American Nuclear Energy Expansion: Spent Fuel Policy and Innovation (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security)

Hearing	American Nuclear Energy Expansion: Spent Fuel Policy and Innovation
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security
Date	April 10, 2024

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• The U.S.’s Current Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Landscape: The hearing primarily focused on the U.S.’s current management of its spent nuclear fuel supply. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed frustration that the U.S. lacks a permanent solution for storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel. They stated that this lack of a permanent solution has financial costs, burdens communities, and impedes the U.S.’s ability to expand its use of nuclear energy.
  • The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) and the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses discussed how Congress had formally established a comprehensive nuclear waste management strategy through the NWPA. They also noted how Congress had amended the NWPA in 1987 to have the U.S. focus on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository (which is located in Nye County, Nevada) as the site for a permanent nuclear waste geologic repository. They expressed frustration however that political objections from the state of Nevada have blocked this site from being licensed and constructed following its formal selection in 2002. They lamented how the U.S. had subsequently stopped funding this site because of the political objections and expressed hope that the U.S. would pursue this repository again at a future date. Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC) commented that this permanent repository is especially important for legacy and defense nuclear waste that cannot be reprocessed.
  • Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Current and Decommissioned Nuclear Power Plants: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses lamented how the U.S.’s lack of a permanent solution for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal forces current and decommissioned nuclear power plants to store spent nuclear fuel on premise. They noted how spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at 75 different nuclear reactor sites across 33 states (including 23 sites that are no longer operating). They expressed frustration that this storage both imposes costs on the nuclear reactor sites and prevents the sites from being redeveloped. Subcommittee Members also expressed concerns over how many U.S. Department of Energy sites, such as the Savannah River Site and Hanford Site, store legacy or defense nuclear waste intended for permanent repository.
  • Remediation of Current and Legacy Nuclear Waste Sites: Subcommittee Members, Dr. Wagner, and Mr. Barrett expressed interest in the U.S. Department of Energy’s efforts to clean up current and legacy nuclear waste sites. Subcommittee Members expressed concerns regarding the high costs and length of time that it will take the U.S. to remediate these sites.
  • Current Ratepayer and Taxpayer Expenditures and Obligations for Spent Nuclear Fuel Management: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed frustration that the U.S. must currently spend significant amounts of money to store spent nuclear fuel on an interim basis because it lacks a long-term repository for this waste. Mr. Barrett indicated that the rapidly growing costs associated with storing the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel are estimated to total $51 billion and predicted that these costs would continue to grow. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses stated that the U.S. has failed to establish such a repository, despite collecting fees from ratepayers for this purpose. They indicated that this failure results in the U.S. paying up to $800 million annually to energy utilities out of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Judgement Fund. They further noted how the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that the U.S. Department of Energy may have up to $60 billion in liabilities for storing spent nuclear fuel by 2030. Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO) also noted that court decisions have prohibited the U.S. Department of Energy from collecting their fee of $0.001 per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from nuclear power, which further compounds these liabilities. Of note, Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) and Mr. White expressed interest in forcing a public notice of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund’s spending so that the public could know the total cost of the U.S. government’s failure to address nuclear waste.
  • Potential for Spent Nuclear Fuel Leakages: Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA) raised concerns that the U.S.’s current storage of spent nuclear fuel poses a risk of nuclear material leakages, which could harm nearby communities and the environment. Mr. Barrett stated however that there is no credible situation that could cause a leak of nuclear waste in the U.S. He further mentioned how the international scientific evaluations of the Three Mile Island and the Fukushima accidents had found that these accidents had undetectable impacts on humans and other species.
• Spent Nuclear Fuel Reform Efforts: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in pursuing policies to support the U.S.’s storage and ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel. They contended that this storage and disposal will be critical for increasing the U.S.’s deployment of nuclear energy (which will be key to enabling the U.S. to meet its energy needs and to address climate change). Of note, Subcommittee Members highlighted how the U.S. House of Representatives had previously passed bipartisan legislation in 2018 that would have incentivized the completion of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository’s licensing, enhanced benefits for states hosting spent nuclear fuel, and accelerated consolidated interim storage for spent nuclear fuel. They noted that while this legislation was ultimately not passed into law, they asserted that this legislation demonstrates that Congress can work in a bipartisan manner to address the issue.
  • Consent-Based Siting: Most Subcommittee Democrats, Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Stetson expressed interest and support for the Biden administration’s pursuit of consent-based siting for spent nuclear facilities. Consent-based siting entails engaging states and communities early during the siting process to ensure broad stakeholder buy-in for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal projects. Supporters of consent-based siting argue that this approach will ensure that these projects remain legally and politically durable over time. They mentioned how Congress’s most recent spending bill had included $55 million to fund the U.S. Department of Energy’s consent-based siting activities. They also noted how the U.S. Department of Energy had made $26 million worth of awards to a dozen different consortia in 2023 to explore a community and consent-based approach to siting facilities for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA) remarked however that states are likely not enthusiastic to accept spent nuclear fuel for storage and disposal and expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of a consent-based siting approach for managing spent nuclear fuel.
  • Establishment of Additional Federal Nuclear Waste Repositories: Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Stetson called for the U.S. to begin pursuing additional spent nuclear fuel repositories beyond the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. Mr. Barrett noted that while the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository would be technically sufficient to store all of the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel, he indicated that federal law states that the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository can only take half of the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel until a second repository starts. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Stetson also stated that the construction of multiple spent nuclear waste repositories would provide states and local communities with the confidence needed to move forward on interim spent nuclear fuel projects.
  • Establishment of an Independent Organization to Address the U.S.’s Spent Nuclear Fuel: Rep. Peters, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. White called on the U.S. to develop a new organization dedicated to managing the U.S.’s nuclear waste. They stated that this new organization should exist outside of the U.S. Department of Energy because political constraints are currently preventing the Department from carrying out this task. They added that the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future had recommended the establishment of such an organization. Mr. Barrett remarked that a federal-host state partnership arrangement in the form of a public service corporation would have the highest likelihood of being successful.
  • Funding for Spent Nuclear Management: Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and the hearing’s witnesses raised concerns that federal budget laws treat spending on spent nuclear fuel repositories as discretionary, which makes the spending subject to spending caps. They commented that this situation limits Congress’s spending on these repositories.
  • Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel: Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) raised some concerns over the feasibility of transporting spent nuclear fuel to repositories located far away. Dr. Wagner, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Stetson stated however that the U.S. already has significant experience safely transporting spent nuclear fuel.
  • Storage of Higher Enriched Nuclear Fuels: Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO) expressed interest in whether there exist unique challenges to storing spent nuclear fuel that has been enriched to a higher level. Dr. Wagner remarked that there do not exist any unique challenges associated with storing and transporting higher enriched nuclear fuels. He noted that some advanced nuclear reactors have different nuclear fuel forms for which the U.S. currently lacks storage systems. He described this issue as “manageable” and stated that the U.S. would need to design new storage and transportation cask systems to accommodate those materials.
• Nuclear Energy Innovations: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in ways that the U.S. could leverage nuclear energy innovations to address its current supply of spent nuclear fuel. Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) warned that the U.S.’s failure to lead on nuclear energy technologies will result in adversaries (such as China and Russia) dominating the international civilian nuclear energy markets. She commented that this foreign dominance of international civilian nuclear energy markets would undermine the U.S.’s energy security and nuclear safety. The hearing’s witnesses noted that while these innovations will help the U.S. to address its spent nuclear fuel, they asserted that these innovations would still not serve as a sufficient substitute for a permanent spent nuclear fuel repository.
  • Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and Recycling: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in the potential for spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling to reduce the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel supply. They highlighted how this reprocessing and recycling can allow for 96 percent of the spent nuclear fuel to be recycled to make fresh fuel for nuclear reactors. Dr. Wagner and Mr. White stated that spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling is currently not economical and noted how France’s spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling is based on government policies (rather than economics). Dr. Wagner suggested however that new advanced nuclear technologies and increased future demand for nuclear energy may make these economics more enticing over time. Chairman McMorris Rodgers and Dr. Wagner mentioned how China and Russia are engaged in spent nuclear fuel recycling efforts and raised concerns that these efforts could entice other countries to partner with China and Russia (rather than the U.S.) on nuclear energy projects. Dr. Wagner indicated however that the Idaho National Laboratory and other U.S. Department of Energy sites have been recycling spent nuclear fuel for years. He testified that the Idaho National Laboratory is making this recycled material available to advanced nuclear reactor developers (such as Oklo) to support their initial cores for their demonstration reactors. Subcommittee Members also expressed interest in pursuing regulatory reforms, such as changes to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing process, to encourage spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling. Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) and Dr. Wagner further highlighted how spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling could support the domestic production of isotopes for medical uses (which are currently purchased from Russia).
  • Advanced Nuclear Reactor Designs: Subcommittee Members expressed interest in how advanced nuclear reactor designs can result in the production of less spent nuclear fuel. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) highlighted how how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had provided new incentives for advanced nuclear energy technology deployments and high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) production. Dr. Wagner emphasized however that advanced nuclear reactors will have the same socio-political challenges as light-water reactors (LWRs) in terms of having spent nuclear fuel management and disposition programs.
  • Commercial Use of Nuclear Energy: Rep. John Joyce (R-PA) expressed interest in how large commercial energy users are increasingly seeking out nuclear energy to support their operations. He noted how industrial end users considering nuclear energy projects will be required to sign contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy and potentially store nuclear waste on their sites. Dr. Wagner that these storage requirements would create long-term cost uncertainty, which could discourage these industrial end users from considering nuclear energy projects.
  • Repurposing of Legacy Energy Sites for Nuclear Energy Generation: Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Dr. Wagner, and Mr. White further expressed interest in the potential for establishing nuclear power plants at former energy generation sites. They noted how these sites are prime sites for new nuclear energy projects because they have transmission distribution infrastructure, heat sinks, and nearby communities and land that can support the projects.  
• Other Nuclear Energy Legislative Proposals: Subcommittee Members further used the hearing to discuss several nuclear energy legislative proposals under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.
  • The Atomic Energy Advancement Act: Subcommittee Members highlighted how the U.S. House of Representatives had recently passed the Atomic Energy Advancement Act on a bipartisan basis to expand nuclear energy. This bill contains a variety of nuclear energy-related policies, including reforms to the NRC’s licensing process for advanced nuclear energy projects and nuclear energy projects located at brownfield sites, the provision of direct hire authority to the NRC, the establishment of a U.S. Department of Energy pilot program to make long-term power purchase agreements for power generated by commercial nuclear reactors, and the establishment of requirements concerning international nuclear energy cooperation and safety.
  • The Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act: Full Committee Chairman McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also mentioned how the U.S. House of Representatives had recently passed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act on a unanimous basis. As the bill’s name suggests, it would limit the U.S.’s importation of uranium from Russia (including outright bans of certain types of uranium). The bill also provides the U.S. Department of Energy with the authority to waive certain restrictions if it deems that there is no viable alternative source for the prohibited uranium or if it deems that the importation of the uranium in the U.S.’s national interest.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Dr. John C. Wagner, Ph.D., Laboratory Director, Idaho National Laboratory
2. Mr. Lake H. Barrett, former Principal Deputy Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy
3. Mr. Daniel T. Stetson, Chair, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Community Engagement Panel
4. Mr. Greg R. White, Executive Director, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• He discussed how the Committee has taken a bipartisan approach during the 118th Congress to advancing and expanding nuclear energy within the U.S. and indicated that the hearing would consider the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel policy.
• He mentioned how Congress had formally established a comprehensive nuclear waste management strategy through the NWPA.
  • He explained how this law had created a federal government responsibility to dispose of all high-level radioactive waste and had started a process for selecting nuclear waste disposal sites.
• He noted how Congress had amended the NWPA in 1987 to focus on Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository (which is located in Nye County, Nevada) as the site for permanent nuclear waste geologic repository.
  • He indicated that Congress had made this change after the U.S. Department of Energy had conducted extensive studies of nine potential nuclear waste repository sites.
• He lamented however that Nevada’s political objections to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository have blocked this site from being licensed and constructed following its formal selection in 2002.
  • He asserted that Nevada’s objections are not based on science.
• He mentioned how the NRC staff had found that the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository could safely store nuclear waste for over one million years.
• He then discussed how the U.S. House of Representatives had previously passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018 by a bipartisan vote of 340 to 72.
  • He explained that this legislation would have incentivized the completion of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository’s licensing, enhanced host state benefits, and accelerated spent nuclear fuel consolidated interim storage.
• He lamented how politics had derailed the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018 and stated that the U.S. nuclear waste storage situation remains at a “standstill.”
• He noted how U.S. nuclear energy ratepayers have been paying fees for the construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository.
  • He mentioned how South Carolina ratepayers have contributed over $3 billion to the U.S. Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), which is the third highest contribution of any state in the U.S.
• He also stated that the federal government’s failure to follow the law has made U.S. taxpayers liable for up to $800 million annually out of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund.
• He further mentioned how many U.S. Department of Energy sites, such as the Savannah River Site and Hanford Site, store legacy or defense nuclear waste intended for permanent repository.
  • He noted that while spent nuclear fuel is stored safely on these sites, he asserted that the federal government must still fulfill its legal responsibilities and reduce cost burdens for taxpayers and ratepayers.
• He then discussed how spent nuclear fuel could be an asset in the deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies and highlighted how several companies (including Oklo, Curio, and SHINE Technologies) are “aggressively” pursuing reprocessing and recycling technologies for spent nuclear fuel.
  • He commented that spent nuclear fuel recycling provides “exciting promise” for the future of nuclear energy in the U.S. (especially for advanced nuclear reactors).
• He remarked that U.S. policies should reflect these innovations and advancements in nuclear energy technologies as part of an integrated nuclear fuel system that includes a permanent nuclear waste repository.
  • He highlighted how the U.S. has historically been a global leader in advancing nuclear energy technologies and asserted that the U.S. is on the precipice of the next frontier in nuclear energy technologies.
• He mentioned how the U.S. House of Representatives had recently passed the Atomic Energy Advancement Act on a bipartisan basis to expand nuclear energy.
• He lastly mentioned how he had visited the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository and asserted that the U.S. must store its nuclear waste at this site.
  • He also mentioned how he had visited the Savannah River Site and the Hanford Site and commented that these sites play a key role in storing legacy nuclear waste.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• She remarked that the Subcommittee must continue to consider nuclear energy’s potential to provide a carbon-free energy source.
• She discussed how nuclear fuel that has been used in a nuclear reactor needs to be stored on site, even if the nuclear reactor has been decommissioned and is no longer operating.
  • She mentioned how spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at 75 different sites across 33 states (including 23 sites that are no longer operating).
• She noted how the Biden administration has focused on pursuing a consent-based siting program for spent nuclear fuel using existing authorities.
  • She explained that this approach would allow for the siting of spent nuclear fuel under consent-based siting consortia, which engages the states earlier in the process.
• She discussed how the NWPA governs the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel policy and noted how this law had called for the U.S. to set up a permanent nuclear waste repository by 1998.
  • She commented however that this establishment of a permanent nuclear waste repository has not been easy and remains unpursued.
• She mentioned how she had personally visited the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository site and described the site as sufficiently remote.
  • She noted however that the site’s testing had not been completed and attributed this non-completion to political objections.
• She expressed support for the Biden administration’s consent-based siting program for spent nuclear fuel.
• She then discussed how the U.S. Department of Energy’s cost of storing spent nuclear fuel has been increasing.
  • She mentioned how the GAO estimates that the U.S. Department of Energy may have up to $60 billion in liabilities for storing spent nuclear fuel by 2030.
• She also noted how court decisions have prohibited the U.S. Department of Energy from collecting their fee of $0.001 per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from nuclear power.
  • She indicated that these foregone fees amount to $750 million annual, which had previously been used to support the NWF’s storage of spent nuclear fuel.
• She further discussed how other countries (including France and India) reprocess their spent nuclear fuel and mentioned how she had personally visited spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in France.
  • She explained how spent nuclear fuel reprocessing allows for 96 percent of the spent nuclear fuel to be recycled to make fresh fuel for nuclear reactors.
  • She commented that spent nuclear fuel reprocessing “severely” lowers the amount of spent nuclear fuel that must be stored in a repository.
• She acknowledged that while it can be expensive to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, she stated that leaving spent nuclear fuel on site for storage can also be costly.
• She then noted how President Trump had withdrawn his support for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository in 2020.
  • She added that President Trump had not requested funding for the repository in his fiscal year (FY) 2021 budget request.
• She also mentioned how President Obama had established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future in 2010 to examine alternatives to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
  • She noted how the Commission’s report had recommended that the federal government create new consent-based siting processes for future interim and permitted nuclear waste storage repositories.
• She discussed how the Biden administration had moved forward with the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future’s recommended approach and had issued final guidelines for a consent-based siting program for spent nuclear fuel.
  • She also mentioned how Congress’s most recent spending bill had included $55 million to fund the U.S. Department of Energy’s consent-based siting activities.
• She stated that Congress must develop a system for spent nuclear fuel storage if it seeks to increase the U.S.’s number of nuclear reactors.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• She remarked that nuclear energy technologies are essential for the U.S.’s national security and a cleaner and more secure energy future.
  • She commented that innovative nuclear energy technologies can help to address energy demands for industry, manufacturing, and the American people.
• She called the 118th Congress’s bipartisan support for restoring the U.S.’s technological leadership in nuclear energy “encouraging.”
• She discussed how the Committee has a “rich history” of leading on nuclear energy issues and mentioned how the Committee has advanced legislative proposals to support a more robust and innovative U.S. nuclear energy industry.
  • She indicated that these legislative proposals have received strong bipartisan votes in the U.S. House of Representatives.
• She highlighted how the Committee has worked to develop on legislation to support the production of innovative advanced nuclear fuels for new types of nuclear reactors.
• She also mentioned how the Committee had worked on the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act to bolster the U.S.’s domestic nuclear fuel manufacturing so that Russia cannot undermine the U.S.’s nuclear energy supply chain.
  • She noted how the U.S. House of Representatives had approved this legislation on a unanimous basis and expressed hope that this legislation will be enacted into law soon.
• She further mentioned how the Committee had developed the Atomic Energy Advancement Act and asserted that this legislation would provide consequential reforms to U.S. nuclear energy regulation.
  • She expressed hope that many of the policies in this legislation would soon be enacted into law.
• She then remarked that the NWPA (which governs both spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste) is “long overdue” to be implemented to address the needs of the current nuclear energy industry.
• She noted how the U.S.’s efforts to provide long-term storage for spent nuclear fuel have been stalled for over a decade because of objections to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
  • She commented that this stalling has undermined the law and public trust in how the U.S. manages spent nuclear fuel.
• She further asserted that this stalling has jeopardized the U.S.’s efforts to manage its defense obligations and the cleanup of legacy Cold War sites.
  • She highlighted how the Hanford Site (which is located near her Congressional District) is one such legacy site.
• She contended that the opposition to long-term spent nuclear fuel storage is political in nature (rather than safety-related or technical).
  • She specifically criticized Nevada’s opposition to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository and commented that this opposition has inhibited Congressional appropriations and driven the Executive Branch to dismantle the Program.
• She remarked that the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository (if allowed to move forward) would provide the public with information that is critical to build support and trust for nuclear energy.
• She mentioned how the Committee had taken actions in 2018 to support the licensing program for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
  • She noted how this effort had culminated in a reform package that had received a strong bipartisan vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.
• She acknowledged that while the Committee’s 2018 reform efforts had ultimately failed in the U.S. Senate, she asserted that this experience had proved that Congress can build bipartisan support for a durable spent nuclear fuel management program.
  • She stated that the Committee must continue its work to update the law and build state support for a permanent spent nuclear fuel repository at the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository site.
• She also expressed interest in exploring how innovative nuclear energy technologies can improve the U.S.’s management of spent nuclear fuel.
  • She mentioned how innovative companies (including Curio and Oklo) are developing innovative technologies that will enhance the use of energy from spent nuclear fuels.
• She stated that U.S. technology and innovation can ensure that nuclear energy benefits both the U.S. and the broader world.
• She warned that the U.S.’s failure to lead on nuclear energy technologies will result in adversaries (such as China and Russia) dominating the international civilian nuclear energy markets.
  • She commented that this foreign dominance of international civilian nuclear energy markets would undermine the U.S.’s energy security and nuclear safety.
• She expressed hope that the Committee can accomplish the aforementioned objectives in a bipartisan manner.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• He lamented how the U.S. has still not found a workable solution for addressing the storage and disposition of spent nuclear fuel.
  • He noted that while the NWPA had sought to establish a permanent repository by 1998 to accept spent nuclear fuel, he expressed disappointment that the U.S. has still not solved this problem.
• He remarked that the magnitude of the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel problem is increasing and highlighted how U.S. nuclear reactors have created nearly 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel that must be stored.
• He noted that this spent nuclear fuel is currently being stored onsite at facilities across the U.S. (including at sites that no longer have operating nuclear reactors).
  • He called this situation problematic given how former nuclear reactor sites must first relocate their stored spent nuclear fuel before the sites can commence the decommissioning and redevelopment process.
• He stated that the federal government has an obligation to address the spent nuclear fuel being stored across 70 communities throughout the U.S.
  • He called it critical for Congress to develop a solution to the issue that does not abandon these communities and does not impose significant costs on federal taxpayers.
• He mentioned how the GAO projects that taxpayer liability related to spent nuclear fuel will exceed $60 billion by 2030.
  • He asserted that Congress must facilitate the swift relocation of this spent nuclear fuel.
• He remarked that the Committee has a history of working in a bipartisan manner to address spent nuclear fuel and highlighted how the Committee had previously advanced the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018.
  • He expressed hope that the Committee could build upon this work and develop new bipartisan solutions for the issue of spent nuclear fuel.
• He then discussed how the Biden administration has worked to establish a consent-based interim storage siting process for nuclear waste.
  • He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy had made $26 million worth of awards to a dozen different consortia in 2023 to explore a community and consent-based approach to siting facilities for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
• He stated that the Biden administration’s efforts to promote consent-based spent nuclear fuel storage will help the U.S. to develop a legally and politically durable system for spent nuclear fuel storage.
  • He called on Congress to support the Biden administration’s efforts regarding this issue.
• He lastly remarked that spent nuclear fuel policy considerations will change as the U.S. moves toward more advanced nuclear reactors that require advanced, higher-enriched fuels.
  • He noted how some advanced nuclear reactor designs tout innovative ways to limit the amount of spent nuclear fuel that they produce.
• He then yielded the remainder of his time to Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA).

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA):

• She remarked that the federal government has a duty to manage nuclear waste and asserted that communities should not be expected to address this issue on their own.
• She mentioned how the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (which is located in her Congressional District) had shut down in 1989.
  • She noted however that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District is still storing the spent nuclear fuel from this nuclear reactor.
  • She commented that this nuclear reactor site cannot be redeveloped because it still holds spent nuclear waste.
• She further mentioned how the Sacramento Municipal Utility District has needed to sue the U.S. government every single year to recover the millions of dollars it costs to safely store the nuclear waste from the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.
  • She called this situation a policy failure and stated that the Committee must address the storage of spent nuclear fuel.

Witness Opening Statements:

Dr. John C. Wagner (Idaho National Laboratory):

• He remarked that the U.S.’s current nuclear reactor fleet is excelling and stated that this fleet generates the U.S.’s most reliable and resilient electricity.
  • He mentioned how 92 nuclear reactors had generated nearly 20 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and nearly half of the U.S.’s carbon-free electricity in 2023.
• He highlighted how public opinion polls show increasingly broad support for nuclear energy and how nuclear energy now has bipartisan and bicameral support in Congress.
• He also noted how large commercial energy users are increasingly seeking out nuclear power to secure uninterrupted carbon-free power to support their operations.
  • He indicated that these companies seeking nuclear power include Dow Chemical, Nucor, Amazon Web Services, Google, Meta, and Microsoft.
• He further mentioned how the U.S. has shifted away from declining nuclear energy capacity and toward an “ambitious” pledge (along with 20 other countries) to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
• He remarked that new and innovative nuclear energy technologies are positioned to play an increasingly important role in the U.S.’s energy future.
  • He highlighted how two new nuclear reactors had recently been brought online in Georgia and how several next generation nuclear demonstration projects are currently progressing.
• He stated that the U.S. is on the cusp of achievements that could usher in a new era of nuclear energy and reestablish U.S. global leadership in the nuclear energy space.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must now work to increase its nuclear power capabilities and support advanced nuclear energy technologies.
• He remarked however that the U.S.’s approach to managing its spent nuclear fuel is guided by policies developed decades ago.
  • He commented that while these policies reflected contemporary priorities and concerns when they were adopted, he stated that the U.S. must consider whether these policies still reflect current priorities and support the development and deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.
• He discussed how the Committee has made several attempts to amend the NWPA and commented that none of these attempted reforms have been successful.
• He contended that the U.S. requires a new policy framework for moving beyond the current nuclear waste management and disposition “stalemate.”
  • He asserted that this issue impacts both the U.S. nuclear energy industry and U.S. taxpayers.
• He then discussed how no commercial nuclear fuel recycling occurs within the U.S., despite the fact that such recycling is no longer prohibited.
  • He noted how the once-through fuel cycle is considered the cheaper option for obtaining nuclear fuel.
  • He also noted how the NWPA does not provide any financial incentives or mechanisms to support nuclear fuel recycling.
• He indicated that the U.S. had originally intended to recycle its nuclear fuel and that recycling had been viewed as a prudent and sustainable option.
• He noted however that the U.S. had terminated its commercial nuclear fuel recycling program in 1976 for geopolitical and security reasons.
  • He explained that the U.S. had believed that the termination of this program would encourage other countries to terminate their commercial nuclear fuel recycling programs and commented that other countries did not terminate their recycling programs.
• He highlighted how other countries (including France, Russia, and China) have instead moved forward with their commercial nuclear fuel recycling programs.
  • He commented that this situation has put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage.
• He remarked that the Committee should explore updates to the U.S.’s nuclear waste management policies, the role of nuclear fuel recycling in the U.S., and the balance between spent nuclear fuel management and disposition and the need to immediately develop and deploy new nuclear reactors.
  • He stated that addressing these issues would boost public confidence in nuclear energy and offer certainty to nuclear plant operators, utilities, energy investors, and the communities where spent nuclear fuel is currently stored.

Mr. Lake H. Barrett (Former Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management):

• He remarked that that the U.S. has an ethical responsibility to dispose of nuclear waste so as to not unfairly burden future generations.
• He discussed how the NWPA had directed the U.S. Department of Energy to build a geologic disposal system for nuclear waste.
  • He commented that this disposal system would be key to supporting the U.S.’s defense and commercial nuclear programs.
• He stated that while the U.S. had made initial scientific and regulatory progress in developing the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository site, he indicated that the state of Nevada had been able to politically stop all progress on this site starting in 2010 through eliminating the site’s funding.
• He lamented how the U.S. currently does not have a workable spent nuclear fuel disposal program and stated that the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel management plan has devolved into installing thousands of spent nuclear fuel canisters on lakes, seashores, and rivers.
  • He commented that while this storage approach is temporarily safe, he asserted that this storage serves no useful societal purpose other than compensating for a federal inability to provide long-term storage.
  • He added that this interim storage is blocking the reuse of shutdown nuclear reactor sites.
• He described the U.S.’s current spent nuclear fuel management as suboptimal and stated that it is the result of an unworkable spent nuclear fuel disposal program.
  • He commented that the U.S. currently has the worst spent nuclear fuel disposal system among the major nuclear energy countries.
• He remarked that the U.S.’s current spent nuclear fuel disposal system hurts it when the U.S. seeks to market its products and knowhow overseas.
• He also discussed how the U.S.’s current spent nuclear fuel management plan is very expensive given the costs associated with protecting, building, and maintaining the ever increasing number of spent nuclear fuel canister storage systems.
  • He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy’s failure to meet its contractual obligations is causing federal taxpayers to cover these storage costs through the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund.
  • He emphasized that this Fund has no Congressional oversight and is not subject to Congressional appropriations controls.
• He indicated that the U.S.’s rapidly growing spent nuclear fuel storage costs are estimated to total $51 billion and predicted that these costs would continue to grow.
  • He commented that future generations will need to pay for these costs, despite the fact that they did not produce the spent nuclear fuel and will not receive any benefits from this fuel.
• He stated that while new advanced nuclear energy technologies (such as advanced reprocessing approaches) may assist in the future geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel, he asserted that these technologies are not a substitute for geologic disposal.
  • He commented that the impediments to geologic disposal are social and political (rather than technical) and that the U.S. must address these impediments.
• He remarked that the U.S.’s failure to address its nuclear waste problem will hinder the development of new and necessary future nuclear reactors.
  • He commented that this failure degrades the public trust and confidence in nuclear energy and undermines the U.S.’s environmental stewardship commitment.
• He stated that the U.S. can create a workable federal-host state relationship that can support integrated spent nuclear fuel management.
  • He suggested that this may be accomplished through providing Congressional support for a second repository program.
• He also recommended that the U.S. should work to develop a new independent dedicated waste management organization to implement its spent nuclear fuel management program.
  • He asserted that this organization should exist outside of the U.S. Department of Energy and be held accountable and empowered for performance.
• He remarked that a federal-host state partnership arrangement in the form of a public service corporation would have the highest likelihood of being successful.
• He called on Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to address the U.S.’s current supply of spent nuclear fuel.

Mr. Daniel T. Stetson (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Community Engagement Panel):

• He discussed how the people living near the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) are very concerned about the reactor’s onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel and the prompt offsite relocation of this fuel.
  • He called the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel storage management program a failure and stated that communities do not trust current efforts to safely store spent nuclear fuel.
• He noted how nuclear energy utility customers had paid in advance for spent nuclear fuel to be disposed of and how the U.S. Department of Energy had agreed to start disposing of this fuel in 1998.
  • He indicated however that the U.S. Department of Energy has not fulfilled their promises to dispose of spent nuclear fuel.
• He stated that the U.S.’s failure to establish a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel has been very expensive.
  • He highlighted how the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel has already cost U.S. taxpayers more than $10 billion and how these storage costs are growing at a rate of more than $2 million per day.
  • He emphasized that all U.S. taxpayers must cover these storage costs, regardless of whether they have received any nuclear energy.
• He called it unfair for the U.S. to burden future generations with spent nuclear fuel storage problems.
• He then noted how the communities surrounding SONGS had never agreed to provide long-term storage for spent nuclear fuel.
  • He added that SONGS sits on U.S. Navy-owned land and indicated that the U.S. Navy wants this land back without the spent nuclear fuel currently being stored on the land.
• He remarked that the problems associated with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are political in nature (rather than technical).
• He mentioned how he has worked with other stakeholders from across the U.S. to develop several reforms to the NWPA.
  • He expressed interest in creating a program that would include both near-term interim storage and permanent disposal for spent nuclear fuel.
• He testified that his work had produced six policy principles.
  • He indicated that the first principle is a single purpose federal organization to assume the spent nuclear fuel management program from the U.S. Department of Energy. 
  • He indicated that the second principle is reliable funding.
  • He indicated that the third principle is the pursuit of multiple permanent deep geological repositories.
  • He indicated that the fourth principle is revisiting the linkage between consolidated interim storage or monitored retrieval storage and permanent disposal in deep geological repositories.
  • He indicated that the fifth principle is expanding the application of federal title to and liability for spent nuclear fuel to include private consolidated interim storage.
  • He indicated that the last principle is transportation planning (including public information and emergency preparedness).
• He stated that consolidated interim storage is very important to the communities surrounding SONGS because this storage can deliver offsite storage decades before deep geological repositories.
• He then remarked that a consent-based approach would be best for siting spent nuclear fuel disposal facilities.
  • He commented that this approach would require building an “enduring trust” between potential host communities, tribes, and the implementing organization.
  • He asserted that these partnerships would need to be built over time and adapt to the needs of each individual candidate community (as well as state acceptance).
• He also stated that federal law should not predetermine deep geological repository sites.
  • He further emphasized that the U.S. will require a place to store spent nuclear fuel, regardless of how the U.S. decides to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
• He concluded his opening statement by expressing encouragement with the U.S. Department of Energy’s work on consolidated interim storage for spent nuclear fuel, Finland’s plans to soon open the world’s first deep geologic repository, and the Committee’s consideration of the spent nuclear fuel issue.

Mr. Greg R. White (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners):

• He noted how his organization, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), represents the state public utility commissioners for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
  • He commented that his organization’s members are responsible for ratepayers that have faithfully paid for every aspect of the “failed” federal civilian nuclear waste disposal program.
• He discussed how U.S. ratepayers have paid tens of billions of dollars toward the federal nuclear waste disposal program envisioned in the NWPA and stated that ratepayers have not received anything in return for these payments.
  • He indicated that there currently is no federal nuclear waste disposal program.
• He testified that NARUC and its member commissions have dedicated a “tremendous” amount of time, resources, and effort over the previous 42 years to ensure that electricity consumers receive the nuclear waste management and disposal services that they paid for.
  • He recounted how state public utility regulators had agreed that users of electricity generated by nuclear reactors should pay for the U.S.’s nuclear waste disposal program when the NWPA was enacted.
  • He added that state public utility regulators still support this concept.
• He noted however that the only component of the federal nuclear waste disposal program that had been implemented on schedule and as intended was the Program’s collection of fees from ratepayers.
  • He mentioned how NARUC had needed to sue the federal government to stop the continued collection of the nuclear waste disposal fee from ratepayers after the program had been abruptly shut down in violation of the law and without an alternative plan.
• He discussed how U.S. taxpayers are now paying $2 million per day in damages to energy utilities because of the federal government’s failure to properly dispose of nuclear waste.
  • He expressed NARUC’s hope that the new interest in advanced nuclear energy technologies will spur the federal government to finally resolve the U.S.’s nuclear waste disposal program.
• He then made several recommendations to Congress for supporting the disposal of nuclear waste.
  • He first stated that the U.S. should make efforts to fund and oversee the completion of the licensing review for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository project.
  • He secondly stated that the U.S.’s NWF must be managed responsibly and used only for its intended purpose.
  • He thirdly stated that progress made on licensing a permanent repository for nuclear waste will facilitate the siting of consolidated interim storage.
  • He fourthly stated that Congress should consider assigning management of used nuclear fuel management to a single purpose organization.
• He asserted that these recommendations would create a “solid foundation” on which to build a viable spent nuclear fuel management program.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan discussed how the NWPA had established that the federal government would have legal responsibility for the ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel. He noted how the federal government’s failure to carry out this responsibility has deprived ratepayers of a spent nuclear fuel disposal program and costs U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars every day. He stated that while spent nuclear fuel recycling can work as part of an integrated fuel system, he emphasized that the U.S. still requires a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel. He commented that this permanent repository is especially important for legacy and defense nuclear waste that cannot be reprocessed. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether spent nuclear fuel recycling technologies eliminate the need for a permanent repository.
  • Dr. Wagner answered no.
  • Mr. Barrett answered no.
  • Mr. Stetson answered no.
  • Mr. White answered no.
• Chairman Duncan then asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether there have occurred “tremendous” technical achievements resulting from the work to license the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Duncan asked Mr. Barrett to address how the U.S. could protect this progress and build upon these technical achievements.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the federal government must reach some accord with the state of Nevada regarding the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. He expressed hope that such an accord can be reached.
• Chairman Duncan then discussed how spent nuclear fuel is currently stored and safely managed on sites across the U.S. He stated that a comprehensive system for spent nuclear fuel storage would further strengthen the U.S. nuclear energy industry. He asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether current spent nuclear fuel and the lack of a permanent repository for this spent fuel impedes the deployment of new nuclear reactors.
  • Dr. Wagner answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Duncan remarked that U.S. regulatory policy should adapt to advancements in nuclear technologies. He asked Dr. Wagner to address how the U.S. should update its policies to encourage spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how the NWPA envisions a once-through fuel cycle, which means that there does not exist a mechanism to provide incentives for spent nuclear fuel recycling. He stated that Congress should provide such a mechanism as part of reforms to the NWPA.
• Chairman Duncan stated that the federal government has borrowed money from the NWF and will eventually need to repay this money. He mentioned how South Carolina residents have paid $3 billion into the NWF. He asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether the U.S. could use the NWF to help fund spent nuclear fuel reprocessing projects.
  • Dr. Wagner indicated that he did not believe that the U.S. could use the NWF to help fund spent nuclear fuel reprocessing projects. He noted how Congress had not appropriated NWF monies for the purposes of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.
• Chairman Duncan emphasized that the U.S.’s failure to properly store and dispose of nuclear waste is causing it to pay $2 million per day in penalties and interest. He then asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether reprocessing or recycling of spent nuclear fuel presents a unique opportunity for advanced nuclear reactor fuel.
  • Dr. Wagner answered affirmatively and commented that there exist different nuclear fuel forms that are more conducive to recycling. He also noted how many advanced nuclear reactors intend to use HALEU fuel. He commented that HALEU contributes positively to the economics of spent nuclear fuel recycling.
• Chairman Duncan mentioned how he had visited both the Savannah River Site and Hanford Site and noted how these sites are currently storing nuclear waste on an interim basis. He stated that the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository should be used to permanently store nuclear waste.

Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• Ranking Member DeGette expressed frustration over how political pressures from Nevada and Congress have undermined the establishment of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. She mentioned how she had developed the Atomic Energy Advancement Act with Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and expressed hope that Congress can soon pass this legislation into law. She then asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether there exist unique challenges to storing spent nuclear fuel that has been enriched to a higher level. She also asked Dr. Wagner to address how the U.S. can improve its policies for dealing with advanced nuclear fuels.
  • Dr. Wagner remarked that there do not exist any unique challenges associated with storing and transporting higher enriched nuclear fuels. He emphasized that HALEU is still a form of low-enriched uranium (LEU). He then noted that some advanced nuclear reactors have different nuclear fuel forms for which the U.S. currently lacks storage systems. He described this issue as “manageable” and stated that the U.S. would need to design new storage and transportation cask systems to accommodate those materials.
• Ranking Member DeGette then asked Dr. Wagner to discuss how the Idaho National Laboratory is working to develop HALEU for advanced nuclear reactors.
  • Dr. Wagner noted that while the U.S. does not commercially recycle spent nuclear fuel, he indicated that the Idaho National Laboratory and other U.S. Department of Energy sites have been recycling spent nuclear fuel for years. He mentioned how the Idaho National Laboratory had reprocessed the U.S. Navy’s nuclear fuel through the early 1990s. He noted how the U.S. Navy’s nuclear fuel involves highly enriched uranium, which lends itself to future reuse. He then discussed how the Idaho National Laboratory recycles the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) spent nuclear fuel. He explained that the Idaho National Laboratory employs a pyroprocessing technique to separate the uranium from the other materials in this spent nuclear fuel and then downblends the uranium into HALEU. He testified that the Idaho National Laboratory is making this material available to advanced nuclear reactor developers (such as Oklo) to support the initial cores for their demonstration reactors.
• Ranking Member DeGette then asked Mr. Stetson to discuss the need for community panel perspectives in policy conversations regarding the long-term disposal of nuclear waste.
  • Mr. Stetson remarked that the U.S. should pursue a consent-based process for spent nuclear fuel consolidated interim storage. He asserted that trust is key for such a process. He commented that this would entail confidence in the organization implementing the consolidated interim storage, confidence that the actions being taken are in the best interests of the community, and open dialogue between the aforementioned organization and the community.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers discussed how the Committee has worked to develop legislation that would support U.S. nuclear innovation. She commented that the Committee has sought to accomplish this objective through developing a stronger U.S. nuclear fuel supply and through reducing fees and increasing efficiency in the nuclear energy licensing process. She asked Dr. Wagner to address how modern nuclear energy technologies can support spent nuclear fuel management.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how the U.S. has worked for decades to improve nuclear energy recycling technologies. He acknowledged that the U.S. will have some longstanding nuclear waste that requires geologic disposal, even with spent nuclear fuel recycling technologies. He stated however that the U.S. has been able to develop nuclear energy technologies that reduce the amount of nuclear waste generated. He also mentioned how the U.S. is getting closer to deploying advanced nuclear reactors with fuel forms that can be better recycled.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers highlighted how Russia and China are using their spent nuclear fuel recycling technologies to cement their civilian nuclear energy relationships concerning the management of spent nuclear fuel. She asked Dr. Wagner to identify lessons that the U.S. should take from these Russian and Chinese spent nuclear fuel recycling efforts. She also asked Dr. Wagner to address how spent nuclear fuel recycling would enhance the U.S.’s global competitiveness.
  • Dr. Wagner remarked that addressing the backend of the nuclear fuel cycle is critical for ensuring U.S. leadership within the global nuclear energy space. He also highlighted how Russia and China have offered to take back nuclear fuel from their partner countries. He explained that these take backs are meant to provide assurances to partner countries that they will not be saddled with long-term nuclear waste storage and disposal issues.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then mentioned how U.S. ratepayers have spent $40 billion to support a U.S. spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal system and emphasized that this system has yet to be established. She also mentioned how U.S. taxpayers have spent $50 billion because of the U.S.’s failure to establish a spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal system. She further noted how the residents of Nye County, Nevada (which is where the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository site would be hosted) have not received answers to licensing questions that are needed to justify the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository project. She lastly highlighted how the U.S. Department of Energy’s office meant to focus on spent nuclear fuel management has been dismantled. She asked Mr. White and Mr. Barrett to indicate whether the U.S. requires a credible organization to manage the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel program so that the U.S. can restart its licensing process for spent nuclear fuel.
  • Mr. White answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. White to indicate whether U.S. ratepayers would support reestablishing nuclear energy fees for spent nuclear fuel if there does not exist a credible U.S. spent nuclear fuel management program.
  • Mr. White answered no.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether the U.S. should reestablish the office at the U.S. Department of Energy that federal law requires to focus on spent nuclear fuel management.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively. He added that this office should eventually be transitioned out of the U.S. Department of Energy.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers provided Mr. White and Mr. Barrett with an opportunity to expand on their responses.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. needs a credible implementing organization to incorporate advanced nuclear energy technologies into the spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal system. He asserted that the U.S. requires a long-term disposal system for spent nuclear fuel. He stated that political constraints prevent the U.S. Department of Energy from providing such a system. He recommended that the U.S. establish an outside organization dedicated to spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal. He mentioned how the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future had recommended the establishment of such an organization. He expressed hope that the U.S. could take lessons learned from its experience attempting to establish the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository and make an arrangement with Nevada to dispose of the U.S.’s nuclear waste.
  • Mr. White remarked that the U.S. needs a credible program to store and dispose of its spent nuclear fuel. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy is a “huge bureaucracy” with a lot of internal agency competition. He asserted that the U.S. requires a single-focused organization to address the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. He indicated that while he is not opposed to using the U.S. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to accomplish this objective, he stated that this Office has thus far been unsuccessful in this effort.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• Ranking Member Pallone expressed concerns over how spent nuclear fuel currently must be stored at decommissioned nuclear reactors. He mentioned how the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station is an inactive nuclear reactor located near his Congressional District. He asked Mr. Stetson to discuss how storing spent nuclear fuel at decommissioned nuclear reactor sites impacts nearby communities.
  • Mr. Stetson highlighted how it is very expensive to store nuclear fuel at decommissioned nuclear reactor sites. He also stated that this spent nuclear fuel storage poses long-term safety risks. He commented that while this spent nuclear fuel is currently being stored safely, he asserted that this spent nuclear fuel must eventually be moved. He mentioned how the U.S. Navy wants the land that SONGS sits on so that it can train U.S. Marines (Note: The U.S. Navy cannot use this land so long as the land is being used to store spent nuclear fuel).
• Ranking Member Pallone then expressed interest in having the U.S. create interim spent nuclear fuel storage sites. He commented that the creation of these interim storage sites is more likely to happen than the opening of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository site. He asked Mr. Stetson to discuss how the Biden administration’s work to establish a consent-based siting process for spent nuclear fuel storage will be essential to getting nuclear waste out of communities as quickly as possible.
  • Mr. Stetson remarked that the Biden administration’s efforts to establish a consent-based siting process for spent nuclear fuel storage are on an “excellent path.” He noted how the Biden administration had recently provided $2 million distributions to 13 different communities, universities, and other entities to spur consideration of hosting spent nuclear fuel storage sites. He commented that these distributions are the first step for identifying potential locations for consent-based siting of spent nuclear fuel storage. He called community involvement in this process important and stated that this involvement will enable the Biden administration to adapt its storage approach accordingly.
• Ranking Member Pallone also noted how Mr. Barrett had stated that a consent-based siting approach for spent nuclear fuel storage can help build support for this storage among impacted state governments, local governments, and tribes. He asked Mr. Barrett to further address how consent-based siting for spent nuclear fuel storage helps to grow stakeholder buy-in for such storage projects. He also asked Mr. Barrett to provide recommendations for ensuring long-term support for spent nuclear fuel storage projects. He commented that these projects must maintain durable levels of support to withstand changes in political leadership.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that consent-based nuclear siting will be key for siting any nuclear energy facility moving forward. He stated that this siting will require a credible organization that possesses trust and confidence. He also remarked that states hosting interim spent nuclear fuel storage projects must have confidence that these projects will be temporary. He stated that there must therefore exist a credible geologic disposal system for spent nuclear fuel that will backup interim spent nuclear fuel storage. He commented that states will be unwilling to accept spent nuclear fuel for storage if the spent nuclear fuel will not ultimately be disposed of. He remarked that the U.S. can use consent-based siting as a mechanism to build trust and confidence in interim spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal systems. He asserted that consent-based storage and disposal systems must be pursued in tandem for these systems to be successful.
• Ranking Member Pallone stated that the absence of local support for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal projects can undermine the viability of such projects.

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH):

• Rep. Latta called it “essential” that the U.S. pursue nuclear energy given its carbon-free nature. He also mentioned how he had personally visited the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository and lamented how there has been no progress made on this project. He then recounted how President Ford had deferred plans for a commercial spent nuclear fuel recycling project in 1976 because of technical feasibility and proliferation concerns. He added that President Carter had subsequently announced that he would indefinitely defer on this project. He asked Dr. Wagner to discuss the feasibility of having the U.S. now pursue commercial spent nuclear fuel recycling. He also mentioned how he had recently heard during a nuclear facility trip that the U.S. has enough spent nuclear fuel rods to produce nuclear fuel for 100 years. He asked Dr. Wagner to address whether the U.S. should consider recycling these spent nuclear fuel rods.
  • Dr. Wagner remarked that the U.S. should consider recycling its current spent nuclear fuel rods. He noted how the NWPA had been drafted against the backdrop of the U.S.’s prohibition on commercial spent nuclear fuel recycling. He stated that the NWPA had largely been developed in response to this prohibition. He noted how U.S. utility companies have contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy for the Department to take their spent nuclear fuel. He indicated that the U.S. Department of Energy has failed to fulfill their contractual obligations, which has resulted in lawsuits from the utility companies. He stated that this current construct provides no financial incentive for U.S. utility companies to pursue spent nuclear fuel recycling. He remarked that the U.S. needs to revise the NWPA to facilitate commercial spent nuclear fuel recycling.
• Rep. Latta asked the witnesses to indicate whether there exist any estimates for the cost of recycling the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel rods.
  • Dr. Wagner indicated that there exist many studies that estimate the cost of recycling the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel rods. He stated that these studies have found that it would cost a large amount of money to recycle the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel rods. He noted however that this cost would largely depend on how much of this spent nuclear material is recycled. He then remarked that it would not be sensible to invest in spent nuclear fuel recycling infrastructure if the U.S.’s use of nuclear energy remains stable or declines. He stated however that current efforts to triple the U.S.’s nuclear energy capacity by 2050 creates an impetus for U.S. investments in spent nuclear fuel recycling technologies.
• Rep. Latta indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA):

• Rep. Peters mentioned how SONGS is located just north of his Congressional District. He also noted how SONGS is located within 100 feet of the Pacific Ocean, near dense population centers (including an active U.S. military base), and multiple fault lines. He commented that this makes SONGS a suboptimal location for spent nuclear fuel storage. He stated that his constituents are anxious to see this stored spent nuclear fuel moved from SONGS. He expressed interest in advancing the development of both an interim storage site and a permanent storage site for this spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible. He remarked that the U.S.’s lack of interim and permanent spent nuclear fuel storage sites presents an immediate and significant threat to his constituents (as well as other people throughout the U.S.). He stated that if the U.S. wants to encourage the development of domestic next generation nuclear energy technologies to meet growing demands for electricity, then the U.S. will need to address the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. He remarked that states are likely not enthusiastic to accept spent nuclear fuel for storage and disposal and expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of a consent-based siting approach for spent nuclear fuel. He then asked Mr. Stetson to assess the current health risks associated with the spent nuclear fuel currently being stored at SONGS. He also asked Mr. Stetson to address how these current health risks would compare if the spent nuclear fuel currently being stored at SONGS were to be moved to an interim storage or permanent repository site.
  • Mr. Stetson stated that there exists consensus that the spent nuclear fuel stored at SONGS is currently safe. He noted how SONGS currently stores 123 canisters containing spent nuclear fuel. He stated however that this stored spent nuclear fuel will eventually need to be repackaged. He noted how this repackaging would require a hot cell, which he described as a “very expensive proposition.” He remarked that the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel at SONGS presents potential risks. He stated that the SONGS Community Engagement Panel wants to move stored spent nuclear fuel out of SONGS as soon as possible.
• Rep. Peters expressed agreement with Mr. Stetson’s response. He also reiterated his skepticism regarding the effectiveness of a consent-based siting approach for storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel. He then asked Mr. White to explain how the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was chosen as a long-term storage site for spent nuclear fuel. He also asked Mr. White to indicate how many facilities are in the U.S. that are similar from a geologic perspective to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. 
  • Mr. White indicated that the US. is not currently considering any other facilities for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal. He noted how Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was chosen as a long-term storage site for spent nuclear fuel through a Congressional designation. He also noted how the U.S. Secretary of Energy had designated the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository to be the national repository for spent nuclear fuel in 2002. He stated that the science underlying these decisions was very valuable and should not be discarded. He remarked that the U.S. should consider the lessons learned from the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository as part of its license review process, even if this repository were ultimately determined to be non-licensable. He warned that the discarding of these lessons would lead the U.S. to restart its work from the beginning.
• Rep. Peters expressed agreement with Mr. White’s statements. He then mentioned how he had visited the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. He highlighted how this site is 1,000 feet above the water table and 1,000 below the ground. He added that this site has nothing surrounding it. He remarked that geology is a key consideration for determining where to safely store and dispose of spent nuclear fuel. He stated that the U.S. has performed a significant amount of work to determine that the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository has the requisite geology to safely store and dispose of spent nuclear fuel. He predicted that the U.S. will ultimately choose to store and dispose of nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository site because this location has been found to be the most conducive for storage and disposal. He stated that the federal government has a responsibility to overcome local objections to address national needs. He also expressed support for the proposals to create an independent organization to implement a spent nuclear fuel management program.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Rep. Walberg mentioned how his Congressional District contains two nuclear power plants. He also mentioned how there is a nuclear power plant located just north of his Congressional District that is in the process of being brought back online. He remarked that nuclear energy will be a “major player” in his state of Michigan’s energy mix for years to come. He asserted that the U.S. must therefore develop a long-term solution for nuclear waste. He noted how Michigan residents have contributed about $2 billion to the NWF to remove the state’s spent nuclear fuel. He commented that this cost will continue to increase. He then recounted how Mr. White had previously told the Subcommittee in May 2015 that the U.S. lacks a nuclear waste program and that the federal government had “absolutely nothing to show” for its collection of NWF monies. He asked Mr. White to indicate whether there have been any developments on these issues since his 2015 testimony to the Subcommittee.
  • Mr. White lamented that there have not been any developments regarding a federal nuclear waste management program since his 2015 testimony.
• Rep. Walberg also noted how Mr. White had recommended that Congress consider assigning the management of spent nuclear fuel to a new organization outside of the U.S. Department of Energy. He asked Mr. White to address why the U.S. Department of Energy is not able to manage the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel. He also asked Mr. White to explain how this new proposed organization would work differently than the U.S. Department of Energy.
  • Mr. White stated that while the U.S. Department of Energy should be able to manage the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel, he noted how the Department has a significant amount of internal competition for funds. He indicated that while the NWF is a dedicated fund intended to develop a nuclear waste repository, he noted that the U.S. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management had still needed to compete for funding through the Congressional appropriations process. He remarked that a dedicated outside organization with access to funds would be better positioned to develop a nuclear waste repository than an organization that is in competition with other U.S. Department of Energy agencies for funding.
• Rep. Walberg asked Mr. White to indicate whether an outside organization dedicated to addressing spent nuclear fuel could protect the interests of ratepayers.
  • Mr. White answered affirmatively. He stated that this approach would ensure that a nuclear waste repository would have access to funding as needed. He indicated that NARUC has ideas regarding how this proposed outside organization would function.
• Rep. Walberg then expressed support for having the U.S. complete the licensing of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. He asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository would be sufficient to store all of the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel if it were completed today.
  • Mr. Barrett stated that the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository would be technically sufficient to store all of the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel. He noted however that federal law states that the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository can only take half of the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel until a second repository starts.
• Rep. Walberg noted how Mr. Barrett’s testimony had called on Congress to begin working to establish a second nuclear waste repository. He asked Mr. Barrett to address why Congress should start working to establish a second nuclear waste repository. He also asked Mr. Barrett to provide recommendations for how Congress can avoid a “stalemate” in establishing this second nuclear waste repository.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. will need a nuclear waste disposal capability as part of any new nuclear energy deployment. He noted how the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository has been politically blocked for 14 years and stated that the U.S. must start exploring another nuclear waste repository. He mentioned how the NWPA had originally included two nuclear waste repositories. He stated that Congress should pursue a consent-based siting process to establish another nuclear waste repository. He remarked that a responsible, capable, meaningful, and realistic nuclear waste disposal facility under development will be necessary to ensure the success of interim nuclear waste storage projects. He commented that no states would accept spent nuclear fuel for interim storage without a nuclear waste disposal facility under development. He asserted that spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal is not a technical problem and is instead a social and political problem.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA):

• Rep. Matsui remarked that the U.S.’s indefinite storage of spent nuclear fuel at current and former nuclear power plants does not constitute a “serious” long-term solution for nuclear waste. She asserted that this approach is the most inefficient and costly way to store spent nuclear fuel. She also called this approach unfair to the communities where this spent nuclear fuel is stored. She asked Mr. Stetson to indicate how much it costs to store spent nuclear fuel at SONGS.
  • Mr. Stetson noted how SONGS has both horizontal and vertical storage units for its spent nuclear fuel. He indicated that it had cost $295 million to build these storage units and that it costs about $20 million each year to maintain these facilities. He further stated that climate change and rising water tables could force these storage units to be moved to higher ground. He estimated that the cost to move these units would exceed $175 million.
• Rep. Matsui mentioned how it costs $6.2 million per year to store the spent nuclear fuel at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (which is located in her Congressional District). She highlighted how the federal government can pay $1 billion per year to store spent nuclear fuel. She noted that the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that U.S. taxpayers will need to pay $51 billion in total to store present nuclear fuel. She noted however that Mr. Barrett had asserted that this $51 billion figure is likely an underestimate. She asked Mr. Barrett to confirm that the U.S.’s failure to change its current spent nuclear fuel storage policies will cause U.S. taxpayers to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars indefinitely to store spent nuclear fuel.
  • Mr. Barrett stated that the U.S.’s costs to store spent nuclear fuel will increase absent policy changes.
• Rep. Matsui remarked that removing the spent nuclear fuel being stored at current and former nuclear power plant sites will save U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. She noted how the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future and a 2021 GAO report had both concluded that moving spent nuclear fuel to a consolidated interim storage site could save U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. She also stated that many communities interested in hosting new nuclear power plants may encounter opposition if the communities would be required to host the spent nuclear fuel of these plants in perpetuity. She noted how Mr. Barrett had argued that the future of nuclear power depends on public trust that the U.S. will be environmentally responsible in its actions. She asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether he has concerns that the current impasse on addressing nuclear waste will hinder the construction of future nuclear power plants.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively. He remarked that the U.S. must have national trust and confidence that the U.S. will have a nuclear waste disposal system in the future, regardless of the advances in technology. He noted how the U.S. currently lacks such a system. He stated that communities cannot trust the U.S. government to address nuclear waste in the future based on the U.S. government’s previous performance.
• Rep. Matsui asked Mr. Stetson to indicate whether the U.S.’s failure to address nuclear waste would impact the willingness of communities to host new nuclear power plants.
  • Mr. Stetson answered affirmatively. He stated that local communities will work to block nuclear facilities projects from proceeding if communities cannot trust the federal government to address nuclear waste.
• Rep. Matsui then remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy has made “significant” progress in developing and implementing a strategy for consent-based siting of consolidated interim nuclear waste storage. She attributed this progress to consistent Congressional direction and funding in recent years. She asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether the Committee should support continued funding for the U.S. Department of Energy’s interim nuclear waste storage siting program.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Matsui also remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy needs to expand its efforts to develop a comprehensive waste management plan for the transportation, interim storage, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. He asserted that this would entail additional direction from Congress. She noted how Mr. Barrett had recommended that the U.S. Department of Energy prepare an overall nuclear waste management strategy and start a consent-based siting program for a second nuclear waste repository. She asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether these actions would help to resolve long standing conflicts and foster public trust in nuclear power projects.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively. He mentioned that the U.S. Department of Energy currently has no plans to address the geologic disposal of nuclear waste and called this a critical component for addressing nuclear waste. He indicated that the U.S. Department of Energy is only pursuing consent-based siting for interim spent nuclear fuel storage. He called on the Committee and the U.S. Department of Energy to begin considering the geologic disposal of nuclear waste. He commented that this work may or may not involve the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. He reiterated his assertion that the geologic disposal of nuclear waste will be foundational for the U.S.’s future programs.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• Rep. Griffith expressed support for efforts to recycle nuclear waste and for having the U.S. move forward on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. He also discussed how the U.S. government must make settlement payments to utility companies because of the U.S. government’s failure to pursue a nuclear waste management program after it had collected fees from ratepayers for this purpose. He asked Mr. White to indicate whether these settlement payments should come out of the NWF or another source.
  • Mr. White asserted that the U.S. government’s settlement payments to utility companies should not come from the NWF. He stated that the NWF had been created with the sole purpose of characterizing a potential nuclear waste repository and then developing and constructing said repository. He commented that having the NWF make these settlement payments to utility companies would not fit these goals.
• Rep. Griffith remarked that the U.S. still needs to construct a nuclear waste repository. He added that the U.S. needs to begin developing a second nuclear waste repository, even though it has not yet developed a first nuclear waste repository. He then yielded the remainder of his question period time to Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC).

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan asked Mr. White to explain how the NWF works.
  • Mr. White discussed how the NWF is part of the standard contracts that the U.S. Department of Energy were required to sign with the nuclear energy utility companies. He explained that nuclear energy utility companies were assessed a fee of $0.001 per kilowatt and that these companies would in turn collect money from ratepayers to cover the fees. He indicated that the nuclear energy utility companies would pass through these collected fees to the NWF.
• Chairman Duncan emphasized that ratepayers (rather than taxpayers) funded the NWF. He asked Mr. White to confirm that the NWF had amassed almost $50 billion.
  • Mr. White stated that the NWF has amassed “roughly” $50 billion. He also noted how more than $12 billion had been spent on the characterization of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
• Chairman Duncan stated that a lack of reliable funding has hampered the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel management program. He noted how federal budget laws treat spending on spent nuclear fuel repositories as discretionary, which is thus subject to spending caps. He commented that this situation limits Congress’s spending on these repositories. He asked Mr. White to indicate whether addressing these funding issues would help to address the challenges associated with restarting the U.S.’s construction of a spent nuclear fuel repository.
  • Mr. White answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Duncan then noted how a second spent nuclear fuel repository would entail the collection of more ratepayer fees. He commented that the federal government has previously failed to appropriately spend their collected ratepayer fees. He noted how proposals to establish a new organization to manage the U.S.’s nuclear waste would provide this new organization with access to the NWF. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether current budget constraints should not hinder this proposed organization’s access to the NWF.
  • Dr. Wagner answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Stetson answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. White answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Duncan then asked Dr. Wagner to explain how companies are working to address spent nuclear fuel.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how Curio is developing technology to recycle spent nuclear fuel from other parties. He indicated that Curio’s technology is strongly focusing on recycling LEU. He noted how Oklo is more focused on recycling spent nuclear fuel from their own nuclear reactors. He commented that Oklo may eventually seek to recycle the spent nuclear fuel from other nuclear reactors. He also indicated that Oklo is focusing on recycling HALEU. He further mentioned how Idaho National Laboratory currently recycles spent nuclear fuel. He invited the Subcommittee Members to visit Idaho National Laboratory so that the Members could see this recycling.
• Chairman Duncan then asked Mr. Stetson to indicate whether the spent nuclear fuel stored at SONGS is dry or wet.
  • Mr. Stetson indicated that the spent nuclear fuel stored at SONGS is dry.

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY):

• Rep. Tonko expressed support for the Committee’s efforts to address the U.S.’s nuclear waste challenges and stated that the U.S. has a responsibility to address its existing nuclear waste. He asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether advanced nuclear reactors will have the same issues with nuclear waste as LWRs.
  • Dr. Wagner stated that advanced nuclear reactors will have the same socio-political challenges as LWRs in terms of having spent nuclear fuel management and disposition programs.
• Rep. Tonko then discussed how the U.S. has a history of commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and noted how this reprocessing had previously occurred in West Valley, New York. He stated that this West Valley commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing project had failed for a “litany” of reasons. He commented that this project’s site now houses significant nuclear waste and requires major remediation. He noted how it would cost several billion dollars to clean up this site and how there exists a longstanding disagreement regarding who bears responsibility for this cost. He contended that the U.S. Department of Energy should be financially responsible for remediating the West Valley commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing project given that the “overwhelming majority” of this waste had come from defense-related activities. He stated that while commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing capabilities would be beneficial, he asserted that these capabilities would not completely solve the U.S.’s nuclear waste challenges and would pose some risks. He remarked that there must exist a regulatory framework that adequately addresses the risks associated with commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing projects. He commented that this regulatory framework should identify who would have liability for future remediation activities. He also stated that the U.S. must address the unresolved issues stemming from the U.S.’s previous foray into commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. He asked Dr. Wagner to provide recommendations for how the U.S. should evaluate the risks and necessary incentives for encouraging spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling.
  • Dr. Wagner stated that the U.S. can make updates to the NRC’s licensing process to address the risks associated with spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling. He also stated that the U.S. has no policy mechanisms to promote spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling and expressed support for developing such mechanisms. He remarked that the success of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling efforts will ultimately depend on the economics of such reprocessing and recycling or federal policies to require such reprocessing and recycling. He noted how France’s reprocessing and recycling of spent nuclear fuel is based on government policy (rather than on economics).
• Rep. Tonko asked the other witnesses to provide recommendations for how Congress should consider the potential of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that Congress should investigate and maintain awareness of advances in spent nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies. He stated that the U.S. should pursue these technologies in an integrated manner that considers all elements of spent nuclear fuel. He noted that France maintains a spent nuclear fuel disposal program and that the U.S. does not maintain such a program.
  • Mr. Stetson stated that the U.S. would still need the capability to store spent nuclear fuel after it has been repossessed. He commented that he remains neutral regarding the topic of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.
  • Mr. White remarked that the economics of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing should not be solely compared to the economics of uranium mining, enrichment, and purchases. He asserted that the ability of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing to reduce the overall amount of nuclear waste for storage ought to be considered. He stated that the economics of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing will significantly change if it allows for the construction of fewer nuclear waste repositories through producing less nuclear waste.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY):

• Rep. Guthrie remarked that the U.S. cannot reduce carbon emissions without using nuclear energy. He noted how nuclear energy is approximately 99 percent efficient while wind and solar energy are between 30 percent and 35 percent efficient. He added that nuclear energy provides baseload power while wind and solar energy provide intermittent power (which can create reliability issues). He then asked Dr. Wagner to indicate where it is economically sensible to reprocess spent nuclear fuel rods.
  • Dr. Wagner remarked that the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods would be the most economically sensible if the U.S. were to account for overall integrated costs for disposing spent nuclear fuel. He commented that the U.S. current does not account for these costs. He stated however that accounting for these costs would not necessarily make spent nuclear fuel reprocessing economically viable. He also discussed how the new nuclear fuels for advanced nuclear reactors have a greater value upon discharge than the nuclear fuels for existing nuclear reactors. He commented that these new nuclear fuels therefore may be more economical to reprocess. He further noted how growing global demand for nuclear energy is driving up uranium prices. He stated that the continuation of this trend will impact the economics of spent nuclear fuel recycling.
• Rep. Guthrie then mentioned how his commonwealth of Kentucky currently does not have nuclear power. He noted how the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is working to reduce its use of fossil fuels. He stated that the U.S. will need to permit new power sources to respond to population growth. He asked Mr. White to identify the costs that ratepayers will need to absorb if new nuclear energy facilities are permitted.
  • Mr. White noted how ratepayers pay for the original design of the waste storage facilities at nuclear power plants when the plants are constructed. He stated that the federal government’s failure to remove nuclear waste from nuclear power plants necessitates that these waste storage facilities be reconfigured to take more waste. He added that this waste has needed to be moved to dry storage over time. He indicated that ratepayers have paid for the aforementioned nuclear waste storage activities while continuing to contribute to the NWF.
• Rep. Guthrie then mentioned how his Congressional District includes Paradise, Kentucky and noted how this town’s coal power plant had been shut down. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether establishing nuclear power plants at former energy generation sites could enable nuclear energy projects to more quickly proceed.
  • Dr. Wagner mentioned how there have been numerous studies examining the repowering of retired or soon-to-be-retired coal sites with advanced nuclear reactors. He stated that there exist many reasons to establish nuclear energy projects at these sites. He noted how these sites already have transmission distribution infrastructure, tend to have heat sinks, and have nearby communities and land that can support these projects.
  • Mr. White stated that the communities that host former energy generation sites are comfortable with energy generation and can support energy generation capabilities. He commented that the U.S. should work to leverage this existing energy infrastructure when seeking to expand its nuclear energy deployments.
• Rep. Guthrie indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• Rep. Castor discussed how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had provided new incentives for advanced nuclear energy technology deployment and HALEU production. She asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether the U.S.’s failure to manage its spent nuclear fuel reasonably and sustainably would prevent the U.S. from predicting any trajectory for advanced nuclear technologies.
  • Dr. Wagner stated that the U.S.’s failure to manage its spent nuclear fuel would not necessarily prevent the U.S. from predicting any trajectory for advanced nuclear technologies. He mentioned how the U.S. had recently built two nuclear reactor units and is currently repurposing a retired coal plant site for nuclear power. He remarked that nuclear power projects are moving forward in the U.S., despite the U.S.’s lack of a nuclear waste storage and disposal program. He stated however that the U.S.’s lack of a nuclear storage and disposal program impedes nuclear energy deployments and creates uncertainty for utilities, communities, and investors considering such projects.
• Rep. Castor then mentioned how there is a decommissioned nuclear power plant located 90 miles north of the Tampa Bay, Florida area. She noted how this decommissioned nuclear power plant is holding dry casks of spent nuclear fuel. She expressed doubts that this spent nuclear fuel would travel from its dry casks to an interim storage facility or to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. She asked Dr. Wagner to predict the future for the spent nuclear fuel currently being stored at this decommissioned Florida nuclear power plant.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how there are 20 former nuclear power plant sites throughout the U.S. that still hold spent nuclear fuel. He indicated that this spent nuclear fuel is primarily being held in dual purpose canisters. He explained that the spent nuclear fuel is contained within steel canisters that are placed within larger concrete overpacks for shielding purposes. He stated that this storage system enables the spent nuclear fuel to be transported safely to a final repository.
• Rep. Castor asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether it is currently safe to transport spent nuclear fuel. She highlighted how spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at 75 different sites across 33 states (including 23 sites that are no longer operating).
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. has technology to safely transport spent nuclear fuel to any destination.
• Rep. Castor asked Mr. Barrett to discuss how spent nuclear fuel can be transported.
  • Mr. Barrett noted how most of the canisters holding spent nuclear fuel are dual purpose. He indicated that these canisters can be put in NRC-certified casks and safely transported. He highlighted how France has performed thousands of shipments of spent nuclear fuel and added that the U.S. has experience shipping spent nuclear fuel. He remarked that the U.S.’s problem is that it does not have a destination for this spent nuclear fuel.
• Rep. Castor asked Mr. White to discuss how the transporting of spent nuclear fuel would impact energy costs for consumers.
  • Mr. White remarked that the creation of a federal spent nuclear fuel repository would reduce overall energy costs. He stated that the absence of a federal spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal program would cause the U.S. to incur costs indefinitely.
• Rep. Castor asked Mr. Stetson to address whether spent nuclear fuel can be safely transported and how this transport would impact consumer costs.
  • Mr. Stetson expressed agreement with the previous responses. He also highlighted how the U.S. Navy is currently moving spent nuclear fuel without any problems. He further mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy is moving forward with the Atlas railcar to move spent nuclear fuel safely.

Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH):

• Rep. Balderson mentioned how PJM’s Independent Market Monitor released a report estimating that between 43 GW and 53 GW of capacity are at risk of retirement by 2030. He expressed concerns over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Section 111 rule and stated that this rule would drive existing reliable generation off the energy grid. He also remarked that the Subcommittee should consider all available reliable energy sources (including nuclear energy). He asked Mr. White to discuss the importance of addressing the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel problem in terms of improving the reliability of the U.S. energy grid and embracing advanced nuclear energy technologies.
  • Mr. White remarked that the U.S. is facing a “tremendous increase” in electricity demand. He stated that nuclear energy provides baseload energy that will be critical as the U.S. transitions from fossil fuel energy sources to other energy technologies. He also highlighted how nuclear energy is emissions free. He further asserted that nuclear energy technology would support U.S. energy reliability and security.
• Rep. Balderson remarked that the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel problem would be solved if the U.S. were to implement the NWPA. He commented that there should be bipartisan reforms to restart the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel management program. He asked Mr. White to provide recommendations for ensuring a workable U.S. spent nuclear fuel management program.
  • Mr. White remarked that the U.S. should use existing dedicated funds to support its spent nuclear fuel management program. He noted how the U.S. is accruing more than $1 billion per year in interest. He stated that these existing funds could help to support various efforts to address the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel without needing to restart the NWF. He asserted that the U.S. should make progress on developing a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel before it restarts the NWF.
• Rep. Balderson then noted how the NWPA establishes federal responsibility for the ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel. He commented that this federal responsibility for addressing spent nuclear fuel disposal remains, even though the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel management program is essentially dormant. He asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether the U.S. Department of Energy could take immediate action to address its spent nuclear fuel disposal responsibilities. He also asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether the U.S. Department of Energy could currently pursue an agreement with a host state for developing a spent nuclear waste depository facility.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. Secretary of Energy could take the initiative to engage with any host state on developing a spent nuclear waste depository facility. He lamented that the U.S. Secretary of Energy has not engaged in discussions with Nevada on this matter.
• Rep. Balderson then expressed interest in enhancing the U.S.’s commercial spent nuclear fuel recycling capabilities. He noted how Dr. Wagner had suggested that the U.S. may need to change its existing regulatory framework for commercial spent nuclear fuel recycling facilities (which could involve updates to Part 70). He asked Dr. Wagner to discuss potential changes for licensing spent nuclear fuel recycling so that the U.S. can become a global leader in the spent nuclear fuel recycling space.
  • Dr. Wagner stated that he is not very familiar with the details surrounding proposed Part 70 reforms. He remarked however that there exist differences that need to be clarified between Part 50 and Part 70 in terms of licensing spent nuclear fuel recycling facilities. He noted how there exist writings on this topic and expressed his willingness to share these writings with Rep. Balderson.
• Rep. Balderson then yielded his question period time to Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC).

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan asked Mr. White to indicate whether the money from the NWF could be used for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear energy sites to a spent nuclear fuel repository site.
  • Mr. White answered affirmatively.

Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX):

• Rep. Fletcher discussed how the U.S. uses nuclear fuel to power its economy and national defense and stated that the U.S. has failed to adequately address its spent nuclear fuel problem. She mentioned how the U.S. had enacted the NWPA and had identified the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository as its first national spent nuclear fuel repository. She noted however that the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository site has been stalled for more than a decade. She also highlighted how spent nuclear fuel has been accumulating at nuclear reactors throughout the U.S. She noted how this spent nuclear fuel is now stored in 33 different states at 75 different sites (including many non-operating sites). She further stated that recent court challenges to the siting of interim spent nuclear fuel storage facilities have made this ad hoc system for spent nuclear fuel storage even more uncertain. She noted how the GAO had recommended that Congress amend the NWPA to authorize a new consent-based siting process and to direct the U.S. Department of Energy to develop and implement an integrated nuclear waste strategy. She expressed interest in working to update the NWPA. She mentioned how Mr. Barrett’s testimony had asserted that the U.S.’s spent nuclear waste program is nonfunctional and incapable of supporting the U.S.’s needs. She asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether additional siting authority is needed for spent nuclear fuel interim storage. She also asked Mr. Barrett to identify other authorizations that the U.S. Department of Energy needs to update the NWPA.
  •  Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy needs to pursue different actions with states hosting spent nuclear fuel. He expressed support for the use of consent-based siting in the Department’s interactions with these states. He then remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy can take many actions under its existing statutory authority with Congressional support. He asserted that the U.S. Department of Energy must demonstrate a willingness to address the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. He stated that Congress could alternatively establish a new organization to address the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
• Rep. Fletcher asked Mr. Stetson to respond to her previous questions. She also asked Mr. Stetson to identify successful policies from other countries that could inform future NWPA updates.
  • Mr. Stetson stated that Finland has an effective consent-based siting process for spent nuclear fuel. He highlighted how Finland has worked to develop community support for nuclear energy, which has led Finnish communities to trust and support local spent nuclear energy facilities.
  • Mr. Barrett noted how Finland does not have states and only has 5 million people. He commented that Finland’s population size helps to facilitate its support for spent nuclear fuel management practices.
• Rep. Fletcher noted how Finland is roughly the same population size as Harris County, Texas. She commented that the U.S.’s larger population size results in many competing interests, which can impede the deployment of spent nuclear fuel management practices. She then noted how Mr. Stetson’s testimony had recommended that the U.S. revisit the linkage between consolidated interim storage and permanent disposal for spent nuclear fuel. She asked Mr. Stetson to further discuss the importance of having these two elements be linked.
  • Mr. Stetson stated that while the U.S. requires a long-term and permanent disposal solution for its spent nuclear fuel problem, he commented that this type of solution would take “decades” to realize. He remarked that the communities currently located near interim spent nuclear fuel storage facilities cannot wait decades to address this issue.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future had made several recommendations for addressing the U.S.’s current spent nuclear fuel supply.
• Rep. Fletcher interjected to indicate that her question period time had expired.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL):

• Rep. Palmer asked Dr. Wagner to elaborate on his assertion that having the U.S. recycle its spent nuclear fuel could bolster the U.S.’s international competitiveness with Russia and China and reduce the U.S.’s reliance on foreign sources for nuclear fuel.
  • Dr. Wagner mentioned how France supplies spent nuclear fuel recycling capabilities to different countries, including the United Kingdom (UK) and Japan. He stated that some countries are interested in these capabilities and that this capability would provide the U.S. with a competitive advantage.
• Rep. Palmer emphasized that spent nuclear fuel recycling would reduce the U.S.’s reliance on foreign sources for nuclear fuel.
  • Dr. Wagner noted that spent nuclear fuel recycling could increase the U.S.’s utilization of its uranium by between 30 percent and 90 percent.
• Rep. Palmer mentioned how Idaho National Laboratory’s Associate Laboratory Director had previously told the Subcommittee that the U.S. could obtain 100 years of electricity from using recycled spent nuclear fuel. He asked Dr. Wagner to comment on this statement. He commented that recycling spent nuclear fuel would both support the U.S.’s electricity needs and reduce the storage requirements for spent nuclear fuel.
  • Dr. Wagner mentioned how Idaho National Laboratory’s Associate Laboratory Director had concluded that the U.S. could obtain 100 years of electricity from using recycled spent nuclear fuel based on calculations involving the U.S.’s existing spent nuclear fuel supply and the U.S.’s current energy consumption. He noted however that this recycling would require significant infrastructure and other items.
• Rep. Palmer then mentioned how France has been able to recover 96 percent of its spent nuclear fuel. He also noted how additional benefits can be obtained from the remainder of the material that goes through the spent nuclear fuel recycling process. He highlighted how isotopes for medical uses can be retrieved from spent nuclear fuel. He asked Dr. Wagner to discuss other products or uses that could be developed through spent nuclear fuel recycling.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how the spent nuclear fuel recycling process can enable isotope recoveries and mentioned how the U.S. currently purchases many of these isotopes from Russia. He stated that it is currently not economically feasible to pursue spent nuclear fuel recycling solely to obtain these isotopes. He commented however that the establishment of a spent nuclear fuel recycling infrastructure would make it more economically feasible to recover such isotopes.
• Rep. Palmer stated that the U.S.’s pursuit of standard design small modular reactors (SMRs) would improve the economics of recycling spent nuclear fuel.
  • Dr. Wagner expressed agreement with Rep. Palmer’s statement.
• Rep. Palmer remarked that the U.S. should pursue SMRs. He stated that SMRs have zero-emissions once they are set up and operational, can operate for between 60 years and 80 years, can be easily connected to the energy grid, and enable better spent nuclear fuel disposal capabilities.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH):

• Rep. Kuster remarked that the U.S. must address its long-term nuclear storage challenge to safely store spent nuclear fuel and to enable the deployment of next generation nuclear power plants. She mentioned how spent nuclear fuel from New Hampshire’s Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant sits in dry storage near the facility. She stated that dry storage facilities ensure that no radiation or radioactive material is released from spent nuclear fuel (which protects both people and the environment). She noted that while New Hampshire’s spent nuclear fuel is currently being safely and securely stored, she asserted that the U.S. still requires a long-term solution to address its spent nuclear fuel. She stated that the safest way to store spent nuclear fuel is through deep geologic repositories. She noted how these facilities place spent nuclear fuel in robust leak-tight containers buried hundreds of feet below the ground in a stable geologic environment. She indicated that deep geologic repositories are built with multiple layers of protection to keep spent nuclear fuel secure. She discussed how the U.S. faces challenges building deep geologic repositories and stated that the communities hosting these repositories must be consulted as part of the construction process. She remarked that consent-based siting for deep geologic repositories is achievable and mentioned how Finland plans to open the world’s first deep geologic repository in the coming year. She asked the witnesses to identify the lessons that the U.S. could learn from Finland’s experience building the Onkalo storage facility.
  • Mr. Stetson commended Finland’s use of consent-based siting. He noted how Finland had successfully engaged with local communities to build trust and support for spent nuclear fuel storage projects.
• Rep. Kuster stated that Finland’s deep geologic repository allows for the country to confidently build new nuclear energy facilities with the knowledge that there exists a long-term solution for addressing their spent nuclear fuel. She commented that this would support efforts to address climate change. She asked the witnesses to discuss how this long-term certainty for spent nuclear fuel will help Finland to achieve its clean power goals.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. has access to the same technologies that Finland is using to store spent nuclear fuel. He stated however that the U.S. has more challenges in terms of siting present nuclear fuel storage facilities than Finland. He commented that Finland has a more cohesive and monolithic society, which makes it easier for them to site such facilities. He noted that while the U.S. had worked well with Nye County, Nevada to establish a spent nuclear fuel repository, he indicated that the state of Nevada had been hostile to these efforts. He remarked that the main issue that must be addressed for the U.S. to successfully deploy spent nuclear fuel repositories is confidence in the federal government. He also stated that advanced nuclear energy technologies can support the deployment of spent nuclear fuel repositories.
• Rep. Kuster interjected to note that there has been growing Congressional support for nuclear energy in recent years. She attributed this growing support to nuclear energy’s carbon-free features and the development of smaller nuclear facilities. She stated that addressing spent nuclear fuel storage concerns would enable the U.S. to better achieve its clean power goals.
  • Mr. Barrett stated that while there is growing support for nuclear energy, he asserted that the U.S. must still address trust issues related to spent nuclear fuel storage.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Rep. Pfluger asked the witnesses to indicate how much nuclear power the U.S. will need in the next ten years.
  • Dr. Wagner mentioned how a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) study had estimated that the U.S. will need an additional 100 GW of nuclear energy by 2050. He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy had estimated that the U.S. will need an additional 200 GW of nuclear energy by 2050. He indicated that the U.S. currently has between 95 GW and 100 GW of nuclear energy.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. will need to increase its nuclear energy generation capabilities to meet its international commitments.
  • Mr. Stetson indicated that while he could not quantify how much more nuclear power the U.S. will need, he stated that the U.S. will require additional sources of energy as it pursues vehicle electrification.
  • Mr. White projected that the U.S. will experience a significant increase in demand for electricity. He stated that nuclear power’s reliability and emissions-free nature should make it a top source for this electricity.
• Rep. Pfluger commented that there exists consensus that the U.S. will need to significantly increase its nuclear power generation capabilities. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the U.S. will require a permanent spent nuclear fuel repository to start building this nuclear power generation capacity out.
  • Mr. White remarked that the U.S. will have challenges building community trust for spent nuclear fuel storage facilities if it does not make progress in establishing a federal program to address spent nuclear fuel.
  • Mr. Stetson remarked that the U.S. requires both interim and long-term spent nuclear fuel storage capabilities.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. requires a program to address its spent nuclear fuel. He stated that while the U.S. does not necessarily need an operating spent nuclear fuel repository in the immediate term, he asserted that the U.S. requires a legitimate program to foster trust.
  • Dr. Wagner expressed agreement with Mr. Barrett’s response.
• Rep. Pfluger then mentioned how his Congressional District contains the Andrews interim storage facility. He stated that the U.S. requires a consent-based model for spent nuclear fuel storage, especially regarding the movement of this spent nuclear fuel. He asked the witnesses to provide recommendations for rebuilding public trust in spent nuclear fuel storage projects. He also asked the witnesses to identify alternative locations for spent nuclear fuel storage facilities beyond the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository if the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository is not considered feasible.
  • Mr. White remarked that it is always challenging to build energy infrastructure and stated that Congress must ensure that the laws are clear to support this infrastructure. He mentioned how a federal court had recently ruled that a spent nuclear fuel interim storage facility that had undergone the consent-based siting process could not move forward. He expressed his disapproval of this court decision.
  • Mr. Stetson remarked that any location where spent nuclear fuel is stored must be safe. He also stated that any location where spent nuclear fuel is stored must provide a short- and long-term proposition for the hosting community.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the federal government must have a credible geologic disposal program for spent nuclear fuel. He noted that the U.S. currently lacks such a program.
  • Dr. Wagner expressed agreement with Mr. Barrett that the U.S. requires a credible and durable program for addressing its spent nuclear fuel.
• Rep. Pfluger remarked that the U.S.’s national energy security strategy must address spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal so that the U.S. can increase its energy generation capacity.

Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD):

• Rep. Sarbanes remarked that the U.S. will need to address its storage of spent nuclear fuel given the U.S.’s growing support for nuclear energy. He asked Mr. Stetson to identify the types of resources that will be needed to support communities surrounding nuclear reactors that currently act as interim holders of spent nuclear fuel.
  • Mr. Stetson remarked that there needs to exist a “safety net” for the communities surrounding nuclear reactors holding spent nuclear fuel. He also stated that there should exist a robust communication system that informs these communities about what is occurring at the nuclear reactors.
• Rep. Sarbanes remarked that the Subcommittee is focused on providing safety assurances to communities temporarily holding spent nuclear fuel, developing a strategy for selecting long-term spent nuclear fuel storage sites, and guaranteeing the safety of spent nuclear fuel transports and storage for long-term disposal. He stated that it can be difficult to find a long-term spent nuclear fuel storage site. He commended the Biden administration and the U.S. Department of Energy for their work to advance a consent-based siting process for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal facilities. He noted how this process enables communities to decide whether they want to proceed with their developments of such facilities. He asked Mr. Stetson to discuss the assurances that Congress and the U.S. Department of Energy can provide to support a community that is proposed as a long-term spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal site and to encourage said community to continue through the consent-based siting process.
  • Mr. Stetson remarked that communities need assurances that the consent-based siting process for spent nuclear fuel will move forward and will not be subjected to continual delays. He also stated that communities need to see the federal government demonstrate competence in moving forward on establishing spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal facilities.
• Rep. Sarbanes expressed agreement with Mr. Stetson’s assertions that the federal government must provide certainty and foster trust if it seeks to be successful in its consent-based siting efforts for spent nuclear fuel facilities.

Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA):

• Rep. Cárdenas mentioned how the U.S. currently has 93 operating nuclear reactors. He asked the witnesses to indicate how many of these operating nuclear reactors are privately-owned and how many of these operating nuclear reactors are government-owned.
  • Dr. Wagner indicated that all 93 of the U.S.’s currently operating nuclear reactors are privately owned. He added that the upcoming launch of the Plant Vogtle Unit 4 nuclear reactor will bring the U.S.’s total number of operating nuclear reactors to 94.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Dr. Wagner to confirm that these privately owned nuclear reactors generate income for private companies.
  • Dr. Wagner answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Barrett noted how the TVA is a federally owned electric utility corporation. He indicated however that most nuclear reactors in the U.S. are privately owned.
• Rep. Cárdenas remarked that nuclear waste is a problem for the U.S., regardless of whether the waste is generated at a privately-owned or publicly-owned facility. He stated that the U.S. will need to develop a public-private partnership to address this nuclear waste.
  • Mr. Barrett noted that while most of the U.S.’s nuclear waste is owned privately, he indicated that nuclear reactors have contracts with the federal government to take their nuclear waste for disposal. He emphasized nuclear reactors have paid the federal government to dispose of this nuclear waste.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Mr. Barrett to indicate when the federal government and nuclear reactors had initiated their contract for nuclear waste disposal.
  • Mr. Barrett indicated that the federal government and nuclear reactors had initiated their contract for nuclear waste disposal sometime around 1983.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether this contract had been reached in response to a growing nuclear waste problem.
  • Mr. Barrett stated that the NWPA had been debated for the ten years leading up to its passage in 1982. He noted how the NWPA had dictated that nuclear waste generators (which are mostly private) would pay for the disposal of nuclear waste. He indicated that this law requires the federal government (through the U.S. Department of Energy) to use dedicated funds from ratepayers to provide for the disposal of nuclear waste. He stated that the federal government thus has a responsibility to address the U.S.’s nuclear waste. He commented however that this process has broken down.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Mr. Barrett to indicate the length of the harms that would stem from a potential nuclear waste leakage.
  • Mr. Barrett noted that while the damage stemming from leaked nuclear waste could last thousands of years, he stated that the U.S. possesses the technology to temporarily store and eventually dispose of nuclear waste safely. He remarked that the U.S.’s problem is that it has not identified where it will dispose of nuclear waste.
• Rep. Cárdenas stated that community opposition to nuclear waste disposal projects has prevented the U.S. from permanently addressing the issue. He then asked Mr. Barrett to identify the potential health and environmental consequences that would occur if the U.S. were to experience a nuclear waste leak.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that there is no credible situation that could cause a leak of nuclear waste in the U.S. He stated that there would have to exist an extraordinary event (such as a meteorite hitting Earth) for the U.S. to experience a leak of nuclear waste.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Mr. Barrett to indicate the health impacts that would result from a person or community encountering nuclear waste.
  • Mr. Barrett contended that the biggest consequences that would result from a person or community encountering nuclear waste would be psychological in nature. He stated that the real impacts from the Three Mile Island and the Fukushima accidents in terms of contact with radioactive material were virtually non-existent. He commented however that these accidents had major physiological impacts.
• Rep. Cárdenas asked Mr. Barrett to explain his assertion that the Three Mile Island and the Fukushima accidents did not result in verifiable harms to humans and other species.
  • Mr. Barrett stated that the international scientific evaluations of the Three Mile Island and the Fukushima accidents had found that these accidents had undetectable impacts on humans and other species.
• Rep. Cárdenas indicated that his question period time had expired and that he would submit additional questions for the hearing’s record.

Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA):

• Rep. Schrier noted how the Hanford Site is located near her Congressional District and indicated that this Site is one of the largest and most expensive environmental cleanup projects in the world. She discussed how the Hanford Site had been critical to the U.S.’s national security during World War II and the Cold War. She noted how the Hanford Site had been undergoing cleanup and remediation for over 30 years. She mentioned how this Site had recently fired up its second smelter to begin treating its nuclear waste via vitrification. She explained that vitrification converts nuclear and chemical waste into solid glass for permanent safe storage. She described this effort as imperative and urgent given how underground waste that had been first stored during the 1950s and 1960s is now leaking. She noted how the cleanup and remediation of the Hanford Site is not expected to be completed until at least the 2070s. She stated that delays in funding and cleanup put the Columbia River and the entire region at risk. She indicated that while she is optimistic regarding the Hanford Site cleanup, she expressed “deep concerns” regarding its decades-long timeline. She noted how Congress had appropriated “historic” levels of funding for this cleanup effort in the previous year’s budget. She mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy, the EPA, and the Washington State Department of Ecology are engaged in discussions to develop holistic and realistic solutions for the Hanford Site cleanup. She asked Mr. Barrett to identify potential actions to further improve and hasten waste management in a risk-informed and urgent manner, especially given the threats posed by the Hanford Site’s leaking tanks.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) is addressing the cleanup of legacy nuclear waste sites. He acknowledged that while it would take time for EM to fully remediate these sites, he stated that EM has made progress regarding these efforts. He described EM’s near-term safety and environmental protection activities as “quite good.” He stated however that the U.S. will eventually need to establish a repository to accept the processed nuclear waste for storage.
• Rep. Schrier asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether the federal government could take any actions to speed up its remediation of the Hanford Site.
  • Mr. Barrett indicated that he has not worked in the federal government for 20 years and stated that he does not know the specific details of the federal government’s current Hanford Site remediation efforts. He commented that while more funding would likely accelerate the federal government’s remediation efforts at the Hanford Site, he stated that this effort is already an expensive and significant undertaking.
• Rep. Schrier then noted how the Idaho National Laboratory has pursued its own cleanup efforts with the U.S. Department of Energy for its own defense-related waste. She provided Dr. Wagner with an opportunity to comment on these efforts. She also noted how the Idaho National Laboratory’s cleanup efforts have faced their own delays and long timelines. She asked Dr. Wagner to discuss the negative impacts associated with these delays and long timelines for nuclear waste cleanup. She further asked Dr. Wagner to identify actions that EM could take to avoid setbacks, increased costs, and lengthier timelines.
  • Dr. Wagner noted that the Idaho National Laboratory is a U.S. Department of Energy site and has had success cleaning up its nuclear waste. He acknowledged however that the Idaho National Laboratory does not have the same amount of nuclear waste as the Hanford Site. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy and the state of Idaho have partnered to make substantial progress in cleaning up the Idaho National Laboratory’s nuclear waste. He indicated that this has involved moving transuranic legacy nuclear waste to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which is a deep geologic repository in the U.S. He noted that the WIPP cannot accept spent nuclear fuel. He stated that the U.S. does not sufficiently highlight its successes in terms of cleaning up nuclear waste at many of its existing sites.

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan discussed how some of the Hanford Site’s initial cleanup challenges had involved the concrete lids on the tanks and the construction of vitrification and evaporation facilities. He mentioned how he had personally visited the Hanford Site and commended EM’s remediation efforts at the Site. He further stated that the Committee should visit legacy nuclear waste sites to see EM’s remediation efforts.

Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN):

• Rep. Pence expressed his encouragement with the Committee’s bipartisan work to modernize the regulatory framework for next generation nuclear reactors. He mentioned how his state of Indiana is engaged in nuclear energy research and highlighted how Purdue University hosts the U.S.’s only fully digital nuclear reactor. He explained that this digital nuclear reactor helps to train students and research cyber-physical protection. He noted how Purdue University had recently released a feasibility study with Duke Energy on how it could bring a SMR to power its campus. He also noted how this collaboration between Purdue University and Duke Energy would consider ways to safely store spent nuclear fuel on site. He further mentioned how Rolls Royce (which has facilities within Indiana) is advancing their designs for transportable SMRs that provide 470 MW of baseload power. He noted that while Indiana currently does not have nuclear energy assets powering its grid, he indicated that the state legislature has begun to support the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors across the state. He then asked Dr. Wagner to discuss how allied countries (such as France, Canada, and South Korea) have pursued spent nuclear fuel storage. He also asked Dr. Wagner to identify any lessons that can be learned from the deployment approaches of these countries.
  • Dr. Wagner stated that France, Canada, and South Korea maintain different strategies for spent nuclear fuel storage. He stated that the U.S. is “closely connected” with all of these countries and that these engagements have already resulted in the sharing of technologies and learnings for spent nuclear fuel storage. He noted how France’s spent nuclear fuel recycling technologies had been piloted in the U.S.
• Rep. Pence then discussed how Purdue University is a national leader in nuclear engineering and has performed important work to advance research around material science and manufacturing convergence needed for next generation nuclear reactors. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the nuclear energy industry has begun researching the necessary specifications for storing different types of nuclear fuel.
  • Dr. Wagner noted how the U.S. Department of Energy has supported work looking into different nuclear waste forms. He elaborated that these nuclear waste forms include waste from U.S. Department of Energy-owned test reactors and waste from commercial nuclear reactors. He indicated that the U.S. Department of Energy has not looked into the long-term storage and disposal of advanced nuclear reactor fuels to the same extent that it has looked into the long-term storage and disposal of other types of nuclear fuels. He stated however that many of these advanced nuclear reactor fuels are very similar to the fuels being used in test reactors. He commented that the U.S. Department of Energy will thus apply much of its knowledge from its work with test reactor fuels to advanced nuclear reactor fuels.

Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX):

• Rep. Weber mentioned how U.S. taxpayers must cover legal judgment payments for spent nuclear fuel storage and indicated that these payments total between $500 million and $800 million annually. He asked Mr. White to discuss the temporary storage sites holding the U.S.’s current spent nuclear fuel. He also asked Mr. White to indicate the savings that U.S. taxpayers would experience if a central spent nuclear fuel depository were to be established.
  • Mr. White remarked that the establishment of a central spent nuclear fuel repository would result in “tremendous” savings. He indicated that while he could not quantify these savings, he noted how the U.S. currently spends around $2 million every day to pay utility companies to store nuclear waste because of the U.S.’s failure to develop a federal nuclear waste management program.
• Rep. Weber asked Mr. White to address how the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel could support the U.S.’s energy needs for many years.
  • Mr. White stated that while he is not an expert on spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, he mentioned how other witnesses had indicated that the U.S. could fuel its nuclear power plants for at least 100 years if the U.S. were to reprocess its spent nuclear fuel.
• Rep. Weber provided the other witnesses with an opportunity to comment on spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.
  • Dr. Wagner stated that there exists a “tremendous” amount of energy left in spent nuclear fuel. He stated that this remaining energy could be utilized if the spent nuclear fuel were recycled.
  • Mr. Barrett also noted how spent nuclear fuel contains a “tremendous” amount of energy. He commented that the economic feasibility of recovering this spent nuclear fuel remains an “open question.” He stated that the U.S. should consider the feasibility of recycling spent nuclear fuel. He asserted however that the U.S. will still need to permanently dispose of spent nuclear fuel, regardless of whether spent nuclear fuel recycling is pursued.
• Rep. Weber asked the witnesses to indicate whether there exist estimates regarding the cost of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.
  • Dr. Wagner indicated that there are studies that attempt to estimate the cost of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. He expressed his willingness to provide the studies to Rep. Weber.
• Rep. Weber asked the witnesses to indicate how long it would take the U.S. to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
  • Dr. Wagner noted that the U.S. currently does not have infrastructure to recycle spent nuclear fuel. He stated that if the U.S. had such infrastructure in place, then it would still take several years for the U.S. to reprocess present nuclear fuel. He also stated that there would be a “pretty significant” period of time to establish the recycling infrastructure for spent nuclear fuel.
  • Mr. Barrett mentioned how Japan maintains a national policy to reprocess their LWR spent fuel. He noted how Japan has worked on its spent nuclear fuel reprocessing capability for decades and has spent over $25 billion to establish this capability. He indicated that while uranium prices are increasing, he stated that spent nuclear fuel reprocessing does not make sense economically (absent a national security issue). He highlighted however that there have occurred advancements in spent nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies. He remarked that the Committee should consider the potential use of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.
• Rep. Weber acknowledged that it can be economically challenging to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. He then noted how some Congressional Democrats have raised concerns that the U.S. could not produce nuclear energy cleanly and safely. He stated however that the U.S. already produces nuclear energy cleanly and safely in the context of nuclear submarines. He remarked that the U.S. should further pursue spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. He then indicated that his question period time had expired.

Rep. John Joyce (R-PA):

• Rep. Joyce remarked that the U.S. must pursue advanced nuclear power to achieve cleaner energy. He stated that SMRs and microreactors can provide energy to a new market of end users. He noted how advanced nuclear power could provide mines and data centers with reliable energy without imposing strains on the energy grid. He recounted how he had recently visited a Westinghouse microreactor manufacturing facility that was previously a steel factory. He noted how this manufacturing facility is bringing “family sustaining” jobs back to the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He remarked that Congress must take all possible actions to enable this innovation. He stated that this effort would entail reforming current regulations for nuclear waste to allow advanced nuclear reactors to thrive in the U.S. He highlighted how the end users of SMRs and microreactors might not be traditional utility companies. He asked Dr. Wagner to identify the challenges that current regulations pose to non-traditional end users of SMRs and microreactors.
  • Dr. Wagner mentioned how Talen Energy had recently entered into a power agreement with a data center in Pennsylvania. He also mentioned how Dow Chemical is working with X-Energy on an industrial project. He asserted that the greatest challenge facing non-traditional end users considering nuclear energy options is not regulatory uncertainty. He remarked that the greatest challenges that these non-traditional end users face involve first mover costs, cost uncertainties, and scheduling uncertainties.
• Rep. Joyce noted how industrial end users considering nuclear energy projects will be required to sign contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy and potentially store nuclear waste on their sites. He asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether these industrial end users will be willing and able to store nuclear waste on their sites. He also asked Dr. Wagner to indicate whether such storage requirements would impact the deployment of nuclear energy projects.
  • Dr. Wagner indicated that while he could not speak on whether industrial end users would be willing to store nuclear waste on their sites, he stated that these storage requirements would create long-term cost uncertainty. He commented that uncertainty creates challenges for these industrial end users when considering whether to pursue nuclear energy projects.
• Rep. Joyce interjected to ask Dr. Wagner to indicate whether uncertainty would inhibit the interest of industrial end users from pursuing nuclear energy projects.
  • Dr. Wagner answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Joyce then discussed how Pennsylvania ratepayers are responsible for $4 billion in contributions to the NWF. He mentioned how there have been discussions about increasing consolidated interim storage to reduce taxpayer burdens through the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund. He asked Mr. White to discuss why consolidated interim storage proposals for nuclear waste should include a full analysis of cost. He asked Mr. White to indicate whether such analysis would determine if consolidated interim storage for nuclear waste would actually reduce the long-term financial burden on ratepayers.
  • Mr. White stated that a full analysis of cost for consolidated interim storage proposals for nuclear waste would determine whether such interim storage results in cost reductions for ratepayers.
• Rep. Joyce interjected to ask Mr. White to indicate whether there has been a thorough and credible life cycle analysis that would support the establishment of an interim storage facility for nuclear waste.
  • Mr. White indicated that while there have been some studies assessing the benefits of establishing an interim storage facility for nuclear waste, he asserted that these studies have not been sufficiently thorough. He elaborated that these studies could have performed additional analyses to better determine the full benefits of an interim storage facility for nuclear waste.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA):

• Rep. Miller-Meeks remarked that the expansion of nuclear energy plays a key role in the U.S.’s energy security. She highlighted how nuclear energy provides the U.S. with continual baseload and dispatchable energy. She mentioned how nuclear reactors had generated nearly 20 percent of the U.S.’s electricity in 2023. She stated that investments in and expansions of nuclear energy will be essential to continuing to reduce global emissions while also offering affordable, reliable, and abundant energy. She remarked however that the failure of the U.S. Department of Energy and Congress to fulfill their contractual obligations to properly manage spent nuclear fuel impedes the expansion of nuclear energy. She asked Dr. Wagner and Mr. Barrett to indicate whether there exist any technological innovations or advancements that could improve the management of spent nuclear fuel.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively. He noted how new technologies can reduce the toxicity and volume of nuclear waste. He indicated however that these technologies may result in additional low- and intermediate-level waste. He stated that while technology advances will help the U.S. to manage its spent nuclear fuel, he asserted that these advances will not address the underlying social and political problems that impede spent nuclear fuel management efforts.
  • Dr. Wagner asserted that the U.S. already possesses sufficient technologies to safely secure, transport, and ultimately dispose of spent nuclear fuel. He stated that future technologies will improve the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel management capabilities.
• Rep. Miller-Meeks also noted how most people do not know that nuclear material is transported via railroads every day. She asked the witnesses to discuss how the Congress could incentivize the development and implementation of alternative technologies for spent nuclear fuel management.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that the U.S. must pursue a comprehensive review of its spent nuclear fuel management system. He stated that technology advancements can be incorporated into this management system. He called on the U.S. Department of Energy to develop an integrated spent nuclear fuel management plan that would examine the costs and schedules for integrating these technologies. He noted how the U.S. has not examined the potential cost savings of interim spent nuclear fuel storage in decades. He also stated that the U.S.’s timeframe for implementing a disposal system for spent nuclear fuel will impact the economic feasibility of interim spent nuclear fuel storage. He concluded that the U.S. must consider its spent nuclear fuel management system in a holistic fashion.
• Rep. Miller-Meeks asked Mr. White to recommend amendments to the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel management strategy that Congress should immediately pursue to protect the interests of U.S. ratepayers and taxpayers.
  • Mr. White remarked that Congress should first focus the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel management program. He noted how the U.S. currently lacks a federal nuclear waste disposal program and called on the U.S. to restart this program.
• Rep. Miller-Meeks also mentioned how the federal government spends millions of dollars each year on civil damages to electric utilities because it lacks a realistic and functional nuclear waste strategy. She asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether the U.S. should pursue a new nuclear waste strategy that would both include the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository and additional options for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively.

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA):

• Rep. Carter attributed his state of Georgia’s attractive business environment to the fact that it has available, reliable, and affordable energy. He mentioned how Georgia has recently launched a new nuclear reactor and will soon launch another nuclear reactor. He indicated that these nuclear reactors are in Rep. Rick Allen’s (R-GA) Congressional District. He further mentioned how his Congressional District contains the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant and noted how this nuclear reactor is licensed through the 2030s. He remarked however that spent nuclear fuel has created as a “stigma” that impedes nuclear energy deployment. He called it unfortunate that the U.S. has not developed a solution to address its spent nuclear fuel. He expressed confidence that the U.S. can address its spent nuclear fuel. He asked the witnesses to indicate how many commercial private spent nuclear fuel projects are in the process of being developed within the U.S.
  • Mr. White stated that several commercial spent nuclear fuel projects have been initiated. He indicated however that none of these projects have been successful thus far.
  • Mr. Stetson indicated that he did not know the answer to Rep. Carter’s question.
  • Mr. Barrett stated that there have been five attempted commercial private spent nuclear fuel projects within the U.S. He indicated that all of these projects had failed.
• Rep. Carter asked Mr. Barrett to explain why these commercial private spent nuclear fuel projects had failed.
  • Mr. Barrett attributed the failure of these commercial private spent nuclear fuel projects to a lack of host state acceptance. He indicated that these proposed projects would have been located in Utah, Tennessee, New Mexico, Texas, and Nevada. He contended that the establishment of a credible long-term disposal system for spent nuclear fuel would have assisted in the siting of these proposed interim spent nuclear fuel storage systems. He remarked that states are reluctant to accept these facilities when they do not foresee the spent nuclear fuel ever leaving the facilities.
• Rep. Carter asked the witnesses to indicate how many currently operating nuclear power plants maintain operational dry cask storage systems.
  • Mr. Barrett stated that all U.S. nuclear power plants maintain operational dry cask storage systems except for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in North Carolina. He explained that this nuclear power plant has very large pools. He added that the U.S.’s decommissioned nuclear power plants maintain operational dry cask storage systems.
• Rep. Carter asked Mr. Barrett to indicate whether he has confidence that the casks being used to store spent nuclear fuel at U.S. nuclear power plants are properly functioning.
  • Mr. Barrett answered affirmatively. He stated however that these casks should not be considered a long-term solution for addressing the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel.
• Rep. Carter then asked the witnesses to indicate why the U.S. Department of Energy would want to pursue another interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel given the potential availability of private options. He commented that interim storage facilities face siting, licensing, and demand challenges. He further asked the witnesses to indicate why the U.S. Department of Energy would not instead pursue a permanent solution for addressing spent nuclear fuel.
  • Mr. Stetson stated that it would take many decades to license and process a permanent spent nuclear storage facility. He noted that an interim spent nuclear fuel storage facility by contrast would take a few years to establish. He added that most communities do not want to store spent nuclear fuel on a long-term basis.
  • Mr. Barrett remarked that states are unlikely to accept spent nuclear fuel interim storage facilities until the U.S. establishes an integrated national system for addressing spent nuclear fuel.
• Rep. Carter expressed his dismay with the U.S.’s failure to address its supply of spent nuclear fuel.

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan commented that the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina has wet pool storage (rather than dry cask storage).
  • Mr. Barrett reiterated his assertion that all U.S. nuclear power plants maintain operational dry cask storage systems except for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in North Carolina.

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA):

• Rep. Allen mentioned how his Congressional District contains the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and indicated that this Plant has the first two new nuclear reactors built in the U.S. in over 30 years. He mentioned how Plant Vogtle Unit 3 had come into commercial operation in 2023. He also mentioned how Plant Vogtle Unit 4 has achieved 100 percent power and is connected to the energy grid. He remarked that the completion of this construction was a “significant milestone” for nuclear energy and for the U.S. He also highlighted how the U.S. House of Representatives had recently passed the Atomic Energy Advancement Act on a bipartisan basis. He then called it imperative for the U.S. to address the management of spent nuclear fuel. He stated that this issue is particularly significant for his Congressional District given how the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and the Savannah River Site currently hold spent nuclear fuel. He mentioned how Congress had previously taken action to address the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel through amending the NWPA and selecting the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository as the site for the permanent nuclear waste repository. He highlighted how Yucca Mountain is already contaminated. He noted how President Regan had signed the NWPA into law in 1983 and how President George W. Bush and Congress had certified the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository as the site for the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel repository over 20 years ago. He indicated that this certification had followed many years of scientific study. He asked Mr. Barrett to explain why the U.S. Department of Energy under three different Presidential administrations has not yet licensed the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
  • Mr. Barrett stated that Nevada has “vehemently” objected to the licensing of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository and blocked the project from proceeding. He also noted that Yucca Mountain is not contaminated due to nuclear testing.
• Rep. Allen asked Mr. Barrett to discuss the role that the Congressional appropriations process has played in the lack of progress surrounding the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
  • Mr. Barrett stated that Nevada has used the Congressional appropriations process to block all progress on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
• Rep. Allen then asked Mr. White to indicate the amount the NWF’s collected ratepayer fees that have been spent on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
  • Mr. White indicated that more than $12 billion of the NWF’s collected ratepayer fees have been spent on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
• Rep. Allen asked Mr. White to indicate what ratepayers will receive if the U.S. Department of Energy continues to not fulfill its responsibilities under the NWPA.
  • Mr. White stated that ratepayers will not receive anything if the U.S. Department of Energy continues to not fulfill its responsibilities under the NWPA.
• Rep. Allen remarked that his constituents should not pay any additional money to the federal government for high-level nuclear waste disposal until the U.S. Department of Energy makes progress on addressing nuclear waste. He noted that while the fees collected from ratepayers for this effort have stopped, he indicated that his taxpayer constituents are continuing to pay for the U.S. Department of Energy’s failure to take title to spent nuclear fuel. He asked Mr. White to indicate whether Congress should force a public notice of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund’s spending so that the public would know the price of the U.S. government’s failure to address nuclear waste.
  • Mr. White remarked that educating the public on the cost of the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel management program and the cost of inaction would be “invaluable.”
• Rep. Allen asked Mr. White to indicate what would constitute a sufficient accomplishment regarding the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel management moving forward.
  • Mr. White remarked that “significant progress” toward the licensing of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository would constitute a sufficient accomplishment. He called it “troubling” that there is currently no review occurring of this project.
• Rep. Allen then mentioned how his Congressional District is adjacent to the Savannah River Site. He noted how this Site currently stores approximately 3,000 spent nuclear fuel bundles. He also highlighted how this Site houses the H Canyon facility, which is the only operating production scale nuclear chemical separation facility within the U.S. He noted how this facility has been previously used to recover usable uranium from processed spent nuclear fuel and is expected to soon produce HALEU fuel. He asked Dr. Wagner to discuss how the H Canyon facility might serve as a model for future U.S. spent nuclear fuel recycling capabilities.
  • Dr. Wagner remarked that the H Canyon facility has been successfully operating on a small scale. He noted how this facility is recycling U.S. Department of Energy-owned materials and producing HALEU. He stated that these technology demonstrations could be built and expanded upon moving forward.
• Rep. Allen indicated that his question period time had expired.

Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Chairman Duncan expressed support for the Savannah River Site’s H Canyon facility. He then remarked that Congress will need to enact legislation to address the U.S.’s spent nuclear fuel and expressed his interest in working on such legislation.