that's an kpem excellent question. the benefits we found were so large in terms of taxpayer liability. of become able to collect material into a smaller number of locations and return unused sites to more productive uses. it makes sense to -- not after the development of a gee logic repository. this does take amendment of the

>> did i state it correctly? your recommendations in support for the idea of moving ahead with identifying consolidation sites does not decide the question of yucca mountain one way or the other. whether we're for yucca mountain -- im accurate to say whether we're for it or against it, we still need to move ahead with consolidation sites and we still need to move ahead as soon as the legislation is passed to begin to identify a second repository? >> absolutely. clearly, the question of what needs to be done with yucca mountain is quite controversial. i think if our commission had been required to answer that question, we would have had a difficult time reaching a consensus. but what we found is that the things that we recommended that we do move forward on, developing new repository, developing consolidated storage,

creating a new entity, these are things we need to do as the commission said regardless of whether we were to retain, discard, place into deep freeze or whatever ends up being what happens to yucca. these are other things that really are important for us to move forward on as promptly as we can. >> mr. chairman, may i ask one more quick question? >> let us discuss this. no, go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for -- did you weigh -- you know, sometimes the simplest solution is the best solution. and the simplest solution for used nuclear fuel is to leave it where it is. i mean, you've got security. you've got -- you don't have to transport it, which is hard to do and sometimes risky.

and so a consolidation site takes time. takes a lot of money. requires transportation which could be risky. so did you weigh those two things, and still come down on the side of the need for consolidation sites? >> yes, we certainly did. we looked at -- we looked at all -- all the different possibilities. and we concluded that even though it means more sites you have to locate and so on, that on balance it was well worth it. and the transportation is certainly a problem. it has worked well regarding the wip thing and we think that with certain precautions which we suggest in our recommendations to have the state and local

authorities aware of possible crises that transportation is not that big a problem. >> thanks, mr. chairman, senator barrasso, for your courtesy. >> you're welcome. great questions. senator barrasso. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. to both of you in the testimony we discussed examples of where consent-based approach has worked. and you visited about the disposal facilities siting for new mexico. are there positive outcomes, spain, finland, sweden? could you tell me about what the key common elements are that made those projects successful? >> well, i would say the key common elements are that the prospects were made to look positive in the eyes of the local communities. and they were an asset to the communities. and as i say, that's why there has actually been in some cases active bidding to hold -- to hold the site.

so i think that's the key to it. to make it not a penalty that's being forced on you but an opportunity for the community. and that will differ for different communities, what they find attractive. but it seems to be working very well in all the other countries that we visit. as i say, none of them have the particular complications we do in our federal system. but given that, we're optimistic. >> talking about some of the particular complications in the federal system. and the written testimony you'd mentioned in terms of the epa, working with the nuclear regulatory commission. they should begin working together to determine an appropriate process for a generic disposal -- facility safety standard and

then was there a similar process -- in terms of developing that safety standard, what came yucca mountain? was that there and -- because it seemed that the process took a long, long time, and your thoughts there. >> for yucca mountain, the -- there were difficulties in demonstrating compliance with the existing safety standards so congress did direct the national academies to study the question and issue a report upon which a new safety standard could be issued. and this occurred before the site had been selected. so in my professional judgment, i think that the standard that was developed is reasonably protective, but to do this after you've picked a site and then to change the safety standard that it's required to meet through legislation, i think does damage confidence in the entire process. and this is one of the reasons

why considerable amount of activity can start immediately in terms of facilitating the ability of local communities to study and to understand what the implications would give hosting facilities. but before site selection occurs it really would be best to have a clearly defined and clearly site independent safety standard available that the sites would be required to meet. >> when i think about yucca mountain because we need affordable domestic energy, and we need it now. and i believe yucca mountain could be a key bridge to allowing nuclear energy to be a very viable part of america's energy mix. so when i look at this, you talk about providing incentives for communities to accept nuclear waste. under your plan, would nevada qualify for incentives, and is there any way now to incentivize the communities in nevada to move forward with yucca mountain?

>> we see no reason that yucca mountain could not go forward if it meets the criteria. so we do not rule out yucca mountain at all, no. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would just say the -- for years when i see a yucca mountain referred to in the press or by the media, it's always characterized as a nuclear waste dump. always. characterized that way. and whether -- in my state, my guess is the same is true in wyoming or tennessee or new mexico or any other state. nobody wants to have a dump in their neighborhood or in their community. and as we figure out going through this, the kind of approach, consensus-building approach that's being recommended by the commission,

the -- not as important, made clear that -- a repository collection site, whatever we want to call it not be a dump. but to be able to point to other similar facilities around the world. where these actions have gone forward and they are anything but a dump. and they are not only construction jobs for those facilities and other countries. they are very good jobs for people who work there and operate these facilities. and they spin off tax revenues for the local governments. and do so in an environmentally sound way. we have to be smart enough as they have, i believe, in some of these other countries to meet the transportation concerns that have been alluded to here today. but we've got to be smarter the second time through than we were the first time through. and i'm hopeful that the work the commission has done will enable us to be a whole lot smarter. or as my father used to say, just take -- just take your smart pills, tom.

just take your smart pills. we're going to take the smart pills and you give us a full prescription of those. laura haynes who sits behind me gave me a note. i just want to refer to it briefly here. the question goes back to jurisdictions. i show this to senator barrasso. it's very short so i just want to mention this before you all are excused. i believe that some folks are confused about the subcommittee's jurisdiction. and we want to be clear and state very briefly what we think it is. this is a quote. nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy. it's nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy. that's verbatim. our friends in the energy committee, whom we love, have jurisdiction over the, and this is verbatim, quote, nonmilitary development of nuclear energy.

that's the nonmilitary development of nuclear energy. and since we're talking about the control of nuclear waste, spent fuel, we believe this clearly lies if this subcommittee's jurisdiction. in fact, several nuclear waste bills have already been reported to our subcommittee, to our committee over recent years. and i am sure, given the affection we have for our friends in the energy committee that we will work well and closely with them and other relevant committees on this very important issue. that having been said, just want to thank you and ask you to convey to your colleagues on the commission our profound thanks for the -- all the work. all the time and effort that's gone into this effort. and to say we look forward to having good dialogue with you going forward as we end up in a much smarter place this time than we did 30-some -- over the

last 30 years. with that having been said, you are excused. our very best to your colleague lee hamilton. give him our highest regards, and thank you so much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, mr. ranking member. it's been a privilege to be with you. >> the privilege is ours. thank you both. as our second panel takes their seats, i just want to briefly introduce them. welcome them. thank you all for joining us today. you heard from your warm-up act. they're pretty good. and we now look forward to hearing from each of you. but on this panel, we welcome jeffrey fettus, senior project attorney for the natural resources defense council which earlier this year announced that

in evaluating the beaches throughout the country, as i recall, announced there are a lot of one star beaches. they announced a bunch two of-star beaches. you don't want to be a one-star beach. you want to be a beach -- a lot of one-star beaches, two-star beaches. not as many three-star. even fewer four-star. turned out to be four five-star beaches in america. and two of them are actually in a state represented by one of the two members of this committee sitting here. and the last time i checked, there were no beaches in new mexico. >> did you know, chairman, that we had an ancient ocean a million years ago in new mexico? >> that was then. this is now. so if you are looking for a five-star beach to come to, senator udall, senator barrasso, feel free to visit us in rehoboth or dewey beach, delaware.

all right. that's neither here nor there, but i had to -- we're especially happy to welcome you for -- given the great work the nrdc did on that. david wright, president of the national association of regulatory utility commissioners. vice chairman, public service commission of south carolina. nice to see you. welcome. mr. eric howes? director of government and public affairs maine yankee. and daniel s. metlay, senior professional staff, u.s. nuclear waste tactical review board. dr. metlay, good to see you. is it mr. or doctor? which do you like to be called? all right. mr. it is. mr. andrew -- and is it orrell? with the emphasis on the first or second syllable? orrell.

like oral surgery? all right. we'll alternate that. dr. andrew orrell, director of nuclear energy and fuel cycle programs, sandia national laboratories. we'll ask you to hold your statements to about five minutes. if you go way beyond that we'll have to rein you in. we're glad you're here. appreciate your participation and preparation. mr. fettus. [ inaudible ] >> there you go. might want to turn that mike on so we can hear you. >> i thank the chairman and ranking member for inviting nrdc to share its views on the potential legislative outcomes of the president's blue ribbon commission. i've submitted written testimony to be submitted in the record. and i'll focus believely on two points now. point one, in new legislation we urge congress to require standards for sight screening and development criteria be in

final form before any interim storage or disposal sites are considered. i was very pleased to hear dr. peterson reiterate that call. we share it. the same is true for generic radiation and environmental protection standards. the brc was correct when it wrote that regulatory requirements to insurance geologic depository. but with respect, we're very pleased that they were explicit today that such standards must be in final form before the process begins. why do we feel so strongly about this? short circuiting the site selection process in gerrymandering environmental standards led directly to the loss of support from nevada, substantially diminished, congressional backing, want to ensure that the proposed site

remain the sole option, and wholesale erosion of public support for the yucca mountain project. further, we expect any such generic standards will be subject to adverse pressure, applied by, for example, the office of management and budget, other involved agencies and perhaps even industry. altering regulatory standards in order, too lou a site to be licensed. which is what happened repeatedly with yucca mountain ensures the nation won't make progress on lasting solutions which takes us to point two. the brc's emphasis on a consent-based approach was a step in the right direction. and i am pleased to hear so many members of the panel amplify that today. the commission studied what worked and what didn't work over the past 20 years and it looked overseas. it came to the conclusion that trying to foist an unending stream of nuclear waste on an unwilling state and an unwilling congressional delegation was a losing proposition. the brc stated, and i quote, it's essential to affirm a meaningful role for states, tribes and local governments that is at once positive n substantially meaningful. frankly, such an observation was long overdue.

we concur with that observation but note the brc was too tentative in its recommendation. rather than attempt to build a better version of the same kind of mouse trap, such change can be accomplished by amending the atomic energy act to remove its express exemption of radioactive material from environmental laws. exemptions of radioactivity from our laws make it a privilege pollutant. these exemptions are at the foundation of government run nuclear facilities. if epa and the states had full legal authority and could treat radio nuclides, clear cleanup standards could be promulgated and we could be much further along. in remediating the toxic level of the cold war, as just one answer. furth ewe could avoid some of the ongoing disputes over operations at commercial nuclear facilities. even the brc recognized this as it noted new mexico's efforts to regulate aspects of the wip facility in senator udall's state under its hazardous waste laws is mentioned as a critical positive outlet. i can assure you that obtaining that regulatory authority was a -- in short order, a contentious fight. but once that regulatory authority was obtained by the state, that was the critical step.

any regulatory change of this magnitude would have to be harmonized with nrc licensing jurisdiction over nuclear facilities and epa's existing jurisdiction over radiation protection standards. but such a process is certainly within the -- is certainly within the capacity of those federal agencies. some states would assume environmental jurisdiction over radioactive material. others might not. but in any event, improved clarity in the regulatory structure and a meaningful state oversight role would allow for the first time consent-based and transparent decisions to take place. and let me close point two by noting if congress were to follow a more timid path and legislate a narrow allowance for a particular state such as a contract that would provide the state with some measure of regulatory control, that would be inadequate and would not provide the state the necessary certainty. new mexico and its senator might be able to inform this more with the demise of the proposed yucca mountain project. we understand that some have already suggested that aspects of the wip land withdraw act

might be subject to alteration. well, as senator udall explained before, there were expressed promises made to new mexico. and if that promises are even remotely in jeopardy it's not sure why any state would trust such a contractor future promise. i'm happy to take questions on those as well. but i'll close with the overarching premise that we -- that we hope guides both congressional inquiry and legislative drafting. that is, years or decades from now just as you warned, chairman carper, others will face our current predicament unless congress creates a transparent, equitable process with strong public health and environmental standards that can't be manipulated in order to license a site that may not be suitable. as i stated to several members of the brc, in an extensive public colloquy last fall in denver, i can't guarantee that nrdc's recommendations will result in a solution, but i can point to strong evidence that following a course similar to

the last two decades results in failure. thank you again for this opportunity to testify and i'm happy to take your questions. >> you bet. thank you so much. mr. wright, please proceed. >> morning ranking member carper and other subcommittee members as they come in. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is david wright, i'm a commissioner with the south carolina public service commission. and i invite you to myrtle beach, to the beaches around hilton head and charleston, south carolina. i also have the privilege of serving as the president of the national association of regulatory utility commissioners. otherwise 19 as naruc on whose behalf i'm speaking. it's a quasi nongovernmental foundation. our membership includes the public utility commissions serving all states and u.s. territories. naruc's mission is to serve the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of public utility regulation.

our members regulate the retail rates and services of electric, gas, water and telephone utilities. we are obligated under the laws of our respective states to assure the establishment and maintenance of such utility services as may be required by the public convenience and necessity to assure that such services are provided under rates and subject to terms and conditions of service that are just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. naruc and state utility commissions in 40 states served by nuclear generated electricity have been involved in the troubled history of nuclear waste disposal since 1983. that is when the utilities which only used fuel were required by the nuclear policy waste to enter into contracts with d.o.e. as you know, that disposal has not happened, but the fee payments continue to be made. or as a former florida utility commissioner summarized the status in 1991, the government has our money, we have their waste. it's now 20 years or more later and the used fuel remains in indefinite storage at 72 sites in 34 states all across the united states. utility commissioners care because the utilities pass the

cost of these fees to their customers through the electric bill. notwithstanding our position on the administration handling of the yucca mountain issue, naruc was closely involved in the work of the blue ribbon commission. we wrote letters, gave testimony, provided comments and attended most of the public meetings. we were impressed with the panel's distinguished members, their approach to the task, the talented professional staff and the sincere interest in public input. we have asked d.o.e. to preserve and maintain access to the commission website. as for the recommendations, while we welcome them all, we have the following points. first, reform the nuclear waste fund or reform of the fund is

essential for most of the recommendations to occur. next, regardless of yucca mountain, we need another repository. the lessons of yucca and better -- and the better lessons of finland, sweden and wip suggest the consent-based siding approach may get better results but will require patience. we have long favored consolidated interim storage but find the report vague as to quantity, duration and cost. we're not sure what the effect will be on the fee if the nuclear waste fund is to be used to pay for storage. we agree with the concept and benefits of a new federal corporation that can focus on the waste management mission with a fresh partnership attitude for encouraging the consent-based approach. we look ford refining the concept and enabling legislation. transportation, planning and coordination with states and others cannot begin soon enough. finally, we commend the brc january 2012 report for specifying that the proposed consent-based approach to siting future repositories must be adaptive and that -- in the sense that the process itself is flexible and produces decisions that are responsive to new information and new technical, social or political

developments. certainly future siting efforts have to account for a widely divergent demographics populations as well as unique proposed repositories to topologies. since one size certainly does not fit all in this context, naruc agrees that flexibility in approach is a necessary prerequisite. moreover, the time is not right to commit to a reprocessing strategy as an economic proposition, although r&d should continue as the brc recommends. we encourage d.o.e. to take steps to seek volunteer host communities to step forward in storage siting without waiting to find a new management organization. there are two areas where we disagree with the commission report. the report says overall we're confident our waste management recommendations can be implemented using revenue streams already dedicated for this purpose. there are no cost estimates to substantiate that belief which likely also assumes the $26.7

billion in the nuclear waste fund is assured. the report further says, quote, we don't know -- we know we have to do it. we know -- we know we have to do it. we even know how to do it. and while we may wish that were true, our assessment was that there were too many content to pass the problem along to future generations and leave the waste where it was. it's fitting for the commission to call for prompt action, developing both consolidated interim storage and beginning the search for a new repository. but we may need the public education outreach to help persuade some who seem to favor the no action alternative continuing to kick the dry cast down the road should not be an option. yet another study calls for prompt action. yet despite on paper at least a financing plan implementation relies on leadership from the administration and congress, naruc stands ready to cyst on behalf of the rate payers who may not realize that they are overpaying for safe waste disposition.

thank you. >> mr. wright, all done? >> yes, sir. >> did you refer to -- did you quote a nuclear regulatory -- or public service commissioner in florida talking -- >> i did. i believe it was terry deeson. >> i think -- correct me if i'm wrong. i think you said or he said, may have said the government has our money. we still have their waste. i think that was the quote. >> correct. >> and i just -- i thought about that. and i thought maybe another way of thinking of it is the government has the rate payers' money. the rate payers' money. and utilities still have custody of the waste created by their nuclear reactors. i'd look at it just a little different. having said that, the status quo is not acceptable. and we have to be smarter than this. and we're going to be. thank you.

>> i appreciate that, too, senator. and i will tell you that i -- i don't refer to it as nuclear waste myself. i refer to it as a nuclear resource. >> there you go. that's good. >> good morning, chairman carper, ranking member barrasso, senator alexander, senator udall. i am eric howes, the director of government and public affairs at maine yankee. i appreciate the invitation to appear before you today on behalf of the yankee companies, main yankee, connecticut yankee and yankee atom nick western massachusetts. we and our fellow sites that comprise the decommissioning plant coalition worked closely with the blue ribbon commission to ensure it understood the unique impacts that our three sites and the six other permanently shut down reactor sites face. the yankee companies and others in the dpc especially endorse

those brc recommendations concerning permanently shut down plants that are most directly achievable. the prompt establishment of a voluntary incentive-based siting program that would lead to a interim storage facility or facilities. the establishment of a first in line priority for the movement of spent fuel and other material being stored at permanently shut down reactor sites to those licensed, consolidated storage sites, and the prompt initiation of programs to coordinate federal, state and local efforts to plan for the transportation of this material to consolidated storage and disposal facilities. the blue ribbon commission noted the success we enjoy with our citizens advisory panels at the yankee companies that help demonstrate how a community-based process works to address issues in meaningful discussions that yield results. some summary, the blue ribbon commission agreed that it makes