ML20206L968
| ML20206L968 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/24/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA), SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206L957 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9905140155 | |
| Download: ML20206L968 (122) | |
Text
Stenographic Transcript of Hearings
/
C MMITTEE Opl ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE HEARING TO CONSIDER NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL POLICY, INCLUDING S. 608, THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1999 I
Wednesday, March 24,1999 ,
[ Washington, D.C.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY 1111 14TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-5650 (202) 289-2260 1
77>RsRa"7a!g2 PDR I
_ 1 CONTENTS j
2 STATEMENT OF PAGE 3 HON. F, RANK MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 2
4 HON. JEFF BINGAMAN,iU.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 10 5 HON. JIM BUNNING, U.S. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY 12 6 HON. ROD GRAMS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 14 7 HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 24 8 HON. RICHARD BRYAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 30 9 HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 38 10 HON. JIM GIBBONS, CONGRESSMAN FROM NEVADA 43 11 HONORABLE SHELLEY BERKLEY, CONGRESSWOMAN FROM NEVADA 48 12 HON. 1ARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 55 13 HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 58 14 HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 60 15 SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON, CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES REGULATORY 16 COMMISSION 62 17 LAKE H. BARRETT, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE 18 WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 68 19 JOHN G. STRAND, CHAIRMAN, MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 75 20 ERLE NYE, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TEXAS UTILITIES 21 COMPANY 81 l
22 MICHAEL MARIOTTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND ,
l 23 RESOURCE SERVICE 87 24 25 .
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
1
,_s 1 HEARING TO CONSIDER 2 NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL POLICY, 3 INCLUDING S. 608, THE NUCLEAR WASTE
\
4 POLICY ACT OF 1999 5
6 Wednesday, March 24, 1999 7
8 U.S. Senate l
9 Committee on Energy and Natural 10 Resources
]
11 Washington, D.C.
12 13 The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in
- 14 Room SR-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank H.
15 Murkowski, chairman of the committee, presiding.
16 Present: Senators Murkowski, Domenici, Craig, Bunning, l 17 Fitzgerald, Gorton, Bingaman, Graham, Landrieu and Bayh 18 Also present: Senators Grams, Reid and Bryan 19 20 21 22' 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
i 2
1 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 2 FROM ALASKA 3 Chairman Murkowski: Ladies and gentlemen, we will call 4 the hearing to order of The Energy and Natural Resources 5 Committee.
6 We have, I think, a rewarding time frame ahead of us as ;
1 7 we address the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. I want to 8 emphasize 1999, as compared to the last effort. And we have a 9 number of witnesses today that we are looking forward to l 10 hearing from. And I am going to be very brief in an opening 11 statement, although on further reflection I see that it is 12 about three and a half pages.
13 For those of you who are looking for some room, come on
., 14 over here to the left. There is empty room alongside the 15 wall, unless you want to get out early. If you want to get 16 our early, you are better off by the door.
17 Today we are going to hear testimony on nuclear waste 18 disposal policy, including Senate Bill 608, the Nuclear Waste 19 Policy Act. This bill and this hearing probably look a little 20 familiar, and that is appropriate because, unfortunately, it 21 is a familiar issue. We have addressed it before without a 22 resolve.
23 It is a familiar situation as we address what we do with 24 spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste stored at some 71 sites 25 around the country in 40 states. The reality is that the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
3 1
m Department of Energy has defaulted on its obligation to move 2
that spent fuel to one safe, central storage facility.
3 Ratepayers have been paying in for about 18 years. They have 4 paid in about $15 billion. I spent a good part of the last i I
5 four years trying to get the federal government to live up to 6 its contractual commitments. There is such a thing as a 7 sanctity of contract. We enforce it in the private sector, 1
8 but somehow the span of attention of the government sector 9 seems limited.
10 When I started in 1995, there was still time left to 11 prevent federal government default on its obligation to safely l 12 store spent nuclear fuel in 1998. We argued that we had a 13 responsibility to prevent an environmental and economic i
14 crisis, but the administration did not cooperate. As a matter l 15 of fact, they fought us virtually every step of the way. They 16 argued that this program was not broken and it did not need 17 fixing. And they simply ignored the reality that the industry 18 was choking on its own waste.
19 Opponents of the bill have talked about train wrecks, a 20 mobile Chernobyl, but we have demonstrated that moving spent 21 fuel is safe. We have done it for an extended period of time, 22 many decades, across the country, military waste.
23 And the extraordinary thing is, we seem to be able to 24 handle the Russian waste, the warheads, the plutonium, but we 25 cannot seem to handle our own domestic -- is that not an ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 l (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
e 4
l l
1 extraordinary -- I just cannot help but point that out.
2 So the only train wreck I have seen so far is the 3 collision in the sense of government's obligation to move 4 spent fuel with its, failure to do so. And I think now at 5 least we have a spokesperson for the administration who 6 recognizes that there is a problem. The Secretary has gotten
- 7 the administration to face reality.
h 8 So gere are we now? Well, we have introduced Senate Bill 9 608. And to quote Shakespeare and Henry the Third, "The 10 delays have expensive ends." And we are looking now at some 11 $40 to $60 billion worth of claims from the nuclear power 12 industry against the federal government for its inability to 13 fulfill its contractual commitments. So, indeed, delays have l _. 14 expensive ends.
15 Some of the administration seem to ignore that obligation l 16 to the taxpayer as something that they can simply dismiss from 17 their own obligation for prudence. Yet delay *.has been the
! 18 administration's answer of what to do with the nuclear waste 19 in this country.
20 In 1987, the administration objected to siting a 21 temporary storage facility before 1998 when the viability 22 assessment for the Yucca Mountain would be complete. Well, l
23 the dangerous end to that delay is that 1998 has come and 24 gone. .The viability assessment was presented. And guess 25 what? The world did not come down.- There were no show-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 ,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 i (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO e ,
l 5
1 stoppers. Safety issues requiring that we abandon the 2
proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Project 3 indicated that it could be licensable. We are going to have 4 to wait for that to, happen.
5 What are the consequences of DOE's default? Well, $15 6 billion ratepayers have paid over the past 15 years. The 7 schedule has continued to slip, first to the year 2003, then 8 2005, then 2010, then 2015. Now I understand they have pushed 9 it back to 2010.
10 The interesting thing -- administrations come and go.
11 They set dates. But they are not going to be around to be 12 held accountable for the dates they set.
13 I understand that nobody wants the waste. And you will 14 hear a little bit more from my friends from Nevada with regard 15 to that. But you throw it up in the ai~r and it has got to l 16 come down somewhere. Of course, our friends in Europe and our l 17 friends in Japan reprocess. We have our heads in the sand.
I 18 We are prohibited from doing that. Yet we take care of
, 19 Russia's waste. But that is a big secret, is it not?
i 20 The U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that the DOE had an 21 obligation to take possession of the waste in 1998 whether or 22 not a repository was ready. The Court ordered DOE to pay 23 contractual remedies. As I have said, the liability is 24 somewhere between $40 and $80 billion and it goes up each day.
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
I 6
1 The bureaucrats say, well, that is somebody else's 2 problem. That is the taxpayers' problem that they are adding 3 because they are not living up to the contractual commitments.
4 ,
5 The worst case scenario for consumers is the added high 6 cost of replacement power, the loss of an emissions-free 7 source of electricity if the nuclear plants are forced to 8 close -- twenty-one percent of our power is generated from 9 nuclear -- continued storage of spent fuel and waste at 71 10 sites in 40 states. The costs continue to go up.
11 We introduced Senate Bill 608 to meet the government's 12 standing obligation by establishing an interim nuclear 13 facility at a Nevada test site. We had a similar bill last 14 year. The bill was 65-34 in the Senate and 307-120 in the 15 House. That gives you some idea where the Congress sits on 16 this issue.
17 To his credit, the Secretary has come forward with the 18 first ever proposal from the administration on nuclear waste.
19 The DOE would assume ownership of used nuclear fuel and 20 continue to store at commercial and defense sites in 40 states 21 across the country. But we do not know for how long, because 22 the do not put any definitive date on when they would remove 23 the waste. So by the time you look at their proposal and go 24 full circle, you are still stuck with the waste at the site of 25 the reactors.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202?289-2260
- (800) FOR DEPO
r 7
1
, The cost of the storage would be offset by consumer fees 2 by the DOE over the past 18 years, fees that were to have been 3 dedicated to removal and permanent storage of spent fuel. So
~
4 they are going to use the money -- they propose to use the i 5 money for permanent waste and use that for the placement of 6 the waste at nuclear sites.
7 In return, the utilities and state commissions would be 8 required to drop their lawsuits against the federal 9 government. Well, I wonder what kind of a CEO is willing to
. 10 do that.
11 While we examined the proposal, we seem to have some 12 circular reason inherent in it. The administration argues 13 that building an interim storage facility would divert funds
, 14 from the study of the proposed permanent repository, but the 15 Secretary's proposal for continued on-site storage would 16 divert more consumer funds than a central storage. Do we 17 really want the waste piling up at 71 sites around the nation 18 rather than one?
19 The choice is the arid, remote Nevada test site where we 20 exploded more than 800 nuclear tests during the Cold War or 71 21 sites near homes, schools, playgrounds all over the country.
22 The answer is obvious, the law is obvious, the cost is 23 obvious, and the inherent dangers are obvious. -
24 Obviously, the time is now to pass a bill to move nuclear 25 waste to one central storage facility and not let this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,.INC.
I 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 f (800) FOR DEPO
r.
I 8
!- 1 industry be choked by its own waste and the inability of this 2 administration, on its watch, to resolve this matter.
3 (The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:)
4 (COMMITTEE INSERT]
5 6
)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 1 14 15 l 16 !
17 ,
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
f l
l 9
m 1 Chairman Murkowski: Senator Bingaman, good morning.
2 3
4 t
l 5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
. 14
~
15~ ,
16 17 l 18 19 l 20 21 j 22 23 24 l
25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO l
F.
10
-s 1 STATEMENT OF HON, JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW 2 MEXICO 3 Senator Bingaman: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 4 for holding the hearing. Obviously, this is a very important 5 -issue that we have before us again in this Congress.
6 There are a lot of problems facing the nuclear waste l
7 program. Let me mention three that are obvious.
8 First is the Department of Energy cannot meet its 9 contractual obligation to the utilities by January, 1998.
10 They did not meec that. And the utilities' lawsuits against 11 DOE threaten to bankrupt the entire program. So that is 12 something we need to keep in mind as we deliberate on this 13 issue.
. 14 A second obvious problem is that the current budget rules 15 may prevent Congress from appropriating enough funds to open 16 the repository in 2010, assuming that all other hurdles can be l 17 jumped. .
l l
l 18 And third, EPA, the NRC, and the Department of Energy 19 have yet to agree on a sensible, workable radiation protection i 20 standard for the repository. So that needs to be done as 21 well.
22 I do believe we need legislation. I believe we need to 23 pass legislation in this Congress to deal with the issue. As
- 24. you know, and as was reflected in the debates we had last 25 year, I think there are some major deficiencies in the bill ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
11 l 1 that you proposed in the last Congress and again in this 2 Congress. And I think that it is highly unlikely that we will 3 get a bill signed into law if we pursue that same route again.
4 ,
5 I would just urge that we give serious and careful and 6 fair consideration to this new proposal that Secretary 7 Richardson has come up with and that some of us believe makes 8 some sense, not in every detail, I am sure. But the general l 9 notion that the Department of Energy would assume financial 10 and legal responsibility for this waste in exchange for them 11 giving up claims against DOE, I think, has some real merit, j 12 The Secretary's proposal offers an opportunity for us to 13 put together some type of bipartisan solution that the 14 administration would be willing to support and that we could 15 get signed into law.
16 So I hope that as we go through the hearing and 17 additional hearings in the future we will remain open to that 18 opportunity. I think for us to be locked in on the very same 19 track that w'e had in the last Congress is not likely to be too 20 productive.
21 Thank you very much for having the hearing. .
I 22 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you, Senator Bingaman. l 23 Senator Bunning.
24 25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 ;
(800) FOR DEPO i
1 12 1 STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BUNNING, U.S. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY m l 2 Senator Bunning: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would 3 like to put my statement in the record so we can get on with l 1
4 the witnesses. So ,I ask you, with unanimous consent, to put 5 my statement in the record.
6 Chairman Murkowski: Without objection.
7 [The prepared statement of Senator Bunning follows:]
8 (COMMITTEE INSERT]
9 10 11 12 13 s 14 15 16 17 .
18 19 20 21 22 23 -
24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
, 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
r 1 l
I 13 l i
1 Chairman Murkowski: And we are joined by Senator Grams, 2 who had to go chair a hearing. He is coming back. He will be i 3 joining us later.
4 What? Oh, he is here. Excuse me.
5 (Laughter.]
6 Chairman Murkowski: Everything they give me, I read.
7 [ Laughter.]
8 Chairman Murkowski: It gives me a great deal of pleasure 9 to recognize the gentleman who has been sitting in front of me 10 for the last 20 minutes or so, Senator Grams from Minnesota. ;
I 11 Senator Grams: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
12 Chairman Murkowski: It is good to see you, Senator 13 Grams. I do apologize. And I noticed my friend from Nevada, 14 and I noticed you, but somehow -- I knew which side you were 15 on, and I knew which side he was on, and I feared him.
16 17 .
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
14 1 STATEMENT OF HON. ROD GRAMS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA m
2 Senator Grams: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate 3 the ch,ance to be here before the committee this morning to 4 provide some comments on this legislation, although it is a 5 little different doing it from this side, as a witness, rather 6 than a member of this very distinguished committee. i 7 Mr. Chairman, I want to focus my comments on what I see 8 as a remarkable inconsistency in the way the Clinton 9 Administration and its Department of Energy approach issues 10 surrounding nuclear power and the storage of our nation's ,
11 commercial spent nuclear fuel.
12 Based on the Clinton Administration's obstructionist 13 record to the bill that you are examining today, you might 14 assume that it is opposed to our continued reliance upon 15 nuclear power to meet our energy needs. And you might assume 16 that this administration would never allow nuclear waste to be 17 transported across our nation's railways and soads. You might 18 assume that this administration views interim storage of spent 19 nuclear fuel as neither scientifically nor technologically 20 feasible.
21 But, interestingly, the comments of the Clinton 22 Administration's nominees and representatives before Congress, 23 I believe, tell a completely different story, one which 24 understandably leaves members of Congress a bit unclear about 25 who is setting and controlling policy at 1600 Pennsylvania ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
i 15 1 Avenue. I m
2 During Energy Secretary Bill Richardson's Senate 3 confirmation hearings last year I had the chance to ask a 4 number of questions,related to nuclear power. And while 5 Secretary Richardson's responses to my questions were anything I 1
6 but responsive, they did provide some insight into the reality '
7 of this administration's involvement in both the promotion of 8 nucledr power and the transportation and storage of nuclear 9 waste currently being carried out across our country.
10 Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly read for the 11 committee three of Secretary Richardson's responses to my 12 questions. And they read: One, " Nuclear power is a proven 13 means of generating electricity. When managed well it is also
~s 14 a safe means of generating electricity."
15 The second statement, he said, "It is my understanding 16 that spent nuclear fuel has been transported safely in the 17 United States in compliance with the regulatory requirements 18 set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 19 Department of Transportation."
20 And in a third statement he said, Mr. Chairman, and again 21 I quote, "The widely publicized shipment last week of spent 22 fuel from California to Idaho is proof that transportation can 23 be done safely. The safety record of nuclear shipments would 24 be among the issues I would focus on as Secretary of Energy."
25 Well, Mr. Chairman, these certainly do not sound like the l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
, 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
e 16 i
1 words of an administration opposed to nuclear power. They 2 sound like the words of an administration that understands 3 nuclear power has a role in our nation, and they clearly 4 indicate that spent, nuclear fuel is now shipped across our l 5 country on trains and on trucks. In fact, as you know, Mr.
6 Chairman, the United States is now home to the spent nuclear 7 fuel, as you mentioned this morning, from 41 other nations.
8 I also had the chance last year in the Foreign Relations 9 Committee to ask Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat 10 about nuclear power and its contribution to greenhouse gas 11 emissions reductions in-the United States, particularly in 12 light of the Clinton Administration's support of the Kyoto l
13 protocol. '
- 14 Mr. Eizenstat responded to my questions in part by 15 saying, and I quote from Mr. Eizenstat, "I have been a very 16 strong and unequivocal proponent of nuclear power. I believe 17 that under Kyoto, and post-Kyoto, nuclear power will have to 18 play an increasingly important role because it does not emit 19 greenhouse gases. I think this country under Republican and 20 Democrat presidents ought to be doing more and ought to have 21 done more, and I think again nuclear energy has a very real 22 role to play in this climate change issue. And with that, I 23 fully agree with you."
24 Now, those were the words of Mr. Eizenstat. And he also 25 went on to say, Mr. Chairman, and again I quote from Mr.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260
, (800) FOR DEPO
17 1 Eizenstat, "There is a nuclear power initiative in the 2 President's own budget to extend the life of plants. This is 3 the beginning of the process, certainly not the end of it. We 4 would work very much with you to plan on how we can make 5 nuclear energy more significant in the years ahead."
6 Well, Mr. Chairman, that was the lead negotiator in Kyoto 7 speaking on behalf of this administration. And he sure did 8 not sound like someone who thought the nuclear industry in 9 America was finished.
10 And there is just one last point I would like to make in 11 this regard, and Mr. Eizenstat mentioned it in his last 12 response. This administration has pushed and this Congress 13 has supported two initiatives in support of nuclear power.
_s 14 One initiative would look into ways to expand the life of our 15 nation's nuclear reactors. The other is aimed at making our 16 commercial reactors perform more efficiently.
17 Now, why do I want to make the point that,the 18 administration claims to support nuclear power, that this 19 administration sanctions the transportation of nuclear waste 20 in our nation right now, and that this administration 21 sanctions the storage of nuclear waste right now, and that 22 this administration understands that nuclear power is a very 23 real component in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas '
24 emissions?
25 Well, Mr. Chairman, I do so because this administration's ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
18 n
1 obstructionist record on moving nuclear waste out of our
! 2 states and into an interim storage facility is clearly 3 contrary to their words and actions on virtually all other 4 issues related to nuclear power.
5 This administration cannot have it both ways. If they do 6 not remove nuclear waste from my state of Minnesota, Northern 7 States Power's Prairie Island facility will have to shut down 8 in the year 2007. My state will lose 20 percent of its 9 emissions-free electricity production, setting it back that 10 much further in reaching emissions reduction goals like those 11 now found in the Kyoto Protocol. Other states will face 12 similar problems.
13 So I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, what good will programs
.. 14 to extend the lives of nuclear power plants do when.those 15 plants are forced to shut down prematurely anyway?
16 The legislation before you today does nothing more than 17 the Clinton Administration has already acknowledged it is 18 fully capable of doing and, in fact, is now doing. Yes, the 19 bill transports waste from 34 states to Nevada, but we are 20 clearly shipping waste across the country now.
21 Yes, the' bill creates an interim storage facility in the 22 Nevada test site for the storage of spent nuclear fuel, but we 23 are currently having 73 interim storage facilities spread 24 across 34 states. Yes, the bill will allow nuclear power 25 plants to remain operational throughout the duration of their ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE.400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
19 1
l -~ license, but this administration is promoting programs which 2
will help expand the life of those same facilities so they can 3 be successfully relicensed.
4 Just one more minute, Mr. Chairman. And, yes, this bill 5 moves nuclear waste out of Minnesota and ships it to another 6 state, but the federal government long ago promised 7 Minnesota's ratepayers that it would do so, and it is time the 8 federal government delivered on that promise. And this bill 9 will do just that and, therefore, it has my full support. So, 10 thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 11 testify this morning and for your leadership on this very 12 important issue. And I look forward to working with you, 13 Senator Craig, and others on this committee to pass this
_ 14 legislation this year, 15 (The prepared statement of Senator Grams follows:]
16 17 .
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
' 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
1 1
1 l
20 l
1 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you very much, Senator Grams.
2 Senator Grams: I would just like to ask one thing. I 3 would like to be allowed to submit supporting statements from 4
Jim Howard of North,ern States Power and also the Minnesota 5 Public Utilities Commissioner, Leroy Coppendrayer, as part of 6 the record hearing as well.
7 Chairman Murkowski: Without objection. And I thank you 8 for your statement this morning.
9 [The information referred to follows:]
10 [ COMMITTEE INSERT) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
. \
21
! 1 22 23 i 24 l
l 25 l 1
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W. l SUITE 400 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 ,
l (202)289-2260 i j (800) FOR DEPO !
l l
1 1
21 1 Chairman Murkowski: I might just ask one question.
2 You indicated that in the year 2007 your nuclear plant 3 would have to shut down because of the permit to store fuel 4 at-site, is that correct?
5 Senator Grams: That is correct. Right now, the state 6 legislature has allowed them to store X amount of fuel, or 7 spent fuel, on-site. They have been able to extend that a 8 little bit, to 2007, and without further action that would 9 mean the plant would have to close down.
10 Chairman Murkowski: Would the state likely consider l 11 extending it?
12 Senator Grams: Right now, I think the opportunity would 13 be they would not, unless there were some clear signs or
- 14 things being done by Congress and interim storage that would 15 say if they could keep it six more months or another year they 16 might be given some leeway. But, otherwise, short of that, 17 without any definite plans from Congress, I doubt it.
18 Chairman Murkowski: What other alternative would you 19 have to pick up the 20 percent of your energy that this plant 20 contributes?
21 Senator Grams: Well, of course it would have to rely on l
22 fossil fuels or to buy power from somewhere else, which 23 estimates are it could drive the cost of electricity in 24 Minnesota up about 20 to 25 percent, Mr. Chairman, which I 25 think would be -- the Department of Energy would be looked at ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
1 22 1
, as the payer of that cost, so this could be another possible 2 lawsuit and obligation by the federal government.
3 Senator Bingaman: Mr. Chairman, let me just ask a 4 follow-up question.,
5 You are saying that the state legislature in Minnesota, l 6 who are all elected officials, are going to vote to raise 7 everyone's utility rates 20 to 25 percent in order to refuse i 8 to extend a permit. l 1
9 Senator Grams: I don't think you should blame the state 10 legislature. I think you need to blame the federal 11 government. The Department of Energy has failed to live up to 12 these contracts. You are pushing the responsibility onto the 13 state that the federal government clearly is responsible for.
.s 14 So I would not say that. But they would have to make that l
15 decision.
i l
1 1 16 Chairman Murkowski: I would like to move on with our 17 witnesses. ,
1 18 Senator Grams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 Chairman Murkowski: And we have the Honorable Richard l 20 Bryan and the Honorable Harry Reid, who are no strangers to 21 this committee. And I want to point out, in the interest of 22 full disclosure, that I do not have a nuclear group in my 23 state one way or the other.
- 24 I look at our obligation, the committee and myself as 25 chairman, to address this difficult problem. And I have often ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
I l 23 s
1 indicated my sympathy that it had to be dumped in some state.
2 And how it got done at the ends of Nevada, history will 3 record.,
4 But, nevertheless, we have two very outspoken opponents 5 who lobbied and worked very hard against the displacement of 6 this waste in their state, and I certainly admire their 7 perseverance and commitment. We will hear a little bit more 8 about it today.
9 So I do not know who goes first. Richard was here. But 10 Harry has taken on a leadership role, so he is going to go.
11 next.
12 13
. 14 15 16 17 ,
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 l (800) FOR DEPO
24 1 STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 2 Senator Reid: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am 3 sorry that Rod left.
I will mention this to him in person. I 4 am glad to see that,he supports the Kyoto Treaty.
5 [ Laughter.)
6 Senator Reid: Mr. Chairman, Senator Bryan will talk in 7 more detail, but 2007 is one of these bogeymen we have been I
8 hearing about for 20 years that we have got to do something or l 1
9 we are going to close. Simply, the fact of the matter is that '
)
10 nuclear power is on its way out in this country. The average 11 life expectancy of nuclear power is about 15.
12 If deregulation comes, which this committee is certainly 13 considering, it will be shorter than that because nuclear
- 14 power generation is the most expensive.
15 Mr. Chairman, I -- and I would just say this about 16 Alaska. Senator Bingaman, we know that Alaska is looking for ;
17 new industry, and we think that this would be.a perfect place 18 to send nuclear waste.
19 [ Laughter.)
20 Senator Reid: Mr. Chairman, I have here a letter that I 21 would ask to submit to the record from our new governor, Kenny l l
22 Gwynn.
23 Chairman Murkowski: Without objection.
l 24 [The information referred to follows:]
, 25 (COMMITTEE INSERT) l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
h 25
-s 1 Senator Reid: He is unable to be here. The Nevada State 2 Legislature is in session.
3 I mention him with a little bit of comment. Kenny Gwynn 4
is the first Republ,ican governor in the State of Nevada in 5 some 16 years. And, Mr. Chairman, the reason I mention that, 6 he has stepped onboard and not lost a step on his opposition 7 to nuclear waste. He has already been to Washington and met 8 with-the majority leader and the majority whip. He is very 9 concerned about nuclear waste.
10 And he is also concerned about the perception that is 11 certainly there that nuclear waste is something that is being .
i 12 pushed by the Republican Congress. And I think that there 13 will be some surprises this year when this bill comes up. I I 14 think you will see some Republican votes that you did not see 15 before for our cause. And I think that Kenny Gwynn, our 16 governor, is the one that will take credit for that, as he 17 should. .
18 Mr. Chairman, we are here once again to find the best way 19 for America to manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level 20 radioactive waste, the legacy products of the nuclear age.
21 Nuclear waste disposal crestes enormous technical 22 uncertainties, which is why so many legislative initiatives 23 have failed: S. 1271, S. 1936, S. 104, HR 1270, created over 24 a span of many years. They continue to fail because the 25 legislation is crafted to meet the nuclear industry's ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
26 m
1 ambitions. The fact that we are addressing this issue again, 2 and so early in the legislative session, testifies to the l 3 extraordinary influence of the nuclear industry. They are
, not 4 focused on the needs of the program that must provide for a 1
i 5 safe and secure storage facility that will endure for longer 6 than recorded history.
7 Sadly, S. 608 is no better than the earlier bills that 8 have already gone down to defeat. In fact, S. 608 gets part 9 of the issue right though when it says, and I quote, "The 10 ccngress finds that while spent nuclear fuel can be safely.
11 stored" -- I repeat --
" Congress finds that while spent 12 nuclear fuel can be safely stored at reactor sites, the 13 expeditious movement and storage of such spent fuel.is soon to
, 14 rise federal selling or enhance the nation's production." 4 15 Half of that sentence is correct. Congress does find 16 that fuel can be safely stored at reactor sites. The 17 Secretary of Energy believes that to be the chse, and he has 18 so testified before Congressional committees where he was said 19 that the federal government is willing to take possession of 20 this nuclear waste and pay for these on-site storage 21 facilities.
22 I think, Mr. Chairman, this is something that we should 23 all run and embrace. I don't know all of the details, but 24 from what I have heard-I think it is really a step in the 25 right direction, that until there is some decision made at I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
F 27 1 Yucca Mountain as to permanent storage, leave it where it is.
2 Because everyone has recognized it is safe there. 1 3 Indeed, spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored on-site.
4 The Nuclear Waste T;echnical Review Board has been saying this 5 for many years. But to follow that factual statement with the 6 notion that a new interim storage site will provide any 7 benefits whatsoever is just nonsense. Because everyone fails !
8 to recognize not only the problems on-site, the earthquakes 9 and all at the test site, but they fail to talk at all about 10 the transportation problems, as can be seen from this map, 11 whoever put it up here.
12 Remember, Nevada has no nuclear fuel, as does not Alaska.
13 But look where it is going to be carried, through the highways
, 14 and railways of this country, within a mile of millions, tens 15 of millions of people. The last figure is 50 or 60 million 16 people.
17 Within the past two months, Mr. Chairman, the Nevada test 18 site where you want to have this interim facility has been 19 shaken by a series of four earthquakes on two separate faults 20 over a period of only three days. This interim storage site 21 in Nevada would be the area that is subject to the third 22 highest frequency of earthquakes in the country. Those events 23 that we had, those earthquakes, were not negligible events.'
24 They toppled containers in buildings. They were very l 25 violent earthquakes, but more violent have occurred in recent ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
I l
28 i l
l 1 years.
-s l
2 Choosing this site for an interim storage facility is a !
3 recipe for disaster. Remember, there is a cement pad, and the 4 stuf f will be store,d on top of the ground.- It is nonsense to 5 presume that moving this material to an earthquake-prone area 6 will enhance a nation's environmental protection.
l 7 Promoting such a disastrous policy demonstrates the 1 ,
i 1
8 desperate tactics of the nuclear power industry, but it is '
9 nonsense for another very important reason. Developing a so-10 called centralized interim storage site will not reduce the 11 number of sites where nuclear fuel is temporarily stored. It 12 will just add one very large temporary storage site to the l 13 number already in existence.
-s 14 Current law prohibits an interim storage site in a state 15 with a site being evaluated for a permanent repository. That 16 future nuclear waste policy was included to guarantee the 17 unpressured independent scientific work that is absolutely 18 necessary for public health and safety and for the protection 19 of the environment, and it is this aspect of current policy 20 that this legislation is trying to overturn. In fact, S. 608 21 mandates interim storage in Nevada even if the permanent l 22 repository is found to be unsuitable.
23 The nuclear industry, I should say the nuclear power 24 industry, and the proponents of S. 608 want to preempt the 25 scientific work because they know that once the waste is moved ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l ,
lill FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
l SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
29
-~. to Nevada it will never leave, regardless of the risk to 2 public health and the environment. So, again, I use the word
)
- nonsense" to say that the expeditious movement to a centralized federal, facility will enhance the nation's 5 environmental protection. It is simply not true.
6 Make no mistake, S. 608,is all about making an interim 7 storage a permanent disposal. Nothing else matters to the 8 industry. Interim storage anywhere but on reactor sites is, I 9 repeat for the fifth time, nonsense. We should follow 10 Secretary Richardson's admonitions, advice, and 11 recommendation. I 12 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you very much, Senator Reid.
13 Senator Bryan.
.. 14 What we are doing is, we are limiting presentations to i
15 five to seven minutes. We kind of cut you off at seven.
16 17 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
30 1 STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BRYAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA i 2 Senator Bryan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
3 Aa you indicated in your prefacing comment, it comes as 4 no surprise to hear,from us today as Nevadans who will once 5 again vehemently oppose the legislation before this committee. ;
6 Chairman Murkowski: On the other hand, we welcome you.
7 Senator Bryan: Well, and I appreciate that and the 8 courtesy extended to us as Nevadans, although we share a 9 difference of opinion, Mr. Chairman.
10 As my colleague pointed out, really nothing has changed 11 in Nevada. We have a new administration in Nevada, but its 12 position is the same as Nevada's gubernatorial and legislative 13 representatives have taken since 1982 when the Nuclear Waste
., 14 Policy Act was first enacted.
15 And let me point out that nothing has changed back here 16 in Washington either, which would suggest that this 17 legislation faces no better prospects of passage than in the
- 18. past. The President's intention to veto this legislation ;
19 remains solid and Secretary Richardson has come forward with a l 20 far more reasonable alternative to address legitimate issues !
21 deriving from the Department of Energy's failure to meet last 22 year's contractual deadline to begin accepting waste from 23 utilities.
24 In contrast to the administration proposal, the bill
-25 before the committee today simply replows old ground, creating ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
31 1 more problems than it solves, for while the administration 2 seeks to work with Congress to develop an equitable settlement 3 to the legitimate legal issues raised by the utilities, the 4 nuclear power indus,try insists on pursuing a legislative train 5 wreck that has failed in two previous Congressional sessions 6 and is destined to fail once again.
7 The bill tramples upon decades of bipartisan 8 environmental protection legislation. It places 50 million 9 Americans in 43 states living within one mile of 10 transportation routes for nuclear waste at unnecessary risk.
11 It establishes by legislative fiat an inadequate radiation 12 relief standard overriding years of scientific effort by the 13 Environmental Protection Agency.
s 14 It truncates and makes a mockery of the nuclear process, 15 leaving citizens with little or no confidence in the federal 16 government's decision making process. And the bill reduces 17 the contractually-agree-to fees that utilities pay for nuclear 18 waste disposal, limiting the already inadequate revenues of 19 the Nuclear Waste Fund and exposing the American taxpayer to 20 the potential of tens of billions of dollars of additional 21 financial liability.
22 This and an unmitigated assault on the environment and on 23 the federal treasury are being done in an effort to address 24 what appears to be an irrational self-serving demand on behalf 25 of the commercial nuclear power industry. For decades, the l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. -
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260
. (800) FOR DEPO i
e
32 1 industry has pursued the holy grail of moving its waste off-2 site. And let me just say parenthetically, in response to my 3 colleague from Minnesota's comment that Minnesota will have to 4 close its reactors pnless we get this legislation, those same 5 comments were made nearly two decades ago by a former chairman 6 of this committee, urging upon the Congress at that time 7 legislation which created an interim storage proposal called 8 the Way-From (phonetic) reactor.
9 No nuclear reactor in America has ever been shut down 10 because of lack of storage. Some have been shut down because 11 of environmental reasons. Others have shut down because they 12 no longer make economic sense, as my colleague from Nevada has 13 pointed out. And others will be shut down in the environment l
-- 14 of deregulation because nuclear power is the most expensive j l
15 power generated in America. i 16 For the nuclear utilities, out of sight is out of mind no 17 matter what the consequences may be for the rest of us. The 18 legislation before the committee today is just another I 19 incarnation of the same tired, flawed idea the utilities have l 20 been pressing for years. The basic premise. of the bill, the 21 creation of interim storage in Nevada, is irreconcilably l
22 flawed.
23 Simply put, passage of this legislation will irrevocable 24 destroy the integrity of the federal high-level Nuclear Waste 25 Program, siphon scarce dollars away from the Nuclear Waste ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ lill FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
33
-s 1 Trust Fund, and subject Nevadans and billions of other 2 Americans to unnecessary health and safety risks, all to 3 provide a financial bail-out to a dying industry struggling to 4 compete in an incre,asingly deregulated electricity 5 marketplace.
6 The effort to target Nevada for interim storage comes at 7 a time when the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a permanent
'8 repository is looking more and more uncertain. Buried in the 9 rosy scenario of the DOE's liability assessment, an assessment 10 that is much trumpeted by the industry, are a number of 11 significant scientific and technical issues that my never be 12 resolved, issues relating to the site's complex seismology, 13 vulcanism, and hydrology.
_. 14 Both the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the 15 DOE's own peer review panel have concluded that the viability 16 assessment falls far short in predicting that the Yucca 17 Mountain site could be found suitable or ever. licensed. Much 18 more scientific work is needed.
19 As these uncertainties concerning Yucca Mountain 20 increase, the utilities have responded by proposing to create 21 an interim storage facility at the Nevada test site. Mr.
22 Chairman and members of this committee, there is a better way.
23 There is no compelling safety reason to move the waste prior 24 to its ultimate disposal.
25 And let me just interject here, if I might, the premise ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
, 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
34 1
-s somehow that if we have this interim storage facility in 2 Nevada all nuclear waste will be located in a single site, as 3 my colleague from Nevada pointed 'u t , is utterly flawed.
4 Every nuclear utili,ty will continue to have nuclear waste on 5 site. Every single utility will continue to have it. So 6 rather than eliminating 72 sites, all we will be doing is 7 adding a 73rd.
8 And when the utility representatives come before you to 9 testify, ask them if it is not a case that nuclear waste is in 10 fact put in pools in reactor sites and kept there for years as 11 part of the ongoing disposal process.
12 The real problem with the DOE's failure to meet the 1998 13 deadline for accepting waste is financial. The ratepayers who
. . . 14 have paid into the trust fund over the years are now bearing l l
15 the cost of storage for fuel that the DOE was contractually I 16 obligated to accept. Let me say, I have some sympathy for 17 ratepayers who may be called upon to pay something twice. )
18 That is not fair. ;
19 Since 1990, my colleague from Nevada and I have 20 introduced legislation that would giva credit to utilities who 21 have to build an additional space as a result of the 1998 22 failure to take possession of the waste, thereby avoiding any 23 double charge. The utilities have rejected that. Secretary 24 Richardson has expanded upon that proposal. And I would urge 25 members of this committee to work with him and the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
I 35 1 administration in trying to resolve this issue which has 2 plagued us for so many years. i 3 And, finally, let me just say that the President has 4 indicated that he will veto this legislation if it ever
{
l 5 reaches his desk, leaving this bill with no better prospects 6 for enactment than in past Congresses.
7 I urge the committee to abandon this futile effort and 8 focus on alternatives more respectful of the environment and 9 the federal treasury. I 10 Mr. Chairman, yielding to your time constraints, I would 11 ask unanimous consent that the rest of my statement be made a 12 part of the record. And Nevada's Attorney General, Frankie 13 Sue Del Papa has a statement that I would request be 14 incorporated and made a part of the record. And I thank the 15 Chairman.
16 Chairman Murkowski: Without objection it will be made a 17 part of the record. ,
18 [The prepared statement of Senator Bryan follows:)
19 (COMMITTEE INSERT]
20 21 22 23 24 25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
, 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W. i SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
I 36 1
[The information referred to follows:] I 2 [ COMMITTEE INSERT) 3 4 ,
5 6
7 8
9 10 l
11 12
~
13 l
- 14 15 16 17 ,
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
37 f
1 Chairman Murkowski: And I thank the two Senators from 2 Nevada for their testimony this morning.
i 3 And we are going to call on the House members, but I want 4 to give Senator Domenici an opportunity. He has got to chair 5 a budget hearing.
6 Let me point out that, in the opinion of the chair, the 7 issue of nuclear waste is not a partisan issue. This is an 8 issue that we all have to confront. To suggest that the vote 9 in the House and Senate were defeats of the issue, in reality, 10 is unrealistic at best. It passed the Senate 65 to 34 and the 11 House 307 to 120. It was threatened by the President 12 indicating a veto. It was a couple of votes short in the 13 Senate.
.s 14 So, again, I recognize the objection. And I appreciate '
15 and understand the objection from those in your state, 16 including yourselves and your governor, but nevertheless, we 17 are left with this responsibility. .
18 Senator Domenici.
19 20 I
21 l
22 23 1
24 i l l 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
38 1 STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
-s 2 MEXICO 3 Senator Domenici: Mr. Chairman, I do not preside this 4 morning over a committee. I am managing the bill on the floor 5 and somebody is there for me. And I thought this is such an 6 important hearing I would like to make just a few comments and 7 give you just a couple of thoughts that I have about how we 8 might solve this problem.
9 First of all, let me suggest -- and I say this with deep 10 understanding of the expertise of Senator Bryan -- but I l
11 believe that you are about 15 years behind on nuclear energy.
1 12 As a matter of fact, I predict you will see a revival of 13 nuclear energy, because technology is moving rapidly in the l 14 direction of brand new nuclear power plants that are much l
15 safer than the ones we ever produced, much more modular, can l
16 be built in a few years instead of the long years it takes l 17 now, which adds to the cost, and the more the world feels the 18 pollution, the ambient air, the more they will look for the ,
l 19 technology that America has been supreme in for so many years.
20 And sitting there as one problem is this little tiny 21 issue, which people think is a huge issue, of what do you do 22 with interim storage of high-level waste in the meantime.
23 Frankly, for most countries in the world this is not even a 24 problem. We have made'it such a problem that it belies 25 solution while it is utterly simple. And other than the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 I (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
39 m-1 transportation issue, which I share concern with you, there is 2 absolutely no risks involved of any consequence for just the 3 mere storage of the high-level waste at a site or a number of 4 sites. ,
5 But I want to congratulate you on trying one more time, 6 Mr. Chairman. I want to be a co-sponsor of your bill, and I 7 ask you to put me on thela. But I do want to suggest that, 8 while we are considering that, I have been thinking of an 9 alternative. And I just want to share it with you, because I 10 will introduce the legislation soon. ,
11 Having said that, I don't think Secretary Richardson's 12 suggestion is very good. It just preserves the status quo, 13 which we have pledged to the states that have nuclear power j
... 14 plants that we would change. And we have pledged that it is 15 not their waste, that the federal government has to get it out 16 of there.
17 That is our commitment to them. So to come along now and 18 say this is miraculously a cure seems to me to be absolutely 19 foolhardy.
20 But having said that, .let me suggest what I think might 21 be a solution. I am going to prepare a bill that would 22 mandate a review of our spent fuel strategy, in concert with 23 international collaborators, to determine the best future 24 option. We are currently on a path of taking high-level waste 25 and ultimately disposing of it permanently underground ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
40
-s 1 forever. We have found that job almost impossible.
2 And while we are busy trying to make the practically 3 impossible possible, the rest of the world is saying what a 4 dumb thing to put spent fuel underground forever. Somehow, we 5 figured, 15 or 18 years ago, that was a great solution.
6 Frankly, we will need a little time in our country to go back 7 and look at this and see if that is the only good solution.
8 So I think we should begin a major evaluation as to the !
9 future strategies of this material which for many parts of the 10 world is a gigantic source of energy that is clean and non-11 polluting. As part of that, it seems to me that we ought to 12 get on with some real scientific evaluation of what might be 13 done to minimize the high radioactivity and long-term life of
. . . 14 this waste -- that is called transmutation -- to try to change 15 it to a short-lived, lesser toxicity piece of material.
16 We are doing that to a small extent, but I am going to 17 recommend that we build an accelerator for both the production 18 of tritium and to start a pilot program in transmutation and 19 that this particular accelerator would be America's real 20 source of isotopes for the medical needs of our country. A 21 new accelerator would do that.
22 What I believe we ought to do then is to offer that 23 package to any state that would create a temporary storage 24 facility so that transmutation could experiment with that 25 waste. Now, this is a major project, but it would be borne by ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260
. (800) FOR DEPO
41 1 a number of entities that currently are spending money on this 2 program. I believe some states are going to look carefully at 3 it. Some states may say if we can build the accelerator 4 there, do the transmutation research, be the focal point for 5 isotopes for the medical profession, we might very well 6 consider being an interim storage site.
7 Now, I do not think you could just have one. So this is 8 not all great news to my wonderful friends from Nevada, 9 because I believe we have to look at another site also. And, 10 frankly, I think we have to continue to look at Nevada.
11 So long as we continue to spend $600 million a year on 12 the permanent repository in Nevada, it seems to me that we 13 ought to assume something about that, or we ought to assume we
- 14 should stop and close it up. If we are spending it and moving 15 toward an era when it might be opened, then perhaps an interim 16 storage facility close by is pretty rational.
17 Thank you for your time. And I will share this 18 legislation with all of you as soon as it is ready.
19 Chairman Murkowski: We will go back to our witness list.
20 Senator Reid: It is something we would be happy to work 21 with you on.
22 Chairman Murkowski: And, as a consequence, then we will 23 move to the members for questions or comments. And then we' 24 will move into panel two.
25 I am very pleased to introduce the Honorable . Tim Gibbons ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
r 42 1 from the House of Representatives who is with us today, 2 accompanied by Shelley Berkley from the House of 3 Representatives. And either one of you, depending on your 4 schedules, may proc,eed.
5 Senator Reid: Mr. Chairman, may I just say one thing 6 about Jim Gibbons?
7 You are aware -- on the eve of something happening in 8 Kosovo, in Desert Storm he was in the first wave of planes 9 that went into Iraq. He was called into active duty, and 10 Nevada is known as a real hero.
11 Chairman Murkowski: We are glad you are with us today.
l 12 13
-. 14 15 16 17 ,
j 18 1
j 19 20 21
! 22 l 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
43 l 1 STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, CONGRESSMAN FROM NEVADA 2 Mr. Gibbons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 3 Senator Reid for those nice comments.
4 Mr. Chairman,,with unanimous consent I would like to ask 5 that my full transcript of my testimony be entered into the l
6 record, and I will attempt to be brief.
7 Chairman Murkowski: No objection.
8 Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, of course I was delighted to 9 hear Senator Domenici talk about the fact that temporary 10 storage is safe, because if it is safe it should stay exactly 11 where it is at today.
12 And as you know, and if I want to compete with quotes 13 here, H.G. Wells once said "The human history becomes more and
.. 14 more a race between education and catastrophe." And as we all 15 know, nothing in the human race has ever been engineered, 16 constructed, or lasted or withstood the test of time for 17 10,000 years, which is the expected time frame for nuclear 18 waste to be stored.
19 There was nothing in the state of the art in 1950 when 20 this industry was created, or in 1970, that has even been 21 proven safe today, 30 years later. This is an issue of short-22 term safety with long-term problems.
23 And I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to 24 testify to you. And I want to reiterate to you what my 25 colleagues have also said, that this bill is not going to l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
i 44 1 reduce the number of temporary storage sites in this nation, l 2 it is going to increase the number of temporary storage sites 3 in this nation by one. This site in Nevada is not Yucca 4 Mountain. You are ,not putting this material at Yucca 5 Mountain, you are putting it at the test site miles and miles ,
6 away from Yucca Mountain.
7 And I dare say, that should Yucca Mountain be 8 disqualified, even though there are no show-stoppers today, l l
9 and I would, as a scientist, disagree with that, I would hope 10 that this committee is in the same head-long rush to move it 11 out of Nevada as it is to move it out of their states.
12 I believe that certain standards, that whatever we do, 13 whether it is the temporary test site or this permanent
., 14 storage area, should have sound science as the fundamental 15 threshold to address this nuclear issue. And as we have all 16 said, Senate Bill 608, or the bill in the House, HR-45, just 17 puts this nuclear waste into transportation..It does not do 18 anything to solve the problem. It brings with it the risk of 19 accidents, the risk of property damage, the risk to lives 20 across this country.
21 One cask, if it met an accident today in which the fire 22 would exceed 2,000 to 3,000 degrees temperature, could rupture 23 the cask exposing the internal contents to a catastrophe that 24 we have never seen in this nation. And I do not believe that 25 this issue is just one for Nevada. It is an issue for every ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
, 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
45 1
state that is going to be ef fected by the rail and trucking 2 transportation routes that this material would take.
3 The environmental concerns that we all share are the 4 shortcuts that it i,s required to take. It revokes the 5 regulations that establish scientific guidelines that 6 determine site suitability. It deals unfairly with 7
groundwater movement, climatic stability, and geologic 8 stability.
9 And let me say that the geologic barriers in Yucca 10 Mountain are not suitable today for even a permanent storage 11 site. Rain water has been determined to be there, less than 12 50 years old. That is a show-stopper.
13 The geologic barriers do not permit radio-nuclei 14 containment. That pollutes the groundwater supply in Yucca 15 Mountain, in the region. That is a disqualifier.
16 Geologic stability has been talked about by my colleague, i
17 Senator Bryan. Let me say that over the last,20 years we have {
18 had 634 earthquakes. It has had 13 earthquakes in the last 30 19 days, and those have had a magnitude of three or higher on the 20 Richter scale. l l
21 608 does not establish performance standards that meet '
1 22 the safety requirements of this nation or of the people of i
23 Nevada. This bill is simply a death threat that Nevada cannot 24 live with. It should be disqualified for a number of reasons.
25 And I appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify, Mr.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
46 1 Chairman.
2 (The statement of Congressman Gibbons follows:)
3 (COMMITTEE INSERT) 4 ,
5 6
l 7 I 8 )
9 )
10 i l
11 12
~
13 l
14 1
15 1 16 17 ,
18 19 20 21 22 23
- 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
47 N
1 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you very much, Representative 2 Gibbons.
3 Representative Berkley.
4 5
6 7
8 \
l 9
10 11 12 I
13 I
-s 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
48 1 STATEMENT OF HONORABLE SHELLEY BERKLEY, CONGRESSWOMAN
-s 2 FROM NEVADA 1
3 Ms. Berkley: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to 4 speak with you today.
5 As the junior member of my delegation, I always testify 6 last. So by the time I get to speak, everything that needs to 7 be said has been, just not everybody has gotten an opportunity 8 to say it.
9 Chairman Murkowski: I noticed. I gave you the 10 opportunity to speak, if you cared to, over Jim. j 11 Ms. Berkley: I appreciate that.
12 Chairman Murkowski: But, nevertheless, please proceed.
13 Ms. Berkley: Thank you. I have only been in Congress
... 14 for 11 weeks, but this is an issue that I have grown up with 15 since I was raised in Nevada. ;
16 Let us see if this makes any sense to you: Take 77,000 17 tons of deadly high-level nuclear waste, stuff in into really 18 big metal cans, screw the lids on tight, then take 30 years 19 and 100,000 long-haul trips to ship it over the nation's 20 interstates and railways, through the backyards of 50 million 21 people who live within a half mile of the travel routes.
22 At the end of the journey, dump the high-level nuclear 23 waste into a site that in January of this year suffered a 4.7 24 Richter scale earthquake, in an area where the earth moves on 25 a regular basis. That is what HR-45 would do. My Nevada ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
l SUITE 400 l
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO i
L
l 49 l ,,
1 colleague, Senator Richard Bryan, has aptly called the 2 proposal a mobile Chernobyl.
j 3 HR-45 would place the entire country at risk. This is 4 not so much a not-in-my-backyard issue. This is a not-in-5 anybody's-backyard issue. The waste would rumble through 43 6
states and hundreds of cities and towns across this nation --
7 Birmingham, Alabama; Laramie, Wyoming; Portland, Maine; the 8 suburbs of Los Angeles; Miami, Florida; Kansas City and St.
9 Louis, Missouri. The list goes on and on.
10 In short, the deadly transport of nuclear waste woul.d.be 11 on the move through your backyard and mine, all over the 12 country, morning, noon, and night, for 30 years.
13 We have all been reminded recently of how devastating a
.s 14 train derailment can,lme. Now, imagine that train just outside 15 of Chicago with a full load of high-level nuclear waste. The 16 Department of Energy has described that a plausible crash 17 scenario involving high impact and fire that vould contaminate 18 an area of 42 square miles with radioactive debris. That is 19 about the size of San Francisco or Boston.
20 We have been told repeatedly that shipping nuclear waste 21 across the country and stashing it in a dump site is safe.
22 But the land around Hanford, Washington, Rocky Flats, .
23 Colorado, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Fernald, Ohio are all 24 poisoned with nuclear leftovers.
25 The General Accounting Office concluded that 124 of our i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO l
50 1 127 nuclear sites have been mismanaged by the Department of 2 Energy. And with that track record, those in favor of 3
shipping and storing nuclear waste say there is nothing to 4 worry about, trust,us. Neither I nor most Nevadans buy into 5 this don't worry, by happy attitude towards radiation. We 6 have seen the results up close and personal.
7 Nevadans were proud to volunteer for the patriotic chore 8 of playing host to above- and below-ground nuclear weapons 9 testing, but the federal government never leveled with us 10 about the risks. During the 1950s, the government produced 11 films advising the people of Nevada and Utah that if they just )
12 stayed indoors as clouds of fallout dust drifted through their 13 communities, everyone would be safe.
14 And for good measure, the government suggested that a 15 quick car wash would eliminate any pesky radioactive 16 contamination. It would be funny, except for the evidence of 17 a disturbing increase in cancer that traumatized these la communities; funny, perhaps, if above-ground testing did not 19 spread radioactive elements across this country.
20 Supposedly safe above-ground nuclear tests were stopped 21 when it was proved that the radioactive element strontium-90 22 was winding up in the bodies of American children. So I have 23 a healthy skepticism about federal nuclear programs. My 24 health skepticism tells me that HR-45 is nothing more than a 25 Trojan horse for permanently dumping high-level nuclear waste ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
, 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
51 1 in Nevada.
2 There is nothing temporary about HR-45. This bill is a 3 political vehicle, as toxic as the cargo it would ship, to get 4 the waste to Nevada,and conveniently park it next to the Yucca 5 Mountain, the site of a failing effort to justify a permanent 6 dump. HR-45 exists only because the nuclear power industry 7 wants to keep the Yucca Mountain project alive by building a 8 temporary dump next door.
9 Yucca Mountain is failing as a site for a permanent 10 nuclear dump because of an accelerating number of scientific 11 surprises that eliminate it as a safety deposit box. Yucca 12 Mountain was supposed to be dry, but scientists have 13 discovered that water, the ultimate solvent, is seeping 14 through nonetheless. Yucca Mountain is regularly jolted by 15 earthquakes. .
16 HR-45 puts expediency over public health and welfare. It 17 throws out existing radiation safety standards and replaces 18 them with dangerous levels of radiation that would be labeled 19 acceptable. HR-45 exposes Nevadans to up to six times the 20 radiation permitted at other waste sites. HR-45 allows 21 radiation exposure 25 times the level set by the Safe Drinking 22 Water Act, and up to ten times the level allowed in other I 23 countries. -
24 There have been encouraging developments that my i
25 colleagues have cited. The President has maintained that he I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
52 1
m will veto the bill. Recently, Energy Secretary Richardson l
2 offered a plan. His proposal warrants careful consideration.
\
3 It is a viable interim solution to a very serious impending 4 nuclear crisis. ,
l i
l 5 HR-45 achieves nothing -- }
l 6 Chairman Murkowski: Excuse me. Wind up.
7 Ms. Berkley: I shall wind up.
8 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you.
9 Ms. Berkley: HR-45 achieves nothing aside from putting 10 the health and safety of Nevadans and all Americans at grave l 11 risk. It is unnecessary. It is unsafe. It is unpatriotic.
1
! 12 I ask you not to make my home state the nuclear toilet for the 13 entire country. The fundamental unfairness of this bill
- 14 should be an affront to every American.
l 15 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you very much.
16 Ms. Berkley: Thank you very much.
17 (The prepared statement of Ms. Berkley follows:)
18 19 20 21 l
l 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
I l l l
53 1 Chairman Murkowski:
m I want to thank the panel for I 2
expressing their views, which they have done eloquertly and i 3 very strongly. And, unfortunately, we have not come up with 4
any suggestions for,any alternatives as to where to put it.
5 But maybe we will just throw it up in the air and hope --
6 Ms. Landrieu: But, Mr. Chairman, for 11 weeks that was 7 pretty good. So thank you.
8 [ Laughter.]
l 9 Chai'rman Murkowski: Are you volunteering Louisiana?
10 Ms. Landrieu: No. I just said for 11 weeks that was 11 pretty good, although this is the Chairman's bill.
12 Chairman Murkowski: Well, we are going to move right 13 into panel two. And as we do, any of my colleagues that have
.. 14 not spoken any unspoken thoughts have a short opportunity that 15 I will previde at this time.
16 But let me call the witnesses in panel two, the Honorable 17 Shirley Jackson, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission; Lake Barrett, Director of the Office of Civilian 19 Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy; John 20 Strand, Chairman of the Michigan Public Service Commission; 21 Erle Nye, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, 22 Texas Utilities Company; and Michael Mariotte, Executive 23 Director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
24 And I trust that the witnesses that were here that you 25 listened to will listen to you.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
l 54 1 Senator Craig.
2 Senator Craig: I came in late, Mr. Chairman, and I 3 appreciate the opportunity to make a brief opening statement.
4 Chairman Murko,wski: We are going to have about three 5 minutes for everybody.
6 Senator Craig: Okay.
t 7 )
l 8 I 9
10 1
11 12 13 ,
14 15 16 17 ,
18
, 19 l
20 21 22 23 24 25 l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
l SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
1 l
l 55 1 STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 1 m
2 Senator Craig: Let me direct it specifically at the 3 panel, and maybe you can respond to your current state of i
4 play. Could wc put the charts up?
5 I am only going to reference, I will not make comment to 6 a letter from the Department of Energy on February 21, 1992 7 discussing the tremendous desirability of a monitored 8 retrievable storage facility.
9 Chairman Murkowski: You will need more time, because 10 your chart fell down. So go ahead.
11 Senator Craig: All right. Well, we have plenty of time.
12 Chairman Murkowski: We cannot read it from here, so you 13 better tell us what it says.
14 Senator Craig: Well, " Enclosed per your request is a 15 statement that briefly outlines why the Department of Energy 16 considers a monitored retrievable storage facility to be a 17 vital part of the civilian radioactive waste ' management 18 system," and the letter goes on.
19 Next chart.
20 Chairman Murkowski: What was the date of that letter?
21 Senator Craig: 1992. February 21.
22 These are all of the reasons why the Department of 23 Energy, in 1992, thought a bill like 608 was the most 24 desirable way to handle high-level nuclear waste. And there 25 are a multiple of reasons why they have stated it.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N'.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
I 56 1 I find it interesting that the arguments we are using 2 today are the arguments that DOE _was using in 1992. A central 3 MRS facility would reduce the need for numerous mini-MRS sites 4 around the country., We talk about the costs involved. An MRS 5 facility can be developed much quicker than a permanent 6 repository and will allow the transfer of spent fuel to begin 7 much earlier. Of course, if it had happened in 1992 you would 8 have met your deadlines in 1998.
9 You would not be in lawsuits today, struggling to find a i
10 way out of the box canyon you have created for yourself or 11 that you have denied us the ability to create an alternative I 12 for you.
13 And the list goes on, Mr. Chairman. It is up there. I
.. 14 just thought it was important for the committee to understand I
15 that what was once a good idea and touted strongly by DOE is 16 the very idea that this committee struggles with today, to try 17 to build an interim storage facility which is' synonymous with 18 a monitored retrievable storage facility as we search for a 19 permanent -- or we work to build a permanent repository.
20 That was good for the DOE in 1992. And all of a sudden, 21 the Secretary of Energy.has a gag put on her, and every 1
22 secretary since then has, except for Bill Richardson, who is 23 at least expounding some alternative, which we do not think'is 24 terribly viable. But I find it interesting, Mr. Chairman, 25 that S. 608 is in essence the argument placed by DOE in 1992. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
11 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (000) FOR DEPO
57
-~,
l' Thank you very much.
2 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you, Senator Craig.
3 My other colleagues might want to make an observation.
4 Let me just say that this committee has the responsibility to 5 figure out what to do with this problem, 6 Do you have any comments, Senator Bayh?
7 Senator Landrieu.
8 9 l l
10 11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 ,
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
l l
58 l l
1 STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR FROM 2 LOUISIANA 3 Senator Landrieu: I am going to submit a statement for 4 the record. But I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 5 bringing this issue up before us again today, because our 6 committee does have responsibility in this regard. And it is 7 very difficult and continues to be controversial. But I look 8 forward to working with you. And I will submit a more formal 9 statement for the record and look forward to hearing from the 10 panelists.
11 Chairman Murkowski: In the meantime, if you run into any 12 magicians that could help us out, why --
~
13 Senator Landrieu: I have been looking for some.
14 (The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]
1 15 (COMMITTEE INSERT]
16 I 17 '
18 4
19 '
20 21 22 23 24
, 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
, lill FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO e
59 1 Chairman Murkowski: Senator Fitzgerald, m
2 3-4' ,
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 .
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
l 60 1 STATEMENT OF HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD, U.S. SENATOR FROM 2 ILLINOIS 3 Senator Fitzgerald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I 4 would like to reiterate my appreciation for you bringing up 5 this issue. Of all of the issues important to my State of 6 Illinois, this is foremost among them. Illinois has 11 7 nuclear units that account for about 41 percent of our fuel.
8 And when that map was up before, you could see the problem 9 that we had with the storage --
10 Chairman Murkowski: Raise the map and show that, please.
11 Go ahead, Senator, and point out your --
12 Senator Fitzgerald: It is very important to m'y State of l l
13 Illinois that we come up with some way of storing this waste ;
., 14 and --
1 15 Chairman Murkowski: Illinois is the one with all of l 16 the -- that does not have any room for the state.
17 (Laughter.] .
18 Senator Fitzgerald: That is right. And we probably 19 exceed the limits in other states.
20 So I hope we can come to a solution to this. And if it 21 is not going to be in Nevada, if it is not going to be at 22 Yucca Mountain, I mean, we are going to have to propose 23 alternatives. And we have got to be working diligently, non-24 stop, to come up with the solution for this. So I look 25 forward to your comments.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260
, (800) FOR DEPO
61 1 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for l 2 your brevity. And we will proceed in any manner that you so 1
3 desire.
Does anybody have an appointment? You are all here 4 for the day then. ,
5 [ Laughter.] ,
6 I would call on the Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson, who is 7 with us today. And she is the Chairman of the Nuclear j 8 Regulatory Commission, responsible for what this is all about.
9 You heard the reference with regard to the sentiments from 10 Nevada. You can start from there.
11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 '.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
62 1 STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON, CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES 2 REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 Ms. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this 4 opportunity, and members of the Committee, to present the 5 views of the USNRC regarding the U.S. program for management 6 and disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel.
7 I will discuss briefly our program preparing for 8 licensing the repository under existing law, our view on 9 alternatives, including the DOE proposal for taking title to 10 spent fuel and interim storage, and our views on S. 608, the 11 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999.
12
' Mechi)
We continue to make progress in mo C obligations 13 for licensing a geologic repository un sf" existing law. This 1
14 includes the development of a regulatory framework for '
15 licensing and pre-licensing consultation with DOE and other 16 stakeholders. The NRC staff has concentrated on a thorough 17 review of key technical issues, preparing rep ^ orts that will 18 form the ultimate basis for our review plan.
19 Most recently, the NRC staff has been reviewing the DOE 20 viability assessment with a focus on highlighting any major 21 concerns with DOE test plans, design concepts, or total system 22 performance assessments. We are pleased to report that to-23 date the staff has not identified any major concerns with many 24 aspects of the viability assessment.
25 The staff review has identified some specific areas for ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
63 1 improvement, in particular, persistent quality assurance 2 deficiencies. -The DOE agrees that it m'ust give increased a tis @%
3 to implementation of its QA program. However, we X 4 are confident that ,the DOE recognizes where additional work is 5 needed prior to NRC consideration of a licensing application.
6 The Commission was briefed last week on the result of 7 this staff review, as well as the views of our visory y 8 mmittee on clear ste and other stakeholders,' including 9 the State of Nevada, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 10 tribal governments, and various affected units of local 11 government in Nevada.
12 As you can see on the chart, the NRC high-level waste 13 regulatory program remains on schedule in preparing to review
- 14 a license application from DOE in 2002.
15 We have. cooperated with the EPA in its development of I 16 Yucca Mountain standards. However, in order to meet time 17 constraints and to provide the public early notice and 18 opportunity for involvement, we developed our implementing 19 regulations in parallel with the EPA efforts. i 20 In February, the Commission published for public comment 21 our proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 63 to implement the EPA Yucca 22 Mountain standards. The proposed rule includes an individual 23 dose limit of 25 millirem per year for the expected dose to 24 the average member of the group that receives the greatest 25 exposure, a standard that we believe would protect public ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. lill FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
i
)
l 64
_ 1 health and safety and is consistent with national and i
2 international recommendations for radiation protection. As 3 our pr,oposed rule makes clear, the NRC will amend these 4 regulations if needed to conform to the final EPA standards or ;
5 to any new legislation that may be enacted.
6 As an interim measure until the repository can be 7 licensed, the NRC considers available technologies for wet and 8 dry storage of spent fuel at reactor sites to be safe.
9 However, we do believe that centralized interim storage in dry 10 cask systems offers beneficial features and is preferable..
11 DOE Secretary Richardson recently proposed an alternative 12 to take title to the spent fuel temporarily stored at various l 13 utilities. From a safety perspective, the Commission does not
-s 14 object to-the concept of the DOE taking title to spent fuel at 15 commercial power reactor facilities.
16 However, the concept does raise a number of legislative, 17 legal, and resource issues that would need to'.be addressed 18 specifically by the Congress. If this were to occur, the 19 Commission firmly believes that the NRC should retain 20 regulatory responsibility for the independent spent fuel 21 storage installations.
22 The Commission believes that the proposed legislation, S.
23 608, contains the basic elements of an effective framework for 24 safe management and disposition of high-level radioactive 25 waste, providing an integrated spent fuel management system of l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
I SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
65
, 1 on-site storage, centralized interim storage, and deep 2 geologic disposal with a transportation system to link these 3 elements.
4 In our written, testimony, which I would ask to be 5 included in the record --
6 Chairman Murkowski: Without objection.
7 Ms. Jackson: -- we have included several suggestions and 8 comments that we believe would enhance the legislation. In 9 particular, S. 608 includes a requirement for the DOE to apply 10 to the Commission for authorization to construct a repository 11 at Yucca Mountain no later than October 31, 2001. This 12 deadline would be six months earlier than the schedule that 13 both DOE and the NRC have been working toward.
-. 14 Based on our review of the viability assessment and our 15 understanding of it the DOE would need until 2002, but they 16 will speak for themselves. The NRC is also working towards 17 that same deadline. So accelerating the schedule would 18 present difficulties for us.
19 In summary, the Commission believes that whether under 20 existing law or in a revised legislative framework, the U.S.
21 high-level radioactive waste program needs both statutory and 22 institutional clarity and stability in order to proceed in an 23 orderly, efficient, and effective fashion. We believe that S.
24 608, when coupled with sufficient resources to make progress 25 in all phases, with some revisions, can provide this needed ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
!' 1 l
1 1
66 1
_ 1 stability. l 2 I thank you again for the opportunity to present our I 3 views. I would be happy to answer any questions.
, l l 4 [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:)
5 6
1 7 I 8
l 9
10 l 11 1
12 l
13 l ..
14 15 16 17 .
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
67 1 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you very much. We will take 2 questions after the panel. And I appreciate your testimony 3 within the time frame. You were right on target. !
4 The next witngss will be Mr. Lake Barrett. Mr. Barrett 5 comes to us as the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 6 Management in the Department of Energy. And we look forward 7 to your clarifying statements.
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 -
18 )
'19 20 21 22 23 l l
24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
68 i
STATEMENT OF LAKE H. BARRETT, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 2 CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
.3 ENERGY 4 Mr. Barrett: ,Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members 5 of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before you to 6 discuss S. 608 and the proposal to take title of spent nuclear
)
7 fuel at civilian nuclear power plants until you are able to
)
8 dispose of it in a geologic repository. 1 9 The administration continues to believe that the 10 overriding goal of the federal government's high-level 11 radioactive waste management policy should be the i
12 establishment of a permanent geologic repository. )
I 13 We are committed to resolving the complex and important j
-s 14 issue of nuclear waste disposal in a manner consistent with 1
15 sound science, the protection of public health and safety, and i
16 the environment.
17 A repository is essential not only for the disposal of 18 commercial spent nuclear fuel, but also to dispose of spent 19 fuel and high-level waste from the clean-up of the nation's 20 nuclear weapons complex and the Navy's nuclear powered fleet.
21 A permanent repository is also important in our worldwide l
22 nuclear nonproliferation efforts and the disposition of l 23 surplus plutonium from the nuclear weapons stockpiles.
24 .
This is a first-of-a-kind project. What is learned by 1
25 the United States to develop a permanent repository will set ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260
(
(800) FOR DEPO i
69 1 an example for other nations in their nuclear waste management 2 efforts. We have made substantial progress toward 3 establishing a permanent geologic repository, completing much 4 at Yucca Mountain. .
! 5 We are at the proposed repository depth, examining the l
6 mountain's geology, conducting thermal tests, and 7 investigating water movement through the repository. We are 8 verifying our models with real data. We do see some 9 uncertainties of whether Yucca Mountain will work as a 10 repository.
11 We are reaching the conclusion of our scientific site 12 characterization effort at Yucca Mountain. In December, 1998, 13 Secretary Richardson submitted the Yucca Mountain viability
( ,. 14 assessment. It revealed no technical show-stoppers, but it 1
15 did identify the necessary scientific and technical work that 1
16 should be completed before a decision can be made whether to
( 17 recommend Yucca Mountain as a site for the nation's 18 repository.
1 -
19 We are on target to make that decision in 2001, and if 20 the site is suitable, submit a license application to the 21 Nuclear Regul'atory Commission in 2002. The nuclear utility 22 industry in the states are understandably concerned about the 23 Department's inability to accept spent fuel. The Department 24 is currently in litigation with a number of utilities. The j 25 damages the court could award as a result of the litigation .
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. I 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 1 WASHINGTON, D.C. 10005 '
(202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO l
l
1 70
,s 1 could jeopardize the program, as Secretary Richardson has 2 testified.
J 3 Some utilities have come to discuss their specific l 4 problems and potent,ial proposed solutions with the Department. I 5 In an effort to respond to these needs, the Secretary has 6 presented a proposal to take title to spent fuel on-site at 7 reactors. This proposal could end the uncertainty that 8 continuing litigation brings to all parties.
9 Before I discuss the proposal, I would like first to 10 address S. 608. The administration opposes any legislation, 11 including S. 608, that calls for siting an interim storage 12 facility in Nevada. Making a decision now to put interim 13 storage in Nevada is not the right approach. Spent fuel is s 14 being stored safely at reactor sites and can continue to be 15 stored safely there under Nuclear Regulatory Commission l l
16 regulations until a repository is opened. ;
1 17 S. 608 would not provide the Department nor the federal I 18 government relief from the billions of dollars of potential 19 damages likely to be awarded through litigation. By imposing 20 new statutory, defined obligations and deadlines, S. 608 could 21 also create the potential for new litigation.
22 The administration remains unequivocally opposed to the 23 enactment of legislation requiring the construction and 24 operation of an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain.
25 S. 608 is essentially the same legislation that passed in the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
71 1 last Congress that the administration made it clear that the 2 President would have vetoed. Secretary Richardson opposes 608 3 and would recommend a veto if it is passed in its current 4 form. ,
l i
5 I would like to discuss the option for the Department to 6 take title to utilities' spent fuel. The Department is only 7 at the beginning of this process and is discussing it with the 8 utility industry and other interested parties. The utilities 9 may have differing opinions on alternatives based on their i 10 individual circumstances. !
i 11 For example, a utility with a permanently shut down {
12 reactor and no ongoing nuclear operations may want the i
13 Department to assume complete responsibility for the m 14 management of spent fuel and storage facilities, while other 15 utilities with operating reactors may prefer the Department to l 16
)
take only financial responsibility.
17 In return for the Department taking title and financial 18 responsibility for the spent fuel, it would expect utilities 19 to terminate their litigation claims. The cost would depend 20 on the specific final arrangements. Our preliminary estimates 21 are that it could cost up to $2 billion and $3 billion between l 22 now and 2010. We could fund these costs through a variety of 23 means. As Secretary Richardson testified, while we discuss' 24 the specific issues involved with the Department's proposal we 25 need to take a serious look at how to pay for such a proposal I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO t
72 1 without posing an undue burden on either the utility 2 ratepayers nor the taxpayers. For some time, both the 3 administration and the Congress has known that the federal 4 budget process limited our out year funding situation.
5 Let me restate the Department's willingness to work with 6 Congress to ensure that the repository program continues to be 7 adequately funded. In exploring any funding alternatives our 8 objectives should be: (1) that we do not impose undue burdens 9 on either utility ratepayers nor taxpayers; and (2) that the 10 revenues raised by the nuclear waste fee remain available .to 11 complete the job.
12 We are nearing the conclusion of our site 13 characterization effort. We know that technical questions
- 14 about the site remain. We need to finish our scientific and 15 technical work to address these questions. This will require l 16 a continued and sustained effort. We know that members of 17 Congress are frustrated because the Department has not 18 accepted spent fuel. We want to be responsive to the 19 utilities and the states. However, the administration does 20 not believe enactment of interim storage legislation is the 21 solution.
22 The Secretary has asked Congress not to proceed with the 23 adoption of interim storage legislation and to work to fashion 24 a more practical solution. S. 608 would prejudge the 25 selection of Yucca Mountain and place significant financial, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
r i
73 1 programmatic, and legal liabilities on tne Department's l 2 civilian nuclear waste repository program. We need to address i
3 the utilities' spent fuel problems and this administration 4 believes we are at a point where there is a genuine 5 opportunity to explore alternatives.
6 I would like to respond to Senator Craig's letter back in 7 1992. That was a letter we furnished to the nuclear waste 8 negotiator, at the negotiator's request at that time, to 9 provide information. The negotiators -- we had two of them in 10 this country -- were .>oking at -- both from Idaho -- were 11 looking for a volunteer site, and those efforts were i
12 unfortunately unsuccessful. .
13 (The prepared statement of Mr. Barrett follows:]
14 15 16 17 .
18 19 20 l
21 22 23 1
24 1
25 l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 l
1 (800) FOR DEPO
r 74 l i
, 1 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett. {
l 2 Our next witness will be Mr. John Strand, Chairman of the 3 Michigan Public Service Commission here in Washington, D.C.
4 And we look forward to a different view on the issue. Please 5 proceed.
l 6 l
7 8
9 l
l 10 l
l 11 ,
l 12 13
- 14 15 16 -
l 17 l
18 19 l 20 l
l 21 1 .
22 23 24 25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
75 1 STATEMENT OF JOHN G. STRAND, CHAIRMAN, MICHIGAN PUBLIC 2 SERVICE COMMISSION 3 Mr. Strand: My view will be at least somewhat different.
4 Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski, and members of the 5 committee for scheduling this hearing. In particular, I would I l 6 like to commend the Chair and other co-sponsors of the bill.
7- I am John Strand, Chair of the Michigan Public Service a Commission and Chair of the subcommittee on Nuclear Issues, 9 Waste risposal, of the National Association of Regulatory 10 Utility Commissioners, commonly known as NARUC.
11 The NARUC is a quasi-governmental, non-profit 12 organization of the governmental agencies engaged in the i
! - 13 regulation of public utilities in all 50 states. More ,
l 14 specifically, the NARUC contains the state officials charged l 15 with the duty of regulating the retail rates and services of 16 electric and gas utilities operating in their jurisdictions.
17 These officials have the obligation under state law to 18 assure the establishment and maintenance of such energy 19 utility services as may be required by the public convenience
- 20 and necessity and to make sure that those rates and conditions 1
21 are just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory for customers.
22 In other words, our job is essentially to protect ratepayers.
23 With respect to the federal nuclear waste program, no
- 24 other organization that represents the public interest has 25 been as long involved as we have on this issue. This program ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO L
76 1 has been a source of very deep concern and enormous 2 frustration to our nation's utility ratepayers and regulators 3 for many years. Our primary concerns are financial. First, 4 an enormous amount,of money has been collected from utility 5 ratepayers to pay for the waste program, approximately $600 6 million a year, more than $15 billion since 1983, yet no waste 7 has been moved from civilian reactor sites.
8 Second, the effective management and permanent disposal 9 -of nuclear wastes are essential to minimize the life cycle 10 cost of the existing nuclear plants that generate 11 approximately 20 percent of the electricity used in the United 12 States.
I 13 As delays continue, these costs grow in scope and
.s 14 magnitude, in some cases denying consumers low cost nuclear
- 15. resources. This does not make any economic sense, 16 particularly at a time when we as a nation are trying to move 17 the electric utility industry into a competitive market-based 18 era.
19 Now, the DOE has testified that there is enough money 20 available to fund both the centralized interim storage 21 facility and a permanent repository. They claim that if they 22 are ordered to build a central interim storage facility, it l 23 will come at the expense of a permanent disposal program. We 24 disagree.
25 DOE's statement is in the words, " based on historical ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO L~ '- - . _ - . .
77 1 appropriations patterns."
,, The historical appropriations 2
patterns have appropriated only 16 cents out of every dollar 3
from the Nuclear Waste Fund to do the work.
, There is 4 approximately an $% billion balance currently in the Nuclear 5 Waste Fund.
6 The problem is not that there is not enough money to 7 build and operate a central and interim storage base. The 8 problem is, the money the nation's electric consumers have 9 paid into the fund is not going toward the job as specified in 10 the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 11 I would like to make some comments on the recent title 12 proposal by Secretary Richardson. At this time, the NARUC has 13 not taken a formal position on the recent proposal by the 14 Secretary to have the DOE take legal title to the utilities' 15 spent fuel at the reactor sites and leaving it there until the 16 repository is opened.
17 We would like to reserve judgment on the'. proposal until 18 we hear some more specifics on the proposal from DOE. I am at 19 least gratified to hear Mr. Barrett this morning indicating l l
20 that they are "at the beginning of the process" on this entire 21 issue.
22 However, what we do know about the proposal so far does 23 raise a number of concerns. There are a number of important 24 details that DOE has not addressed. For example, how will 25 customers of electricity benefit from the proposal? How would ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
78 1 the proposal be funded? Where is the projected cost? How 2 much of the cost is in addition to the current program costs?
3 When and how would it be implemented? If the devil is in the 4 details, then we ce,rtainly need to hear them.
5 At least on the surface, and I emphasize only on the 6 surface, the Secretary's proposal fails NARUC's simple three-l 7 part test that entails three fundamental principles for the l
l 8 program.
l l 9 First, it does not get the waste moved. Second, it does l 10 not preserve the ratepayers' funding for its intended purpose.
l 11 Third, it does not protect the ratepayers from future cost l
l l 1. 2 increases created by the delay in taking the waste or from the 1
13 inefficient use of the Nuclear Waste Fund.
-- 14 We are also concerned that this proposal may permanently l 15 strand the waste at 72 sites across the country. We'are 16 hopeful, and certainly gratified, by what we hear that there i 17 may be more to DOE's proposal than at least is apparent as of i
18 right now.
19 In conclusion, I would like to note that the need for 20 expeditious passage of S. 608 is imperative. Today we are
! 21 still without the fundamental policy framework necessary to 22 ensure that the federal government accepts and disposes of l
23 nuclear waste in a timely and efficient manner. The NARUC l
l 24 commends the sponsors of S. 608 for undertaking the task of 25 developing a workable legislative solution and we welcome the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
79 1
s efforts of this committee to address the concerns of millions 2 of U.S. ratepayers who have financially supported the program.
3 The nation's electricity customers deserve to see real 4 progress in a waste disposal program for which they are 5 already hugely invested, and at this late date we must not )
6 fail them again.
7 Thank you very much for holding these hearings. )
8 {The prepared statement of Mr. Strand follows:)
9 10 11 12 13 s 14 15 16 17 -
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
80 1 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you very much, Mr. Strand.
2 Our next witness will be Mr. Erle Nye, Chairman and Chief 3 Executive Officer of the Texas Utilities Company. We welcome 4 your statement, bri,nging to view a producer of nuclear power.
5 1
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
-- 14 l
15 l 16 !
17 .
18 i I
19 20 21 22 23
- l 24 25 ,
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
T l
l 81 1
STATEMENT OF ERLE NYE, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, l 2 TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY l
3 Mr. Nye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member 4 Bingaman, and distinguished members of the Committee. My name 5 is Erle Nye. I am Chairman and Chief Executive of the Texas 1 6 Utilities Company. My company owns and operates one of the 7 newer nuclear power plants around the country, the Comanche 8 Peak Plant.
9 I will offer a brief introductory statement and ask that 10 my full statement be introduced in the record.
11 Chairman Murkowski: Without objection.
12 Mr. Nye: I am testifying today on behalf of the Nuclear 13 Energy Institute, the policy organization for the nuclear 14 energy industry, and I am representing the industry's view on 15 Senate Bill 608.
16 I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee for 17 your continuing commitment to solving the nuclear waste 18 management issue. This support in Congress is a clear signal 19 to the federal government that it must fulfill its statutory 20 obligation to accept used nuclear fuel.
21 Nuclear power plants supply nearly 20 percent of l 22 America's electricity and are by far the nation's largest 23 source of emission-free energy. Contrary to the views of l 24 some, the operating costs of nuclear power are among the 25 lowest of all electricity sources. The loss of any of that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
82 1
generation will tend to increase the cost of electricity and 2 increase airborne emissions from replacement sources.
3 This committee has long recognized the need for 4 additional legislation to reform the federal government's 5 nuclear waste management program. Through your leadership, 6 the United States Senate has passed such legislation in the 7 last two sessions of Congress.
8 My written testimony provides the industry's views on the 9 need for legislation and our support of the legislation 10 pending in the Senate. ;
11 Contrary to earlier suggestions, there have been four key 12 developments since this committee last took up high-level 13 waste legislation. First, the DOE missed its 1998 deadline to
-. 14 begin moving used fuel from more than 100 nuclear power plant 15 sites and defense locations around the country. Since then, 16 there has been no real attempt from the White House or the 17 Energy Department to meet the obligation to m'ove fuel.
18 The longer the federal government delay continues, the 19 greater the expense that will be incurred and the greater the 20 risk that nuclear power plants may shut down due to storage 21 deficiencies. And, Mr. Chairman, I might say that that is a l
22 real problem, not a perceived problem.
23 Secondly, the federal fault resulted in lawsuits from 24 state agencies, public utility commissioners, attorneys 25 general, and utilities in federal court. Three of those ten ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
i l
l 83 1 pending claims before the Court of Federal Claims are now 2 proceeding to the damage phase. The legal damages from the 3
ten claims could total more than $4 billion. That figure does 4 not include the other legal claims that are expected to be 5 filed in the future, which the administration has testified 6 could reach as much as $35 billion.
7 Those damages, by the way, Mr. Chairman and members, do 8 not necessarily go against the Nuclear Waste Fund, but against 9 the general obligations of the Treasury.
10 Third, the Energy Department achieved a major milestone 11 when it released its viability assessment on the scientific 12 study at the Yucca Mountain project last December, and that 13 has been discussed in some detail.
14 Finally, and fourth, we have a new Secretary of Energy.
15 During the confirmation process, the President assured this 16 committee that Mr. Richardson would have full authority to 17 address the nuclear waste issue, and we think,that is 18 significant.
19 In his recent testimony before this committee, the 20 Secretary proposed to meet the federal obligation by taking 21 title to used nuclear fuel but leaving it at existing sites.
22 The plan would require utilities to drop their lawsuits 23 against the federal government and also would divert money 24 from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay utilities for the use of 25 their sites.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
84 1 While we appreciate Secretary Richardson's intent, and 2
certainly any movement is better than none at all, the Energy 3 Department's take title proposal is simply not appropriate.
4 The plan does not r,esult in the movement of fuel from reactor !
5 sites. It also could jeopardize the funds necessary to j 6 complete the repository program in due course.
7 Secretary Richardson's testimony before the Committee was 8 significant, however, in two ways. He affirmed that the i 9 agency has an obligation to take used fuel from utilities and i
10 emphasized the need for an ongoing dialog among the I l
11 administration, Congress, and stakeholders. I 12 I believe the dialog is more appropriately focused on 13 Senate Bill 608, a sensible approach to fulfilling the federal n
.~, 14 government's commitment to electric consumers and the
~
15 taxpayers.
16 Senate Bill 608 does more than create certainty for fuel 17 acceptance and disposal. The legislation assures adequate 18 funding through the life of the program. Further, it provides 19 a stringent, scientifically-based radiation health and aafety 20 standard and it establishes a safe transportation system, 21 including full participation of the states and travel 22 communities and route designation, notification, and training 23 for routine shipping, and emergency preparedness.
24 I would make the point, Mr. Chairman and members, this 25 bill would reduce the number of sites where used fuel is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET. M.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 (202)289-2260
, (800) FOR DEPO
I 85 1 stored, and that is contrary to a number of statements that 1
)
2 have been made. It is a rational approach. It is an approach 3 that most folks out in the hinterlands understand.
4 I would simply say that, in light of DOE's repeated 5 delays, I respectfully urge the committee to expedite a used 6 fuel management and disposal program through reform 7 legislation such as Senate Bill 608. At the same time, this 8 committee should engage the administration in a dialog to work I 9 in a partnership to begin waste acceptance.
10 Mr. Chairman, I might say we just ran yet another survey 11 on public opinions, inquiring of 500 college graduates across 12 the country. Statistically significantly, they believe that 13 storage of this used fuel and other waste at one site on a 14 temporary basis is superior to leaving it where it is.
15 Thank you for your patience.
16 [The prepared statement of Mr. Nye follows:]
17 .
18 19 20 21 22 t 23 -
24 25 l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH S'2'REET, N.W. I SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 ;
(800) FOR DEPO i
1 l
86 l 1 Chairman Murkowski:
Thank you very much, Mr. Nye.
2 Our next witness, concluding witness, will be Mr. Michael 3 Mariotte. Mr. Mariotte is the Executive Director of the 4 Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Please proceed.
5 6
1 7
8 l
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ,
18 19 20 21 22 23 i 24 l 25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 f (202)289-2260 '
(800) FOR DEPO
87 1
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MARIOTTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 2
NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE 3 Mr. Mariotte: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 4
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today and for 5 your request to hear our views on S. 608.
6 I agree with your opening statement. We have not moved 7 much since two years ago. You heard my testimony before this 8 committee two years ago, and not much has changed. I refer 9 you back to that testimony.
10 As we stated before, our problem is not only with the 11 details of this legislation but with its concept. We disagree 12 that there is a compelling reason to institute at this time 13 the transport of this nuclear waste across the country.
. 14 Accidents do occur. We saw the accident, all of us did, the horrifying accident in Illinois a couple of weeks ago.
15 We 16 had a similar one just 11 miles away yesterday. If those 17 accidents had been carrying radioactive waste, casks, none of 18 us knows what would happen.
19 We have been assured of the safety of these casks and of 20 the transport, but it just occurs to me that 20 years ago the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission assured the country that a class 22 nine accident, a partial core meltdown, was " incredible."
23 That was their official quote, their official position.
24 Twenty years ago this Sunday we had Three Mile Island and l 25 learned that the incredible is all too possible.
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
l 88 1
, One of the major changes that has happened since my last 2 testimony is that the environmental community at least has 3
formally gone on record not only against Yucca Mountain as an 4 interim site but is,against Yucca Mountain as a permanent 5 site. In November, NIRS and 218 other organizations formally
,6 petitioned the Department of Energy to disqualify Yucca 7 Mountain from further consideration.
8 We do this because we think the site is unacceptable, 9 cannot be licensed without changing the regulations now, and 10 if we stop working on it now we will save a lot of money for 11 the remaining work that needs to be done to find a new site.
12 Our petition to the DOE focused on a specific issue which 13 had to do with movement of groundwater inside the mountain.
.. 14 This morning, stuck under my office door was a response from 15 the DOE that denies the petition. They deny it not because we 16 are wrong but because they cannot yet prove that we are wrong.
17 And in fact they do admit that there is chlorine 36 inside the 18 mountain in water that had to have gotten there within the 19 past 50 years.
20 When we add these issues to the myriad of other problems 21 of Yucca Mountain, besides that that you have heard about, the 22 revelation of science last year that the crust at Yucca 23 Mountain is moving some ten times faster than expected, and 24 various other reports,.we think the evidence is mounting and 25 that we should begin realizing that Yucca Mountain is not ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
89 1 going to work and we should decide what is going to work.
2 The Department of Energy's own peer review panel for the 3 viability assessment has raised a number of troubling issues.
4 I have excerpted a,few quotes in my written testimony. When 5 the VA was released, the DOE said there are no show-stoppers.
6 The peer review panel seems to be saying that this show is 7 likely to close early.
8 It may or not surprise the Committee, but it certainly is 9 going to surprise the American people to learn that the 10 mountain is not even considered the primary barrier for 11 radiation release, but rather is a clouding that_is around the 12 fuel and it is the waste casks that the fuel would be placed 13 in.
- 14 I have no doubt that these casks will be strong. I have 15 severe doubts that thousands of casks could be built with the 16 absolute 100 percent quality control that would be necessary 17 to ensure that none of them would leak over the next tens of 18 thousands of years.
19 In the two years since I last spoke to you, I have been 20 to Germany twice to witness radioactive waste transports. I 21 suspect I am the only person in this room who has actually 22 ever stood up next to a fully-loaded radioactive waste cask.
23 I did do radiation measurements. Perhaps you have done 24 them too. The measurements I did of the German casks were 50 25 to 75 times background radiation levels at a distance of about ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260
, (800) FOR DEPO
l 1
90 l l
1 ten to 15 yards. We had colleagues that went up to about 2
three feet from these casks and their levels were 250 times I 3 background levels. These are avoidable levels. You don't 4 want casks like this stuck in traffic jams in Indianapolis or 1 5 Chicago or anywhere else. These are real levels that we do l l
\
l 6 not want pregnant women or children exposed to. And our casks )
7 are not really going to be any better than the German casks.
8 We believed in 1992 -- we have tried to -- we offered one l
9 solution, which was to create an independent blue ribbon l
10 commission on nuclear waste to reevaluate our radioactive 11 waste policies. Congress did not like this idea. They l
l 12 thought it was a delaying tactic. I submit that the actual 1
13 delaying tactic has been the interim storage legislation that l
- 14 has been proposed over the last several years. So we have 1
15 been effective at that.
16 And I agree with Senator Bingaman's statement that this 17 bill is not signable now and that it again will be vetoed, and 18 that the veto will be sustained.
19 If I could have just 15 more seconds. Senator Domenici's l 20 statement was quite intriguing. I disagree with some of the 21 premises of it, but I look forward to looking at the details.
l 22 I like the concept that he said about reexamination of 23 radioactive waste, and perhaps there is something there we can 24 work with.
25 (The prepared statement of Mr. Mariotte follows:]
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO l
l t
91 1 Chairman Murkowski: If I may, you indicated, Mr.
2 Mariotte, that you are opposed to Yucca Mountain, you are 3 opposed to an interim site. So what do you suggest we do with 4 it?
5 Mr. Mariotte: Well, I think there are going to be a 6 number of suggestions coming out from the environmental 7 community over the next several weeks and months. I 8 personally recognize that we -- since the independent i 1
9 commission idea, we have not come out with a lot of ideas.
l l
10 All we have done is say no, and that has been successful so l 11 far. We are trying to come up with some new ideas that will 12 be more yes oriented. I 13 I am not here to offer all of the solutions, but I am 14 saying -- l 15 Chairman Murkowski: Any solution would do.
16 [ Laughter.]
17 Chairman Murkowski: Thank you. That is.part of our 18 problem.
19 Mr. Mariotte: And as I said, we are going to be coming 20 out with some new ideas over the next few weeks.
21 Chairman Murkowski: When are you going to come out with 22 them?
23 Mr. Mariotte: My own group will probably be slightly 24 longer. I do know of other groups that are coming out within 25 the next two weeks with some ideas.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
92 1 Chairman Murkowski: Well, we will stand by, with baited 2 breath, for two weeks at least. And I would almost be willing 3 to leave the record open for a couple of weeks if we could get 4 a solution to this 5 I might add that I am disappointed that the Secretary 6 could not be here for this hearing. He was meeting with the 7 Russian Premier. The Russian Premier, of course, turned 8 around and did not come. He has a little objection to what we 9 are doing over in Kosovo. So the Secretary may come in at any 10 moment, but I really do not expect him.
11 But, anyway, that is the full disclosure of why perhaps 12 the Secretary is not here. And I am sure he has other 13 meetings as well.
14 You know, we talk about the administration's proposal.
15 And that is, of course, to take title at the site of the 16 reactors, which is, you know, I think is an interesting 17 proposal and certainly deserves some examinat' ion. But if I ,
18 may, Mr. Barrett, we are in a situation from the standpoint of 19 the administration where we continue to have support for 20 funding of Yucca Mountain, and it is my understanding that we 21 have spent about $7 billion to-date on a program, $5 billion 22 of which has been spent on the geological repository. And 23 Yucca Mountain has taken about $4 billion of that $5 billion.
24 So we continue to proceed. And as I understand the 25 situation, the viability study has been done. We are waiting ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_- 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
93 m
1 for the suitability and the licensing. My question to you is 2
that, assuming that the suitability is done and the licensing 3 is approved, will the administration support putting the waste 4 in Yucca Mountain?,
5 Mr. Barrett: The administration is committed to doing 6 the permanent geological repository. If the permanent 7 geologic repository passes its tests, the administration is 8 fully committed to moving the waste under those conditions.
9 Chairman Murkowski: Will you put the waste in Nevada?
10 Mr. Barrett: If it is a permanent geologic repository 11 that passed the tests --
12 Chairman Murkowski: Let us assume that -- it has passed 13 the viability test now. And the next test is suitability and 14 licensing, which the Secretary has to propose, right?
15 Mr. Barrett: That is the sequence. Yes, sir.
16 Chairman Murkowski: Okay. And if those happen, will the 17 administration support putting the waste in Nevada, at Yucca 18 Mountain?
19 Mr. Barrett: The administration will support waste going 20 to Nevada only if the --
21 Chairman Murkowski: Well, I am asking you, if these are 22 done, will they support putting it in Yucca Mountain as a i
23 permanent repository? j
)
24 Mr. Barrett: In a permanent repository. Yes, sir. If l 25 it passes all tests. Yes, sir. j j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
94 1 Chairman Murkowski: In spite of the objection from the 2 governor and the representatives and the Senators from Nevada 3 whom we have heard from this morning.
4 Mr. Barrett: As the Secretary stated before this 5 committee, before Mr. Chairman, the administration is 6 committed to doing a geologic repository. If the geologic 7 repository passes the scientific tests and the science is 8 done, the administration will support moving the waste to 9 Nevada in a licensed geologic repository.
10 Chairman Murkowski: In spite of the objections of 11 Nevada.
.2 Mr. Barrett: That would be the case, if necessary.
13 Chairman Murkowski: Well, I mean, clearly you.have got 14 the objections from Nevada under any scenario. They do not j 15 want the waste there period. And they are prepared to lay l 16 their lives in front of the train, so to speak, to stop it.
I 17 Is that not your impression? .
18 Mr. Barrett: The Nevadans feel very strongly about this, 19 as you have heard. I do not believe they are going to 20 necessarily support this. The Secretary said --
21 Chairman Murkowski: That is the understatement of the 22 day.
23 (Laughter.]
24 Mr. Barrett: -- that the administration, if it meets the 25 science and the science is done, and it is -- we do not ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
95
(
1 prejudge the science, that the Secretary would continue his 2
responsibilities under the Act and build a repository.
3 Chairman Murkowski: And this suitability for licensing 4
time frame is about,when?
5 Mr. Barrett: Well, our plans are, if we have sufficient 6 funding to finish the science and there is no -- and the 7 science turns out like we expect it will, the suitability 8 decision would be in the summer of 2001. Then we would 9 continue with a license application to the Chairman of the 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2002.
11 Chairman Murkowski: The new administration is going to 12 be faced with this dilemma. So it is very easy for this 13 administration to simply say, well, we are going to veto any
- 14 legislation to put a temporary repository in because a new 15 administration is going to have to address this dilemma when 16 it becomes a reality. They are going to have to face this 17 2001 deadline, right? -
18 Mr. Barrett: That is correct.
19 Chairman Murkowski: Okay. I just wanted the record to 20 note that dilemma.
21 I am going to proceed with a couple of other quick 22 questions.
23 The idea of the administration taking the waste, -
24 recognizing that the circuit court has already predetermined 25 that the federal government is liable for that waste -- but ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
96
, 1 they have not directed the government to take title, is that 2 basically correct?
3 Mr. Barrett: The court has determined legally that we 4 have an obligation,to do that and made statements about what 5 we can claim as far as defenses. The court did refuse the 6 request from the attorneys for the state for a direct order to 7 move the waste. They have not, to my knowledge, addressed 8 taking title in particular.
9 Chairman Murkowski: That is correct. So title 10 technically rests, in effect, with the industry. But the 11 court said the federal government is in violation of the 12 sanctity of the contract and is subject to damages.
13 Mr. Barrett: Essentially, yes.
14 Chairman Murkowski: Those damages are a lawyer's dream 15 and full employment for the lawyer, I am sure, right --
16 Mr. Barrett: Right.
17 Chairman Murkowski: --
as it mounts up?,
18 So my question is, in order for the federal government to 19 take it, as proposed by the Secretary, there would have to be 20 a federal preemption, is that not correct?
21 Mr. Barrett: Not necessarily so.
22 Chairman Murkowski: Just a minute now. The states 23 license these. And maybe Ms. Jackson can comment on this.
24 They license the storage. And the states are not going 25 to simply stand by when a license is about to expire unless ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
97 1 the federal government exerts some federal preemption to 2
basically take over that responsibility and that liability.
3 Is that not the finite of where we are going with the 4 Secretary's proposal?
5 Mr. Barrett: Well, the Secretary's proposal was to 6 mitigate the situation with the litigation which is 7 detrimental to all parties and jeopardizes the program. The 1 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission under any circumstance will do 9 the safety oversight of any storage if it is done by the 10 utilities, as at present, or if DOE were to --
11 Chairman Murkowski: What I am trying to get at is how l 12 you bridge this gap, if you will, where the waste still 13 basically belongs to the power generating companies but you i l
14 agree to take it and, therefore, as the federal government, 15 you can bypass the restrictions that are currently on the 16 power generating companies by the states from the standpoint 17 of the time that is remaining for the storage.to be licensed 18 by the state. Otherwise, the states are going to say we do 19 not want this stuff just sitting here for whatever time frame 20 it might take.
21 So the federal government is going to have to come in 22 with some -- Ms. Jackson, maybe you can pick up and 23 communicate a little better my concern, because I think you l 24 have got the gist of it.
25 Ms. Jackson: I think, as we have analyzed the situation, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
98 1 vis-a-vis DOE taking title to the waste, it would then be DOE-2 possessed waste and not NRC licensed spent fuel. And that is 3 what we are primarily talking about 4 Chairman Murkowski: So you take that out of the domain 5 of the states' control.
6 Ms. Jackson: It is then under DOE's control. Yes.
7 Chairman Murkowski: And the federal government can do 8 this through federal preemption.
9 Ms. Jackson: If DOE has title to the spent fuel. Yes.
10 Chairman Murkowski: And then the state does not hav.e 11 much to say about it.
12 Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman?
13 Chairman Murkowski: Is that correct to state?
-.. 14 Go ahead. Ms. Jackson, you do not want to touch that 15 with a ten-foot pole.
16 (Laughter.)
17 Ms. Jackson: If I can avoid it. .
18 Chairman Murkowski: Sure. Let us face it, the state is 19 not going to have much to say about it.
20 Ms. Jackson: I am understanding that DOE takes title to 21 the waste and DOE has control of the waste in the same way it 22 has with other federal facilities.
23 Chairman Murkowski: Sure. The state does not have any 24 voice or any role. Now, is that a taking from the state and I 25 is the state entitled to reimbursement?
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 !
(202)289-2260 '
(800) FOR DEPO
99 1 Ms. Jackson: I would rather not --
2 Chairman Murkowski: Well, I know you would rather not, {
l 3 but you know if we proceed we are going to have to have the !
4 answers. l And we look at you folks who are experts in this l 5 thing. We are generalists sitting here. But we have to know
\
\
l 6 what is your opinion.
7 Ms. Jackson: Our concern, Mr. Chairman, has focused on 8 issues that have to do with safety and inconsistencies that 9 would be introduced with this -- with what would essentially 10 be a mixture of private entity, which is an NRC-licensed 11 entity, having control over the spent fuel in a certain part 12 of their facility and not having responsibility or control l
13 over it in another part, and not being subject to NRC 1
- 14 oversight in that regard.
15 Chairman Murkowski: I am satisfied that if the federal 16 government takes it over they take the responsibility from the 17 state and what the legal ramifications are from the standpoint 18 of a taking'from the state's point of view and what 19 alternatives the state may have in saying, hey, yes, you have 20 taken it but you are still leaving it here. But under eminent 21 domain maybe there is nothing the state can do.
22 But I think we ought to dust off these delicate areas I i
23 that we do not want to discuss because it is a little l 24 embarrassing or we have not figured it out and identify them.
25 Mr. Strand.
I I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
100 1
, Mr. Strand: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my 2 prepared testimony, it is definitely a concern of the states.
3 The problem is, as I also indicated, there is a lot that 4 basically -- I mean, as far as the Secretary's proposal, we 5 have basically a skeleton there, if that, and we do not really 6 have any flesh on the bones yet. And, therefore, it is one of 7 probably 20 questions that need to be asked and answered.
8 So we are concerned about it, but we are concerned about 9 several other things. And we are assuming, if this proposal 10 has any chance at all, that there are probably going to be.a 11 lot more negotiations and a lot more specifics coming forward, 12 because as of right now we do not have them yet.
13 Chairman Murkowski: Mr. Nye.
-~ 14 Mr. Nye: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think there is clearly a 15 preemption issue here. And on behalf of the consumers and the 16 folks who ultimately pay the bills, I think under the Atomic 17 Energy Act there are certain preemptions that'.we have granted 18 to the NRC to provide for the safety. And that takes some 19 authority away from the states. Also, under the DOE's 20 legislative authority to handle these materials there is some 21 opportunity for preemption.
22 What I would remind the Chairman, and I know he knows, as 23 well as the members, that that does not eliminate the local' 24 state's authority for economic regulation and such costs are 25 incurred and such burdens as are assumed by the state for the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W. ,
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
l l
l 101
, 1 federal government's failure to take materials are certainly 2 incurred by the state. They have the right to recover those 3 costs. And I think, on behalf of the consumers, we would be 4 pursuing those cost,s. And I think we would have the right to 5 pursue those.
6 It simply points up, Mr. Chairman, the need to establish 7 a rational approach, to minimizing costs to the economy, and 8 for disposing of this waste.
9 Chairman Murkowski: Well, I would hope, Mr. Barrett, you 10 would take to the Secretary this line of consideration, 11 because I think it is paramount to any serious consideration 12 by the industry, and since this Committee has oversight of 13 evaluating it.
- 14 Because, you know, this area of the federal government 15 taking the preemption is going to result in certain 16 opportunities for states to express their opinion of what they i
17 assumed was a deal, that the waste would be r,emoved in 1989 as 18 opposed to the federal government simply moving in under 19 federal preemption, taking the waste for an undetermined 20 period of time and managing it at the site.
21 Now the difficulty I have is the Secretary proposes that 22 the power companies take this and drop their damages against 23 the federal government for non-performance. There is just an 24 awful lot of further explanation that is going to have to be 25 forthcoming from the Secretary to address whether or not the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
102 1 federal government assumes all liability associated with the 2 taking and whether the states are simply left out in the cold 3 by this action, which in effect is a taking, and the states l 4 have to live with t,he waste at the site.
5 Recognizing they are working with Senator Bingaman on the 6 effort to try and resolve this with some finality is very 7 frustrating. And when you have the administration come in and 1 8 say, well, we are just going to veto it, throw out a veto 9 threat,.and the environmental community wants more time to 10 evaluate it to come up with an answer to what we do with it, 11 and the problem is with us.
12 I personally believe that the Japanese and the French and 13 others, by reprocessing, is the ultimate solution to this
- 14 dilemma. But we have environmental objections. We have lack 15 of support from the administration to pursue this technology, 16 even though Senator Domenici brought it up this morning in the 17 sense of the potential of using this technology.
18 And that is one of the advantages of having retrievable 19 capability as opposed to c. permanent repository where it is 20 more difficult.
21 on the other hand, it is pretty hard to justify 22 continuing Yucca, on one hand, when the prospect of this 23 legislation which would provide a temporary repository takes 24 away the issue of the federal government's non-performance of 25 the contracts and try and do something meaningful when we are ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ,
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W. l SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
103 1 in this dilemma and may indeed face another vote where we 2 would prevail on the vote but not quite enough votes to
- 3 override a veto.
4 I see no othez course of action other than to proceed 5 with what we have got here -- and maybe Senator Bingaman 6 differs with me -- and then try and see what the 7 administration proposes on this issue as they further evaluate 8 their willingness to take the waste.
9 But at some point in time I think we ought to call a 10 spade a spade and recognize that it is not in the interes,t of 11 the taxpayer to be continually confronted with ongoing costs 12 and the inability to make timely decisions to address what is ,
1 13 a problem that is not going to go away.
-. . 14 And, you know, if there were representatives here from 15 any other state this morning other than Nevada we would hear 16 the same type of objections, which addresses my thoughts that 17 technology reducing the -- such as the French'.do in their 18 reprocessing, appears to be a solvable answer to this dilemma.
19 But there is still a lack of support for it.
20 So I want to thank the witnesses. I am sure Senator 21 Bingaman has several questions. I am going to ask that he 22 conclude the hearing today.
23 But we are going to be anxious to get together with the l 24 Secretary to see how he addresses some of these tough I 25 questions that have to be addressed, if this is going to be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
104 1 considered at all.
2 Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, if I may, for the record, the 3 Secretary would like very much to have a dialog. The 4
Secretary, staff, a,nd we stand ready to meet with any members 5 or staff members to work on some of these details. There is 6 no intention by the Department, any proposal that we would 7 preempt any nituation here or take the claws.
8 It was in our testimony and in the plan, this would be 9 under Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety requirements. We 10 would not propose in any way to use the Department's own 11 internal self-regulating authority on any of these matters.
12 But there are complex interfaces that would need to be 13 worked out on this and we stand ready to work with all of the 1
s 14 parties to explore a solution to these.
l 15 Chairman Murkowski:
Well, would you let me know when you !
16 can come up with some responses to the questions I had about l j
17 how you propose to take this waste under some kind of eminent 18 domain and how you intend to address whatever the states' 19 attitudes might be?
20 Mr. Barrett: We would be glad to do that, sir.
21 Chairman Murkowski: Within the next --
22' Mr. Barrett: Very soon.
23 Chairman Murkowski: Well, how soon -- the hearing -- we
- 24 will leave it open for.how long? We said two weeks.
25 Yes. Two weeks.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO -
l l
105 1 Mr. Barrett: Thank you.
2 Senator Bingaman: Let me ask a few questions about the 3 cost, the liability that is accruing. Mr. Nye, let me ask 4 you. You represent,the industry here.
5 There is, as I understand it, $8.5 billion that has been 6 claimed by ten utilities in the Court of Claims. Is that j 7 about right?
l l 8 Mr. Nye.- That is an estimate. Yes, sir.
l l 9 Senator Bingaman: That is an estimate.
10 Mr. Nye: It is an estimate that has been kicked around.
Il Senator Bingaman: Do you have any estimate as to the l
12 total potential damages that the industry will claim since the 13 government has not met the date, the obligation to move waste
~, 14 from any of these facilities?
15 Mr. Nye: Senator, of course it depends on the 1
16 assumptions you make about when the repository might 17 ultimately be completed, whether or not an interim storage 18 facility would mitigate those costs. So there is a wide range 19 of costs.
20 The Secretary has said it might run to $35 billion. I 21 believe, from my estimates, it is probably more on the order 22 of $50 billion to $60 billion, assuming some reasonable 23 completion of a repository. That can be mitigated by many '
24 factors, including the. interim storage, of course.
25 Senator Bingaman: One concern I have, and maybe you ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
106
,, I would have a comment. And then maybe Mr. Barrett would have a 2 comment.
3 S. 608, as proposed, does not do anything to cut off any 4 of that liability., It does say that we would go ahead and 5 build an interim site and we would begin moving waste to the 6 site. But as I understand it, that is going to take 30 years 7 to get that waste moved to the site. What do you see the 8 effect of 608 being on the liability issue of the federal 9 government?
10 Mr. Nye: Senator, there are several things. First of 11 all, some predictability out of the federal government to 12 comply with its obligations would be greatly helpful in 13 mitigating the cost.
. 14 The interim storage, centralized, interim, monitorable 15 storage would be very beneficial in mitigating costs at a 16 number of sites around the country. We have a number of i 17 plants, smaller plants, that have run their economic life.
18 They are sitting there closed. They are prepared to move the 19 fuel.
20 They would like to decommission to a field site. Those 21 costs are mounting very rapidly and we need some place to put 22 those where the government can take on its responsibility.
23 -
So there are a number of factors in this bill that I do 24 think help to mitigate those costs and those damages.
25 Senator Bingaman: Do you agree that something like what ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
1 107 1
the -- if it were possible to get agreement on something like 2
what we have talked about with the Department of Energy taking 3 title and taking responsibility for some of this waste at the 4
sites they are now located at, that that would also mitigate l 5 costs?
6 Mr. Nye: I do not want to be unappreciative of the 7 Department. Any sort of effort on their part after all of 8 these years would be greatly helpful, and I want to encourage 9 Secretary Richardson. But, frankly, sir, it does not help 10 those plants that are closed and ready for decommissioning.
11 It does not help those plants, I estimate eight or ten, that 12 have real, not perceived but real problems associated with any 13 storage outside their pools, they either do not have the 14 space, or their site is not suitable.
15 So it is not accurate to suggest that an interim site 16 would not relieve problems. It would. And it would relieve 17 very substantial problems and reduce the number of locations l 1
18 around the country where we have used fuel.
19 Senator Bingaman: So your answer to Senator Bryan then, 20 and Senator Reid's comment is that you believe various of 21 these interim sites would be closed, the ones that are now at 22 the facilities, that they would actually be closed here in the I
23 reasonable future. ,
24 Mr. Nye: Sir, there are plants that are prepared to be 25 decommissioned. Now, there are many plants that will be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
108 1 extended the life. So we are talking about a number of I
2 different things.
3 I would have a lot of answers to the Senators -- and I 4 understand the emotion of their position and I do not want to 5 challenge that. But from a pragmatist standpoint, the best 6 course of action for this nation is to make some reasonable 7 interim movement towards consolidating this fuel in one site.
8 Yes, it does take, for my plant -- my plant will operate 1
l 9 for another -- hopefully, another 30-plus years. And so I 10 will not ship my last nuclear fuel. God willing, someone ,
1 11 else, I presume, will ship it. But it will be a long time 12 before all of the fuel can be consolidated. But that does not 13 eliminate the benefit of consolidating the fuel that can be 14 removed from a number of sites and will be removed.
15 Also, Senator, if I may just --
16 Senator Bingaman (presiding) : Go ahead.
17 Mr. Nye: The idea of spent fuel pool st'orage versus at-18 surface independent storage can work some places. It does not 19 work other places. So those plants have real problems. And 20 the idea of simply building additional pool storage is often 21 simply not possible.
22 If you look at the regulatory problems of trying to 23 accomplish that, it is simply not practical. So it is truly a 24 problem for many plants. And they are being choked on their 25 own fuel. And with due respect, this is not just an industry l
1 I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
lill FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
109 1 problem. This, after all, was -- and this program has been 2 very beneficial for this nation and we have an obligation to 3 take care of the consequences of it.
4 It was, after,all, a program that was generated through 5 the leadership of a number of administrations and this 6 Congress and we built those plants --
7 Senator Bingaman: Let me ask Mr. Barrett a question.
8 The way I am thinking about this, if we go ahead and 9 determine to use Yucca Mountain as the permanent repository, 10 that will be -- the earliest possible date is when that waste 11 would actually go to that site?
12 Mr. Barrett: 2008 is our schedule to place waste in the 13 mountain if we continue on the schedule.
. 14 Senator Bingaman: So that is the best possible scenario 15 would be 2008.
16 Mr. Barrett: For placement of waste.
17 Senator Bingaman: Right. And if that were to occur, how 18 do you see waste moving from -- I mean, I guess we have got 19 three locations for waste here, potentially. One is the 20 permanent repository, one is this interim central storage site 21 at the Nevada test site, and the third are these 73 sites that 22 we now have the waste located at.
23 My impression is that for the next 20 or 30 years there 24 is going to continue to be waste at these 73 sites in some 25 amount as it is moved toward a permanent repository, whether 3
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
1 110 1 there is an interim site or not. Am I thinking about that 2 right?
j 3 Mr. Barrett: I believe that is correct. For operating 4 plants there will always be some spent or used fuel there.
5 There are some plants that have finished their power 6 productio.n time. We have 14 reactors in this country now.
7 Only in those plants could you ever remove all of the fuel 8 over the next several decades.
9 Senator Bingaman: Under this bill, this 608, it calls 10 for the Department of Energy to get its license for this 11 interim storage facility by June 30, 2003. Is that realistic?
1 12 Mr. Barrett: If the science turns out like we expect it I 13 to, and we do not have any unforseen --
14 Senator Bingaman: This is the interim site I am asking 15 about. j 16 Mr. Barrett: I'm sorry.
17 Senator Bingaman: The license for inter,im storage.
18 Mr. Barrett: That is four years from basically now.
19 That is very optimistic that we could meet that, but it is 20 possible. We have got a lot of work to do to basically go 21 through a licensing process. We have got a lot of work to do I 22 to develop the transportation infrastructure to do that. It 23 is possible it is optimistic for June of 2003 to be moving
- 24 fuel.
25 Senator Bingaman: And I think the bill also calls for ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
111
,_ 1 the shipment of 1,200 metric tons of waste per year beginning 2 June 30, 2003. Is that realistic, do you believe? ,
l 3 Mr. Barrett: I think it would be very difficult. And j 4 the way I believe the wording in 608 is, in 2003 we would need 5 to move 1,200 metric tons. I do not know if that is an -- I 6 think it would be very hard, within a six month time period, 7 to move 1,200 tons. I do not believe that is achievable. It !
8 would be some lesser amount of several hundred tons that could 9 be moved in that year, in that time.
10 Senator Bingaman: What would the legal consequence be, 11 as you would understand it, if DOE failed to meet this June 12 30, 2003 deadline?
13 Mr. Barrett: Well, just because -- one of the things we 14 were concerned about in our testimony is that S. 608 presents 15 new dates that can get us into exactly the situation we are 16 presently in with the January, 1998 date, which was written 17 back in 1982, where in the courts it becomes a legal !
18 liability.
19 So it is our concern that new dates and how they are 20 written in statutory language can become a future liability.
21 So we are very concerned about how those are specified in any 22 legislation for future liabilities.
23 Senator Bingaman: Mr. Barrett, Mr. Nye was saying the 24 estimate the industry has is maybe $50 billion to $60 billion 25 in liability or damages that they would think might be due to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
112 1 the industry. What is the administration's position as to 2 where that $50 billion or $60 billion is to come from?
3 Mr. Barrett: The Justice Department testified that the 4 first series of svi,ts car be up to $8.5 billion, with more to 5 come with other suits that are likely in the wings.
6 The Office of Legal Counsel within Justice is looking at 7 the issue about if damages are awarded by the courts, where 8 the source of the funds for those damages would be. And that 9 is still an open question that is being studied by the Office 10 of Legal Counsel.
11 Senator Bingaman: It would seem that there are two 12 obvious sources for this money. One would be this Nuclear 13 Waste Fund, which ratepayers have already paid into.
-. 14 Mr. Barrett: That is a very real possibility. It is a 15 major concern of ours that that fund could become depleted due j l
16 to damages and then it would not be available for its intended 17 purpose for the permanent solution of the nation's high-level 18 waste.
19 Senator Bingaman: It does seem to me we are running the 20 real possibility here that we are going to wind up with a lot 21 of money owed by the government for failing to meet thd a 22 deadline. That money might come from the Nuclear Waste Fund, s
23 depleting what is in there, and the end result is you still 24 have the waste where it is, you still have the industry osming 25 the waste and having title to it, and you have nothing in the ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
113 Nuclear Waste Fund to go aherd with a permanent repository.
I 1
2 Is that a real possibility?
3 Mr. Barrett: That is a siginicant problem. We are at 4 jeopardy in the program. That is one of the reasons why 5 Secretary Ric'trdson wanted to put forward the ideas to 6 discuss that would minimize the liabilities there and reduce 7 the uncertainties to all of the parties regarding the 8 unpleasantness of litigation.in the future And that is 9 certainly what you describe as a major problem.
10 Senator Bingaman: Let me ask about these fee 11 collections. I understand under the Northern States Power 12 case there is an obligation about reducing future fee j 13 collections. Can you explain that to me and what that is 14 going to mean?
15 Mr. Barrett: Well, there are many different lawsuit I 16 aspects, and I am not quite sure which one this is. Some of 17 the -- there is a case in Federal District Court, which I I 18 believe was brought by zccapayers in Minnesota who felt that 19 the waste fund dollars should be returned to the ratepayers.
20 I am not sure if that. is the one.
21 There are others in cases that believe that the waste --
22 that the one mill per kilowatt hour fee that is charged, 23 which the utilities and the ratepayers pay to the Treasury 24 should be reduced. There is another lawsuit concerning that.
25 I am not sure which one.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
114 1 Senator Bingaman: I am not certain either. Let me get i 2 more information and I will get back to you with more 3 questions on that.
4 Dr. Jackson, could I ask you just a couple of questions? j 5 on this radiation protection standard, S.608 would limit the 6 risk of premature cancer death to one in 1,000 people. How 7 does that translate in millirems?
8 Ms. Jackson: If it is one in 1,000 premature deaths from 9 cancerforwhahaveragedoverthegroupthatwouldhavethe Jr 10 highest exposure, it would translate into about 25 to 30 11 millirem for a 70-year lifetime \
12 Senator Bingaman: And how does compare to the P
13 standardtheEPAhasappliedtotheNkP roject? ;w 14 Ms. Jackson: Well, the EPA standard, as you know, has 15 essentially two parts to it. One is an overall exposure hd[ se 1 16 expressed as a dose, and it has a separate groundwater Jl fP 17 standard. The separate groundwater standard ,for the M%4@- u
, .c n.
18 >-
Site, which many people have spoken about, would be g(four 19 milliremr d*W- -
20 However, a point that has to be made is that the water in i IF WAA 21 question at the WMff Site, because it is 3 salt M is a 22 essentially brine, and therefore it is not the water to which 23 these kinds of standards would be applied. ,
1 24 The fundamental differences betveen the two approaches is l 25 that the NRC has a 25 millirem per year all-pathways standard.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
115
, 1 The EPA's is essentially a 15, but with a separate four 2 millirem groundwater standard.
3 But since they express their groundwater standard in 4 terms of what we call MCLs, concentration limits, if you look 5 at whatgd the most likely radioactive isotope &would be, it 6 essentially becomes a .2 millirem standard, and one that we jr A
7 think is unrealistic and not necessary to p20 Lect public 8 health and safety and is not achievable, essentially.
9 Senator Bingaman: As I understand it, Senate Bill 608 10 states that DOE should apply for an initial term of 40 years 11 and an initial capacity of 30,000 metric tons for this interim 12 storage facility.
13 Could DOE, I guess, apply for additional storu e capacity i 14 in the future? I mean, I am just wondering what they do once 15 they get 30,000 tons. That is a lot less that is available 16 that requires storage. Is there any limit on the amount that 17 they could apply for in the future, the amount of storage 18 capacity or the length of time?
19 Ms. Jackson: As I understand it, the difference between 20 S. 608 and the House version, wh..ch is HR-45, is that S. 608 e inA which is the 30,000(And M as' fi 21 actually has a cap built into it,
^' .s.F 22 you know, we presently have 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel, 23 o N rc alg " -
24 The House Bill actually has a two-phase possibility built 25 into it. S. 608, I think, would have to be modified to allow ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASPTNGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FCK DEPO
I l :
1 116 1 for beyond the 30,000 metric tons. S. 608 also specifies a 1
2 40-year license term. That has an effect on the NRC. We 3 would,have to modify our regulations, because at the moment 4 our regulations allow for a 20-year interim storage with a 5 renewal term of an additional 20 years. But that is something 6 we just have to work out.
7 Senator Bingaman: If you received an application, a 8 license application for an intermin storage site this fall, 9 could the NRC issue a license? I mean, are you equipped to 10 process a license and get a license out by June 30, 2003?
11 Ms. Jackson: I would answer the question this way: 1 12 There are a number of things that would have to be changed.
13 First of all, we do not have any money budgeted for the next
~. 14 fiscal year, or resources likewise budgeted, meaning humans, 15 to in fact process such a license application.
16 Secondly, as I mentioned, there would need to be the 17 modification in our regulations in terms of the license term.
'18 And concommitant with that, we feel there is a need to develop 1
19 the technical basis for the longer term. And our staff has l 20 begun tc look at the possibility of interim storage licensing 21 from 20 to 100 years, basically driven by what was in the i 22 House version of the bill.
23 But the a.1swer to your question is, if you are talking 24 about receiving a license application this fall, to then 25 process it, we do not have the resources at the moment. We ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR' DEPO l
l
117 1 would actually have to have that budgeted.
2 Senator Bingaman: If it were budgeted, is that the right l 3 time frame to say you would have it done by June 30, 2003?
4 Ms. Jackson: ,Well, I think what we feel is this: My 5 understanding of S. 608 as it is presently proposed is that 6 the license application would come within a year of the 7 enactment of this legislation. And if that is the case, and 8 we had the funds budgeted, then we feel that we would have a 9 chance to in fact process such a license application, provided 10 again that sufficient resources were budgeted.
11 But there is the conflict with also dates in the 12 repository program. And that is something I think we would 13 have to look at and work out.
- 14 Senator Bingaman: Under this S. 608, as I. understand it, 15 it requires that environmental impact -- in considering the 16 environmental impact of the repository you not look at the 17 conseqences of closing the repository.
- 18 Usually, as I understand it, in an impact statement you ,
19 look both at the environmental consequences of opening a j 20 facility and of closing it. 608 excludes or precludes any 21 consideration of the impact of closing the facility. Is that 22 something you focused on? Are you aware of that? Would that 23 cause you a problem?
24 Ms. Jackson: I think where we have focused relative to 25 environmental impact is, our understanding is that the bill ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
l SUITE 400 l
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 l (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO
)
i 118 m
1 would direct the NRC to, as much as possible, to the greatest 2 extent, to adopt the DOE environmental impact statement, if we 3 found it acceptable.
And where our reviews and supplemental 1
4 environmental assessments would come into play would be to 5 look at issues that go beyond and look at more site-specific l 6 issues such as transportation in and around a specific site.
7 I think that perhaps Mr. Barrett could speak better to 8 this issue of environmental assessments post-closure. ;
l 9 Mr. Barrett: Senator, we will, in the Yucca Mountain 10 environmental impact statements, look at the pre-closure, 11 period as well as a post-closure. The majority of the work is 12 at post-closure as well.
13 And, also, Senator, let me take the opportunity -- I
-s 14 received a note that I had misspoken earlier concerning the 15 dates. It is 2010 for enforcement. I thought that was what I 16 said. But if I said 2008, I misspoke. Thank you.
17 Senator.Bingaman: All right. A couple bf years one way 18 or the other will not particularly matter when the history of 19 this is written, I am afraid.
20 I understand members of the committee will still be 21 submitting some additional questions for people perhaps to 22 respond to later today. If you could do that, we would 23 appreciate it.
24 Let me just say a-couple of things here before we 25 conclude the hearing. I guess I sort of see this that we are, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUI 12 400 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 j (800) FOR DEPO 1
119 1
s as Yogi Berra says, "When you come to a fork in the road, tako 2 it." l And we are at a sort of fork in the road in that we can '
3 go down the same path we did in the last Congress and try to 4 pass essentially 608,'
and to go through the gyrations of the
)
5 next several months to get that to the President with the full 6 knowledge that it will be vetoed and the veto will not be 7 overridden, or we can fall back a little bit and try to think 8 creatively about some alternative that would be acceptable to i l
9 the industry, to the states, to the various Senators that have 10 taken an interest in this, and of course the House members.
11 I hope very much we can do the second of those, that we 12 can fall back and think creatively here before we plunge 13 forward. I would like to see action on this in this Congress, 14 in this session of this Congress. But I do not see that it 15 does anybody any particular service to just essentially go 16 through the motions of considering and passing again a bill 17 that is not going to become law.
18 So I would like us to try to come up with something that 19 we could get enacted. And I think that opportunity exists.
20 So I am somewhat encouraged that we have this proposal that 21 Secretary Richardson has endorsed. The details have not been 22 flushed out. I agree we need to get those details out.
23 I hope we can have some constructive discussions with the 24 Department here over the next couple of weeks and see if there 25 is anything that does seem to make sense to more of our ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. 1311 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO I
L
r l
l l
120 i
1 members here.
2 And, of course, Senator Domenici's proposal is also
(
3 intriguing. I have not heard of that before this morning. 1 I
4 But any suggestions are welcome. And I hope we can make {
I 5 progress. I am genuinely committed to seeing us do something 6 here to solve the problem and to cut off the liability issue, l l
7 to solve the problem from the point of view of the utilities j 8 as well as from the point of view of the country in general.
l t
! 9 Thank you all very much for participating. And we will 10 do this again some day.
11 [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.)
l 12 13
. 14 l
l 15 l
l 16 l
l 17 -
18 l
19 20 21 22 i
. i 23 2' A 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ 1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)289-2260 (800) FOR DEPO