Senate EPW Committee, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety - Recommendations for a Consent-Based Approach to Siting Nuclear Waste Storage and Management Facilities
June 7, 2012
Senators in attendance:
Sen. Carper, Sen. Barrasso, Sen. T. Udall, Sen. Merkley, Sen. Alexander
Opening Statements
Chairman Carper (D-DE) introduced the hearing and announced that it will be focused on how we will move forward on nuclear waste disposal in this country. He stated that today consent based siting recommendations will be discussed. He informed the audience that unlike fossil fuel power plants, nuclear power plants don’t emit toxins that harm our health and that our nuclear reactors were not designed to keep spent waste forever. Thus, we need to find a permanent home for nuclear waste. After years of study and debate, there is no functioning repository and none in the foreseeable future. The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) will forge a new pathway. He believes the BRC recommendations provide us with an excellent road map and he wants to make sure we learn from our past mistakes and also make sure we do not repeat those mistakes. He thinks the biggest mistake made so far is that we have been unable to get consent for a location of disposal.
Ranking Member Barrasso (R-WY) also revealed his frustrations. The Yucca Mountain project goes back three decades and there still is no long term solution. He mentions that the barriers to establishing a permanent storage facility are the same as the barriers interim facilities face.
Senator Alexander (R-TN) focused on the stalemate that has been going on for the past 25 years. He believes Congress has caused some of that, but wants Congress to break the stalemate. He admits that he and others have tried to break the stalemate and have decided to work together to break it. He stated, two things have happened this year. First, we were able to include a provision in this year’s energy and water appropriations bill that creates a pilot program that would be a consent-based process. Second, Senators Bingaman and Murkowski are creating a proposal on nuclear waste storage.
Sen. Udall (D-NM) continued with the theme and stated that nuclear waste policy has had a poor history in Congress. He believes that the subcommittee should assert their jurisdiction and push forward with the issue.
Panel 1
Lieutenant General Brent ScowcroftPresident
The Scowcroft Group
Professor Per Peterson
Chair
Department of Nuclear Engineering, UC Berkeley
Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft, the Scowcroft Group
Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft: as you are aware the BRC was formed by the secretary of energy. We came away from our review, frustrated. Yet confident we can turn things around. The national interest demands that our nuclear waste problem be fixed. With a 65,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and growing by 2,000 annually, the need for a new strategy is urgent. The strategy we recommend has eight key elements. I will cover the first four and Per will cover the last four.
The first recommendation is to take a new consent based approach for siting new facilities. A top down approach will take longer and cost more. By contrast, the approach we recommend is explicitly adapted and staged. Recent positive outcomes in Spain, Finland, and Sweden will sustain the public trust. Scowcroft adds that he had the opportunity to speak with the prime minister of Finland and the prime minister likes what is happening with their nuclear waste.
A New organization needs to be established. To succeed, however, they need access to funds.
The third recommendation is to have access to funds. A series of actions has made annual fee revenues effectively inaccessible to the nuclear waste program. The commission sent a letter to the President discussing this recommendation and will submit it as a part of this hearing.
The fourth recommendation is to have prompt efforts to develop geologic facilities. This is the preferred approach. The panel notes that regardless of what happens with Yucca Mountain we would still need a second repository site. They reiterate that under current law, the US needs another site even if Yucca Mountain goes through.
Per Peterson, Department of Nuclear Engineering, UC Berkeley
Per Peterson begins with stating that the EPA and Nuclear Regulatory Commission should begin working together. He continues with the remaining recommendations.
The fifth recommendation is that stranded fuel be first in line for consolidated sites. The panel supports the efforts of Senators Feinstein and Alexander for the pilot program as it incorporates some key recommendations. The panel will submit a letter of support to the record.
The current system of standards appears to have functioned well and the safety record is excellent. That being said, greater transport will likely raise new public concern.
Support for advances in workforce development.
Active US leadership in international safety concerns. As more nations consider nuclear energy, US will need to lead by example. The US cannot exercise effective leadership so long as our program is in complete disarray. In conclusion, the problem is unique in that there is agreement. We know what we have to do and we know how to do it.
Questions
Per Peterson in response to Senator Carper revealed that they found a number of important lessons from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility in New Mexico. The Federal government was willing to negotiate with the state government and the Federal government gave “hands on the steering wheel” to the state government. The Federal government didn’t take a “my way or the highway” approach. Another key element is that the WIPP repository was licensed to a safety standard that was established before the repository was established. This relates to the panel’s recommendations that another safety standard should be developed. The WIPP program has assured funding in the sense that the senior senator in the state served on the appropriations and authorization committees and gave assurance that there would be funding. The panel emphasized that nuclear waste facilities should not have to compete for funding.
Scowcroft responds to Sen. Udall’s (D-NM) question by stating that they looked a lot at the difference between WIPP and Yucca Mountain. In NM (WIPP), general consensus is that the facility is good for the state. In NV (Yucca Mountain), local communities are supporting it, but the state is opposed. Udall repeated his question, should a state as a whole have the right to accept or reject to have a site within its borders? Scowcroft responds and acknowledges he is speaking as an individual. “To be successful we need to have state and local communities, together. If they aren’t together, it will not work.”
Panel 2
Testimony
Geoffrey Fettus, National Resource Defense Council
Mr. Fettus agreed with the Blue Ribbon Commission’s (BRC) emphasis on a consent based approach and their conclusion that forcing a site on an unwilling community would be ineffective. He shared the view that if the EPA and the states had full authority, clearer cleanup standards could be promulgated, and we would avoid some of the ongoing disputes over operations at commercial nuclear facilities. He continued by stating that improved clarity in the regulatory structure and a meaningful state oversight role would allow for consent based controls to take place.
David Wright, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
Mr. Wright testified on behalf of the utility commissioners and highlighted their concern with this issue and its impact on ratepayers. NARUC was closely involved in the BRC’s work and agreed with the following points: reforming the nuclear waste fund is essential, regardless of Yucca, we need another waste repository, and we have long favored the idea of consolidated interim storage. He noted, however, that NARUC does not agree with the BRC’s revenue streams assumptions and that a public education effort is needed.
Senator Carper pointed out that in Mr. Wright’s testimony he mentioned the ratepayers, and the Senator restated his point by noting that the government has the ratepayer’s money, and the utilities still bear the costs of waste created by nuclear reactors and the status quo is unacceptable.
Eric Howes, Maine Yankee
Mr. Howes’ organization worked closely with the BRC to understand the unique challenges we face. The BRC determined that it makes no sense to keep material at former sites scattered around the nation and shared his satisfaction with the DOE’s decision to restore funding to the regional transportation planning groups. He echoed earlier comments regarding the need for consolidated interim storage regardless of the decision on a repository for materials.
Dr. Daniel Metley, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Dr. Metley highlighted the experiences of foreign nations as instructive examples for the U.S.. Both technical and non-technical considerations are involved in discussion site selection strategies, and virtually all national programs experience shaky starts. He noted that several consent based programs are making considerable progress, and he cautioned that volunteerism does not guarantee success. He emphasized the importance of engaging local communities and offering realistic and practical ways to withdraw from the process. In a consent based site selection process, public trust in the institution is essential.
Andrew Orrell, Sandia National Laboratories
Mr. Orrell noted that the U.S. is fortunate in that we have many geological formations that are deemed suitable for storage. The Commission correctly calls for a new generic disposal standard to be finalized prior to the site selection process. The lack of a discernible repository development program contributes to delayed consent based siting efforts. He stated that there are no technical impediments to developing the repository.
Questions
Senator Carper asked the witnesses what Congress’ first action should be to get the country started on a consent based approach and what Congress should avoid. Mr. Fettus stated that Congress should hold additional hearings on fees, site selection process, and standards and avoid commencing the site selection process right now. Mr. Howes added that the repository could be a number of years away, so they’re appreciative of the language in the appropriations bill regarding a pilot project for decommissioned spent fuel. This is an example of near term actions that DOE and Congress can support. Mr. Orrell stated that the decision as to whether a Fed Corp is a fundamental issue that affects all other aspects of the BRC recommendations.
Senator Alexander elaborated on the appropriations language and stated the Committee’s intention to take a step toward working out the comprehensive issues. Mr. Howes agreed that it’s a good start. Alexander noted that in the appropriations bill, any site chosen as a pilot site would have to be approved by Congress. He asked Mr. Howes how moving ahead with siting would affect his company. Mr. Howes stated that there are years of lead time to do this, and his sense is that there are things to be done to get started with the hope that Congress will make the needed change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and allow progress.
Senator Alexander went on to suggest that if Congress moves more aggressively to pass legislation allowing the DOE to go forward with identifying a waste site, this would be positive.
Mr. Wright agreed, however Mr. Fettus disagreed due to the possibility that sites may be prematurely chosen. In response, Senator Alexander noted that sometimes, Congress does things better piecemeal as opposed to comprehensively.
Senator Alexander moved on to another question, and asked how far along we need to be on a permanent site before opening an interim site. Mr. Fettus stated “further than we are now.”
Senator Udall (D-NM) asked the witnesses why giving states more authority would make consent based siting more likely and what does the WIPP experience tells us about state authority. Mr. Fettus responded by emphasizing the difficult nature of this topic. He added that the only meaningful time that states felt comfortable in terms of accepting this kind of facility within their borders, no matter the incentives, was when they had “skin in the game” and a measure of control over regulations.
Senator Barrasso expressed his concern with the length of time it has taken to address the long term storage of nuclear waste. Regarding interim storage, he asked for the witnesses to comment on what would be considered a timely implementation of the recommendations. Mr. Howes recognized that nothing moves too quickly when talking about nuclear waste and that the BRC anticipates 10 years. Senator Barrasso then asked for elaboration on what we need to see from the Commission and the Administration before signing off on a plan. Mr. Wright noted that ensuring the money is being used correctly is important.
Senator Carper concluded by asking for the major points of consensus. Mr. Orwell stated the general feeling that the time has come to take action. Dr. Metley said, it would be a shame if we temporize. Mr. Howes said the federal government needs to fulfill its obligation. Mr. Wright added that it’s time to move decommissioned waste to a consolidated site. And, finally, Mr. Fettus emphasized the importance of utilizing a consent based approach.
Please contact NEI GA Staff members if you have any questions about this hearing.