congress took action 30 years ago to begin addressing the problem of the build-up of nuclear waste stored at nuclear plants throughout the united states. the nuclear waste policy act passed by congress laid out a process that looked at three possible long-term storage sites. yucca mountain was deemed the best after a thorough technical analysis. congress has voted a number of times to retain yucca mountain as the national site and $15 billion has been spent on the project. $19 billion is the estimated taxpayer liability to be paid out of the judgment funds to utilities because the d.o.e. has not removed the waste as promised. $30 billion, the total amount of ious in the trust fund that rate payers have been paying into. it must be paid back by the taxpayers because congress spent the money on other programs. unknown is the cost of creating another federal agency to manage

nuclear waste as recommended by the commission. the yucca mountain project goes back three decades and it seems that we are nowhere near today yet a long-term solution. you know, the question we have to ask is how do we know that if we adopt the recommendations laid out in the commission's report we won't be back here again three decades from now having spent billions more without a long-term storage solution? can this plan be a bridge that will result in long-term solution? or will this kind of be a bridge back to square one? so that is what i hope to find out in what i hope will be a series of hearings on this important subject. the barriers to establishing a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste are the same barriers that interim storage facilities will face. so whether it's the cost of shipping the waste and building the storage facilities, whether it's the siting of the facilities, whether it's the transportation routes for the shipment of the waste or the environmental impact of shipping and storing the waste or the bureaucratic red tape of permitting the project across

multiple governmental entities. none of these issues have yet gone away. even while advocating a new consent-based approach to siting the waste, we -- which we'll explore today -- the commission itself admits the crux of the challenge derives from a federal, state, and local issue and no simple formula exists for solving it. so the commission is attempting to solve this problem and offer solutions to the siting and storage. si cited kparm examples where there are possible templates for us to explore. i look forward to exploring these examples and see if we've found something new here that can work. but we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal here, which is where is the long-term solution? and are we getting there any time soon? we must not forget the nuclear power is a viable part of our energy mix.

it's affordable, runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it's an essential part of an all of the above strategy. we cannot secure our country's energy future without providing for its continued success. that means developing our natural resources such as mining for domestic american uranium, found an abundance, mr. chairman, in my home state of wyoming. it also means expanding -- expediting the citing and construction of new nuclear power plants across the country and providing for a long-term storage facility for spent fuel. so i pledge to continue to work with my colleagues, with you, others on the committee, and in the senate to achieve these things. again, thank you very much for this hearing this morning and i look forward to the testimony. >> thanks a lot for your statement. i think the senator might be our next statement giver, and senator alexander. >> i'll simply say i appreciate your report very much, that this is incredibly important challenge, and i look forward to

your testimony. thank you. >> short, but sweet. thank you. all right. senator alexander. >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> i know this is an issue of real interest to you and i'm delighted you're part of this. >> thank you. thank you for having the hearing and to you and senator barrasso, and after we vote, i'll be back to hear what the witnesses have to say and hopefully ask some questions. general, professor, thank you both for your hard work on all of this. my view on nuclear power is pretty well known, i think, not to think about using windmills and have nuclear reactors would be like general skocroft going to war in sailboats. but i won't get into all that today. as the chairman said and as senator barrasso said, we've had a stalemate here for about 25 years as you have said in your

report. and we in congress have caused some of that. and we need to break that stalemate. your report told us something we know or should've known, it's the obvious that no policy or process involving nuclear waste can be successful unless it's consent based along the way. so we've tried to break that stalemate. and by we, i say senator binghamton and senator feinstein who the ranking members on energy and the energy appropriations committee and senator murkowski and i who are the ranking republican members, we've decided we're going to work together, mr. chairman, with you and others to try to break the stalemate, address the issue and begin to implement the best ideas from this report. two things have happened this year, which are moving us in that direction. first, we were able to include with the approval of the

authorization committee leaders, a provision in this year's energy and water professions bill that creates a pilot program for the department of energy to begin to find consolidation sites for used nuclear fuel. that would be a consent-based process, and it would be a place where you would put nuclear fuel before it goes into the long-term repository. we thank you for the endorsement by the cochairs of the commission of this idea. and dr. peterson's also commended the idea that's a big help. you know, whether one is for or against yucca mountain, we need to move ahead. we still need consolidation sites. we have some places around the country on the 65 sites where we have used nuclear fuel where there are no plants anymore. and those would be obvious places where we ought to move that used nuclear fuel to consolidation sites. and it's our responsibility, as senator barrasso said.

under the law, it's our job to get the waste and take care of it. and we're not doing that and the government is liable for that. so that's another reason to break the stalemate. and still another reason to break the stalemate, even if yucca mountain were open today, we'd need a second repository very quickly because the stuff we had would pretty well fill up yucca mountain if it were open. so we need to move ahead. we need to break the stalemate and i'm very appreciative of senator carper and barrasso focusing on this, and i want to commend senators binghamton and feinstein for their leadership. we know the fuel can be safely stored there for a long time, maybe 100 years, but that's not where it's supposed to be stored. and we need to solve that problem. the second thing that's happening is that senator binghamton and senator murkowski are developing a comprehensive proposal to try to implement the recommendations that your commission has made. senator feinstein and i hope to be co-sponsors of that and we've

been meeting on it regularly. we hope that bill can be introduced within the next two or three weeks. senator binghamton hopes to have a hearing on it soon. in other words, we want to get moving. this is an area in washington where we've had a stalemate for 25 years and where senators of both sides are taking advantage of an excellent report by the commission. whether or not you favor yucca mountain, we need to move ahead with consolidation sites, with finding a second repository. and we can argue about yucca mountain along the way h. thank you for being here, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator alexander and for the expertise and passion you bring to this subject. senator, good morning. >> good morning, senator carper, good to be here with you. >> great to have you. and thank you for holding this hearing. first i'd like to thank our blue ribbon commissioners for coming and would also like to specifically welcome two members of our -- two panelists on our

next panel. formally worked with me in the new mexico attorney generals office during the whip siting process. his expertise is much broader and he's a knowledgeable expert with a great spirit of public service. jeff, welcome. >> would you raise your hand, please? >> oh -- >> thank you. >> thank you, senator carper for doing that. and dr. andrew horrell of the national lab is one of our nation's best experts on the science and policy. thank you for making the long trip here from albuquerque to be with us. he has worked on whip, yucca mountain, and the science behind numerous international and potential nuclear waste solutions. sandea, horrel, and his colleagues are valuable assets for the entire country on the nuclear issue. as we consider nuclear issues, i

consider all of my colleagues to reach out to both sandea and los alamos for objective, reliable information. the second i want to emphasize this is an extremely important hearing. the senate appropriations committee has already approved legislation on the interim nuclear waste storage. it is my understanding that provision is within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and this committee like many of the blue ribbon commission recommendations. we are trying to start over with a clean slate. so i think we should proceed with a regular order whenever possible. i know the senate energy committee also has a strong interest and i believe we should work cooperatively with them. nuclear waste policy has a poor history in congress as evidenced by congress cutting short the site selection process and mandating yucca mountain over state objection. what goes around, comes around.

as new mexico's attorney general, i had a similar experience having to litigate against the department of energy over the waste isolation. we were not fighting over the facility itself, but d.o.e.'s go-it-alone process and congress's failure to provide appropriate authorization. eventually we were able to obtain state regulatory authority, independent epa oversight and hundreds of millions in state assistance. the facility also firmly was also firmly limited to defense only waste. these were enacted in the whip land withdrawal act. as a result, the state accepted it and it's been operated safely ever since. and i know both of these commissioners have visited whip and are very familiar with it. both the yucca mountain case and

the whip case shed a light on what "consent-based siting" should mean. our panel here today is very qualified to help us further understand these issues, and i look forward to the committee's work. and once again, senator carper, i very much appreciate your interest in this issue. and asserting jurisdiction of this committee over this issue. i know that this is a big issue. and i know that the subcommittee and our committee, the epw committee have jurisdiction and we should assert that and push forward with this issue. thank you. >> you're in an assertive mood today, aren't you? this is good. this is good. all right. to our commissioners here, general, you are a hero to many of us republicans and democrats alike. having served our nation under

several presidents. i think gerald ford if i'm not mistaken, richard nixon, george bush, george herbert walker bush, and we're grateful for all the years you serve and continue to serve. dr. peterson, has your name ever been mispronounced? every day? >> i confess, i don't pronounce it correctly because i do not have a swedish accent. it does happen every now and then. >> all right. all right. well, i come from economy of new sweden where they came and planted a flag and said this is the colony of new sweden, it's now wilmington, delaware. so a special welcome. but you're currently as i understand a professor of nuclear engineering at uc berkeley. part of this commission. he said you're the brains in the operation, so that's a high compliment. i know he's got plenty of brains himself and so does congressman

hamilton. but the full content of your written statement will be included in the record. we'll probably start voting around 10:35, one vote, and i want us to make sure we get to hear your testimony and we may take a short break and come back and ask questions. please proceed. >> ranking member barrasso, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it's a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the recommendations of the blue ribbon committee. before we begin, i would like to pass along co-chairman lee hamilton's deep regrets for not being able to be with you today. but i'm very pleased that commissioner peterson was able to join me. i would like to note that congressman hamilton and i were

delighted to work with such a talented and dedicated group of fellow commissioners. we're thankful for the expertise and insights they brought to our endeavors. we had a wide difference of perspective on the issues, but the professionalism of the commissioners led to our final report being unanimous, a fact which we believed speaks to the strength of our recommendations. as you're aware, the blue ribbon commission was formed by the secretary of energy at the direction of the president. our charge was to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and to recommend a new strategy. we came away from our review frustrated by decades of unmet commitments to the american people yet confident we can turn this record around. mr. chairman, as proam is at an impasse.

the administration's decision to halt work on a repository at yucca mountain is but the latest indicator of a policy that has been trouble for decades and is now all but completely broken down. the approach laid out under the 1987 amendments to the nuclear waste policy act has simply not worked to produce a timely solution for dealing with the nation's most hazardous radioactive material. the united states has traveled nearly 25 years down the current path only to come to a point where continuing to rely on the same approach seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and protracted delay. what we found is that our nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. it will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it

continues. damaging to prospects for maintaining a potentially important energy supply option for the future. damaging to state, federal relations and public confidence in a federal government competence and damaging to america's standing in the world as a source of nuclear expertise and as a leader on global issues of nuclear safety nonproliferation and security. the national interest demands that our nuclear waste program be fixed. complacency with a failed nuclear waste management system is not an option. with a 65,000 metric ton inventory of spent nuclear fuel spread across the country and growing at over 2,000 metric tons a year, the status quo cannot be accepted. the need for a new strategy is urgent. mr. chairman, the strategy we recommend in our final report has eight key elements.

we are certain they are all necessary to establish a truly integrated national nuclear waste management system to create the institutional leadership and the wherewithal to get the job done and to ensure that the united states remains at the forefront of technology development and international responses to evolving nuclear safety nonproliferation and security concerns. we will now discuss those in detail. i will cover the first four and commissioner peterson the last. our first recommendation is a new consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities. experience in the united states and in other nations suggests that any attempt to force a top down federally mandated solution over the objections of a state or community far from being more efficient will take longer, cost

more and have lower odds of ultimate success. by contrast, the approach we recommend is explicitly adaptive, staged, and consent based based on activities in the united states and abroad. including most notably the siting of a disposal facility for radioactive waste, the waste isolation project pilot plan or w.i.p.p. in new mexico. we believe this type of approach can provide the flexibility and sustain the public trust and confidence needed to see controversial facilities through to completion. i might just add that i had the opportunity to speak to the prime minister of finland last evening, and he announced that he was very pleased with the

progress that they're making. and he thinks that it will be very successful. >> did he -- did he also mention the first fins came through from wilmington, delaware? >> no, we didn't get to that. our second recommendation is for a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed. the overall record of d.o.e. and the federal government as a whole has not inspired confidence or trust in our nation's nuclear waste management program. for this and other reasons, the commission concludes that new institutional leadership is needed, specifically, we believe a single purpose congressionally chartered federal corporation is best suited to provide the stability, focus, and credibility needed to get the

waste program back on track. for the new organization to succeed, a substantial degree of implementing authority and assured access to funds must be paired with rigorous financial, technical, and regulatory oversight by congress and the appropriate government agencies. our third recommendation is that access to the funds nuclear utility rate payers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management. nuclear facilities are assessed a fee on every kilowatt hour of generated electricity in exchange for the federal government's contractual commitment to begin accepting commercially spent fuel beginning by january 31st, 1998. fee revenues go to the government's nuclear waste fund which was established for the

sole purpose of covering the cost of disposing of civilian nuclear waste and ensuring that the waste program would not have to compete with other funding priorities. the fund does not work as intended. a series of executive branch and congressional actions has made annual fee revenues approximately $750 million a year and the unspent $27 billion balance in the fund effectively inaccessible to the waste program. instead, the waste program is subject to exactly the budget constraints and uncertainties that the fund was created to avoid. this situation must be remedied immediately to allow the program to succeed. the commission sent a letter to the president on december 11th, 2011 discussing this particular recommendation in detail. and we will submit it as part of this hearing's recommendation.

our fourth recommendation is prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facility. the conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is a scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue. and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste program. moreover, all spent fuel reprocessing or recycle options either already available or under active development at the time still generate waste streams that require permanent disposal solution. we simply know that regardless of what happens with yucca mountain, the u.s. inventory of spent fuel exceeds that the amount that can be legally in place at that site until a second repository is in operation.

the statutory limit for yucca mountain is 70,000 metric tons. and d.o.e. has set aside 10% for defense spent nuclear fuel. leaving only 365,000 metric tons for civilian waste. so under current law, the united states will need a new disposal site even if yucca mountain goes forward. we believe the approach set forth here provides the best strategy for assuring continued progress regardless of the fate of yucca mountain. >> the voting starts at 10:30, we're about five minutes into the votes. i'd like you to complete your testimony. >> so continuing with the disposal as a key element of consent-based siting, disposal

facility before any new disposal site is selected, a new safety standard should be developed so the commission has recommended that the environmental protection agency and the nuclear regulatory commission which this committee has jurisdiction over should begin working together to define an appropriate process for developing a generic disposal facility safety standard and associated implementing regulations. the fifth recommendation relates to prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities, capacity would allow the federal government to begin the orderly transfer of spent fuel from reactor sites to safe and secure centralized facilities independent of the schedule for operating a permanent repository. the arguments in favor of consolidated storage are strongest for spent fuel at shut down plant sites of which there are ten across the country. stranded fuel should be first in line for transfer to consolidated facilities so these plant sites can be completely

decommissioned and put to other beneficial uses. the availability of consolidated storage will also provide valuable flexibility in the nuclear waste management system that could achieve meaningful cost savings can provide backup storage that spent fuel needs to be removed quickly and would provide an excellent platform for ongoing r & d to better understand how storage systems how currently in use at both commercial and d.o.e. sites perform over time. we support the efforts of senator feinstein and alexander with their proposed legislation regarding a pilot storage program for high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel as it incorporates several key recommendations of the blue ribbon commission and is a positive step toward the goal of creating integrated waste management program in the united states. our letter of support dated april 23rd, 2012, will be submitted for the record. sixth is prompt efforts to prepare for the large scale transport of spent fuel and high-level waste. to consolidated storage and

disposal facilities when such facilities become available. the current system of standards and regulations governing the transport of spent fuel and other nuclear materials appears to have functioned well. and the safety record of past shipments of these types of materials is excellent, particularly with respect to the w.i.p. transportation system. that being said, greater transfer demands for nuclear materials are likely to raise new public concerns. the commission believes that state, tribal, and local officials should be extensively involved in the transportation planning and should be given the resources necessary to discharge their roles and obligations in this area. historically, some programs have treated it as an afterthought. no successful programs have done so. seventh is support for advances in workforce development. advances in nuclear energy technology have the potential to deliver an array of benefits across a wide range of energy policy goals. the commission believes these

benefits in light of environmental and energy security challenges the united states in the world we'll confront this century justifies sustained private and public sector support for light water reactor technology and advance reactor and fuel cycle technologies. the eighth recommendation relates to the key topic of active u.s. leadership in international efforts to address safety, nonproliferation, and security concerns. as more nations consider putting nuclear energy or expanding consider pursuing nuclear energy or pursuing nuclear programs, u.s. leadership is need on issues of safety, nonproliferation, security and counterterrorism. from the u.s. perspective, two points are particularly important. first, with so many players in the international nuclear technology and policy arena, the united states will increasingly have to lead by engagement and by example. second, the united states cannot exercise effective leadership on issues related to the back end

of the nuclear fuel cycle so long as our own program is in complete disarray. effective domestic policies are needed to support america's international agenda. in conclusion, the problem of nuclear waste may be unique in the sense that there is a wide agreement about the outlines of a solution. simply put, we know what we have to do. we know we have to do it, and we even know how to do it. we believe the conditions for progress are arguably more promising than they have been in some time. but we will only know -- we will only know if we start, which is what we urge the administration and congress to do without further delay. thank you for having us here today, and we look forward to your questions. thank you very much. >> i want to thank you both for that joint testimony. we're going to recess here for a brief period of time, we should be back in about ten minutes and start right back up.