the c-span cities tour, visits the alaska state capital, the alaska native heritage center, and we will take a look at preparing seafood for market from alaska glacier seafood incorporated. at 4:30 on real america, watch four documentaries on alaska, the 1936 film "alaska's silver millions". the 1949 film "eskimo hunters in northwestern alaska". the 1967 film "alaska centennial". and the 1944 film "alaska highway". watch alaska weekend saturday and sunday july 21 and 22 on the c-span networks at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. next a discussion about nuclear plant safety and the dangers of radioactive waste. held by the environmental and energy study institute. this is an hour and a half.

[inaudible conversation] >> this is not a white house briefing but i want to immediately correct myself and clarify my remarks. [laughter] >> if you need a seat, we would like to give priority, but for the rest of us, we're here for the duration. thank you very much for coming on out. i'm the president of the carson council also a board member of the environmental and energy study institute. we're happy to welcome you here today. we have an outstanding panel on decommissioning nuclear power plants. those of you in the room presumably know what they are by one of the problems you will see and will hear from a number of distinguished experts here is that this is a problem that was

anticipated certainly by the panelists i know, but the idea that we might be shutting down upwards of 80 nuclear power plants which are packed with highly radioactive materials, highly enriched uranium sit in local communities. it affects the economy, the health, and there is long-range planning that is lacking on what to do with these fuel rods and other materials. so what we're going to be doing is taking a look, first of all, at what is out there, where they are, why they're dangerous. then we're going to take a look at some of the options, what to do with them, which range from on site to moving them around. our panelists will talk about them. and then we have folks from illinois, the mayor, who are wrestling with the problems already of having a closed nuclear power plant in their community, and we also have a

leader who will also be talking about some of the problems connected to native americans and their rights. before i introduce everyone, i'm going to start in -- one more quick announcement. you can get all of the materials for this briefing, the slides you will see and other materials at the eesi website. www.eesi.org. for those of you who live tweet, there we are at @ eesi talk. and we're also very happy to be broadcasting on c-span this afternoon. and there will also be a web cast that will be available permanently on the website of eesi. tell your friends they can start tuning in or later on when we're done, you can get all these materials on an important topic. i want to begin then with laying out an overview and some of the

problems with mr. robert alvarez. bob alvarez is one of those who has been following nuclear power plants for a long time. he is the former senior policy advisor and assistant secretary of energy and has many many other credentials to be addressing the subject. i want to begin with mr. bob alvarez, formerly of the department of energy. bob? >> i'm recovering from the department of energy. [laughter] >> what i'm going to talk about here are mostly predisposal issues associated with nuclear power plants. especially the spent fuel aspect of it, which is really the most significant long-lasting problem facing the closure of power plants. as you know, nuclear power plants are no longer just about generating electricity.

they have become major large scale radioactive waste management operations. after about 60 years, the united states has generated roughly 30% of the total global inventory of spent nuclear fuel. by far, the largest, about 80,000, 150 metric tons, about 125 sites, 99 which are operational. why should we be concerned about this? as i have said, because mainly because this material which is considered some of the most hazardous material on the planet. it is a unique material that is sort of the -- something that was totally new and unthought about until about the 1950s when the united states government began to sort of ponder the subject of what do we do with these wastes? in 1959, university professor at

johns hopkins testified before congress the first time they inquired into the subject, the toxicity, radioactive chemical is greater by far than any industrial material which we have here to dealt with. he said we dispose of waste of almost every industry in the united states by actual conversion into harmless material. he stressed this is the first series of wastes of any industry where this disposal is nonexistent. spent fuel is essentially bound up in more than 244,000 long rectangular assemblies, containing tens of millions of rods that in turn contain trillions of pellets about the size of a fingerprint. and they stay -- they have a radioactive core for about six years, 5 to 6 percent of that uranium is converted to highly

radioactive material that are ranging from half lives of seconds to millions of years. because of this -- these extraordinary hazards, it's been long recognized that this fuel should be disposed of contained, actually disposal is not necessarily the appropriate term, but contained for a period of time of at least 10,000 to 100,000 years which sort of transcends the geologic epic defining human civilization. this is a slide that was given to me by david craft, which i think it is very useful about where the paths are right now. one thing that's key is indefinite storage seems to be the likely commonality as opposed to what will happen. as i said, there are major

radioactive waste generators. they contain about 23 billion -- of radioactivity. these are considered the largest concentrations of artificial radioactivity on the planet. one way to compare that is how much radioactivity has been generated by the production of nuclear weapons in the united states. the radioactive in their high level waste is about 30 times less than what's been generated by commercial nuclear power plants. the amount of radioactive -- a very dangerous isotope, roughly 40% of the longer lived isotopes and spent fuel is about 350 times more than what's released in the environment by all 600 plus atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in spent fuel. about 700 metric tons of plutonium. the global inventory of plutonium is about 250 metric tons so there's a lot of stuff in there. right now about 70% of the waste that's been generated by nuclear

power plants, spent fuel is sitting in pools and densely compacted. the rest is in dry storage. this is a graph to give you an idea of reactors that are -- this is somewhat dated because i think there's some additional reactors should be added to this, but this gives you an idea of spent fuel, future stranded reactors. we're looking at more than a quarter of the total spent fuel generated by nuclear power plants in this country now at stranded reactors or soon to be stranded reactors. one of the major -- we've talked a lot about the radioactive hazards of these wastes but the other principle danger is it gives off tremendous amounts of heat in the form of what's called decay heat, thermal heat. if you pull a full core that's been irradiated for a few years out of a reactor, at the same

time, it gives out enough decay heat to fire a steel mill blast furnace. that's quite hot and it is enough to cause the spent fuel to catch fire as well as even over time the heat remains a problem for about 1200 years when you get into geologic disposal. the heat is so great it can actually destabilize the disposal medium, so you have to deal with the issues with decay heat. we got involved with this problem in 2002, 2003, following the 9/11 attacks. my colleagues and i put together a working group and basically determined -- reported in a very scientific journal that if somebody or some event were to cause the pools to drain at u.s. nuclear power plants as they are currently with spent fuel that

it would lead to a catastrophic release of radioacty that would be far better than a meltdown. the nuclear regulatory commission opposed to what we had to say. the national academy was called in to referee our dispute. they came with findings in 2005 which the nrc attempted to suppress and rewrite, but they basically agreed with us that you have to take this problem seriously. these spent fuel pools are holding about four to five times spent fuel than their current designs allowed. because of that, these spent fuel pools were never meant to hold this material longer than five years. now they are holding them for decades, and they don't have the same type of safety measures that a reactor has, like the secondary containment, the big dome. it doesn't have independent water supply. it doesn't have its own independent source for electricity. we pointed out that one of the

big problems is a spent fuel pool fire, a couple years ago my colleagues have updated their analysis and basically pointed out that if an accident were to cur -- occur at the reactor, about 8 million people would have to be evacuated because of land contamination. the damages on the average would be around 2 trillion dollars. this is far greater than hurricane katrina. we are look at something that would be brought about technological disaster that would be comparable to war. one of the problems with spent fuel is it's sort of unresolved is the fact that the nuclear regulatory commission has been allowing the reactor operators to irradiate the fuel longer by increasing the amount of uranium 235 from about 3 1/2 to almost 5 percent in content. what this does is it builds up a great deal more radioactivity

products as well as fissile materials and this stuff is very hot, and the nrc does not have a technical basis to support the safe transport of this material, and it's likely to be trapped at reactor sites until we figure out whether this stuff can be safely moved. what the research is showing that the longer you keep the stuff in a reactor and irradiate, the thinner it becomes, the more likely it corrodes. it becomes very vulnerable to movement and vibrations, and so -- there's no technical basis in terms of information to tell you about the levels that they are burning up right now, whether it's safe or any long-term storage or movement. this gives you an idea of how much -- burn up at stranded reactors, roughly 23%. there's a lot of effort to try

to push for an interim storage site to get it out of my backyard. hence you have a lot of legislative initiatives that have been promoted over the last few years to do that. this is easier said than done because we have a basic problem where transportation infrastructure near reactor sites are variable and changing. each spent fuel canister -- challenges, some of the dry casts out there are not suitable for transport. the pick up and transportation order hasn't been determined. and what you have is a steady growth of shutdowns and a buildup that's going to clog the system. so will the older stuff have priority? what if the older stuff is further away? these are issues that have not been worked out. and the high burn up material which gives out an awful lot of thermal heat may result in being trapped sites for much longer periods than we have been led to

believe. it could have a major impact because transportation and certainly disposal will certainly involve repackaging of as many as 11,800 disposal canisters. now, where is the money coming from? under the nuclear waste policy act, the users of nuclear generated electricity are levied a user fee of 1 mill per kilowatt hour and that is to pay for the search and the opening of a repository. it does not pay for the establishment of an interim storage site, the transport of that material to that site, the repackaging of the material for disposal. that is to be borne by the rate payer at this time. although there is legislation that's been offered that would allow the doe to assume title for a pilot program, but beware of that, because that could turn into a down payment for a balloon mortgage.

we don't really -- we're looking at expense -- things have not been costed out in an adequate fashion. this is a rough graph. i will give you a quiz on it when i'm done. to give you an idea of what it would cost maybe to store some of the stranded spent fuel, gets up to about 3.8 billion dollars. this is doe numbers. you know, doe has a great record of missing the target when it comes to costs inflation. repackaging is one of the big issues that's not been dealt with. when they shut the reactors down, they remove the infrastructure to allow for repackaging which are the pools. so -- and a lot of these dry casts cannot necessarily be opened without some sort of infrastructure. doe expects a repository to be opened if the planets line up and congress goes along with the

licensing process and a ribbon cutting ceremony they will come up -- they will be able to open a repository by 2048 and then after that it will take about 50 years to fill the repository, and you're basically looking at perhaps the repackaging of 80,000 small canisters. the costs doe has been looking at this, you are looking at maybe a billion dollars per reactor additional costs to repackage. uncertainties, i found this to be a very interesting quote. they are hedging their bet when they issued their decommissioning report. this report should not be taken as any indication -- how doe will eventually perform its obligations or any specific expectations regarding that performance. so these guys are essentially on

their own trying to make things up as they go along. so the basic approach undertaken in this country is for storage disposal of spent fuel needs to be fundamentally revamped. we need to address the vulnerabilities of storage and spent fuel pools. i think they need to be rapidly thinned out. take about ten years. estimate costing between 3.5 and 7 billion dollars to do that. that would greatly reduce your hazards, your consequences, and instead of waiting for problems to arise, which tends to be the modus operandi of the regulators in the government, they need to develop a transparent comprehensive road map of what the problems are for the public to understand, what are we talking about in terms of interim storage? how long will it take? how much will it cost? otherwise, the united states would depend on these leaps of faith with regard to nuclear waste storage and leaps of faith as a stage for largely unfunded

radioactive waste balloon mortgage payments in the future. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, bob alvarez. bob, i should mention -- is currently a senior scholar at the institute for policy studies and he like all of our panelists will be available for media interviews at the conclusion of this session. we also have reserved about half hour for you to quiz our experts up here and we will save questions until all of the panelists are done. next we have kevin camps. kevin is a nuclear waste specialist with the organization beyond nuclear. he also works with a number of other organizations and has been following these issues for a good deal of time. he's going to talk about some of the difficulties with storage options and also about some alternatives for those of you who remember bonanza, the 20th century tv program.

>> i apologize in advance i will have to skip through slides, but bob has done a great job. i will fly through some images. we oppose not only the current risky pool storage but also the inadequate dry cast storage and that's why we're calling for hardened on site storage, a significant safety upgrade and security upgrade to dry cast storage. we also oppose the mountain dump and storage and unnecessary high risk shipments through 44 states many major cities and 75% of u.s. congressional districts that are part in parse el of that plan -- parcel of that plan. i would like to start by pointing out that today, july 16th is a day of infamy in new

mexico and nationwide because of the atomic bomb blast of 1945, the spill of 1979 and incredibly now in its tone deafness the nuclear regulatory commission's announcement of the beginning of licensing proceeding for the storage facility targeted at southeast mexico, environmental alliance. we have a september 14th legal intervention deadline. and believe you me, the environmental movement will show up for that deadline in opposition to this environmental injustice. and so yes, empty the pools into dry cast storage. as you will see, we are calling for significant safety and security upgrades on the dry cast storage. so just to give you an idea, and bob already touched on this, if a pool had caught fire and one nearly did at fukushima, it was sheer luck it didn't, instead of 160,000 nuclear evacuees there could have been as many as 50 million, that according to the prime minister who was serving at the time. he said it would have been the

end of the japanese state, and the pool risks in the united states are greater than those in japan because our pools are packed more densely. so other risks of pool storage are leakage into ground water and surface water as has been going on at indian point upstream from the hudson in new york city for decades at this point. even the transfer is high risk, we've had near misses in minnesota, michigan and in vermont with stuck cranes and slippage of cranes. so this gives you an idea of what dry cast storage looks like. vertically oriented dry casts, horizontally oriented. and there have been major issues around the country since dry cast storage began in 1986, just a few examples. this is multiple cast designs and models. this is multiple sites. seal leakage at sur ry virginia

if you lose the heat transfer medium, the helium gas, you can overheat the nuclear fuel inside. cracking of containers as in michigan. hydrogen gas generation explosions and fires at point beach in wisconsin. the list goes on and on. we had a problem in michigan where i'm from as early as 1994. so i mentioned on site storage. these are the gentlemen who conceived it and gave it its phraseology. the phrase was coined hardened on site storage. dr. thompson commissioned by citizen awareness network of the northeast wrote a report in january 02 called robust storage. we have a statement of principles for safeguarding nuclear waste at reactors that should be in your packets. by the way, i will post this at

the beyond nuclear website beyond nuclear.org with detailed explanations of these and links to these documents. we have over 200 groups in all 50 states signed on to these principles. and we've been calling for this since 2002 actually. it's been a long time. we have been calling for this. it is calling on deaf ears in the u.s. federal government and the nuclear power industry. so significant upgrades to safety and security are required. and one point i would like to mention at the end there is to prohibit reprocessing, the extraction of plutonium from high level radioactive waste which new mexico plans to do if they can get away with it. this is one state's example of the group signed on to these principles. and some of those groups helped organize today. so thank you very much for that. so on the left there you see a graphic representation of hardened on site storage by dr. thompson, as compared the bowling pin dense configuration which is a high security risk if

attackers were to show up with anti-tank weapons for example. so fortifications are necessary. and i should add that some sites are not appropriate for on site hardened storage, places like prairie island, minnesota, which is the home of the prairie island indian community a flood plain in the mississippi river it has to go higher ground. it has to go further inland, but not a thousand or 2,000 miles away to new mexico. rather a few miles away, for the interim. and this will be required no matter what because if yucca mountain were to open today, which it weren't, if the central storage were to open today, it would 50 years to move the waste to the site -- it would take 50 years to move the waste to the site. that needs to be addressed. holtech has a quality assurance epidemic going on dating back to the year 2000. we have whistle-blower information from industry and from nrc that major quality assurance violations are

associated with the holtechs. this has not been rectified by the nuclear regulatory commission in all these years and decades. the whistle-blowers pointed out that decisions like this in the space program led to space shuttles hitting the ground. and dr. landsman will serve as an expert witness for the environmental coalition challenging the holtech centralized interim storage. the structural integrity of these containers being questioned not at 60 miles-per-hour on the rails, but at 0 miles-per-hour in on site storage. the pools need to be emptied of their contents but should be retained in case there's an emergency need to transfer from old degraded cask into a new replacement cask. now the risks of moving this material through 44 states, there 100 major urban centers in this country, through 330 of the 435 house districts. this gives you an idea of the layers of protection, but are they robust enough for severe

accidents? and i should point out that centralized interim storage would make these much nearer term risks so there has been talk, it's now delayed of 2021 for pilot interim storage, of 2024 for full scale. and why are these sites in the texas new mexico border lands being targeted? because the attitude is this is a nuclear sacrifice zone. you have a national low level radioactive waste dump in texas at waste control specialists. you have the whip site, waste isolation plant in new mexico for the disposal. you see 2014 industrial, followed by a few days later of plutonium release that was supposed to be impossible. this site in texas is near or above the aquafor. these are not appropriate sites. there are large hispanic communities there. the two sites are within 40 miles of each other. and so the risks of centralized interim storage is that it

becomes permanent. that the containers could degrade and release their contents at the surface. even if the waste were to leave, this is multiplying transport risks unnecessarily. on the left, you see a congressional tour of yucca mountain that just happened. this is a waste of taxpayer money that has to stop. our joke about the dump is it's a mutant zombie with six toes on either foot and you see one of the toes twitching. a thousand environmental groups have opposed the dump for a generation and will continue to do so. this gives you an idea of all the states impacted by road and rail shipments. this map shows you how intense those shipments are in a state like illinois where most of the shipments are actually from reactors in other states moving through. and then as you get further west, especially in utah and nevada, the worst of transport impacts. waste control specialists in texas, all main line rail could be used for these shipments.

here's holtech's map they want to look at san onofre california. what about the other transport risks? i would point out that a place like fort worth texas would get hit coming and going. first out to new mexico and then up to yucca mountain. so an example of how high risk the department of energy is willing to undertake, liquid high level radioactive waste shipments for the first time in north american history began last year. there needs to be congressional oversight. and we think senator gillibrand and representative higgins for questioning this very high risk behavior through their state. we thank them. and so here's an example of very risky barge shipments of high level waste bound for the west on the hudson river past manhattan, are you kidding me? this is a department of energy proposal. talk about the security risks. but it's many other waterways, the great lakes, rivers, sea,

coas coasts. right here is where we're standing capitol hill, and i live in maryland, there's a train line that would carry waste through where i live. i work in maryland. if you stand on the metro platform, you could get a gamma dose as one of these things goes by. this is too close for comfort on the high risk. state of nevada deserves a shoutout for their analysis of these risks. again these will be posted on the website. study the details of places you care about because if we don't do something about it, it is going to start coming through. and put them at risk. an alternative to barges would be heavy haul trucks which have their own risks. this is a reactive pressure vessel at big rock point in northern michigan they had several incidents in 03 during this heavy haul truck shipment to get it to a rail head and put it on a train.

this is interstate 40 in oklahoma in the spring of 2002, just as the yucca votes were happening in congress at the time, the under water submersion design criteria for these containers is dangerously inadequate. and so too the high temperature long duration fire risks. july 2001, underground tunnel fire in downtown baltimore and a doctor of radioactive waste management associates studied the details of this fire asking a question what if a container had been in that? and his conclusion was it would have failed. it would have released at least a fraction of its contents. and large numbers of people would have been injured by that. it would have cost 14 billion dollars to clean up the mess. the risk of attacks. these containers are not designed to withstand anti-tank missiles. at a congressional hearing, it was said it is hard to fire an anti-tank missile. it would be hard to hit one of

these shipments with a 40-year-old weapon system. well attackers would probably be trained in their use and they are designed to hit soviet tanks that go 37 miles-per-hour. and so these shipments would slow down in a place like south side of chicago, a very large fraction of shipments would go through there. and they could be hit. and there have been upgrades to these anti-tank weapon systems over the decades. so these are where the radioactive poisons go. if there is a breach of a shipping container to different organs and tissues in the human body depending on the isotope, even if there's not an accident, incident free routine shipments still emanate gamma radiation and neutrons at a distance of 6 feet. that's why we call them mobile x-ray machines that can't be turned off and they cause harm to people nearby. that's 1 to 2 chest x-rays per hour. if the shipment happens to be contaminated externally, france has had hundreds of these

documents, sometimes 500 to 3,300 times permissible dose rates. the united states has 50 documented examples of this. it would cause more harm to people nearby. this is fred upton who has long advocated for the yucca dump. hr 3053 passed the house on may 10th. it is now over on the senate side. it would increase the allowable amount to be buried at yucca would gut the licensing proceeding is nonconsent based in violation of the blue ribbon commission's final report and is adamantly opposed by the environmental movement of the united states. it's ironic that upton supports these ideas because barge shipments on lake michigan could put at risk the drinking water supply for 40 million people downstream. in two countries and a large number of native american first nations, if just one of them goes down and leaks. again, the irony for the congressman is that thousands of shipments of high level waste from other states would pass through illinois including on

the south and west sides of chicago, bound for the west. on the senate side, you've got senate energy and water appropriations alexander and feinstein that are more interested in centralized interim storage it is fair to say and the irony of that is what would that mean if san onofre's waste were to be rushed through the transport through the heart of metro l.a. we are not ready for this. nobody even knows about this. transport communities along the corridors involved do not consent to these risks and we're now closer to 80 years into this mess. we need to stop making it. we need to harden on site storage. we need to stop pursuing these dead ends at yucca mountain and centralized interim storage and prevent the risky transports. thank you. ::

will explain that in illinois there is a decommissioned nuclear power plant from 1998. suffice to say it affects the community. we're glad to have you with us. >> thank you. [applause] i do have to get my glasses on. i am getting older. things change. i am the mayor of zion illinois. the community with a population of 25,000 located proximally 45 miles north of chicago. situated directly on lake michigan. i am not an expert on nuclear power. or fuel storage or transportation. but i would like to share with you our experience as opposed

to nuclear power plant as well as the decommissioning and fuel storage process. design nuclear power plant was licensed by the nuclear regulatory commission in 1973. operated from 74 to 98. decommissioning is expected to be completed by the end of the year. we presently have 64 dry storage units on site in zion. in 1968, the nuclear power was a new technology that was to provide low-cost electric power. this was good for zion, illinois and good for our country. people in zion understood locating the power plant within the community and along the shores of lake michigan would entail some cost. it was an understanding the community would give up 250 acres of lakefront property. there will be an eyesore on the community, they would be there a long time. recreational access to the lake for visitors as well as local citizens would be severely limited. and in understanding economic

development opportunities associated with the lakefront would be severely inhibited. in exchange for the cost, it was an understanding that the zion community would benefit from locating the power plant. zion would benefit from the jobs created by the plant. each taxing body would receive significant tax dollars from the increased equalized assessed valuation of the plant. when the operating license of the plant expired, they were 257 acres that would be returned to pristine condition and the property return for development purposes. that was the deal. it was an unwritten deal but that was the deal. there was never ever an understanding that once the plant closed zion community would play host to a radioactive dump that contains 2.2 million. i will say that again. 2.2 million pounds of nuclear spent fuel rods on the

lakefront. that was not part of the deal. i speak for all of the citizens of zion. when i say that we do not want to be a storage facility for radioactive waste. our community is staggering. the closure and decommissioning of the plant has had a negative impact on local taxes, local employment and our ability to maintain sustainable economic development. we were crushed by the loss of nearly half of our property tax base in 1998. when operating at contributed over $90 million to the cost of local services. today it contributes slightly more than a million . closure of the plant also saw the loss of 800 full-time, well-paying jobs. estimates are that $42 million per year was loss from payroll to zion and the surrounding communities.without considering the safety of

nuclear waste, when businesses are considering locating in zion, or making real estate investments, the nuclear waste presents a negative perception of our community. plans call for developing of the lakefront. and we are unable to attract investment to that to what should be the most valuable waterfront land along lake michigan. the city of zion calls for the development concepts that are intended to preserve and enhance the natural areas that create economic opportunities for housing, educational and tourism uses. the lost opportunity for economic development on a lakefront property is one of the most difficult realities for our community. with a 2010 -- we are not nacve enough to believe that the rods will be removed anytime soon. we therefore, believe that our community should be compensated. we also believe the federal government should do the compensating.

in 1982, the united states congress enacted a nuclear waste policy act which was intended to begin the process of disposing of nuclear waste. the ad contains a section entitled, interim storage fund. this section references impact assistance which says that and i paraphrase, the secretary shall make annual payments to a state or appropriate local government or both in order to mitigate the social, or economic impact occasioned by the establishment of subsequent operation of an interim storage capacity within the jurisdictional boundaries of such government. impact assistance could be as high as 15 hours per kilogram of spent fuel. payments made shall be allocated in a fair and ethical manner with a priority to those states or units of local government suffering the most severe impact. i cannot imagine any government anywhere, that will suffer more

severely than the zion communities. we talk about lake michigan, lakefront properties valued at a fraction of fair market value because of a million kilograms of radioactive waste stored on the shoreline. zion has never been asked about and never contemplated or consented to converting the decommissioned site to an indefinite and long-term storage facility. the regulation is clear. the communities will suffer social and economic impact if they are designated as interim storage facilities and that they should be compensated. senator duckworth and congressman snyder introduced legislation in the congress that will go a long way to make the communities whole. the legislation not only apply to zion. but other communities

throughout the united states that are experiencing the decommissioning process.the act is called, sensible timely relief for americans nuclear district economic development act of 2017.it all goes out to strand and it talks about stranded nuclear waste. these are hr 3970 and s 1903. i'm hopeful this legislation will successfully pass both houses of congress. this is an issue that should receive bipartisan support, nuclear power plants are located in both republican and democratic districts. i am hopeful for what this legislation will do for zion, for the community. i particularly hopeful of what it will do for those across a nice taste presently hosting nuclear power plants. every one of those plants are facing decommissioning and the fuel storage issue. i hope the legislation will help those communities avoid pitfalls that zion has had to

deal with and still dealing with 20 years after closing. i want to thank you for your time and attention and the opportunity to share our experience with you. i want to say because of time factors and i glossed over the details of what happened in the community. i would be happy to go into detail about housing values and the like. thank you. >> thank you, very much mayor. our next speaker has an extremely long, i don't want to say exposure. two nuclear issues. many of us are not familiar with the facts and what these things can do to individuals. but our next speaker is the principal amount of the western

band of the shoshone nation and the action counsel. -- he has extensively studied the health effects and is deeply concerned based on the science. that native american populations are not protected by any of the plans around the mountain and elsewhere. >> thank you, good afternoon. i am the principal manager of the western shoshone nation of indians. i also secretary of the council. we are talking about proceedings of the yucca mountain. we have three primary tensions. first, ownership. the treaty in 1863 is in full force and effect. and the western shoshone title remains an extended pair that is the primary condition. even with the department of energy using the management

master which is last record of the united states government, department of energy cannot prove ownership in the nuclear regulatory commission does not intend to take the title. other contentions are based on past exposure from fallout and weapons testing, we cannot and/or increased burden of risk from any source. includes fracking, radiation, -- radiation or any high level nuclear waste that we transported or stored in our country. the final contention is water rights. which is water which is necessary both spiritually and as a property right. those are three primary contentions. if you want to ask you more about you, as our website which is native community action council.org. all the information is there. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, very much. all of these issues, i think bob alvarez start talk about

this goes into the millions of years. i'm not sure the next speaker will be here but he will be here after many of us. and so we have a youth representative. i want to introduce -- there he is! jackson a graduate of san clemente high school remember of san clemente -- regional director view gardens, organized youth led campaign for the removal plastic water bottles from over 60 campuses. and also interesting since we had to talk about policy, politics and how to solve these issues, the founder of the orange county students for city council. -- we are glad to have you here. and representing. [applause] >> thank you all for having me. before i begin, i want to say how great it is to see so many young faces in the crowd.

this movement, you do not see a lot of young faces. just know this is your future, this is your children's future. their children's future and so on. if you don't member anything out today, take that with you. my name is jackson henkel. i'm 18 years old. i'm representing san clemente green today. i am also representing the voices of future generations. in my home, sacramento, california. many speakers have touched on the nuclear generating station. the current home two nuclear waste and the waste is being stored in what is known as -- canisters. they are widely used across the united states. but not so much in other countries. they are 587 inch thick. they cannot be monitored for cracks, repaired if there's something to go wrong with the canister. and they cannot be transported.

there is many problems with that when you're dealing with nuclear waste. you just gloss over what i just said. in addition, potassium and chloride found can cause corrosion and cracks. what a crock starts, it only takes 16 years to grow completely through the wall. according to the nuclear regulatory commission. the president of the manufacturer of the canisters used near my home, has even admitted that it is not feasible to repair canisters even if you could find cracks. he stated that as much as a microscopic crack in a canister would release millions of radionuclides into the atmosphere. we can no longer treat this catastrophic issue as a minor inconvenience. we can no longer take this radioactive can down the road.

moving forward, what we need to do is oppose consolidated and storage build such as hr 3053. we must require a high priority project to move existing nuclear fuel from thin-walled canisters to thick walled casts. and lastly we need to find the safest location to store these and reinforced buildings for additional environmental and security protection.while 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 and far down the road, is going to affect us right now. it already is affecting us right now. it is going to 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 of years older so i want to join your group. [laughter] last, but not least our final speaker. [multiple speakers] an attorney with the defense counsel. with energy and transportation program he has won cases before the nuclear regulatory commission. successful challenge to the wonderful epa radiation protection standards for the proposed yucca mountain nuclear waste repository. i remember testifying on those. somewhat absurd exercise. thank you for all of that and why don't you bring us on home and -- [applause] >> get to the right slide. how is the sound? good?my name is geoffrey fettus. thank you. i'm a senior attorney at nrdc.

unlike my colleagues here, go to turn to a slightly more practical set of discussions. they've done a good job of setting up a lot of the risks and realities of what we face. but i want to turn to a few things that are going on right now and why i think this briefing is so well-timed for congress. to start considering. first, again, this is all on the website. this is coming. this is the trajectory that we have in the last several years, six reactors at five plans to close either for economic or safety-related reasons. two closed in the next several reactors at five plans. the only two on a construction right now and the trajectory of those are at best, uncertain. two got canceled this past year

in south carolina new build. so, whatever one's position is on issues related to nuclear power, and whether or not one submits the idea that 80 year licensing is a reality, there is a downward trajectory and decommissioning is coming. and i want to also caution you at the outset that decommissioning really is not just about the nuclear waste issues. although, nrdc and myself in particular have a long public history of testifying on the matters. litigating on the matters and i'm happy to talk with any of you at enormous length about all of these things. but let that put that to the side and talk about decommissioning is as well, besides the nuclear waste. and mayor hill really touched on that. it is a gigantic industrial cleanup. of huge industrial facilities that have singular item,

nuclear waste that makes it more complicated and more challenging than almost any other industrial cleanup. please make no mistake, you have profound amounts of piping, concrete, cleanup, extraordinary efforts that have to get done at these facilities that have been radioactive and used as industrial with industrial chemicals as well for decades upon decades. let's turn to what that really means. i will update you on some realities. a few years ago the nrc to its credit, and again, hell just froze over because nrdc just said that peer to its credit, they got started on working on rulemaking to finally address many of the issues of decommissioning. they saw the wave coming. it was really apparent by 2015 you cannot miss it.

the advance notice came out in november. final basis, the basis in nrdc code speak, if there are folks in the room, they can explain it better than i can. basically what they're going to put in the rule and what they are not going to put in the rule. meaning, what they will treat as guidance and not actually have as legal requirement. they do that before they even have a draft rule. david final basis that came out in november of last year. and now, there is the staff, they have submitted a draft rule to the commission for consideration. i cannot tell you when the draft rule will come out for public comment because that is up to the commission. and the commissioners, the five commissioners and when they vote on it. send it forward or send it back to staff and if they even make any changes. again, it is up to the commission.it is our best guess that the rule will come

out later this year. or early next year. that is our best guess. but again, you are better served asking the nrc at that moment. the final rule will come out in either 2019 or 2020. presuming they fit that timeframe. now, you are thinking well, we've all these decommissioning issues. the nrc is doing a rulemaking to address all of these issues. that is true, they are. and they are to be commended for starting a rulemaking on decommissioning. unfortunately, as of right now, and again, this could change because the commissioners could send it back. we don't expect that. but as of right now, there is some significant issues of dispute and contentiousness that the rule is not addressing that they're not going to solve any of the problems. especially those cited by mayor hill. which i've heard him at longer proceedings which you cannot do in great detail. but, the, let me briefly walk you through what some of these

moments of contentious issues are likely to be and the commissioning rule is not only unlikely to solve many of the decommissioning problems, the tsunami that is coming for the cleanup but i think will make it worse than congress either through legislative or appropriations power. i think this is the start of this, the first issue is the biggest one. right now, when zion or any other nuclear operator decides to and 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.

and the nrc has essentially, currently exceeds the regulatory authority. i think will continue to be the case based on the draft rule we have seen thus far. and that also comes along with a host of issues. when they do that and don't keep regulatory court requirement when you want to meet x environment of standards or why cleanup standards. there is an opportunity for the state, for the local community, for any ngo's or tribes intervene and say is not good enough or wethink the cleanup should be better. all for example, we think the cleanup should go faster or slower . or we would like our already trained workforce to be part of that cleanup. right now, that segues into the state and local government role. when the decommissioning plan is not a requirement and there

is also no national environmental policy coverage of it, which means this is certainly major federal action, it is essentially put to the side by the current lack of rules and even by the proposed rule we are likely to see in the next year. that extraordinarily limits any state and local government role. so not only did mayor hill 's folks as i do not have a voice. future communities all around the country will not have a voice. and again, this is truly a bipartisan issue. this is about the local and state voices. the community transition and work for us needs are also right now, because of the lack of any regulatory authority and the likelihood of the nrc to continue exceeding the authority, right now, one of the things that could happen is, there are three ways

basically that decommissioning can take place. and i will go nerdy for a second. but i will take you with me. one is called decon. it is what it sounds like. decommissioning. within the first several years, the actual cleanup really starts going. and that is what happened with zion. it did get going and start on the cleanup and do the work and removed the concrete, break down the piping, dispose of things to licensed radioactive waste or other disposal sites. and actually do the cleanup. there is a lot of wisdom in doing that. because you actually have already, it provides transition for workforces that are inevitably going to go down as reactors do close. also, you have trained radiation health safety staff, they are there.

there is another way to duke decommissioning. that is allowed under the rules. more and more reactor operators are availing themselves of this. it is safe store. that means, under the rules right now and under the proposed, likely proposed rules, operators can sit on those sites for years upon years, decades upon decades. up to 60 years. which takes that 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 concept. as are a lot of states. they have heard about that in great detail in the comments so far. not just from nrdc but several states. that goes to, wife some of the reactor operators doing that? well, sometimes you have not saved enough for decommissioning. and that is another issue. they've done several excellent reports and by the way, if anyone wants the comments from

nrc on this process so far and as well as citations to the gao report on the adequacy of surety and must've been put aside for decommissioning or the lack thereof, that will be a significant issue with this rule. will the nrc require enough to make sure they will be enough to pay on the back and for this extraordinary cleanup. and then of course, there are emergency preparedness issues. he heard a host of reasons today why those are necessary. going forward. especially while we have fuel sitting in pools. and also radiological issues. all of these issues will be significantly -- we don't know what's going to happen. but the draft rule, as we have seen thus far does not look likely to solve any of these issues and we think that means when the agency has not done it, it is likely to come back to congress.

and the duckworth bill, duckworth and schneider bill about that compensation actually is one of those we think few constructive efforts 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 reactor operators just sitting on the sites for decades at a time. rather than immediately moving to cleanup. one last thing. when, even when you do decon, not just to make sure i have any illusions here for those of you who are not familiar with the nuclear cleanup world. even when you do decon, the faster version, you are still not going in to be breaking apart reactor vessels for at least a decade. or many, many years. by any measure, these are going to be large, long cleanup

processes. that was basically it. except to say, as a last note, the nuclear waste issues that nrdc has worked on and heard so much about today, should really be seen as a separate issue where there is a national debate about how to solve these issues. and i'm happy to talk at length about that. what i am very interested in congress doing in the next few years, on the decommissioning side of things, is making sure the communities that have the enormous burdens that by any measure, they're going to have. while these giant industrial cleanups start to move forward. and place after place, the communities are well served by federal law, which means not just compensation but also significant oversight on making sure the decommissioning process solves most of the

issues if not, all of it. right now it is not going to. thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank all of our speakers for an amazing job of bringing these incredibly technical and challenging subjects to light. in an interesting and informative way. now you have a chance. we have about a half-hour. i would like to call on people, if you would identify who you are, where you are from and then pose your question. the floor is now open to all of you. yes, ma'am? >> my name is ashley. i am from -- my question is, the west side of our state has a closure on 2022. i'm wondering what can government at any level do to prevent the migration of nuclear employees and to encourage economic development

and post nuclear communities. thank you.>> just full disclosure, i am from kalamazoo. i've lived here for 20 years but kalamazoo is still home. we have set until we were blue in the face that the workforce at palisades as jeff just said, should be retained. have the institutional knowledge of that badly contaminated site. they have had tritium leaks in the site going back at least a decade. there is drinking water for the adjacent palisades park community that is implicated by the leaks into groundwater. and the leaks that going to the lake are then a hazard for the drinking water in southhaven. so institutional knowledge of the workers, they should be the ones in charge of the cleanup for years or even decades to come. and there's a lot to cleanup at

that site. the other major issue at that site is safeguarding and securing the high-level radioactive waste. many hundreds of tons currently right on the lake shore. hundred 50 yards from the water. in violation of nrc earthquake safety regulations. that waste needs to be moved further inland to higher ground, out of any earthquake danger appeared out of any tsunami danger on the great lakes. and the workforce that they are now, could be in charge of that. and in addition, we need the transition to nuclear free carbon free, electricity sources. and so workers, younger workers perhaps, once 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 southhaven.there is a major solar array by lake michigan college. then the lakeshore wind power potential is just tremendous. and so, that is what we would say about that. >> i can also address that by

you wanted to know what could be done and dark spirits with no idea what can 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. that is part of what's affected the community. when people moved housing values in the community dropped tremendously. not only do we lose the value of the plant but we lost the housing values as people moved out. many became abandoned. and we went from a community that had about 30 percent of our rental units right now, this is with the housing crisis of 2008 after that also. many of them are rental units. we have 3.8 of lake county

which is approximately 800,000 people 35 percent of the low income housing in the community. it is just putting stress on the schools and putting stress on the police and fire. it has just put a stress on a lot of the services that we provide. >> i would like to add one quick thing to be explicit. when you look at, the unions have put this out, in relation to the decommissioning rulemaking thus far. it is probably on the industry website. if not i will find it for you. if you look at the likely drop-off of employment and allowing for the decon process, at least you have a slow path down. and the argument is that where that path should be and what over time, but if you look at the likelihood of employment

and what could happen to community under aggressive of the safe store option where the essentially that operator simply mothballs things. it just dropped like a stone. that can be aptly savaged to have in a region. we think the rules need to be thoughtfully structured to not allow that to happen. it is not the way we are going right now. >> thank you. before we do that i want to ask speakers, we have two options. multimedia, different microphones. if you stay if you would project to the back. if you're close enough to get to the podium, you could use this. it may be hard on you and-- on end. >> we saw the proposed rule

that was sent to the commission that they assumed the on-site storage remain there for 16 years. while we would love to have a permanent solution in 60 as we are a little worried is overoptimistic. we are additionally concerned with the effects that climate change will have on some of the coastal storage and the probably having in the pilgrim nuclear site. having very, they putting on-site storage very close to the sea level. i'm interested in your take on the nrc storage proposal and decommissioning rules. and whether you think they are appropriately accounting for the impact when they're doing these sort of forecasts. >> no. [laughter] specifically, there are two frustrating things. and i'm the guy that litigated

it so, sorry! the nrc does not have to do a deep analysis of its long-term storage in the context of the decommissioning rule. it does so by his continued storage rule which was unfortunately, given validation by the d.c. circuit in 2016. that said, they'll have to continue to do analysis over the next several years. on that continued storage rule and 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 rulemaking or generic analysis. and you would think that the decommissioning rule would adjust nuclear waste 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 licensing as well, as well as long-term storage. and in coastal areas especially. >> my follow-up to that as well is, you mentioned that storage is only meant for short-term. how short-term are they meant to be used? i think mr. alvarez mentioned that. >> their license for 40 year periods. that is, then they can be relicensed if they hold up. i think the general observation is that we are letting the symbolic request for a disposal solution to basically put it in front of the safe storage. we lack a national storage

policy as one of defaults. that is why we have pools jampacked. and sort of, nrc acting in a very reactive way to things happening we don't have the program. the department of energy should have a role in this. besides trying to restart but they are not. and so, there needs to be some sort of way to take a look at the storage as a priority before we start to think we can actually find a disposal site. i find that was happening here is largely an effort to seek a symbolic victory. >> regarding your question about the canisters, north of where lived there was a canyon

and it showed the signs of cracking. but there is no way of checking to see if there is cracking. so that is a problem that the nrc has not dealt with. in a good way. >> if i may -- the model we should be emulating is probably that which is developed by germany and switzerland. they became very serious about things like crashes and attacks and things like that in the 1980s. they have made up this with george to contain the domes. and have thick wall dry canisters withstanding large impact. we do not have that. we need to start to think about how we deal with long-term challenge posed by indefinite storage of the material on the surface.

>> on the same subject i been trying to figure out what is the solution in the short-term, long-term. it seemed like the transportation problem, if on-site storage and off-site is a problem is there a solution? maybe i missed something. >> i am happy to talk. the nrdc perspective, we are not a monolithic -- [inaudible] our perspective is that there is a solution and there has been a solution and we agree with a long-term solution. the repositories of the ultimate, i think he is actually right. we need to be for the long-term and terms of storage and the idea of much more robust inter-storage during the long tendency of time we're going to need to get to repositories.

as just nrdc, we've aggressively pushed over the last decade, an idea that we think can solve the institutional and technical challenges related to get into a geologic repository. that is very simply, doing away with the environmental exemptions. they would be one well of a regulatory process. once that happens. but once it is done it could actually be a process where you could get to technically accepted repositories. unlike the issue now where you're at on the state of nevada had no choice, you're just going to take it. and we have 50 years of evidence that that has not worked. and we know that the only safe place for this material, it is not even not say. the only viable option is nrdc

anywhere in the grand consensus with most of our colleagues. geologic repositories. we have to figure out about how to get there. it is not just finding a place, it is finding how to get there and publicly accepted way. we think there is a serious way to do it. we will be thrilled to talk to all of you. and again, that is nuclear waste. the decommissioning issue, which i want to keep your eye on the ball here. is this gigantic cleanup that has a profound effect on community after community, congressional district after congressional district. senate, state concerns, senate state concerns. hold the two issues in parallel. but that is the -- >> did you want to add? >> just briefly. it is good news that oyster creek, new jersey the oldest reactor in the country pushing 50 years old.

a twin design is about to shut down. the good news includes the fact that as soon as the nuclear fuel leaves the court, you cannot have a reactor core meltdown by definition. but the risk moves to the pool. and most of the dry -- that as we emphasize hardened on-site story as close as possible. but with rising sea level he might have to go inland. and higher ground. not a thousand or 2000 miles out west to mexico for temporary storage, so called. but a few miles inland. i would emphasize the good news of reactor shutdowns and now, the focus has to turn to, as bob just said, securing and safeguarding these for every deadly, he mentioned a million your life another victory that he wanted 2008 when they finally finished the court mandated rewrite of the regulations was an acknowledgment that yucca would remain hazardous for a million years into the future. that is lowballing.

and in terms of geologic disposal, the end goal, there are some criteria that have to be met. scientific suitability, environmental justice, legality. honoring treaty rights. consent-based siting. regional equity, transportation risk minimization. we have a lot of work to do on this country. i want to emphasize with good news of reactor shutdowns, stop making the waste, put a cap on this problem. it grows by 2000 metric pounds per year. >> si hand back there and then we will come up front. sir? >> i have one question related to decommissioning in the process. first of all, thank you to the panels for being here today. it has really presented a broad spectrum of issues that highlight a lot of the community concerns. regulatory concerns and those in the industry trying to meet them. and you point to the tremendous

cleanup and waste management problem represented by decommissioning. some of the pitfalls and the challenges are in front of us. to do that. but in my mind i'm trying to reconcile that forward-looking challenge with past history over decades where more than dozen plants have decommissioned. i would argue safely, without any headline grabbing, serious issues either from an industrial safety or nuclear safety standpoint. i'm trying to reconcile, at least for those in the room, what has changed with time that brings us to this point today. >> nice to see you. two things i think that a really apparent right now. i think our significant challenges facing the industry that we all share. making sure that there is the adequate amount of money for it. in most of those and you would

certainly, ensure acknowledge this. most of those cleanups have been substantially more expensive than they were first targeted. the humble bay, which had a small test reactor is now in the billions of dollars of cleanup and i think it's original target was 400 million. or something like that. and that has happened at site after site. the adequacy of cleanup funding is a significant concern. because it has turned out to be a much more expensive and complicated issue than many had thought. i think the emergence of safe store, as a likely option of which your clients will avail themselves. it poses significant challenges for a host of communities in a way of the ones that have been decommissioned honestly, have not even suffered. as much as the mayor talks about was ion has suffered, i

think reactor operators that go into safe store, you see the actual cliff of employment, that will have profound effects on the community. and that hasn't happened in the 12 or so that have been done thus far. so, that is the first thing. >> i am going to repeat this so we can get the mic issues under control. >> nuclear intelligence weekly. what kevin was saying and what jackson was saying and the mayor and the other speakers there may be a conflict between the different communities. some want to see storage and get out as fast as possible and others are reconciled that is

just not going to happen that easily. one question i have is to the mayor, if you talk to the other males about this and are you going to try to come up with a unified position. how long would it be before if this ever worked out, and interim storage facility. i think the date was mentioned but how realistic they talk about the licenses that they could have an operating in early 2020. but, what is the realistic date on interim storage if it ever happens? and what is a realistic date, we know 2048 is a permanent repository but what is a realistic date? >> let me just transfer, basically this may expose differences between some want to ship it out, there may be differences on that. the mayor and others talk about

developing strategy or how to agree on this. and then, essentially, what is the realistic timeline? >> for interim and permanent storage. >> yes. >> i can just adjust the question of whether we talked other males. there is a difference in what people like to do. in our community we would like it to be gone. we would like to start taking it tomorrow. as i said when i was speaking, we are not nacve enough to think that will happen. we are asking for compensation and we have had phone calls and we met in new york with some, a lot of people on the eastern seaboard about this problem and i have called every mayor in the communities in decommissioning or have been decommissioned. we have them calling the superintendents, we have the parks and recreation people calling every person.

we go down to the librarians that are calling and we are asking that they contact their senators and congressmen and make them aware of the issue and that there is a bill out there. right now, i guess i will be completely honest. no one expects anything to happen before the november election. we are waiting word from the sender and are congressmen that we will revisit that and we will try and get more information out to the federal elected officials that have something to do with it.but we are organized, it is our city that is taken on the responsibility and we are communicating with people and as far as what will happen, i am expecting that it will be 40 years from now. that they are moving off of our facility and out of our city. our site is not hard, these are sitting out there, about 200

yards from lake michigan. [inaudible question] yes, ma'am. i would like to see them harden.i have been a short time and time again that nothing can happen. these things are safe. they are absolutely safe, nothing can happen to them. my question is, why their armed guards 24 hours a day, seven days a week guarding them if nothing can happen? and nobody answers that question. they all shrugged and -- >> i wanted to tell a story from a half-life ago. 1997, i invited -- to a meeting.i introduced him to doctor mary sinclair, the founder who is in them women's history hall of fame in michigan for her great lakes protection against reactor risks and radioactive waste risks.at the time, as again

now, this was the talk of the town. let's dump it out there, no one lives out there, who cares, it's a wasteland.it is not a wasteland and ian was able to explain to doctor sinclair not only about the valley, the environmental injustice of another blow to the western shoshone and people of nevada, after weapons testing and waste dumping. she realized despite her passion and knowledge about protecting the great lakes from these risks, that yucca mountain was not a solution. she contacted senator stabenow about this and in the critical year of 2002 and thanks to the senator for raising on the senate floor, the risks of barge shipments but not only is yucca mountain not a solution but these proposals would put the great lakes at even greater risk than before. that issue is immunities against each other, get it out of here, we don't care how it leaves or where it goes. that is not just. we are one nation, under god, indivisible. there is no exception for

radioactive waste. screw nevada is not an option, screw new mexico is not an option, screw texas is not an option. the communities that are very much in harm's way, what about camp pendleton? how about a five-mile move of the waste to a place where houses of u.s. marines can help guard it out of this tsunami zone, out of the earthquake zone. there's something else at work here. what is, it is in hr 3053. transfer of title for this deadly waste that the industry has profited from generating onto american taxpayers. that is not a good reason for these very dangerously bad decisions. >> one thing you mentioned which was the 2048. for those of you again, when i play with the nuclear cleanup world, the 2048 number comes from the previous administrations like the

calculation of arriving, they did a blue ribbon commission. when in washington d.c., one does blue-ribbon commissions when one is not sure what to do. and the blue commission that was finalized in 2012, came out with a set of findings key of which was, we need to find and avoid what happened with yucca mountain and find a consent based process.and it was their estimation and the administration then, that 2048 would be a reasonable time. that is why sometimes hear the 2040. people want time frames. no one has a crystal ball and can give you the precise time frame. it is the nrdc perspective and yucca alone, that if congress were to take up our idea, doing away with environmental exemptions, and actually changing the regulations to set the strong protective health criteria that we think are necessary and with epa and state authority over that waste. that we could truncate some of that time. and i don't think it will happen in the next 10 years but

do i think it could happen within 20 or 25? if congress gets off the dime and actually solves some of the original problems with the nuclear waste policy act that forgot about states and just right now, we are sort of telling one state you will get it. and they are saying no, we are not. we're going to be stuck in this impasse for another 50 years. hopefully, we will not. >> i just want to emphasize that yucca mountain is shoshone property. recognized under the -- it will not happen. it is not workable and it is not doable because of that. that is the likely reason why it was withdrawn in the first place. but that was argued in a case that came up. yucca mountain would be a ongoing research and development project.it is not

a solution. it is in the biosphere, above the water table. the original intent to beat the disposal was for -- it's a matter of time before the radiation comes down. and my people expect to be around another b,10,000 with your help. we see the food, we see the resources and we need the pure water. pristine water. something that is very rare now on this planet.pristine water is what we need for survival. it is our religion. we have these living lifeways in relation to the land. it is our identity. we expected to be there. yucca mountain will not be a solution. period. >> that is about all of the time we have. >> on a lighter note i want everyone to understand i do not want to screw texas or new mexico or nevada. [laughter] we understand. we would like to be compensated. i would like to thank all of our speakers. to try to summarize would be impossible but i think one of the things we have focused on is the decommissioning has been

happening, is happening, will be increasingly happening, has immediate impact that needs to be dealt with now. there are long-range problems, long range storage, repositories and the like that communities from young people, native american tribes and experts we have heard that this material is dangerous. it is they are, there will be more and we need to do something about it. i want to thank them for putting that out in a very effective way. thank you for your questions. go back to the hill and create some action. i want to thank eesi for sponsoring the briefing.there are many groups that have participated. there is actually a citizens lobby day going on on the issues. and some members of the organizations that have been involved are here. our experts up front and perhaps, some people from participating organizations are available to the media for interviews. or for you to just exchange cards and do business.

thank you all, very much. [applause] ...