Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Research and Development Opportunities for the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy)

Hearing	Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Research and Development Opportunities for the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy
Date	July 13, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management’s (EM) Nuclear Waste Cleanup Efforts: The hearing largely focused on EM’s efforts to cleanup nuclear waste sites throughout the U.S. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses highlighted that while the U.S. had completed nuclear waste cleanup projects at 92 of 107 sites within the country, they raised concerns that the remaining nuclear waste cleanup would take decades to complete and was expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollar.
  • The U.S.’s Environmental Liabilities: Mr. White testified that EM’s mission accounted for at least $400 billion in environmental liabilities. Subcommittee Ranking Member Randy Weber (R-TX) also noted that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) had added the U.S. government’s environmental liabilities to its high risk list in 2017, which meant that EM’s programs were the most vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. He added that these environmental liabilities had remained on the GAO’s high risk list since 2017. 
  • Risks Posed to Neighboring Communities: Several Subcommittee Members raised concerns over how nuclear waste cleanup sites posed risks to their neighboring communities, especially in the event of an extreme weather event. Mr. White noted how U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management (LM) provided long-term monitoring of nuclear waste sites after they were cleaned up in order to protect against community risks. He also discussed how the U.S. Department of Energy maintained natural phenomena hazard assessments for all of its sites and indicated that these assessments were updated every ten years. He commented that these assessments considered how these vulnerabilities could impact waste storage activities at the sites. He further stated that EM would work to transport nuclear waste material out of a given site if it deemed the site to be unsafe for storage. 
  • Nuclear Waste Cleanup Coordination Between the Federal Government, States, and Localities: Rep. Mike Garcia (R-CA) expressed interest in how federal government, state governments, and local governments worked together to coordinate nuclear waste cleanup requirements. He expressed concerns that breakdowns in these coordination efforts could undermine nuclear waste cleanup efforts. Mr. White remarked that states and regulators tended to vary in terms of how amenable they were to adjust their requirements and strategies for nuclear waste cleanup. He stated that EM often faced challenges in convincing all stakeholders involved in nuclear waste site cleanup efforts (including regulators) to pursue strategies that were more effective and that would meet environmental and public health protection standards.
  • Narrow Focus of Nuclear Waste Cleanup Contracts: Dr. Plodinec expressed concerns that cleanup contracts tended to focus on maximizing cleanup within the life of the contract and not on finding potential solutions for waste streams not included in the contract.
• Nuclear Waste Cleanup Research and Development (R&D): The hearing also focused on how targeted R&D on innovative technologies can be leveraged to provide faster and cheaper nuclear waste cleanup. One key area of interest during the hearing was how EM was pursuing and coordinating its R&D efforts across its enterprise to address nuclear waste cleanup.
  • EM’s Shrinking R&D Budget: Subcommittee Chairman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Mr. Anderson highlighted how EM’s budget dedicated to R&D had had shrunk from 5 percent of the budget a few decades ago to only one-third of 1 percent in recent years. Mr. Anderson added that this shrinking R&D budget coincided with large growth in the U.S.’s environmental liabilities.
  • EM’s Lack of Coordination Regarding its R&D Efforts: Subcommittee Members, Dr. Plodinec, and Mr. Anderson expressed concerns that EM was failing to properly coordinate its R&D efforts across its enterprise, which was undermining the efficiency of these efforts. Mr. Anderson testified that GAO could not track investments for about $180 million of EM’s nearly $300 million in annual funding for R&D. Subcommittee Members highlighted how the GAO had also found that EM lacked a common definition of R&D for U.S. Department of Energy programs, contractors, and other stakeholders to use, which further undermined EM’s coordination and evaluation capabilities. Mr. White testified that EM had since established a definition for R&D in response to the GAO’s findings and that EM had promulgated this definition across the EM complex. He also testified that EM had also developed and implemented a database to track its technology development activities across the EM enterprise. He indicated that this database was currently only populated with the activities directly funded by EM’s Technology Development (TD) program. He stated that this database would begin to include applied R&D stage activities that occurred at EM’s different sites by the end of the year. Mr. Anderson expressed the GAO’s content with EM’s decision to adopt their recommendations.
  • EM’s Myopic Focus of R&D Spending: Mr. Anderson stated that EM’s R&D spending restrictions had resulted in pressures to direct R&D resources to address immediate operational needs. He commented that this dynamic meant that there could be pressures to divert resources away from forward looking R&D efforts that could achieve long-term efficiencies. He mentioned how prior studies of EM’s R&D efforts have identified concerns about EM’s investment levels in breakthrough research relative to incremental research.
  • Role of the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) in Supporting Nuclear Waste Cleanup R&D Efforts: Subcommittee Members expressed interest in ARPA-E was funding nuclear waste cleanup R&D efforts. Dr. Majidi mentioned how ARPA-E was funding various nuclear waste cleanup R&D research projects at the Savannah River National Laboratory related to the development of more durable glass and ceramics for immobilizing nuclear waste. Dr. Plodinec stated that while ARPA-E could support the development of breakthrough nuclear waste cleanup technologies, he asserted that ARPA-E should not be viewed as the solution for addressing nuclear waste cleanup.
  • Efforts to Account for Climate Change-Related Risks: Subcommittee Democrats expressed interest in how EM and LM were working to account for climate change-related risks in its nuclear waste assessments. Mr. White remarked that EM considered climate-related risks in its assessments of their nuclear waste cleanup sites. He testified that EM was currently updating the climate vulnerability assessments for its sites and predicted that EM would complete these assessments by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2022. He stated that these vulnerability assessments would inform EM’s future R&D and modeling efforts. He also noted how EM was already considering several climate-related risks (such as the effects of increased rainfall) as part of its updates to its long-term monitoring system. Mr. Anderson remarked that a May 2020 GAO report had underscored the need for LM to better incorporate climate change modeling into their long-term plans. He stated that EM ought to account for climate change data when assessing the long-term disposal of nuclear waste. He elaborated that policymakers would need to consider how extreme weather events could impact storage containers for nuclear waste. Dr. Majidi also highlighted how Savannah River Laboratory was currently working to assess the climate vulnerabilities of EM and LM sites. 
  • Proposal for a “Technology Tailor” Position: Mr. Plodinec recommended the establishment of a “technology tailor” position at EM that would identify and apply elements of various technologies to address EM’s needs. He elaborated that this position would test these elements and make continuous innovations to ensure their appropriate mix and stated that this position would translate science into operations. He mentioned that while the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) had observed instances at EM where such technology tailoring had occurred, he indicated that EM had not formally recognized the importance of this practice.
  • Use of Robots and More Advanced Monitoring Techniques for Nuclear Waste Cleanup Sites: Dr. Plodinec also remarked that more advanced technologies (such as robotics and advanced monitoring and interrogation techniques) could be deployed to replace people at nuclear waste cleanup sites. He commented that robots could work continuously on cleanup efforts without facing the same health and safety risks as human workers. He asserted that these advanced technologies ought to be targeted given their potential return on investment.
• Other EM-Related Issues and Concerns: In addition to EM’s nuclear waste cleanup efforts, several Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed a broader interest in EM’s programs and functioning.
  • EM’s Partnerships with Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): Subcommittee Chairman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Mr. White, and Dr. Majidi all expressed interest in efforts to develop a more diverse workforce and execute the MSI Partnership Program (MSIPP). Mr. White discussed how EM was making use of increased funding to expand its partnerships with MSIs. He commented that this increased funding enabled EM to add a technology curriculum and a research grant partnership involving EM, MSIs, and the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories. Dr. Majidi mentioned how the Savannah River National Laboratory had recently expanded the MSIPP to provide funding for postdoctoral research and graduate fellows. He stated that workforce diversity was important for the Savannah River National Laboratory because the problem of nuclear waste disproportionately impacted minority communities. He contended that a diverse workforce would therefore be better able to speak on behalf of stakeholders and develop a better technology platform for addressing nuclear waste cleanup.
  • EM’s Workforce and Leadership Instability: Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) expressed interest in ensuring that EM maintained a skilled and competent workforce given the challenges associated with nuclear waste cleanup. Mr. Anderson discussed how EM had experienced frequent turnover in its top leadership positions since its establishment in 1989 and contended that this frequent turnover had hampered EM’s ability to achieve its nuclear waste cleanup goals. He elaborated that this frequent turnover had made it difficult for EM to build relationships with states and local communities, resulted in inconsistent and incomplete EM initiatives, and led EM to focus on short-term actions (rather than on long-term priorities). He noted how between one-third and one-half of EM’s workforce would be eligible for retirement within the next five years. He commented that this situation would need to be addressed in the near future. Mr. White acknowledged that EM’s workforce was aging and stated that EM was working to bolster its workforce pipeline.
  • EM’s Position within the U.S. Department of Energy: Mr. Anderson further stated that EM’s position within the U.S. Department of Energy’s structure has been unstable. He noted how EM had reported to the Department’s Deputy Secretary and three Under Secretaries at different points throughout the Office’s history. He mentioned how GAO had recommended that Congress establish a term appointment for EM’s top leader and create a new U.S. Department of Energy Under Secretary position for environmental cleanup.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. William “Ike” White, Senior Advisor, Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy 
2. Dr. Vahid Majidi, Executive Vice President and Director, Savannah River National Laboratory
3. Dr. John Plodinec, Vice Chair, Committee on the Independent Assessment of Science and Technology for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Defense Environmental Cleanup Program, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
4. Mr. Nathan Anderson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY):

• He remarked that the hearing would focus on how targeted research and development (R&D) on innovative technologies can support faster and cheaper nuclear waste cleanup.
• He highlighted how much of the U.S.’s nuclear waste had been generated almost 60 years ago during the early years of the Cold War.
  • He noted how the majority of the legacy nuclear waste came from U.S. government-sponsored weapons development and production.
  • He also noted that some of this legacy nuclear waste came from U.S. government-sponsored research to further peaceful uses of nuclear technology (such as nuclear energy).
• He asserted that the U.S. government had an obligation to the American people to responsibly manage and dispose of this legacy nuclear waste.
• He acknowledged that while the Subcommittee’s legislative jurisdiction was over civilian nuclear R&D, he stated that the Subcommittee was examining the issue of nuclear waste cleanup in order to identify and apply scientific solutions to the problem.
  • He highlighted how the lifecycle cost estimates for the remaining nuclear waste cleanup activity were expected to grow and commented that this dynamic underscored the importance of finding scientific solutions to the problem.
• He lamented how EM’s budget dedicated to R&D budget shrunk from 5 percent of the budget a few decades ago to only one-third of 1 percent in recent years.
• He remarked that the Subcommittee must holistically review opportunities for improvements across the cleanup enterprise and invest more in technology R&D efforts to support more efficient cleanup.
• He lastly applauded EM for its successful cleanup efforts and specifically commended the EM for its work at the Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Randy Weber (R-TX):

• He noted how EM was the largest environmental cleanup organization in the world and was tasked with managing the environmental legacy of the Cold War.
  • He commented that this effort entailed cleaning up the nuclear contamination resulting from decades of weapons testing and government-sponsored weapons research.
  • He indicated that this work involved treating millions of gallons of radioactive waste and decommissioning and remediating contaminated buildings.
• He stated that while EM had made “great progress” in completing clean up at 92 of 107 sites across the U.S., he noted that the estimated cost of these cleanup activities had more than doubled over the previous decade.
• He indicated that the cleanup costs at the remaining 15 sites could reach as high as $720 billion and that these cleanup efforts would take decades to complete.
  • He called it “absolutely critical” for the U.S. to get these cleanup costs under control.
• He mentioned how the GAO had added the U.S. government’s environmental liabilities to its high risk list in 2017, which meant that EM’s programs were the most vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
  • He added that these environmental liabilities had remained on the GAO’s high risk list since 2017.
• He remarked that the hearing would focus on strategies to support EM in leveraging innovation that will shorten cleanup times and enable safer, more efficient, and cheaper decontamination work.
• He noted how Congress had called on the National Academies and the GAO to address strategies to improve EM’s cleanup efforts.
  • He mentioned how a National Academies committee had found in 2019 that EM’s management of its science and technology activities were uncoordinated across its sites and that EM had demonstrated “little to no interest” in science and relating to the development of breakthrough technologies.
  • He also mentioned how a 2021 GAO Report had found that EM lacked a common definition for R&D and that EM had made no systematic efforts to track expenditures and prioritize needs across its complex.
  • He further noted how the 2021 GAO Report had found that EM lacked any systematic method for evaluating their R&D investments.
• He encouraged EM to better coordinate with other relevant program offices across the U.S. Department of Energy, including the Office of Science and the Office of Nuclear Energy.
  • He noted that these other offices were pursuing their own R&D efforts and stated that collaboration amongst these offices would reduce cleanup costs and time.
• He specifically expressed interest in how the Savannah River National Laboratory (which is EM’s only national laboratory) was supporting cleanup efforts across the U.S.
  • He highlighted how the Savannah River National Laboratory had partnered with universities and small businesses on cleanup issues and expressed interest in identifying opportunities for stakeholder collaboration on these issues.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. William “Ike” White (Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy):

• He testified that EM had completed cleanup activities at 92 of 107 sites and mentioned how EM had recently completed legacy work at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.
  • He commented that Congress’s “significant” investments in the EM program and R&D in cleanup technologies had enabled these accomplishments.
• He noted how the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico had received more than 200 transuranic waste shipments last year and how EM had safely transported more than 13,000 transuranic waste shipments.
  • He indicated that this shipment total included shipments from the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
  • He also mentioned how EM had begun large-scale treatment of radioactive tank waste at the Hanford site in Washington and had recently demolished the X-326 uranium process building.
• He remarked that cleanup technology R&D played a key role in EM’s efforts and stated that EM routinely deployed technology advancements in the areas of tank waste cleanup, soil and groundwater remediation, facility decommissioning, decontamination, and worker safety.
  • He noted how multiple National Laboratories had supported the development of innovative environmental monitoring systems that provide long-term protection at legacy soil and groundwater contamination sites.
• He highlighted how applied R&D efforts had led to advancements in air filtration and treatment, which better protected workers as they engaged in cleanup efforts.
  • He mentioned how test bed initiatives were being used at multiple sites to evaluate technologies to address higher priority program needs.
• He also noted how technology R&D had accelerated tank waste treatment at the Savannah River Site and commented that this R&D might have applications for other sites.
  • He further indicated that more energy efficient and sustainable methods for safeguarding groundwater have been developed and deployed.
• He remarked however that the EM mission had “decades” of work left at some sites and noted how this mission accounted for at least $400 billion in environmental liabilities.
  • He asserted that EM must continue developing innovative approaches to accelerate progress, increase efficiency, and protect human health and the environment.
• He expressed EM’s appreciation for the support it receives from Congress, as well as the recommendations for Office from the GAO and the National Academies.
• He also discussed how EM was making use of increased funding to expand its partnerships with MSIs.
  • He commented that this increased funding enabled EM to add a technology curriculum and a research grant partnership involving EM, MSIs, and the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories.
• He further mentioned EM was working with the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories on a holistic EM technology review to ensure that the National Laboratories have overall unity of effort, were efficient, and provide maximum value.

Dr. Vahid Majidi (Savannah River National Laboratory):

• He discussed how the Savannah River National Laboratory was the only U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory stewarded by EM.
  • He stated that this National Laboratory made “significant” contributions toward LM and the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
• He also noted how Battelle Savannah River Alliance, LLC (BSRA) was charged with the management and operation of the Savannah River National Laboratory.
• He discussed how the Savannah River National Laboratory provided applied science and engineering innovations for the U.S. Department of Energy’s 15 active cleanup sites and 101 post-closure management sites.
  • He also mentioned how the National Laboratory leads the Network of National Laboratories for Environmental Management and Stewardship (NNLEMS) and explained that this network coordinated science and technology solutions for both EM and LM.
• He noted how the Savannah River National Laboratory had just led a team in analyzing supplemental treatment approaches for Hanford low-activity waste (LAW), was updating the soil and groundwater technical targets, and was developing an “R&D Roadmap” for accelerating and reducing risk for the Hanford waste tank treatment mission.
  • He also mentioned how the National Laboratory was also providing recommendations for mitigating risks for legacy management sites.
• He remarked that the Savannah River National Laboratory’s main mission was to provide modern and practical solutions for environmental cleanup and long-term surveillance and maintenance problems.
  • He highlighted how the National Laboratory was currently working to assess the climate vulnerabilities of EM and LM sites.
• He discussed how the Savannah River National Laboratory worked across different program offices to bridge R&D needs.
  • He noted how the National Laboratory’s extraction of unique isotopes for nonproliferation programs would benefit the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science, EM, and other NNSA programs.
• He also mentioned how ARPA-E was funding the Savannah River National Laboratory to use its expertise in glass and ceramics in partnership with the recycling and manufacturing sector to create more durable cement and other advanced materials.
• He remarked that university partnerships were “critical” to the success of the Savannah River National Laboratory and stated that the National Laboratory had leveraged these partnerships to develop its future workforce.
• He then discussed how cleanup and remediation projects were designed to meet local stakeholder needs and noted how the Savannah River National Laboratory worked with stakeholders on these projects.
  • He mentioned how the National Laboratory had executed the EM’s MSIPP since 2014 and indicated that the Laboratory had recently expanded the MSIPP to provide funding for postdoctoral research and graduate fellows.
• He further stated that the Savannah River National Laboratory provided processing, remediation, and closure approaches “with a rigorous data-driven foundation.”
• He lastly highlighted how the Savannah River National Laboratory had pioneered innovations to reduce long-term monitoring costs through the integration of sensor networks and the provision of high fidelity assessments.

Dr. John Plodinec (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine):

• He remarked that the National Academies had found that there existed opportunities for science and technology developments in nuclear waste cleanup that could reduce costs, quicken cleanup, and reduce risks.
  • He stated however that EM did not have a comprehensive program to identify or capture these developments.
• He testified that the National Academies had identified seven areas where science and technology could reduce nuclear waste cleanup costs and indicated that these seven areas were discussed in his written testimony.
• He specifically highlighted how chemical separations would remain important to EM throughout the dispositioning of tank waste.
  • He commented that “tremendous progress” had been made in microseparations and accelerated chemical processing in recent years and asserted that advances in this area could boost efficiency, reduce costs, and reduce the time required to process liquid tank waste.
• He remarked that a positive return on public investments in science and technology could only occur if the science and technology were deployed at U.S. Department of Energy sites.
• He asserted that the U.S. Department of Energy’s cleanup contractors must therefore deploy this science and technology.
  • He noted that while it was easy for the U.S. Department of Energy’s cleanup contractors to deploy this science and technology at the beginning of a given contract, he stated that it would become increasingly difficult to deploy this technology as facilities were built, processing commenced, and contracts approached completion.
• He also remarked that cleanup contracts were focused on maximizing cleanup within the life of the contract and not on finding potential solutions for waste streams that were not part of the contract.
• He then recommended the establishment of a “technology tailor” position at EM that would identify and apply elements of various technologies to address EM’s needs.
  • He elaborated that this position would test these elements and make continuous innovations to ensure their appropriate mix.
• He mentioned that while the National Academies had observed instances at EM where such technology tailoring had occurred, he indicated that EM had not formally recognized the importance of this practice.
  • He commented however that Dr. Majidi’s testimony suggested that EM was beginning to recognize the importance of technology tailoring, which he called a positive development.

Mr. Nathan Anderson (U.S. Government Accountability Office):

• He remarked that R&D had played an essential role in federal efforts to clean up radioactive and hazardous waste.
• He noted however that the proportion of EM’s budget specifically designated for R&D has generally declined since 2000 while the U.S. Department of Energy’s environmental liabilities had grown to over $500 billion.
  • He indicated that the growth of these lifecycle costs in recent years had tended to significantly outpace annual spending on efforts to address them.
• He discussed how there existed numerous parties involved in EM’s R&D efforts, including the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories, 15 cleanup sites, EM’s Technology Development Office, and other U.S. Department of Energy Offices (including the Office of Science).
• He stated that the GAO’s October 2021 report had found that coordination amongst the aforementioned parties was a “mixed bag.”
• He noted that positive aspects of this coordination included EM’s ability to clarify roles and responsibilities.
• He noted that challenging aspects of this coordination included identifying and tracking the resources used for R&D and defining and measuring outcomes for such investments.
  • He highlighted how EM lacked internal systems to track R&D expenditures throughout their research complex or to monitor their effectiveness.
  • He testified that the GAO could not track investments for about $180 million of EM’s nearly $300 million in annual funding for R&D.
• He also indicated that the GAO had found that EM’s Technology Development Office had not taken a comprehensive approach to prioritizing R&D for nuclear cleanup.
  • He commented that this absence of a comprehensive approach had led individual EM sites and U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories to develop their own methods for making prioritization decisions.
• He stated that EM’s R&D spending restrictions had resulted in pressures to direct R&D resources to address immediate operational needs.
  • He commented that this dynamic meant that there could be pressures to divert resources away from forward looking R&D efforts that could bring long-term efficiencies.
• He mentioned how prior studies of EM’s R&D efforts have identified concerns about EM’s investment levels in breakthrough research relative to incremental research.
• He asserted that the U.S. Department of Energy (and EM) needed better leadership on R&D efforts and commented that Congress could support this leadership.
• He discussed how EM had experienced frequent turnover in its top leadership positions since its establishment in 1989 and contended that this frequent turnover had hampered EM’s ability to achieve its nuclear waste cleanup goals.
  • He elaborated that this frequent turnover had made it difficult for EM to build relationships with states and local communities, resulted in inconsistent and incomplete EM initiatives, and led EM to focus on short-term actions (rather than on long-term priorities).
• He further stated that EM’s position within the U.S. Department of Energy’s structure has been unstable.
  • He noted how EM had reported to the Department’s Deputy Secretary and three Under Secretaries at different points throughout the Office’s history.
• He mentioned how the GAO had recommended that Congress establish a term appointment for EM’s top leader and create a new U.S. Department of Energy Under Secretary position for environmental cleanup.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY):

• Chairman Bowman mentioned how the GAO’s October 2021 report had identified actions that the U.S. Department of Energy should be taking measures to maximize the potential of EM’s science and technology activities. He highlighted how the GAO had found that EM lacked a common definition of R&D for U.S. Department of Energy programs, contractors, and other stakeholders to use. He commented that this lack of a common definition made it difficult for EM to coordinate or fully evaluate the research activities associated with environmental cleanup efforts. He asked Mr. White to indicate whether EM had subsequently developed and shared a common definition for R&D through the EM complex. He asked Mr. White to provide an estimated date of completion for such a definition if EM had not yet developed the definition. He then noted how the GAO had found that EM lacked an internal system to systematically track cleanup-related R&D expenditures across the U.S. Department of Energy. He asked Mr. White to address whether the U.S. Department of Energy had made progress towards establishing such an internal tracking system.
  • Mr. White testified that EM had established a definition for R&D and that EM had promulgated this definition across the EM complex. He also testified that EM had also developed and implemented a database to track its technology development activities across the EM enterprise. He indicated that this database was currently only populated with the activities directly funded by EM’s TD program. He stated that this database would begin to include applied R&D stage activities that occurred at EM’s different sites by the end of the year.
• Chairman Bowman provided Mr. Anderson with an opportunity to address EM’s response to the recommendations from the GAO’s October 2021 report.
  • Mr. Anderson remarked that the GAO had found that EM had taken an ad hoc approach to managing its R&D portfolio. He stated that the GAO’s recommendations were aimed at enhancing coordination and improving prioritization. He also commented that these recommendations were meant to address the U.S. Department of Energy’s outstanding environmental liabilities. He expressed the GAO’s content with EM’s decision to adopt their recommendations. He stated that the GAO looked forward to seeing the steps that EM will take to implement the recommendations.
• Chairman Bowman then highlighted how EM’s MSIPP provides internship funding and support for HBCUs and other MSIs through the competitive research award process. He also noted how the MSIPP funded post-doctoral research and graduate fellows. He asked Dr. Majidi to discuss the importance of having a diverse talent pool in the areas of environmental management and how the MSIPP was helping to develop a diverse workforce for the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories.
  • Dr. Majidi remarked that a consistent challenge across science and technology today was bringing more diverse voices to solve technical challenges. He mentioned how the Savannah River National Laboratory was executing the MSIPP through providing technical guidance and analysis for MSIs, maintaining internship programs, starting a postdoctoral program, and starting a graduate fellowship program. He stated that workforce diversity was important for the Savannah River National Laboratory because the problem of nuclear waste disproportionately impacted minority communities. He contended that a diverse workforce would therefore be better able to speak on behalf of stakeholders and develop a better technology platform for addressing nuclear waste cleanup.
• Chairman Bowman then asked Dr. Majidi to provide recommendations for how science education ought to look in K-12 school systems (particularly in low-income and marginalized communities) to help prepare students for post-secondary opportunities in environmental management.
  • Dr. Majidi noted how the Savannah River National Laboratory was located in an area with several underprivileged school systems and stated that the National Laboratory was working to support those school systems.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Randy Weber (R-TX):

• Ranking Member Weber noted how Dr. Majidi had indicated that the Savannah River National Laboratory was working with other U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories to create an integrated technology development framework. He commented that this framework was meant to provide a good balance of early concept R&D and ready-to-deploy technologies. He noted however that Dr. Majidi had also indicated that the Savannah River National Laboratory received limited funding from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science for environmental management-related research. He called this limited funding concerning given the Office of Science’s expertise in early concept R&D. He asked Dr. Majidi to provide recommendations for ensuring that the Office of Science was providing support to EM at the outset of its R&D endeavors.
  • Dr. Majidi remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science had historically not played a significant role at the Savannah River National Laboratory. He testified however that his National Laboratory had increasingly engaged with the Office of Science over the previous three years. He further stated that EM’s engagement with the Office of Science had also increased in recent years. He testified that the Savannah River National Laboratory had three specific funding opportunities from the Office of Science that supported the National Laboratory’s fundamental research. He remarked that the Savannah River National Laboratory had previously not been competitive in obtaining funding from the Office of Science because the National Laboratory had been more focused on applied science and technology (rather than fundamental science and technology). He stated that the Savannah River National Laboratory’s goal was to increase its interactions with the Office of Science and bolster its fundamental research. He also mentioned how the Savannah River National Laboratory was partnering with ARPA-E to fund its environmental management and fusion programs.
• Ranking Member Weber highlighted how the Energy Act of 2020 had provided ARPA-E with the authority to fund projects regarding the environmental management, cleanup, and disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. He asked Dr. Majidi to discuss ARPA-E’s strengths and to identify areas where other bodies (such as the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy) were better suited to provide support.
  • Dr. Majidi first thanked Congress for funding ARPA-E and noted how ARPA-E was providing funding for the Savannah River National Laboratory. He then discussed how EM had long funded U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories to develop glass and ceramics for immobilizing nuclear waste. He stated that the Savannah River National Laboratory had developed strong nuclear waste immobilization capabilities and noted that the National Laboratory had since used the Laboratory Directed R&D (LDRD) program to identify additional applications for glass and ceramics. He highlighted the Savannah River National Laboratory’s work on engineered cellular magmatics (ECMs), which he explained involved recycling glass to make it a construction material. He stated that this work on ECMs had enabled the Savannah River National Laboratory to secure an ARPA-E investment to create a new type of cement with a lower carbon footprint. He further stated that this investment was enabling the Savannah River National Laboratory to partner with industry and academia to commercialize this technology.
• Ranking Member Weber asked Dr. Majidi to indicate whether he agreed with his view that ARPA-E could not solely conduct nuclear waste management and that this management would instead require a “cross-cutting” U.S. Department of Energy effort. He also asked Dr. Majidi to discuss how he would ideally design the U.S. Department of Energy’s approach for nuclear waste management (if money were no concern).
  • Dr. Majidi remarked that collaboration among U.S. Department of Energy program managers was “absolutely essential.” He mentioned how the Savannah River National Laboratory convened various program managers through its Mark-18A program.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR):

• Rep. Bonamici discussed how the Hanford site in Washington state stored about 56 million gallons of radioactive waste in old tanks. She noted how the Hanford site was near the Columbia River and Cascadia subduction zone (which was susceptible to earthquakes). She mentioned how the Washington State Department of Commerce had released a 2021 report expressing concerns over the health of the Hanford site workforce because of the workforce’s exposure to hazardous materials. She noted how Dr. Majidi’s written testimony had highlighted research that would minimize worker exposure to hazardous materials. She asked Dr. Majidi to discuss how investments in research and technological innovations would increase workplace safety. She also asked Dr. Majidi to address how the Savannah River National Laboratory worked to share workspace safety developments across cleanup sites nationally.
  • Dr. Majidi recounted how EM had directed the Savannah National Laboratory to put together the NNLEMS. He indicated that he served as the permanent chair of this organization and that the co-chair of this organization rotated amongst five other U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories. He remarked that EM and U.S. Department of Energy sites used the NNLEMS to reduce their risks in various programs. He mentioned how EM had asked the NNLEMS to review the TD Program and indicated that the NNLEMS had subsequently provided various recommendations and suggestions regarding the Program. He specifically mentioned that the NNLEMS had identified R&D that would accelerate the Hanford site’s tank waste retrieval and disposal mission. He also mentioned how the NNLEMS had conducted a review on using technology to address remaining soil and groundwater at various U.S. Department of Energy sites (including the Hanford site). He remarked that the NNLEMS looked at sites that EM and LM were responsible for and worked to develop recommendations for EM to address these sites when warranted.
• Rep. Bonamici asked Dr. Majidi to confirm that the NNLEMS’s work to promote worker safety through innovative technologies involved efforts to reduce human exposure to hazardous materials.
  • Dr. Majidi confirmed that the NNLEM’s work to promote worker safety through innovative technologies did involve efforts to reduce human exposure to hazardous materials.
• Rep. Bonamici then mentioned how she was a member of the Spent Nuclear Fuel Solutions Caucus and expressed her commitment to working to develop a long-term storage solution for spent nuclear fuel that would protect the environment and public health. She noted how the last report she had seen on the Hanford site’s cleanup efforts had indicated that these efforts would take 30 years to complete. She indicated however that there were now estimates that it would take 75 years to complete cleanup efforts at the Hanford site. She asked Mr. White to provide an update on how long EM expected cleanup efforts at the Hanford site to take.
  • Mr. White remarked that cleanup methods would largely dictate how long it would take to complete the cleanup of the Hanford site. He estimated that the Hanford site cleanup would take around six decades. He reiterated however that there was significant uncertainty associated with this estimate.
• Rep. Bonamici asked Mr. White to indicate how often EM updated its estimated time frame for the Hanford site cleanup to account for new technological developments.
  • Mr. White remarked that EM’s estimated time frame for the Hanford site cleanup was updated using several different factors. He noted how EM updated its environmental liabilities on an annual basis while it updated its life cycle cost analysis figures on a less routine basis. He also mentioned how EM conducted a new system plan for the Hanford site every few years and indicated that these system plan updates accounted for new regulatory requirements. He further mentioned how EM was currently engaged in negotiations with the Washington State Department of Ecology on the Hanford site’s cleanup plan and commented that these negotiations would impact the time frame for the Hanford site cleanup. He concluded that the aforementioned updates, plans, and negotiations could influence EM’s estimated time frame for completing its Hanford site cleanup work.
• Rep. Bonamici expressed concerns with how the estimated length of the Hanford site cleanup effort had significantly increased over its initial projection.

Rep. Mike Garcia (R-CA):

• Rep. Garcia asked Dr. Plodinec and Mr. Anderson to discuss how the federal government, state governments, and local governments worked together to set nuclear waste cleanup requirements for different sites. He acknowledged that while nuclear waste cleanup sites were unique in nature, he stated that the requirements for these sites appeared to change frequently and to be inconsistent. He asked Dr. Plodinec and Mr. Anderson to how different levels of the government dictated these requirements.
  • Dr. Plodinec commented that Mr. White was better suited to address how different levels of government were working together to set nuclear waste cleanup requirements. He stated that the National Academies had found that there existed research opportunities for improving decision making in areas with great uncertainty.
• Rep. Garcia provided Mr. White with an opportunity to respond to Dr. Plodinec’s comments.
  • Mr. White remarked that EM’s frameworks for overseeing nuclear waste cleanup sites were based on agreements between EM, state regulators, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He stated that these agreements tended to vary across cleanup sites and that these agreements might change over time based on technology advancements and site-specific developments.
• Rep. Garcia asked Mr. White to indicate whether states were amenable to adjusting their requirements and strategies for nuclear waste cleanup projects in response to data and best practices learned from other cleanup projects. He called his state of California “notorious” for having very high standards for environmental regulations and commented that California likely imposed high standards for their nuclear waste cleanup efforts. 
  • Mr. White remarked that states and regulators tended to vary in terms of how amenable they were to adjust their requirements and strategies for nuclear waste cleanup. He stated that EM often experienced difficulties in convincing all stakeholders involved in nuclear waste site cleanup efforts (including regulators) to pursue strategies that were more effective and would meet environmental and public health protection standards.
• Rep. Garcia remarked that increased funding levels for nuclear waste cleanup projects did not constitute a panacea and asserted that better agreements between EM and states would play a significant role in accelerating nuclear waste cleanup efforts.

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA):

• Rep. McNerney noted how Dr. Plodinec’s testimony had discussed the importance of long-term science and technology that could reduce the cost and duration of cleanup at nuclear waste sites. He asked Dr. Plodinec to indicate whether ARPA-E could support new breakthrough R&D on nuclear waste cleanup technology.
  • Dr. Plodinec answered affirmatively. He remarked however that the National Academies did not view ARPA-E as the solution for addressing nuclear waste cleanup. He elaborated that the National Academies had not suggested that ARPA-E be responsible for targeting sites for nuclear waste cleanup or tailoring the technology solutions for a given site’s nuclear waste cleanup efforts. He commented that the specific characteristics of a given nuclear waste site often dictated the site’s cleanup strategy, which necessitated that technology solutions be tailored to a given site.
• Rep. McNerney then asked Dr. Plodinec to address whether there were any spinoffs of nuclear waste cleanup technology that enabled the reprocessing of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants or the long-term storage of nuclear waste.
  • Dr. Plodinec noted that the U.S. currently did not engage in nuclear waste reprocessing work. He stated however that EM’s work on chemical separations could have applications for nuclear waste reprocessing. He further stated that EM’s work on chemical separations could also have applications for cleaning up mill tailings and the effluents from fossil fuel power plants. He lastly remarked that EM’s technology could support the recapture of critical materials from waste streams.
• Rep. McNerney then asked Mr. Anderson to indicate whether $25 million in annual research funding for nuclear waste cleanup would be sufficient to develop transformational technologies.
  • Mr. Anderson remarked that EM’s problems were not limited to funding. He noted how the GAO had found that EM could not fully account for how much money they had directed toward R&D efforts. He mentioned how the GAO had thus recommended that EM develop the capability to identify and track their R&D funding. He asserted that this tracking ought to first occur before more money was made available to EM for R&D efforts.
• Rep. McNerney then asked Mr. White to discuss the significance of delaying action to address environmental radiation in light of the spread of contaminants in soil and groundwater.
  • Mr. White stated that time was a factor in EM’s decision making process for how it would address environmental radiation. He testified that EM worked with the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories to understand and model the spread of contaminants in soil and groundwater.

Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN):

• Rep. Baird asked Dr. Plodinec to provide any additional suggestions to EM for ensuring that their science and technology program could identify opportunities for cost savings. He also asked Dr. Plodinec to address how EM could incorporate considerations about cost savings into their R&D needs.
  • Dr. Plodinec remarked that it was important for policymakers to first consider where they wanted to target their R&D efforts. He stated that policymakers should identify which specific cost components they want to address if their goal is to reduce costs. He mentioned how EM’s budget request for FY 2023 had identified three main cost components: tank waste, decontamination and demolition (D&D), and site support. He recounted how the National Academies had visited a nuclear waste site in developing its report. He testified that while the D&D operations at this nuclear waste site were being performed well, he stated that the excavating technology being used at this site was not sophisticated. He remarked that more advanced technologies (such as robotics and advanced monitoring and interrogation techniques) could be deployed to replace people at these sites. He commented that robots could work continuously on cleanup efforts without facing the same risks as human workers. He asserted that these advanced technologies ought to be targeted given their potential return on investment.
• Rep. Baird then mentioned how the GAO had recommended that EM deploy a system to collect comprehensive R&D data and evaluate the outcomes throughout the EM complex. He asked Mr. White to discuss EM’s efforts to implement this recommendation from the GAO. He also asked Mr. White to indicate whether an R&D dashboard would address EM’s collection of such R&D data.
  • Mr. White stated that EM’s R&D dashboard was meant to address the GAO’s recommendations. He remarked that EM was working to better collect R&D data so that it could better manage its R&D efforts.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL):

• Rep. Casten expressed interest in identifying how much of current nuclear waste was innate to the process and how much of current nuclear waste was attributable to current cycle inefficiencies. He mentioned how the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) had reported that the U.S. uses 8 quadrillion BTUs of nuclear energy in its power sector every year. He indicated that this amount was exactly three times the megawatts generated by the nuclear power plants. He criticized the U.S. Department of Energy for imputing the conversion energy of the fossil fuel sector to calculate an imputed fuel use for nuclear energy. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy’s current calculations imply that all of the nuclear energy efficiency losses occurred in cooling towers. He asked Mr. White to indicate the amount of primary energy that was actually used by the U.S. civilian nuclear power plant industry.
  • Mr. White indicated that he did not know the answer to Rep. Casten’s question. He suggested that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy would be better suited to answer Rep. Casten’s question.
• Rep. Casten asked the witnesses to indicate the percentage of the energy in an input fuel rod that remained in the nuclear waste and continued to emit energy at the end of the nuclear fuel cycle. (Note: Congressional staff stated that 90 percent of the energy in an input fuel rod remained in the nuclear waste). He mentioned that he had found estimates online that between 5 percent and 7 percent of energy in an input fuel rod went to the nuclear power plant. He commented that this would suggest that the U.S.’s total energy estimates were off by a factor of four. He remarked that the U.S.’s lack of efficiency in processing input fuel was largely dictating the scope of its nuclear waste problem. He expressed interest in exploring the feasibility of increasing nuclear fuel processing efficiency. He asked the witnesses to provide estimates for how much the U.S. could theoretically improve the conversion efficiency of its nuclear power plants. (Note: None of the witnesses responded to Rep. Casten’s question). He expressed interest in having the witnesses follow-up with the Subcommittee regarding this issue.
  • Mr. White stated that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy would likely be willing to address Rep. Casten’s concerns. He expressed his willingness to work to connect Rep. Casten with the Office of Nuclear Energy.

Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC):

• Rep. Ross mentioned how almost one-third of her state of North Carolina’s energy came from nuclear power plants. She also highlighted how her Congressional District was home to the first university-based nuclear reactor program at the North Carolina State University Department of Nuclear Engineering. She further noted how two of the U.S.’s remaining nuclear waste cleanup sites were located in Tennessee and South Carlina (which are near North Carolina). She stated that efforts to address nuclear waste were essential to protecting the environment and public health. She noted how nuclear waste cleanup required a highly specialized and trained workforce. She mentioned how the GAO had recommended that the U.S. Department of Energy identify any skill and competency gaps for parts of the workforce within the NNSA. She asked Mr. Anderson to indicate whether the GAO had identified any workforce deficiencies related to science and technology within EM.
  • Mr. Anderson remarked that the GAO had some ongoing work that was looking at EM’s contracting approach and the extent to which there might exist workforce gaps to implement the contracting approach. He indicated that he was unable to comment on this work at this time and testified that the GAO would release the work as part of a report later in the summer. He also mentioned how there had been several estimates recently about EM’s workforce attrition and retirement rates. He noted how between one-third and one-half of EM’s workforce would be eligible for retirement within the next five years. He commented that this situation would need to be addressed in the near future.
• Rep. Ross provided Mr. White with an opportunity to address EM’s current workforce issues.
  • Mr. White remarked that EM was very focused on ensuring that it maintained an adequate workforce for the future. He noted how EM worked with companies and the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories to address workforce issues. He expressed appreciation for Congress’s provision of additional funding for EM to bolster its partnerships with MSIs. He acknowledged that EM’s workforce was aging and stated that EM was working to bolster its workforce pipeline.
• Rep. Ross then mentioned how the GAO had issued a May 2020 report detailing LM’s challenges related to climate resilience. She commented that the estimates for environmental cleanup times and costs had both increased “substantially” over the past decade and added that these cleanup efforts would take additional decades to complete. She asked Mr. Anderson to address how EM was managing its R&D efforts in light of climate risks (especially with these increasing timetables).
  • Mr. Anderson remarked that the aforementioned May 2020 GAO report had underscored the need for LM to better incorporate climate change modeling into their long-term plans. He explained how EM would eventually turn over its sites to LM after it completes its nuclear waste cleanup work. He emphasized that the U.S. Department of Energy would continue to have stewardship responsibilities of this nuclear waste post cleanup, which necessitated that EM undertake long-term planning efforts.

Rep. Connor Lamb (D-PA):

• Rep. Lamb discussed how western Pennsylvania had a uranium mill tailings site that was under LM’s stewardship. He noted that while the burial of these mill tailings had initially been viewed as successful, he mentioned how there was recently an Ewing’s sarcoma cancer cluster in the general vicinity of this site. He asked Mr. White to address whether LM provided active monitoring to sites that were deemed to be fully cleaned up.
  • Mr. White noted how EM was responsible for cleaning up nuclear waste sites and how LM was responsible for providing long-term monitoring of nuclear waste sites after they were cleaned up. He stated that EM was engaging in R&D efforts to bolster long-term monitoring capabilities of nuclear waste sites. He reiterated that LM was responsible for conducting this long-term monitoring function.
• Rep. Lamb interjected to ask Mr. White to clarify whether this monitoring was confined to assessing a site’s radiation levels.
  • Mr. White remarked that LM’s monitoring involved assessing the soil and groundwater surrounding a given nuclear waste site. He stated that the thresholds for safety were made public and noted how LM will often hold public meetings at sites with potential safety concerns.
• Rep. Lamb asked Dr. Majidi to address whether the Savannah River National Laboratory had conducted any specific research on uranium mill tailing issues.
  • Dr. Majidi remarked that the Savannah River National Laboratory was working closely with LM to reduce the costs associated with monitoring nuclear waste sites. He noted how site monitoring involved active sampling and analysis, as well as the development of computer models. He indicated that these computer models now accounted for the impacts of climate change on given sites over a long-term period. He also mentioned how the National Laboratory had developed a series of sensor networks to be deployed at LM sites that would provide real-time data to support monitoring efforts.

Subcommittee Chairman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY):

• Chairman Bowman mentioned how the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2022 had called for the U.S. Department of Energy to create certain programs related to improving nuclear cleanup research and development. He noted that these programs included an incremental technology development program, a high impact technology development program, and an environmental management university program. He asked Mr. White to discuss how the U.S. Department of Energy planned to implement these programs. He also asked Mr. White to address how these programs would change EM’s approach to R&D.
  • Mr. White remarked that most of the FY 2022 NDAA’s proposed elements were already being implemented in existing EM programs. He stated that EM was currently reviewing its management of its nuclear waste cleanup program in response to the October 2021 GAO report and the National Academies report. He indicated EM’s intention to compare this program review with the elements laid out in the FY 2022 NDAA in order to ensure EM’s adherence to the 2022 NDAA. He mentioned how EM was currently working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain an independent perspective of appropriate funding levels for the different components of the EM’s programs.
• Chairman Bowman then mentioned how the GAO had issued a May 2020 report on LM’s challenges related to climate resilience. He highlighted how cleanup time and cost estimates had both increased “substantially” over the previous decade and added that the cleanup process was expected to take several more decades to complete. He asked Mr. Anderson to discuss how EM was managing its R&D efforts in light of climate risks. He asked Mr. Anderson to indicate whether R&D could help to stave off future climate-related delays.
  • Mr. Anderson recounted how the Rocky Flats Plant cleanup site had recently experienced rainfalls that exceeded model predictions, which necessitated additional work to stabilize the impacted area. He stated that this episode demonstrated how extreme weather events often exceeded projections and increased cleanup costs. He indicated that the GAO had not yet assessed how EM accounted for climate change data in their activities. He stated that EM ought to account for climate change data when assessing the long-term disposal of nuclear waste. He elaborated that policymakers would need to consider how extreme weather events could impact storage containers for nuclear waste.
  • Mr. White remarked that EM considered climate-related risks for their nuclear waste cleanup sites. He testified that EM was currently updating the climate vulnerability assessments for its sites and predicted that EM would complete these assessments by the end of FY 2022. He stated that these vulnerability assessments would inform EM’s future R&D and modeling efforts. He also noted how EM was already considering several climate-related risks (such as the effects of increased rainfall) as part of the updates to its long-term monitoring system.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Randy Weber (R-TX):

• Ranking Member Weber expressed interest in the large amount of nuclear waste being stored at the Hanford site in Washington state. He noted how this site was near the Columbia River and commented that an earthquake near the site could prove catastrophic. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the U.S. Department of Energy possessed a list of the total amount of nuclear waste being held at storage sites.
  • Dr. Majidi remarked that the Savannah River National Laboratory had a strong understanding of its inventory. He stated that all EM sites likely had strong understandings of their inventories.
  • Mr. White noted how the U.S. Department of Energy maintained natural phenomena hazard assessments for all of their sites and indicated that these assessments were updated every ten years. He commented that these assessments considered how these vulnerabilities could impact waste storage activities at the sites. He remarked that EM worked to address these vulnerabilities through safety and licensing requirements for the sites. He also stated that EM would work to transport nuclear waste material out of a given site if it deemed the site unsafe for storage.
• Ranking Member Weber asked Mr. White to confirm that the U.S. Department of Energy only updated its natural phenomena hazard assessments once every ten years.
  • Mr. White clarified that the U.S. Department of Energy reassesses its worst case scenarios every ten years. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy then uses these determined worst case scenarios to assess their activities on an ongoing basis.
• Ranking Member Weber then asked Mr. White to confirm that EM had successfully completed its cleanup efforts at 92 of 107 nuclear waste sites.
  • Mr. White confirmed that EM had successfully completed its cleanup efforts at 92 of 107 nuclear waste sites.
• Ranking Member Weber asked Mr. White to indicate whether EM maintained a “priority list” for its remaining nuclear waste cleanup sites.
  • Mr. White indicated that EM conducted an annual prioritization process as part of its program management planning. He testified that EM published its cleanup priorities every year.
• Ranking Member Weber asked Mr. White to indicate whether EM’s prioritization process for nuclear waste cleanup sites accounted for the population of the area surrounding a given nuclear waste cleanup site.
  • Mr. White indicated that while did not believe that population was accounted for in EM’s prioritization process for nuclear waste cleanup sites, he stated that he would need to follow up with Ranking Member Weber on this question.