fixing of the 1919 world series. join us live with your calls, e-mails and tweets. that's sunday at noon eastern on book tv's in-depth on c-span 2. july 7th and 8th. >> book tv and american history tv explore the heritage and literary culture of missouri's state capitol, jefferson city. with content vehicles and book tv on the campus of lincoln university. >> this is probably our most famous book. this is the one we like to show to visitors when they come in to the archives here at page library. this is a book about harriet tubman called harriet, the moses of her people. and the special thing about this, this book was written in 1866. the special thing approximate this book is that harriet tubman made her mark on there and

that's really the most famous autograph if you want to call it that of what we have here in page library. and obviously, she couldn't read or write. so she left her mark, the sign of the cross. >> watch for book tv and american history tv in jefferson city, missouri, july 7th and 8th on c-span 2 and 3. the senate environment and public works subcommittee on clear air and nuclear safety convened a hearing on nuclear waste management today to review recommendations of the president's commission on america's nuclear future. the 15-member commission was created in 2010 to review federal policies managing nuclear fuel. this is just over two hours. >> hearing come to order this morning. welcome one and all. general, professor peterson,

ladies and gentlemen, we appreciate the efforts of all of our witnesses to be here today. if you'll pass on our very best to congressman hamilton who is one of my heroes and mentors from my time in the house. i appreciate that and hope he's doing well. with today's hearing is really one of several that we hope to hold on the work of the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future as our committee starts to deliberate on how we move forward on what i think, i think what we all believe is a very important issue of nuclear waste disposal in this country. and really in the world. specifically today, we'll be focusing on the consent based recommendations made by the commission. senators will have five minutes for their opening statements and we'll recognize the first panel of witnesses, two members of the blue ribbon commission.

so general scocroft, you'll have five minutes. to offer statements to our committee. if you're over that, that's okay, but not too far over that. following the first panel's statements we'll have one round of questions. and somewhere during this, we'll probably start some votes. i think we have one vote today at 10:30. so we'll deal with that and then start right back up. maybe if we're lucky, we'll be able to continue in session. i'd like to try that. our second panel of witnesses will come forward. their testimony will be followed again by another round of questions. so that's sort of the game plan. we'll see how it works out. across this country, y'all know we have 104 currently operating nuclear plant reactors providing this nation with clean, reliable power, they provide roughly 20% of the electricity to the people of this country. unlike a fossil fuel power plants, these nuclear power

plants do not emit sulfur dioxide, do not emit nitrogen or carbon monoxide, all of which harm our health and our environment. currently our nuclear reactors are storing their spent nuclear fuel on-site in a safe and reliable manner. i've been told that the technology we have to store spent nuclear fuel called dry cast storage can be safe for another 50 to as many as 100 years, perhaps even longer. however, our nuclear reactors were not designed to keep their spent fuel on-site forever. and as our reactors age and are decommissioned, we must find an alternate resting place for our nuclear spent fuel. unfortunately, our country has been on a path to finding a place for nuclear spent fuel for decades. it was over 30 years ago when the congress realized the importance of finding a permanent solution for disposal

of our spent fuel and high-level waste and the response, congress passed the nuclear waste policy act of 1982, moving this country forward toward deep mine nuclear waste repositories. after years of study and debate, we find ourselves 30 years later in what's really a dead end. we have no functioning nuclear waste repository and none in the foreseeable future. i applaud president obama for realizing that we need to forge a new pathway to dealing with our nuclear waste by forming this blue ribbon committee which is represented here today. i want to thank the general, the congressman hamilton, the other commissioners for what i'm told is good work on this effort. i believe the commission did a thorough job reaching out literally to thousands of americans to folks all over the world and searching

for the best way to move forward on this front. blue ribbon commission recommendation, a recommendation provide us, i think with an excellent road map to enable us to not just to find a new path, but go in the right direction. but before we start running full speed ahead, i believe we need to make sure that we fully learn from our past mistakes and not repeat those missteps. if not, our country may well find ourselves 30 years from now in another dead end situation. the kind that we face today. i believe that one of the biggest mistakes we've made is that we were unable to get consent from all parties on the location of disposal. somehow we've learned to really states across the country to compete with one another for the siting of prisons in their states as opposed to other states but haven't learned how to get communities to compete for our disposal sites for spent fuel. some of my colleagues have heard

me discuss in the past, a state siting is not an easy thing to do, fairly dense populations, but there are a number of states across the country who have figured out part of the economic development plan would be a host, build prisons and host prisoners from other states. you know, if we can sort of get states to do that, we ought to be able to let them figure out how -- who would like to do what they're doing over in france in providing good-paying jobs, high-tech facilities for spent fuel. well, that's why i believe out of all the commission's recommendations, a consent-based siting is most important and that's why we're hosting a hearing on this important issue. as a former two-term governor, i know senator alexander as a former two-term governor knows this, as well, so do our other colleagues, but any

consent-based approach must include a meaningful partnership between federal, local, and state leaders, and we also have to have open communications. with the people who live and work in and around those communities. only with open communications we'll be able to reestablish the public trust and confidence that are needed to solve our nuclear waste disposal issues once and for all. closing, i'm looking forward to today's discussion, especially interested as we learn from our mistakes and what we can do different as we examine how consent based siting might work here in the usa. with that, let me turn to my partner in crime, senator. barrasso. >> i'd like to join you in welcoming all the witnesses who have agreed to be here to testify, including the two blue-ribbon commissioners. most especially, i want to welcome general scocroft of the blue ribbon commission. the co-chair.

thank you for your service to our country and agreeing to testify today. thank you, both. mr. chairman, the issue of storage of nuclear waste is vital to maintaining and expanding affordable nuclear power in the united states. all of us here know that 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 bs by the department of energy 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 that is far from unique to the nuclear waste 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 of waste. i've cited examples in new mexico, finland, france and sweden 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 then 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.

when we had a nuclear navy available. 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 are 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 appropriations 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. 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.

with senator barrasso. and thank you for holding this hearing. first i'd like to thank our blue ribbon commissioners for coming and would also like to especially 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 sandia national lab is one of our nation's best experts on the nuclear fuel cycle. 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. sandia, dr. horrell 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 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 almost 350 years

ago 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 we are all too well aware, america's nuclear waste management program 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 confid o