirmed.
NARUC’s primary concern with the civilian radioactive waste management program is for Congress to reform the way the Nuclear Waste Fund is managed and the way in which appropriations are made from the Fund. Reform of the Fund appropriations process is necessary to provide a stable financial footing so that the government can fulfill its statutory and contractual obligation to provide safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste as was the intent of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Although the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted favorably on H.R. 3981 in the previous Congress, the bill never made it to a floor vote and no action was taken in the Senate. We did not consider that a perfect bill (it was only for a five year period) but it would have helped ensure that more of the fee revenue collected by the Fund would actually be appropriated for its intended use. While the FY 2006 budget referred to the Administration’s remaining interested in pursuing a similar proposal for reclassification of NWF fees as offsetting collections and discussing it with Congress, no legislation was developed that year. NARUC’s and State utility regulator’s prime concern for the repository program remains to reform the Nuclear Waste Fund appropriations process. It is difficult for us to see how the repository program can ever shift into an implementation phase when funding requirements would need to increase by orders of magnitude compared with the pre-licensing phase. Simply put, the repository cannot be built without a more stable financing arrangement. Without the repository, spent nuclear fuel continues to accumulate and be stored in places that were never designed or permitted for indefinite storage. Spent fuel would be stored at 72 locations along rivers and lakes in 34 States instead of in a more secure, well-designed repository. Although we see many favorable signs for investment in new nuclear power plants, including provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we also continue to hear that lack of a clear path towards disposal of spent nuclear fuel may hold back that investment. We also need to reform the Nuclear Waste Fund because we owe it to the ratepayers who pay the fees in their electric bill. For the past five years, three quarters of the fees collected for nuclear waste disposal have gone to other unrelated federal purposes. In the current fiscal year, total fee payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund are expected to be $750 million. That compares with $99 million appropriated for the repository program. All that we as utility regulators can show ratepayers is a financial report from the Department of Energy that there is an account in the Treasury called the Nuclear Waste Fund that supposedly has $18 billion in it for the repository program. It is a cruel fact of life that for all practical purposes those funds are inaccessible or already spent. All the ratepayers want is for the government to remove the spent fuel for disposal as they were promised over 24 years ago would already have begun by now. We are grateful for the leadership of the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee and its unwillingness to simply do nothing last year while the repository license application was delayed and no reform to the Nuclear Waste Fund was in the works. In the markup of the FY 2006 budget, Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman David Hobson sought to add $10 million to initiate an interim storage program using DOE sites that are presumed to already have the security and other support that could accommodate spent fuel from commercial reactors. DOE would take title to and ship utility waste to the unspecified locations that already store similar government radioactive waste. We had many questions about that approach, but it could have been a step in the right direction, especially for spent fuel now stored at 14 shutdown reactor sites. We doubt that any significant quantity could have been moved in FY 2006, as the Subcommittee report indicated, or that much could be done for the $20 million the bill would have appropriated. Of course, when the Senate did not include similar provisions or equal funding, the proposal did not survive in conference. For FY 2007, the House again took up an interim storage proposal in the appropriations bill, this time adding $30 million, not from the Nuclear Waste Fund, for
development of some undetermined amount of interim storage of spent fuel at “integrated spent fuel recycling facilities” that could be serve as a vanguard for demonstration of spent fuel reprocessing under the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative being pursued within DOE as part of the broader Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). There was a stipulation in the bill that authorization be obtained for interim storage, since DOE has maintained that it lacked authority to establish interim storage. Then the Senate Appropriations Committee released its proposal, as Section 313 of the FY 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill (Senate Report 109-274), calling for DOE to propose “consolidation and preparation facilities” for interim storage of spent fuel in each State with a commercial nuclear reactor or, alternatively, regional CAP facilities. We understood Chairman Domenici wanted to stimulate a dialogue on interim storage and to get States involved. A NARUC witness testified at a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on August 3 rd . States are involved in nuclear waste storage at reactors. In my State, we have utilities expressing great interest in building new nuclear plants to provide emissions-free reliable baseload power for forecasted energy demand. Yet, the utilities indicate they may have difficulty raising capital without greater certainty on nuclear waste disposal. State utility commissioners are also involved in another way: those utilities making payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund pass those costs on to their ratepayers. Since 1983, close to $900 million has been paid into the Fund from Georgia. We have many questions about the CAP proposal which were conveyed to Chairman Barton in a July 11 th letter. Unless DOE is better staffed than I suspect they are, it would seem unlikely that DOE could undertake a delicate site search concurrently in 31 States within the 270 day timeline indicated in the bill. There are environmental impact considerations and the potential for litigation that could slow the process. Are we even sure that every State has a storage deficiency? It is my understanding that once it was apparent that DOE would not meet the 1998 waste acceptance mandate, many utilities resigned themselves to the necessity to develop dry cask storage on-site to supplement pool storage. There is litigation over recoupment of those expenses, but for the active reactors, there has been a steady increase (over 38 so far) of separately licensed dry cask facilities and more are planned. Governors will want to know how the site search process within their States will proceed. Some States have restrictions on developing new nuclear facilities within the State and, although the factual record on nuclear waste transportation safety is superb, there is nonetheless public concern over transportation and unease over siting that is not likely assuaged by assurances in the bill that the CAP storage would only be for 25 years. NARUC has supported interim storage away from reactor storage sites for some time, whether by the government or at private facilities provided by the utilities themselves such as proposed at Skull Valley, Utah. In our view, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not permit government interim storage to be financed by the Nuclear Waste Fund (Section 302.d.). Some of the expenses relating to waste shipping casks and transportation might be permitted since they could be interpreted as needed for the permanent repository. However, there is a broader question of equity: why should the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is supposed to be used to develop a permanent repository, be used for expenses that could have been avoided had DOE met its statutory and contractual obligations to begin spent fuel acceptance in 1998? This is at the heart of the ongoing litigation by numerous utilities against DOE and it is not anticipated that the Nuclear Waste Fund will be used to make damage payments that may be awarded in those cases. Also relevant to the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund is the 2002 decision by the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (Alabama Power, Carolina Light and Power, et al. v. Department of Energy) ruling that the Nuclear Waste Fund may only be used for disposal and that interim storage is not an act of disposal.
Last year, the House Appropriations Report (109-086) called for DOE to initiate a plan to begin spent fuel reprocessing (or re-cycling) in FY 2007. Members of the Committee are familiar with the history of reprocessing in this