Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 9, 2012 1:00pm-1:30pm EDT

1:00 pm
port-the negotiation between the city and the federal government. >> i think senator carper he's pointed out an issue here that is very important when we look at final legislation. many of the issues that arise along the way, what happened in the waste isolation project, was local people and state people were very worried about the safety issues. they were worried agent highways. they were worried about emergency preparedness. many dollars. hundreds of millions of dollars were put towards that to alleviate the fears, to improve the roads to emergency preparedness in place. number one. and then the issues that you've both talked about came together around should we have the site, how we should have it. the state was very worried about
1:01 pm
the science. the state was saying we know the big federal government has a lot of science. we know about the national laboratories. but as a state we want to have some oversight. as part of the negotiation as you both pointed out in your report, the environmental evaluation group was created. these were independent scientists and they walked every step with the federal science scientists along the way. challenged them at times. i think the doctor will talk a lot about this one when he hits the testimony here. so important lessons were learned. i only ask one question. you see how hard it is to get to the bottom of that crucial question. i hope senator alexander will focus in on this, too.
1:02 pm
>> it may have only been one question, but it was a pretty good one. i'm thinking out loud here about the role that the senator played in all of this as an authorizer and appropriator. i think tlvgs a forformer colleague for many years may have seen and he used the words of albert einstein, potential for adversity lies opportunity. also the potential for real economic for the people of new mexico if they figure out and play their cards right. i think arguably they've done that pretty well. senator alexander. >> thanks, mr. chairman. as i said in my opening remarks, whether you're for yucca mountain or against yucca mountain that's the stalemate. you said 25 years is long enough to be sit there can and we need to get on with it.
1:03 pm
am i not correct, you said even if that as far as -- if yucca mountain were open we'd soon need a second repository. so we have that work to do. you didn't define what you meant by consent based. was that deliberate. you didn't say state legislature has to pass a law and the local city council has to pass. >> we didn't. we said consent based, but also adaptive. it pends on the circumstances. it may be different in different areas. >> did you envision that there would be incentives to local governments to induce consent. >> we did. we talked about some of that. a research laboratory, all kinds of things that can make such a facility attractive to the community. >> basically whatever it took to create an attractive environment so the people want to compete
1:04 pm
for this, is that correct? >> that's part of the consent basis. in my experience and i don't want to prejudge this and this may not even be a part of senator bingleham's bill, for a long-term repository i would think that the federal government would want the governor and the state legislature to pass a law approving it. if i were the governor i would want the congress to pass a law approving it. i would want the next president or the next governor to undo it. my guess is what we mean by consent based will work itself out because communities who compete for the research laboratory or whatever this opportunity turns out to be will try to put together the most attractive package that they can. and then from the whoever the federal administrator is will look at it and say new mexico has a a history, b, their governor and legislature said yes, city council said yes or tennessee said yes. that would be part of an atrauktive proposal to the
1:05 pm
federal government would it not to let it know you had that kind of backing in law rather than just some statement by a governor who might not be there next year. >> absolutely. that's essential. in our federal system it's much more complicated than it is in other countries where we've looked like sweden, finland and so on where they don't have a federal system. they've actually had communities bidding against each other. >> i would hope that would happen here. >> but it's more complicated here because of the nature of our structure. >> yes, but still i think senator carper i've mentioned this, i had the same experience with prisons when we game governor. we couldn't locate one. i announced we would only have one and pretty soon we had three proposals. we can make it attractive and should. i think your consent based religious just clears the air. it doesn't resolve yucca mountain for now.
1:06 pm
whether or not one is for the mountain as i am or whether one is against it as senator reid is, that doesn't really matter in terms of whether we need a second repository or a consolidated site. let me ask about these consolidated sites. the nuclear waste policy act allows consolidated storage only after a permanent repository has been licensed. in the legislation that senator feinstein and i have in the appropriations committee, we separate these consolidated sites. we don't call them interim sites because there might always be something there on its way to a permanent site. but can you discuss why you and your recommendation separated the consolidation site from the search for the permanent repository and whether or not you think it's a wise idea for us to move ahead as the appropriations language says with identifying one or more pilot consolidation sites.
1:07 pm
although in the end, if any site were chosen it would have to be approved by an act of congress. >> that's an excellent question. i think that we found that the benefits of developing consolidated storage are so large in terms of taxpayer liability of being able to collect material into smaller number of locations and return unused sites to more productive uses, and to gain experience with transportation at smaller scale so that we can build that capability, that it makes sense to move forward with consolidated storage in parallel with not after the development of a geological repository. this does take amendment to the policy act. it's one of several areas where we made recommendations. you also mentioned the importance of incentives and we
1:08 pm
reviewed the current structure of incentives in the nuclear waste policy act and found they probably would not work as well as they should. the report provides recommendations for ways to improve the incentive basis. >> did i state it correctly, your recommendation and support for the idea of moving ahead identifying consolidation sites does not decide the question of yucca mountain one way or the other. whether we're for yucca mountain -- am i accurate to say if we're for it or against it we need to move ahead with consolidation sites and we 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
1:09 pm
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. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sometimes the simple lest solution is the best solution. the simplest solution for used nuclearer fuel is to leave it where it is. you've got security. you don't have to transport it, which is hard to do and
1:10 pm
sometimes risky. and a consolidation site takes time. takes a lot of money. requires transportation which could be risky. did you weigh those two things and still come down on the side of the immediate for consolidation sites? >> yes, we certainly did. we looked at all it be different possibility 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. the transportation is certainly a problem. it has worked well regarding the whip thing. we think that with certain precautions which we suggest in our recommendation to have the state and local authorities aware of possible crises that
1:11 pm
transportation is not that big a problem. >> thanks, mr. chairman. senator grosso. >> great question. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. to both of you in the testimony we discussed examples of where consent based approach has worked. you visited about the disposal facilities sitting for new mexico. are there positive outcomes, spain, finland, sweden. could you tell a little bit about what the key common elements are that made those projects successful? >> the key comment 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. as i say, that's why there has actually been in some cases
1:12 pm
active bidding to hold the site. 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 with we visit. as i say, none of them have the particular complications we do in our federal system. but given that, we're optimistic. >> talk about some of the particular complications in the federal system. in the written testimony you had mentioned in terms of the epa working with a nuclear regulatory commission and you said they should begin working together to define an appropriate process for developing a generic disposal facility safety standard and associated implements of regulations.
1:13 pm
was there a similar process in terms of developing that safety standard what came of yucca mountain. was that there? it seemed that the process took a long, long time. what are 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 after 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 the site and then to change the safety standard that is required to me through legislation i think does damage
1:14 pm
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 be of 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. >> think about yucca mountain, if we need affordable domestic energy and we need it now. i believe yucca mountain could be a key bridge to allowing nuclear energy to be a viable part of america's energy mix. when i welcome at this, you talk about providing incentives for communities to accept nuclear waste. under your plan would nevada qualify for incentives? is there any way now to incentivize communities in
1:15 pm
nevada to move forward with yucca mountain? >> we see no reason that yucca mountain could not go forward if it meets the criteria. we do not rule out yucca mountain at all, no. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i don't know about my colleagues, i would say for years wherever i see a yucca mountain referred to in the press or media, it's always characterized as a nuclear waste dump. always. 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 kind of approach
1:16 pm
consensus building approach it's been recommended by the commission, not as important to make clear that the 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're not only construction jobs for those facilities and other countries, they're 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 found 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 eluded to here today. but we've got to be smarter the second time through than we were the first time through. i'm hopeful the work the commission has done will enable us to be a whole lot smarter or as my father used to say, just
1:17 pm
take -- just take your smart pills, tom. just take your smart pills. we're going to take the smart pills and you're going to give us a full prescription of those. laura who sits behind me over my left shoulder gave me a note. i'm just wondering just refer to it briefly here the question goes back to jurisdictions i showed this to senator brasso. it's very short. i want to mention this before you are excused. i believe that some folks were confused about the sub committee's jurisdiction. we want to be clear and state very briefly what we think it is. this is a quote, nonmilitary environmental regulation in control of nuclear energy. nonmilitary environmental regulation in control of nuclear energy. that's verbatim. our friends in the energy committee whom we love, have jurisdiction over the and this
1:18 pm
is verbatim, quote, nonmilitary development of nuclear energy. that's the nonmilitary development of nuclear energy. and so we're talking about the control of nuclear waste spent fuel, we believe this clearly lies in this subcommittee's jurisdiction. 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 relative committees on this very important issue. that having been said, i just want to thank you and ask you to convey to your colleagues on the commission. our profound thanks for 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
1:19 pm
much smarter place this time than we did 30 -- over the last 30 years. with that, you are excused. our very best to your colleague lee hamilton, give him our highest regards. 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.
1:20 pm
as our second panel takes their seats. i 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. we now look forward to the hearing from each of you. on this panel we welcome jeffrey fete is? is it fetetis. very project attorney for the natural resources defense council. which earlier announced earlier this year that in evaluating the beaches throughout the country in rdc as i recall announced that there are a lot of one star hes. they announced that there are a bunch of two star beaches. you don't want to be a one star beach. not as many three star and fewer four star beaches. but turned out to be four
1:21 pm
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 last time i checked there were no beaches in new mexico. >> did you know, chairman carper, that we had an ancient ocean a million years ago in new mexico? >> that was then. this is now. so if you're looking for a five-star beach to come to, senator udall, come to -- feel free to visit us in delaware. that's beneath here nor there. i had to -- we're especially happy to welcome you given the great work that the rdc 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.
1:22 pm
sir eric house. er er eric howes. and the senior professional staff. dr. metly great to see you. is it mr. or doctor? mr. it is. mr. andrew is it oral. with the emphasis on the first or second syllable. like oral surgery? we'll alternate then. doctor andrew oral director of nuclear energy and fuel cycle programs. again, hold your statements to about five minutes. we're glad you're here. appreciate your participation
1:23 pm
and preparation. there you go. turn that mic on. >> i thank the chairman and the ranking member for inviting nrdc to share the crews on the potential outcomes of the president's blue ribbon commission. i submitted written testimony for the record and i'll focus briefly on two points. point one, in new legislation we urged congress to require screening for the final form before any disposal sites are concerned. >> i was pleased to hear dr. peterson reiterate that call. the same for protection standards. the brk was correct that it should be generic. that is applicable to all sites. but with respect we're very pleased that they were explicit today that such standards must
1:24 pm
be in final form before the process begins. why do we feel so strongly about this? short circuiting the site selection process and gerrymandering led directly to the loss of support from nevada, substantially diminished congressable backing except to ensure that the proposed site remain the sole option. further, we expect any such generic standards will be subject to adverse pressure ap plied by the office of management and budget, other involved agencies and perhaps industry. altering regulatory standards in order to allow a site to be licensed which is happened repeatedly with yucca mountain. it takes us to point two. the brc's emphasis on a consent based approach was a step in the right direction. i'm pleased to hear so many members of the panel amplify that today. the commission studied what worked and what didn'tork oaf
1:25 pm
the past 20 years and it looked overseas. it came to the conclusion that trying to foist an unending stream of nuclear waste in an unwilling state and an unwilling congressional dell galgs was a losing proposition. the brk stated ital to affirm a meaningful role for states, tribes and governments that is at once meaningful. we concur with that observation, but note the brc was too tentative. rather than attempt to build the same mouse trap, such a change can be accomplished by amending the atomic energy act. kpemplss of radioactivity from our laws make it in effect a privileged pollutant. these exemptions are at the foundation of state and federal agency distrust of both commercial and government run nuclear facilities. if epa and the states had full nuclear authority, clear clean
1:26 pm
up standards could be prom el gaited and much farther along in remediating the toxic legacy of the cold war. even the brc recognized this as it noted new mexico's efforts to regulate the whip facility under the hazardous waste laws is mentioned as a critical positive element. in speaking briefly outside of my text, i can assure you that obtaining that regulatory authority was a in short order a contentious fight. once that regulatory authority was attained by the state that was the critical step. any regulatory change would have to be harmonized with licensing jurisdiction over nuclear facilities and epa jurisdiction over radiation protection standards. such a process is certainly within the capacity of those federal agencies. some states would assume
1:27 pm
environmental jurisdiction. s. others might not. in any event i'mive improved clarity and a meaningful state oversight role would allow for the first time consent based and transparent decisions to take place. that would be inadequate and not provide the state the necessary certainty. new mexico and its senator might able to inform us more with the demise of the proposed yucca mountain project we understand that some have suggested that aspects of the whip land withdrawal act might be subject to alteration. there were expressed promises made to new mexico. and if those promises are remotely in jeopardy it's not clear to nrdc why any state would trust such a contract or future promise. we addressed interim storage and other matters. i'm happy to take questions on
1:28 pm
those as all. i'll close with the premise that we hope both guides congressional inquiry and legislative drafting. that is years or decades from now just as you warned, others will face our current predictment unless congress creates a trabs parent equitable process with environmental hazards that can't be manipulated in order to license a site that might not be suitful. as i stated to several members of the brc in extensive public kol kwi. i can't gasht that it will result in a solution. but i can point to strong evidence that following similar to the last two decades results in failure. thank you for this opportunity to testify and i'm happy to take your questions. >> you bet. please procedure. >> good morning. >> good morning. thank you for the funt to appear before you. my name is dooift wright and i'm
1:29 pm
a commissioner with south carolina. i welcome you to am i rightle beach and charleston, south carolina. i also have the privilege of serving as the president of the national association of regulatory utility commissioners otherwise known as n -- it's a nonprofit organization founded in 1889. our membership includes the public utility commission serving all states and u.s. territories. the commission is to serve 3 public interest by inproving the quality and effectiveness of the commission. our members regulate the retail rates of electric, gas, water and telephone activities. we are ogbly gaited to make sure the services as may be required to assure that some services are provided under rates and subject to terms and conditions of service that are just reasonable and

127 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on