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 who would like to do -- do what they're doing over in france in providing good paying jobs, high-tech facilities for spent fuel. that's why i believe out of all the commission's recommendations, the recommendation, consent-based siting, is the most important, and that's why we're having our hearing today on this important issue. as a former two-term governor, and i know senator alexander is a former two-term governor knows this as well, so do our other colleagues. i know 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 will we 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 in hearing, as we learn from our mistakes and what we can do different as we examine our consent-based siting might work here in the usa. with that, let me turn to my partner in crime, senator barrasso. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank you in joining the witnesses who agreed to be here to testify, including the two blue ribbon commissioners. most especially, i want to welcome lieutenant general brent scowcroft, the co-chair of the blue ribbon commission. so thank you for your service to our country and for agreeing to testify today. thank you, both. mr. chairman, the issue of the 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 buildup of nuclear waste stored in nuclear plants throughout the united states. the nuclear waste policy act passed by congress laid out a process that looked at three possible long term storage sites. yucca mountain was deemed the best 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 yet removed the nuclear waste as promised. $30 billion is the total amount of ious. it must eventually be paid back by the taxpayers because congress spent the money on the 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. it seems like we're nowhere near today, yet, a long-term solution. the question we have to ask is how do we know if we adopt the recommendations laid out in the commission's report that 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 and 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 the project across multiple governmental agencies. none of these issues have gone away.

advocating a consent-based approach to siting the waste, which we'll explore today, the commission, itself, admits in their report that, quote, the crux of the challenge derives from a federal, state, tribal and local rights dilemma 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 this siting and storage of waste. examples in new mexico, finland, france, sweden, where there have been possible templates for us to follow. i look forward to exploring these examples and see if we have found something new here that can work. we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal here, which is where is the long-term solution, are we getting there any time soon? we must not forget nuclear power is a vital far of our energy

mix. it's affordable, runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. it's an essential part of an all-of-the-above strategy. that means developing our natural resources such as mining for domestic american uranium found in abundance, mr. chairman, in my home state of wyoming. it also mean expanding, expediting the siting 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 with 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. i look forward to the testimony. >> thanks a lot more your statement. our next statement giver, and then senator alexander. >> i'll simply say that i appreciate your report very much. that this 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 that you're part of this. >> thank you. thank you for having the hearing and to you and senator barrasso. after you vote, i'll be back so i can hear what the witnesses have to say and hopefully ask questions. general scowcroft, professor peterson, thank you both for your hard work on all of this. my view on nuclear power is pretty well known, i think. to think about using windmills when we have nuclear reactors would be like general scowcroft going to war in sailboats when we had a nuclear navy available. but i won't get into all that day. as the chairman said and as senator barrasso said, we've had a stalemate here for 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 have 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. by me, i say senator binghamton, 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 and 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 co-chairs of your commission of this idea. and dr. peterson's also commended the idea. that's a big help. 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 responsible. senator barrasso said, i mean, 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. that's another reason to break the stalemate. another reason to break the stalemate, even if yucca mountain were open today, we'd need a second repository quickly because the stuff we have would fill up yucca mountain if it were open. we need to move ahead. we need to break the stalemate. i'm appreciative of senator carper and barrasso. i thank senator feinstein and murkowski for their leadership. we know fuel is safely stored. it can be stored there for a long time. maybe 100 years. that's not where it's supposed to be stored. we need to solve that problem. the second thing that's happening, senator binghamton, senator murkowski are creating a proposal to implement their recommendations your commission has made. senator feinstein and i hope to be co-sponsors of that. we've been meeting on it

regularly. we hope that that bill can be introduced within the next two, 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. senators on 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, finding a second repository. we can argue about yucca mountain. along the way. >> thank you for the expertise and passion you bring to this. good morning. >> good morning, senator carper. good to be here with you. >> good to have you. >> with senator barrasso. 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. jeff fettis formerly worked with me in the new mexico attorney

general's office during the siting process. his expertise is now very much broader and he's very knowledgeable expert with a great spirit of public service. jeff, welcome. >> would you raise your hand, please? >> oh, he's -- >> thank you. >> thank you, senator carper, for doing that. and dr. andrew orrell of the sandia national lab is our nation's best expert on the science and policy of the nuclear fuel cycle. thank you for making a long trip here from albuquerque to be with us. dr. orrell has worked on yucca mountain and the science behind numerous international and potential nuclear waste solutions. sandia, dr. orrell and his colleagues in los alamos

national lab are very valuable assets for the entire country on the nuclear issue. as we consider nuclear issues, i encourage all of my colleagues to reach out to both sandia and los alamos for 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 that provision is within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and this committee like many of the blue ribbon commission recommendations. we're trying to start over with a clean slate, so i think we should proceed with the regular order whenever possible. i know the senate energy committee also has a strong interest and i believe we should work cooperatively with them. nuclear waste policy has a poor history in congress, as evidenced by congress cutting short the site selection process and mandating yucca mountain over state objection. what goes around comes around. as new mexico's attorney

general, i had a similar experience having to litigate against the department of energy over the waste isolation pilot project. we were not fighting over the facility, itself, but d.o.e.'s go-it-alone process and congress' 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 was also firmly limited to defense only waste. high-level waste is specifically prohibited. these standards were eventually -- in the land withdrawal act. the state accepted. it's been safe ever since. vote commissioners have visited and are very familiar with it. both cases shed light on what,

quote, 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, let me say, 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 welcome. you're in an assertive mood today, aren't you? this is good. this is good. all right. to our commissioners here, general scowcroft, 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, i think richard nixon and george bush -- george

herbert walker bush. we're grateful for all the years you served and continue to serve. dr. per peterson. has your first name ever been mispronounced? every day? >> i must profess, i don't pronounce it correctly because i don't have a swedish accent. it happens every now and then. >> i come from new sweden. came to america. 375 years ago. it's now wilmington, delaware. so a special welcome. you're currently, as i understand, a professor of nuclear engineering at uc berkeley. general scowcroft said you're the brains in the operation. that's a high compliment. i know he's got plenty of brains, himself. so does congressman hamilton. the full content of your written statement will be included in the record. i'll ask you to go ahead and proceed. we'll probably start voting

around 10:45. one vote. general scowcroft, please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. carper, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it's a pleasure to be before you today to discuss the final recommendations of the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future. 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 fellow commissioner per 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 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 believe speaks to the strength of our recommendations. as you are 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 troubled for decades and has 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 materials. the united states has traveled nearly 25 years down the current path only to come to a point where we're continuing to rely on the same approach seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and protracted delay. what we've 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 the federal government's 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 national 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 suggest 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 noticeably the siting of a disposal facility for trans-atlantic waste, the waste isolation project pilot plan in new mexico. and recent positive outcomes in spain, finland, and sweden. 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 -- general, did he

also mention the first finns came to america through wilmington, delaware? >> no, we didn't get to that. our second recommendation, a new organization committed solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed. the overall record of d.o.e. and the federal government as a whole has not inspired confidence or trust in our nation's nuclear waste management program. for this and other reasons, the commission concludes that new institutional leadership is needed. specifically, we believe a single purpose congressionally chartered federal corporation is best suited to provide the stability, focus, and credibility needed to get the waste program back on track. for the new organization to succeed, a substantial degree of implementing authority and assured access to funds must be paired with rigorous financial, technical and regulatory

oversight by congress and the appropriate government agencies. our third recommendation is that access to the funds nuclear utility rate payers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management. nuclear facilities are assessed a fee on every kilowatt hour of nuclear generated electricity. in exchange for the federal government's contractual commitment to begin accepting commercial spent fuel beginning by january 31st, 1998. fee revenues go to the government's nuclear waste fund which was established for the sole purpose of covering the cost of disposing of civilian nuclear waste and ensuring the waste program would not have to compete with other funding priorities. the fund does not work as intended. a series of executive branch and congressional actions has made annual fee revenues, approximately $750 million a year, and the unspent $27 billion balance in the budget effectively in accessible to the waste program. instead the waste program is

subject to exactly the budget constraints and uncertainties the fund was created to avoid. this situation must be remedied immediately to allow the program to succeed. the commission sent a letter to the president on december r th of 2011 discussing this particular recommendation in detail and we will submit it as a part of this hearing's recommendation. our fourth recommendation is prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities. this situation must be remedied immediately to allow the program to succeed. the commission can sent a letter to the president on december 11th of 2011 discussing this particular recommendation in detail and we will submit it as a part of this hearing's recommendation. our fourth recommendation is prompt efforts to develop one or

more geologic disposal facility. the conclusion that disposal is needed has been reached by every expert panel and has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste program. moreover, all spent fuel reprocessing or recycle options either already available or under active development at the time still generate waste streams that require permanent disposal solution. we simply note that regardless of what happens with yucca mountain, the u.s. inventory of spent fuel exceeds that the amount that can be legally in place at that site until a second repository is in operation. the statutory limit for yucca mountain is 70,000 metric tons

and d.o.e. has set aside 10% of that limit for defense spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, leaving only 63,000 metric tons for civilian waste. so under current law, the united states will need to find a new disposal site even if yucca mountain goes forward. we believe the approach set forth here provides the best strategy for assuring continued progress regardless of the fate of yucca mountain. >> dr. peterson? >> thank you, thank you, general scowcroft. the vote started at 10:30. we're about five minutes into the vote, but i would like for you to be able to complete your testimony then we'll take a short recess. >> so continuing with the disposal, as a key element of consent-based siting, disposal facilities, the commission

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

nuclear waste management system that could achieve meaningful cost savings, can provide backup storage in event that spent fuel needs to be moved quickly from a reactor site and would provide an excellent platform for ongoing rnd to better understand how storage systems currently in use at both commercial and d.o.e. sites perform over time. we support the efforts of senator feinstein and alexander with their proposed legislation regarding the pilot storage program for high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel as it incorporates several key recommendations of the blue ribbon commission and is a positive step toward the goal of creating integrated waste management program in the united states.

our letter of support dated april 23rd, 2012, will be submitted for the record. sixth is prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available. the current system of standards of regulations governing the transport of spent fuel and other nuclear materials appears to have functioned well and the safety record of past shipments of these types of materials is excellent, particularly with respect to the wipp transportation system. greater transport demands nuclear materials are likely to raise new public concerns. the commission believes state, tribal and local officials should be extensively involved in the transportation planning and should be given the resources necessary to discharge roles and obligations in this