it can state utility commissions served in electricity have been involved in the luke lar history of waste disposal since 1983. that is when the ewe tills the were required by the policy act to enter into contracts with doe. they called for payments of fees for nuclear generated electricity into the treasury for deposit into the waste fund to pay for the cost of disposal for used fuel beginning in 1988. that disposal has nod happened. 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 their electric bill. notwithstanding our position on the mrgs handling of the yucca

mountain issue, we were closely involved in the work of the blue rib bob commission. we were impressed with the members. the talented staff and the sincere interest in public input. we have asked to maintain and preserve access to the commission website. as for the religions 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 reprostory. -- repository. the lessons suggest that consent based sitting approach may get better results but require patience. we 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 sewly on the waste management mission. we look forward to 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 sesfys that the proposed consent based approach to sitting future repository must be adaptive 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 sitting efforts will have to account for a widely divergent demographics populations as well as unique proposed approaches to geologies. since one size certainly does not fit all in this contest, we agree that flexibility in

approach is a necessary prerequisite to future sitting initial ifts. more over is time is not right to commit to a strategy, although ra dnd should continue. we encourage steps to seek volunteer host communities. the report says overall that our recommendations can be implemented using revenue streams already dedicated for this purpose. there are no cost estimates to substantiate that belief which likely assumes the $26.7 billion in the nuclear waste fund is assured. the report further says quote, we know we have to do it. by even know how to do it. that ends the quote. while we may wish that were true, our assessment is there are too many people who are probably content to pass the

problem along to future generations and leave the waste where it is. it's fitting for the commission to call for prompl action, developing both consolidated interim storage and beginning the search for a new repository. 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. another study calls for prompt action. despite on paper a financing plan implementation relies on leadership from congress. thank you. >> did you quote a public service commissioner in florida?

>> i did. i believe it was terry deeson. >> correct me if i'm wrong, he may have said the government has our money, we still have their waste. i think that was the quote. >> correct. i thought about that. 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 would look at it 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. i will tell you that it is -- i don't refer to it as nuclear waste myself. i refer to it as a nuclear resource. >> there you go. all right. welcome. >> good morning chairman,

carper. i'm eric howes governor and director at maine yankee. 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 program that would lead to the lin licensing of a consolidated 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 storm warning 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 that 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. in summary the commission agreed it makes no sense to keep this material at former reactor sites scattered around the nation. we believe that fy 13 efforts should more aggressively advance the resolution of issues identified in the brc report. we are pleased to see the department has committed to restore funding for the regional transportation planning groups is beginning site specific

assessments of the infrastructure, transportation readiness, procurement and construction needs at each of these former reactor sites. what is yet needed is the initiation of dialogue between the government and a partnership of local communities, state governments and industry in an effort to develop a consensus sitting approach for consolidated interim storage and future repository feats. these are activities that must be sustained if we are going to be serious about the timely implementation of the brc's recommendations. consolidated interim storage is a need and important element of spent fuel management regardless of the decision on the repository for the material. through the prompt sitting of consolidated facilities, the federal government will demonstrate its capability to fulfill its promises and commitments to remove and manage this material. the rate payers and tax payers will be relieved of the obligation to pay twice for storage costs and damages for

the government's contractual failure. we will avoid future costs that will accelerate if a material remains on site for an indefinite period. in short consolidated interim storage makes it possible to design a facility that maximizes security effectiveness in economies of scale and encouragings and facilitates desired storage resources among those supporting consolidated interim storage are two organizations represented on this panel. naruk commented that we fully concur that the spent fuel should be first in line for shipment and stoshlg at a new consolidated storage facility. nrdc testified before the blue ribbon commission that nrdc wrooefs it makes sense to provide for consolidated storage of spent fuel from permanently shut down reactors not in line with reactors that are operational. in addition, we note the organizations such as the new england governor's conference,

the mit centers, the new england council, the national conference of state legislature. the nuclear waste strategy commission. the national commission on energy policy and the american physical society. we are also grateful for the enduring support for priority movement of our material to consolidated interim storage of the many members of congress who represents districts and states where our sites are located. thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. i'm glad to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. we'll get to the questions in a little bit. dr. metly, i'd like to call on you, please. >> thank you mr. chairman. chairman carper, ranking member brasso. i'm a member of the senior professional staff of the u.s. nuclear waste technical review board an independent federal agency. i thank you for inviting me here

today to provide some background information on the international experience related to consent based programs for sitting facilities for storing or disposing of high level nuclear waste. i will summarize my remarks and ask that my full statement be included many the hearing record. this subcommittee is undoubtedly familiar with the experiences in the united states both before and after site characterization was limited to yucca mountain. it may be less familiar with the experiences of other countries. these i believe can be very struckive. so i will focus my comments on them today. in the last 40 years, a dozen countries including the united states have initiated more than two dozen efforts to identify

potential repository sites. only three of those efforts have succeeded in choosing a site and are still on track. all three have relied on volunteerism and a consent based process. it is important to note that they volve both technical and nontechnical considerations. the process can start with the search for a technically qualified site or for a willing host. either approach can succeed although the suite of sites that may emerge as potential candidates may be quite different. virtually all national programs we kp exception of the finnish one have experienced shaky

starts. several consent based programs, however, are today making considerable progress. two municipalities in sweden have agreed to host a repository. a community in france volunteered to host an underground research facility knowing ahead of time that the facility could evolve into a full scale repository. one area in the united kingdom and more than a dozen localities in canada are now involved in discussions with the inch men ters of their respective national waste management programs. but here i caution you, volunteerism does not guarantee success. in japan even before the damage caused to the fukushima facility by the tsunami, a 10-year-old consent based process had bogged

down. ? germany a site proposed more than 35 years ago by the state of lower saxny appears to be in limbo. in short although the disposal of high activity radio active waste in deep mine geologic repositories is the preferred option internationally. what most characterize as national programs is their diversity and their variety. some programs focus from the beginning on specific host rock formations. others start with generic qualifying and disqualifying conditions. some countries evaluate sites one by one. others adopt a parallel approach characterizing and comparing at least two sites simultaneously.

in any case countries already hosting nuclear facilities may be especially receptive. the prospect of receiving a generous benefits package appears to be instrumental in gaining community acceptance at least in some cases. to sum up we have learned from the experience in the u.s. and abroad that one potential host communities must at least akwee es to site investigations. two, implement ters must engage potential host communities by establishing a strong and long-term local presence. three, potential host communities must have a realistic and practical way to withdraw from the sitting process. in the united states, the experience of the nuclear waste negotiator may be especially real vent because that effort

was truly a consent based sitting process. i will close by observing that consent based site selection process is in a consent based site selection process public trust in the institutions is essential. it is vitally important that potential host entities have confidence in the credibility of the process and the trustworthiness of the implement ter of the program. i thank you very much and look forward to the questions from the committee. >> thank you for your testimony. >> chairman kaerper and ranking member and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify. i have the pleasure of serving as the director of nuclear

energy. >> oreal. >> i'm glad we got that straightened out. now i can move on to the bigger problems. >> still have the pleasure of serve as the director of nuclear programs. throughout my career on working on the waste isolation pilot plant and the yucca mountain project. i have experienced firsthand the meaning of consent based approaches to repository projects and the caldron of public controversy. it is from this perspective that i offer my comments today recognizing any such comments are my own and don't represent the positions or opinions of the department of energy. we are fortunate that the united states contains maniee logic forlations that are technically suitable for nuclear waste. and ef more locations technically suitable for interim storage. but challenges remain despite facilities that are essentially and politically acceptable to

local communities, host states and the federal government. one exception has been the waste isolation pilot plant. while noting the success of the whip, the blue room commission correctly notes that quote, no one could have designed the process that was ultimately followed ahead of time nor could that process ever be replicated unquote. while the whip process can't be replicated exactly it does offer important lessons especially in regards for the needs for unquestioned credibility and intity in the individuals representing the federal interest. the placement of trust and credibility will be a prereck cyst for success. which leads me to what i believe are other prereckists if addressed will enable and encourage more potential host communities and states to consider the sitting of new nuclear waste facilities. if left unresolved can be expected to stifle or confound any consent based sitting

process. the first issue to clarify is the uncertainty of exactly who will be the federal representative of a consent based negotiation. the department of energy or as the commission recommends a new government chartered corporation. complicating this uncertainty is the unresolved issue regarding whether or not to continue to co-mingle the management responsibility of defense and commercial waste. the second issue needing clarification is to finalize what new standards and regulations will be that governor the determination of safety. the commission correctly calls for the.com of the new generic disposal standard in supporting regulatory requirements that coat should be finalized prior to the site selection process, unquote. we need to recognize that these are often long lead time items. the third issue centers on when there will be a confidence that the geologic repository for

permanent disposal of spent fuel will be realized. the commission directly notes quote, the challenge of sitting one or more consolidated storage facilities cannot be separated from the status of the disposal program. the lack of a disearnable to th willingness of some communities are states to r the hosting of needed waste management facilities and perpetuate the moratoria on new nuclear power plant construction. simply consent based siting efforts will be stifled so long as potential host communities and states have uncertainty over who, what, and when. who will be the organization representing the federal interests when negotiating for consent? what are the final regulations that will govern a determination of safety? and when will there be a confidence over whether a geologic repository for permanent disposal will actually be available? in a broad sense, the intent of the brc recommendations are to open new opportunities for the

federal government to meet its nuclear waste management obligations and to promote a larger number of opportunities for states and communities to willingly host needed storage and disposal facilities. the technical solutions for developing one or more storage and disposal facilities do exist or are readily developed. given the technical solutions to storage and disposal are readily available, the timeframes of decades often suggested for siting new facilities are thus rooted in the prerequisites to initiating a consent-based program. prompt action on resolving the items noted will help minimize further delay and better enable this generation to meet its obligations for responsible nuclear waste management. i thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering your questions. >> thanks very much. just, i'd like each member of the panel to briefly react to what you just heard from mr. orrell. we'll start with you, mr. fettis. brief.

15 seconds. >> i think it would be extraordinarily premature for congress to not take its time to do what i outlined and dr. peterson and general scowcroft outlined which was to methodically work through the process of creating new legislation. that's criteria. >> thanks so much. >> from what i heard, i tend to agree. i believe with a lot of what he's laid out. that, i mean, i think it's sensible. >> i would agree that what he's laid out makes good deal of sense. >> okay. >> mr. miller? dr. miller? >> i would certainly agree, and my board has certainly taken the position there are no technical impediments to developing a repository. >> another question for you, mr.

metlay. you mentioned an amendment to the nuclear waste policy act. could you take a minute, i don't think you mentioned this in your testimony, but take a minute if you will and talk more about the negotiators' intended role and is this something we should or could pursue this time around? if you could. and be fairly brief in your response. be brief in your response. >> certainly. the negotiators as you said was established as part of the 1987 amendments act. it was given a broad charter to negotiate with any state or native-american tribe, an agreement to host either a repository or an interim storage facility. after many years of efforts, that task proved unsuccessful, and i believe it was in 1993 that the congress decided to get rid of the office of negotiator.

certainly the idea was a useful one, and other countries have tried it. >> with success or not? >> not so much. >> okay. all right. fair enough. thank you. for mr. orrell and commissioner wright, the blue ribbon commission recommends consolidated storage facilities in parallel to a dispose l program. some in congress believe we can pursue interim storage first without also pursuing a parallel disposal program. based on your experience and knowledge, how easy or difficult would it be to get consent at all levels of government if interim storage is pursued without pursuing a disposal program? that would be for you, mr. orrell and mr. wright. >> well, my -- >> i ask you to be brief. >> without a robust discernible

repository development program, the enthusiasm for moving early on consolidated storage will probably be short lived. >> all right. thanks. mr. wright? >> what he said. >> you guys are getting good at this, you know? might invite you to come back and be our third panel today. this is one for the entire panel. and if all of you were in our shoes, what would be your first action to get this country started and on a consent-based approach toward finding a final resting place for our spent fuel? and what should congress' first step be, and is there any action that we shouldn't take that we should rule out at this stage? that would be my question. do you want to go first, mr. fettus? >> you should start by doing what you're doing precisely today with these kinds of hearings. you should start with additional hearings on the issues that are going to be very complicated.

like fees. the issue of site selection process. the issue of standards. finally, i think the one mistake you could make is to commence site selection process right now, where you start down the road of an interim storage site that jumps ahead of the line in all of this. >> good. mr. wright, a somewhat longer response than you gave to our last question, but not a lot longer. >> there are actually two things that jump out right away. first is to pursue the fed court because you've got to do something with the fee. to make things happen. and transportation, move in the decommission sites right away can happen and needs to happen so that these sites can be put back to productive use. >> all right. thanks. >> we agree, the yankee companies agree that the dual track makes sense, however, the repository could be quite a number of years away. and so we're very appreciative

of the language in the senate appropriations bill that calls for a pilot project for decommissioned plant fuel. and we think that there's a good deal of lead time both for transportation and other planning that needs to go into that along with developing a consent-based approach for identifying a volunteer host community. and so we think there are near-term actions that the department of energy with congress' support could certainly get started on while we work out some of the knottier issues. >> mr. metlay, just very briefly, please? >> based on the international experience, it's clear those countries who have had a successful siting program have figured out the program of distributing power between the central government and the periphery. countries like germany, japan, and switzerland, where you have a federal system, have had a much more difficult time. >> all right. thank you. mr. orrell? >> two issues.

one, make the fundamental decision about whether to use fed corp as the blue ribbon commission understands. it's an issue that translates to all of the other recommendations in some form. two, i would encourage the promulgation of the new disposal standards and regulations as these tend to take very long periods of time. >> all right. thank you, all, very, very much. senator barrasso? all right. he's going to yield to you. take it away. >> he already did that once. i'm getting in his debt. this has been very helpful and very interesting. mr. howes, let me ask you about yankee companies. you've got three sites, right? how many reactors? [ inaudible ] >> the sites are fully decommissioned. >> so all you've got stranded fuel.

>> we have stranded nuclear fuel at three of our sites. the reactor, you know, all of the buildings have been removed. they're fully decommissioned. >> and so you've got the fuel that we're supposed to be taking care of? >> our fuel is licensed by the nrc for both storage and transport and it's ready to go when the federal government comes to pick it up. >> well, the suggestion, and you mentioned the language in the appropriations bill, which comes from an impulse to -- these things take a while. i mean, the stalemate's been 25 years. it takes congress a little while to pass any kind of legislation. so our thought with the appropriations bill was can we take a step or two while we work out the comprehensive piece or legislation? which would then take over the whole process. do you think that's reasonable? >> yes, we do. we think that there are near-term actions that could be taken. i think, as was mentioned earlier, before you could