is required to me 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 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 look 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

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 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 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 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 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.

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 beaches. 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

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. sir eric house. 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 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 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't work oaf 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 it's essential 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 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

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

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 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 nondiscriminatory. 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 'poz 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 d 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 believes 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 instructive. 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 the exception of the finished 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.