that it is not feasible to repair even if you could find cracks. as much as a microscopic through

all crack will release millions of review nuclei into the atmosphere. we could no longer treat the catastrophic issue is a minor inconvenience and we can no longer take the radioactive can on the road. moving forward, we need to oppose consolidated interim storage bills such as 3053. we must require a high-priority project to move existing nuclear fuel from thinwall canisters to the wall cast and find the safest location and reinforce buildings for additional environmental and security protection. what many people fail to see or seem to ignore is the fact that the mismanagement of nuclear waste doesn't only pose issues for future generations hard on the road come it's going to affect us right now and already is affecting us right now.

and it will continue to affect us if we don't deal with it properly. thank you for having me. [applause] >> thank you very much, jackson. i'm only a couple years older so i want to join your group. [laughter] thank you. last but not least, our final speaker is a senior attorney with the natural resources defense council nrdc with their energy and transformation program has one cases before the regulatory commission. a successful challenge to the wonderful epa radiation standards for the proposed yucca mountain repository. i remember testifying on those is a somewhat absurd exercise. thank you for that and why don't you bring us home.

[applause] >> get to the right side. how is the sound? good? thanks, bob. and the senior attorney at nrdc and i'm going to turn to unlike my colleagues here i will turn to a slightly more practical side of distractions in trade discussions. they've set up risk and realities in what we face, but i want to turn to a few things going on right now and why this briefing is so well-timed for congress. to start considering. this is all on the eesi website. this is such turned for a side we have in the last couple years. plants of closer economic or safety related reasons.

to close in the next several years are at least seven reactors at five plants. there are only two under construction right now in the trajectory of those are at best uncertain. two got canceled this past year in south carolina. so, whatever one's position is related to nuclear power and whether or not one submits the idea that licensing is a reality, there is a downward trajectory in decommissioning is coming. i want to also just caution you at the outset the decommissioning isn't just about the nuclear waste issues although nrdc myself in particular have a long history testifying on the matters, litigating on the matters and i'm happy to talk with any view at enormous length about any of

these things. let's put that to the side and talk about what decommissioning is besides nuclear waste. mayor hale really touched on that. it is a gigantic industrial cleanup of future industrial facilities that have a singular item, nuclear waste, that makes it more complicated and more challenging than any other industrial cleanup. please make no mistake, you have profound amounts of piping, cleanup, extraordinary efforts that have taken on at these facilities that are radioactive and used as industrial with industrial chemicals as well for decades upon decades. let's turn to what that really means and not date you on some reality. a few years ago the nrc to its credit in just froze over because to its credit got

started on working on rulemaking to finally address many of the issues with decommissioning. they saw the wave coming because it was really apparent by 2015 that she couldn't miss that appeared the advance notice came out in november. the basis and the nrdc and if there are folk in the room that can explain it better basically what they put in the rule and what they are not going to put in the rule. with role. with a treatise guidance and not have a legal requirement. they do that before they have a draft rule. so they have a final basis that came out in november of last year and now there is the nrc staff has submitted a draft rule to the commission for its consideration. i cannot tell you when the draft rule will come out for public comment because that is sent to

the commission and the commissioners when they vote on it, send it forward or send it back to staff and if they even make any changes or that's up to the commission. it is our best guess that rule will come out later this year, early next year. but again, you are better served asking the nrc at that moment. the final rule will come out in 20 night tina 2020 presuming they fit the timeframe. you're thinking well, we have decommissioning issues. the nrc is doing a rulemaking to address all these issues. that is true they are and they are to be commended for starting a rulemaking on decommissioning. as of right now and this could change because they could send it back. we don't expect that. as of right now, they're significant issues of dispute and contentiousness that the

rule is not addressing that they're not going to solve any of the problems come especially those cited by mayor hale, which i've heard them do and longer proceedings which he can do a great detail. let me briefly walk you through what some of moments of contentious issues are likely to be in the fact that the decommissioning rule is not openly unlikely to solve the problems come when the tsunami is coming of massive industrial cleanup, but i think they will make it worse and congress will be called on either to its legislative boards appropriations powers to start to solve some of these problems. this is i think the start of this. the first issue is the biggest one. right now when zion or any other nuclear operator decided to end

its licensed operations and move into decommissioning, it doesn't actually need to file a plan that the nrc approves. they basically just send the nrc a letter in the nic has essentially currently ceased its regulatory authority and that will continue to be the case based on the draft rule we have seen thus far. that also comes along with a whole lot of issue. when they don't keep regulatory requirement, you have to meet ex-environmental standards or why cleanup standards. there's no opportunity for the state, for the local community, for any ngos, for any tried to intervene in a that is not good enough for me think the cleanup should be better or for example, we think the cleanup should go faster or slower or we would

like are already trained workforce to be a part of the cleanup. right now, that segues into the state and local government role. when the decommissioning plan is not a requirement and there's also no national environmental policy coverage which means that they federal action that affects the environment, how the cleanup will go, that is essentially put to the side by the current lack of rules on the proposed rule we are likely to see this next year. that extraordinarily limits any state and government role so not only did the folks that i am not have a voice, future communities all around the country will not have a voice. this is truly a bipartisan issue. this is about the local and state voices. the community transition and

workforce needs are also right now because of the lack of regulatory authority and the likelihood that the nrc, right now one of the things that can happen is they were three ways the decommissioning can take place. i will go dirty for a second, but i'll take you with me. way wine is called dcom. it is decommissioning where within the first summary is the actual cleanup starts going. they did get going and start the cleanup and do the work and remove the concrete, break down the piping, dispose of things to license radioactive waste or other disposal sites and actually do the cleanup. there's a lot of wisdom in doing not because you have that

transition for workforces that will inevitably go down as reactors to close. also, you've trained radiation health safety staff that is there. another way to do decommissioning that's allowed under the rules and more and more react or operators available in cells of this and is called safe store. under the rules right now than the likely proposed rules, reactor operators can sit on those sites for years upon years, decades upon decades up to 60 years, which takes the extraordinary amount of viable commercial land out of the communities for those times. needless to say, a lot of communities are very upset about this content as are a lot of states. the nrc has heard about that in great detail in the comments thus far been several states.

why are some of those reactor operators doing that? sometimes they haven't saved enough for decommissioning and that's another issue. the gao has done several excellent report. if anybody wants the comments on the process thus far as well as citations to the gao report on the adequacy of the surety amount to decide for decommissioning are sort of the lack thereof. that will be a significant issue. will they require enough to make sure there will be enough to pay on the backend for this extraordinary cleanup. and then of course there are emergency preparedness issues. you heard a whole host of reasons today why they are necessary going forward, especially while we have spent fuel pools and also of course the radiological issues. all of these issues will be

significantly -- we don't know what's going to happen, but the draft was the draft was facing at this card does not look likely to solve any of these issues and we think when the agency hasn't done it, to likely to come back to congress. the duckworth bill, the duckworth and schneider bill about that compensation is actually one of the few constructive effort that really gets at compensating the communities that by any measure are going to have spent fuel in their communities for decades to come as well as under a safe store and the likelihood of a lot of reactor operators just sitting on the sites for decades at a time rather than immediately moving to cleanup. one last thing. even when you do de-con just do not make sure you have any illusions here for those of you not familiar with the nuclear

cleanup world. the faster version, you are still not going to be breaking apart react or vessels for at least a decade or many, many years by any measure these are large, long cleanup processes. that was basically it except to say as the last note the nuclear waste issues nrdc has worked on is seen as a separate issue where there's a national debate about how to solve these issues and i'm happy to talk at length about that. but i'm very interested in congress doing in the next few years on the decommissioning side of things is making sure the communities that have these enormous burden that by any measure are going to have all these giant industrial cleanups start to move forward place

after place that the communities are well served by federal law which means not just compensation, but also significant oversight making sure the decommissioning process solves most of the issues if not all of it right now at not going to. so, thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank all of our speakers for an amazing job of bringing these incredibly technical and challenging subjects to life in an interesting and informative way. and now you have a chance. we have about a half an hour. i would like to call on people if he would identify who you are, where you were from and post your question. the floors now open to all of you. yes, ma'am. [inaudible] my question is the closure in

2022. what can government at any level to to prevent the outmigration of nuclear employees and to encourage economic development in postnuclear community. thank you. >> full disclosure i'm from kalamazoo, michigan. i've lived here for 20 years, but kalamazoo is still home. we have said until we were blue in the face that the workforce at palisades is jeff just said should be retained. they have the institutional knowledge of the badly contaminated site. soil and groundwater at that site go back at least a decade. there's drinking water for the palisades park community implicated by lakes and groundwater in the legs that go into the lake are than a hazard

for the drinking water in south haven. they should be the ones in charge of the cleanup for years or even decades to come and there is a lot to clean up at the site. the other major issue at that site is safeguarding in securing the waste many hundreds of tons that is currently right on the lake shore 150 yards from the water in violation of the safety regulations needs to be moved further inland to higher ground that if of any earthquake danger from any tsunami danger on the great lakes and the workforce that is there now could be in charge of that. we need to transition to nuclear free, carbon free electricity sources and so younger workers perhaps what decommissioning is done could be retrained to work in the solar industry, the wind industry, both of which have

incredible potential in southwest michigan. just look in south haven. a major solar array in the lake shore wind power potential is just tremendous and that is what we would say about that. >> i can also address that she wanted no what can be done and through her experience we had no idea what could be done. exxon kept approximately 150 workers on staff for probably 10 to 15 years. many of the other highly trained, highly paid employees went to other nuclear power plants throughout the state of illinois and that's what affected her community. when people move to housing value dropped tremendously. not only did we lose the value of the plan, but the housing values when people moved out. many became abandoned and we went from a community that had

about 30% of our living unit right now and this is what the housing crisis of 2008. 66% of units in town are rental units. we have 3.8% of the population of lake county which is approximately 800,000 people and we have 35% low-income housing vouchers in her community and it is just put stress on our schools, police and fire. it is putting stress on a lot of the services they provide. >> i would like to add one quick thing. when you look at and the unions have put this out in relation to the decommissioning rule-making thus far, probably of the nrc website. if not i will find it for you. if you look at the drop-off of

employment and allowing for the process, you have a slow path down. the argument is where that should be and what over time. if you look at the likelihood of employment and what could happen to a community under aggressive use of the safe store option where they operate or simply mothballs things. just drops it like a stone and that could be absolutely savage to a region that the rules need to be thoughtfully structured to not allow that to happen and that's not the way were going right now. >> thank you. in the back. before we do that, we have two options. we are doing multimedia different microphones. if you would project out to the

back or if you're close enough to the podium you could use this. it may be hard on that end. thank you very much. back there. >> i was senator ed markey's office. we saw the proposed rule sent to the commission that they assumed the on-site storage would remain there for 16 years. while we'd love to have a permanent solution in 16 years, we are a little that his overoptimistic and we are additionally concerned with the effects that climate change will have on some of the storage, the problem were having been a putting on-site storage very close to see levels. i am interested in your take on the storage proposal in the decommissioning rules and whether they are properly

accounting for the sort of forecast. >> no. [laughter] specifically they were too frustrating things that i'm the one who litigated it, so sorry. they don't have to do a deep analysis of the long-term storage in the context of the decommissioning will. it does so by its continued storage rule, which was unfortunately given validation by the d.c. circuit in 2016. that said, they have to continue to do analysis over the next several years of the continued storage rule that will be the vehicle to look at the issue of the viability of continued storage. i'm happy to talk with you about that later. they kind of separate out the issues that they have to address

via generic rule-making store generic analysis. you would think the decommissioning role the decommissioning will address it in clear ways, but it really puts it to the side. and also, the sea level rise issue will come up in a host of context not least of which in the 80 year relicensing as well as long-term storage in coastal areas especially. >> my quick follow-up to that as you mentioned it is only not for short term. how short-term are they meant to be used? >> they are licensed for 40 year. and they can be relicensed if they hold up. i think my general observation

as we are letting the symbolic class for a disposal solution to basically put in front of a safe storage source. we lack a national storage policy. it is why we have pools jampacked and sordid nrc acting in a very reactive way to things happening. we don't have any fractional program and quite frankly the department of energy should have a role in this besides yucca mountain, but they are not. there needs to be some sort of way to take a look at the storage as a priority before we start to think they can actually find a disposal site. what is happening here is largely an effort to seek a symbolic but very.

>> regarding your question about how long we really have with all of them. north of where i live, there is diablo canyon that was only two years old and showed all the signs of cracking, but there is no way of actually checking to see if there is cracking, so that is a problem the nrc has not dealt with in a good way. >> if i may add, the model we should be emulating his germany specifically. they became very serious about things like airplane crashes, missile attacks and things like that in the 19 days in 90s than they have swiss guards in thickwalled dry canisters and buildings capable of withstanding large aerial impacts. we don't how god.

we need to start to think about how we deal with the long-term challenge posed by the indefinite storage of material on the surface. [inaudible] trying to figure out what is the solution in the short term, the long-term seems like transportation is the problem, dry cut storage is a problem. is there any solution? or did i miss that? maybe i missed something. maybe something came by. >> i'm happy to talk to nrdc perspective. we are not a monolithic group. there is a solution under house and a solution and we agree with the long-term solution for geologic repositories as the ultimate.

i think bob is absolutely right that we need to be earning for the long-term in terms of storage and much more robust interim storage during the long tendency of time we are going to need to get to repositories. we have aggressively pushed over the last decade in idea that we think can solve the institutional one type of cold challenges related to a geological repository and that is simply doing away with environmental exemptions in the atomic energy act, which is essentially allowing epa and the state's regulatory authority over nuclear waste. one would've regulatory process once that happened. what it is god, there could be a process where he could get technically defensible and publicly accepted repositories unlike the issue now are

essentially tell the state of nevada you have no choice. you're just going to take it. 50 years of evidence but that has not worked. the only safe place for this material. we don't know it yet, but the only viable option is nrdc and we are in the grand consensus with most of her colleagues is geologic repositories. we have to figure out how to get there. it is not just finding a place. it is finding how to get there to publicly accepted way. we think there is a serious way to do it and i'd be thrilled to talk to all of you. again, that is nuclear waste. the decommissioning issue is that gigantic cleanup that has a profound effect on community after community in congressional district after congressional district, senate state concerned, senate state

concerned. hold the two issues in parallel, but that is. >> just wrote briefly. all project better. it is good news that oyster creek new jersey is pushing 50 years old fukushima daiichi twin design is about to set down. it includes the fact that soon as they leave the court come you cannot have a reactor core meltdown by definition that the risk moves to the pool and that's why we've emphasized as close to the point of origin as possible but with rising sea levels that may have to go in land. not 1000 or 2000 miles southwest to new mexico for temporary storage, but a few miles inland. i would emphasize the good news of react or shut down for now the focus has returned to securing it is guarded the million year half-life.

another of the very back in 2008 when epa finally finished their mandate of the yucca regulations that they would remain hazardous for a million years lowball. deep geological disposal, the end quote as criteria that has to be met. scientific suitability, environmental justice, legality, honoring treaty rights. regional equity, transportation risk minimization. we have a lot of work to do in this country but i want to emphasize the good news of reactor shutdowns. put a cap on this problem that goes by metric tons per year. >> back there and then we will come up for a period server. >> i do have one question related to decommissioning the

process. first of all, thank you for the panel for being here because you prevented a broad spectrum of issues that highlight community concerns and regulatory concerns and those in the industry. you point to the tremendous cleanup and waste management problem represented is by decommissioning as the pitfalls and challenges in front of us to do that. in my mind i'm trying to reconcile the forward-looking challenge for more than a dozen plants have decommissioned without any headline grabbing, serious issues from an industrial safety for nuclear safety standpoint. i'm trying to reconcile in my own mind what has changed at that point to today. >> nice to see you.

the two things that are really apparent right now that are the significant challenges facing the industry that we all share is make sure there is the adequate amount of money. he was certainly acknowledge this, most of those cleanups have been substantially more expensive than they were first targeted. the humboldt bay which had a small test reactors in the billions of dollars of cleanup and i think its original target was 400 million or something like that. that has happened at site after site. the adequacy of cleanup funding is a significant concern because it's turned out to be much more expensive and complicated proposition than people originally thought. i think the emergence of safe store is a likely option of

which are clients will avail themselves pose significant challenges for a whole host of communities in the way the wind that have been decommissioned honestly haven't even suffered as much. as much as mayor hill talks about when zion has suffered, reactor operators go right and to safe store and you see the actual cliff of employment that will have profound effects on a community and that hasn't happened in the 12 or so that have been done thus far. that is the first thing. >> upfront here. i'm going to repeat the questions not because you are not clear, but so we can get our microphone issues under control. >> it strikes me from what kevin was saying and what jackson was saying and the other speakers that there may be a conflict he

trained the different community facing nuclear plant closures and some want to see in terms to origin get it out as fast as possible another server record up to the fact it's just not going to happen that easily. one question i have two mayor hill is do you talk to the other mayors about this and are you going to try to come up with a unified position? secondly, how long would it be before any of you think if this ever works out, i think a date was mentioned, but how realistically soon they talk about to have it operating in early 2020. what is the realistic date for interim storage if it ever happened in what is a realistic date. we know 2048 isn't a permanent repository, but what is the

realistic thing? >> a sickly it may expose between communities. some of whom deal with this nearby. some ship it out. there may be differences. they talk about developing a comprehensive strategy or how to agree on this and essentially a realistic timeline. >> for the interim and permanent storage. >> i can just address the question of whether we talk to other mayors. there is a difference on what people would like to do. we would like to be gone. as i said, we are not naïve enough to think that will happen. we are asking for compensation and we have had phone calls that we met in new york with a lot of people on the eastern seaboard about this problem.

i've called every mayor in the community that area and decommissioning or have been decommissioned. we have her school superintendents calling every one of those. we have our arts center and park and recreation. librarians calling their librarians can asking that they contact their senators and congressmen and make them aware of the issue in that there is a bill out there. right now i guess i'll be completely honest, no one expects anything to happen before the november election. we are awaiting word from our senator and congressman that we will revisit that and try and get more information out. we are communicating with people

and that's where we are spirits but it will happen. 40 years from now moving off of our facility. they are about 200 yards from lake michigan. i would like to see them harden. i have been assured time and time again that nothing can happen. these things are safe. nothing can happen to them. my question is whether armed guards 24 hours a day, seven days a week guarding them if nothing can happen and nobody answers that question. they all kind of shrug. >> i wanted to tell a story. 1997 i invited two adult waste michigan meeting and introduced

into dr. mary sinclair, the founder don't waste michigan who's in the women's history hall of fame for great lakes protection against radioactive waste risks. at the time again now but not with the talk of the town. nobody lives out there, who cares, it's a wasteland. it's not a wasteland and he was able to explain to dr. sinclair about the environmental injustice of another blow, the people of nevada after weapons testing and waste dumping. she realized despite her passion and knowledge about protecting the great lakes for these risks to yucca mountain was not a solution and she contacted senator saban now in 2002 and thank you for raising on the senate floor the risks not only is it not a solution. these proposals would put the great lakes at greater risk of it before.

so that issue of communities against each other. get it out here. we don't care how elites or where it goes. we are one nation under god, indivisible and there's no exception for radioactive waste. screw nevada is not an option. screw to mexico is not an option. screw texas is not an option. for communities that are very much in harms way, what about camp pendleton. how about a five-mile move to a place where thousand u.s. marines part of the tsunami zone, out of the earthquake zone. there is something else at work here and attend h.r. 3053 as transfer of title for the forever deadly waste the industry has profited mightily from generating to american taxpayers. that is not a good reason for the dangerously bad decisions. >> one thing you mentioned which

was 2048. those of you not familiar with the nuclear cleanup or outcome of the 2048 number comes from the previous administrations likely calculation of arriving. they did a blue ribbon commission because in washington d.c. when does blue ribbon commissions when one is not sure what to do. the blue ribbon commission that was finalized in 2012 came out with a set of finding, the key of which was we need to find and avoid what happened with yucca mountain and can't find a consent-based process. it was there indication that 2040 would be a reasonable time. that's why people want time frames. no one has a crystal ball and can give you the precise timeframe. nrdc alone that if congress were to take up our idea of doing away with the environmental exemptions in actually changing

regulations to the strong protective criteria that we think are necessary and with epa and state authority over the waste that we could truncate some of that. i don't think it will happen in the next 10 years, but i think it could happen within 20 or 25. if congress gets off the dive and solves some of the original problems with the nuclear waste policy act that forgot about states and right now we are telling one state you're going to get it and they are saying no we are not. we are stuck in the impasse for another 50 years. hopefully we will not. >> yucca mountain issue showed a property. it is not going to happen. it's not workable. it's not doable because of that that is the likely reason was

drawn it in the first place here but that wasn't argued in the place that came up. he yucca mountain would be an ongoing research and development project. not a solution. it's in the bias here, but the water table was subsidy and is just a matter of time before the radiation comes out. we see our food there, resources they are and we need to pure, pristine water. something very rare on this planet. or seen what need for survival. it is our religion. it is our identity and we expect to be there. he yucca mountain is not a solution. >> is about all the time we have. >> on a lighter note i no one is

screwed texas or new mexico. we understand. we would like to be compensated. >> i want to thank all of our speakers. to try to summarize it would be impossible. one of the things we have focused on is the decommissioning happening and will be increasingly happening as immediate impasse that needs to be dealt with now. they're a long-range problems, long-range stories of repositories of mike. we have heard from communities and you people for the native american tribes and experts that this material is dangerous. it is fair, there will be more money to do something about that. thank you for pointing that out in a very effect to play. go back to the hill and try to create some action. i want to thank thank you dsi for sponsoring the briefing and there are many groups who have participated. there is actually a citizen's lobby day going on in these

issues and members of organizations involved are here. so the experts up front than perhaps some people from participating organizations are available to the media for interviews or to just exchange cards and do business. thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]