Nuclear Spent Fuel Policy: Examining Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsKathy Castor
This committee should be working to address these issues.
We need to advance bipartisan permitting reform, particularly to plan, permit, and pay for the transmission needed to build a 21st century electric grid. If we're serious about scaling all forms of energy, including nuclear, and connecting large loads to the grid, then we need to reform our broken interconnection queues. But this committee has been absent in that. Nuclear energy is important, but the President's own Energy Information Administration has told us what energy is coming online this year. 86 gigawatts of generation is made up of 51% solar, 28% batteries, 14% wind, and 7% gas.
Unfortunately, the administration's policies are making it harder for those, for many of those resources to connect, meaning that prices are going to continue to go up for our neighbors back home. I know these are challenging issues. But Republicans on this committee cannot keep running away from them. You cannot play ostrich. The costs are too high on the people we represent back home.
Now, under this administration, the Department of Energy has taken some creative approaches to dealing with the challenge of nuclear waste. In July, DOE announced it had signed MOUs with five states interested in hosting nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, and a sixth state just signed on last week. The United States has more than 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel, some of which could be recycled to produce power again, and has, like has been done in other countries. While this progress is notable, I'm concerned that it may come at the expense of proper safety and environmental guardrails. And let me be clear, any efforts to find new sites for long-term nuclear waste disposal requires congressional approval.
I worry that the administration is also ill-equipped to carry out this work after DOE forced out experts across the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Last year, President Trump illegally fired NRC Commissioner Hanson and then dismissed seven of the eight commissioners of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which is supposed to provide independent oversight. We are responsible for protecting our communities that host nuclear plants and spent fuel, like in Citrus County, Florida, about 90 miles north of Tampa Bay, which began retiring its Crystal River nuclear plant in 2013 following safety concerns about its containment facilities. When nuclear projects are not properly maintained, retired, and cleaned up, those costs are often paid by ordinary families in the form of higher electric bills. And that's not right.
These communities are counting on us to keep them safe and make life more affordable. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today so this committee can conduct better oversight of the administration's progress and chart a path forward that protects our neighbors back home while advancing America's leadership in nuclear energy. Thank you, and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Thank you, the gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Thank you, Chair Latta, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. So as momentum grows in support of nuclear energy, so do economic opportunities and potential new options for durable nuclear fuel and waste policy. Thanks, Secretary, for being here today, we appreciate seeing you again. States have been stepping up to expand, to develop nuclear programs while working to provide the sites, the supply chains, and the fuels for the reactors we will need to secure our energy future. Today, we will be examining a Department of Energy proposal relating to spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.
Under current law, which I continue to support, the community surrounding Yucca Mountain in the host state already stand to benefit from a 90 billion dollar project to provide a permanent repository for nuclear waste. Yet, even under current law, the need to develop alternative repositories and new technologies to deal with spent fuel and waste has always been on the horizon. This project is in its beginning stages, so I look forward to discussing what may be done to enable an important opportunity while protecting the long-term interests of ratepayers who fund the nuclear waste program and taxpayers. Thank you and I yield back.
Robert Latta
Thank you, the gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee for five minutes for an opening statement.
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nearly 70 years ago, the US first ever commercial nuclear power plant opened and ever since, nuclear energy has been an important source of carbon-free electricity generation. Unfortunately, while many things have changed, one thing was true back then that's still true today, and that is that we have no real plan about what to do with the spent fuel that comes out of nuclear reactors. Today we find ourselves on the edge of a potential nuclear renaissance and I've spent a lot of time this year discussing the risk that renaissance posed by declining public confidence in the industry, especially after the Trump administration spent last year attacking our safety framework for nuclear energy. But just as important to public confidence, especially in the communities that actually host nuclear plants, is figuring out what to do with the waste.
For years the answer was that we would find a single location in the country to house all the waste. But after decades, we're no closer to achieving that goal than we were back when Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982. That's why recent proposals to get buy-in from states have much more promise than a top-down approach. However, at the end of the day, any agreement with a state will live and die by trust. And frankly, it's been impossible to trust the Trump White House or the Trump administration's Department of Energy.
DOE has admitted in court that it has cancelled investments in states for political reasons, so I'm concerned that they could pull the same nasty illegal trick with states that commit to the nuclear innovation campuses. DOE has also had an astonishing lack of transparency when it comes to its plans to authorize nuclear reactors for research purposes. I also have deep concerns with some of the specifics of the legislative proposal the administration has put forward to enable the innovation campuses. The proposal declared, declared that the innovation campuses would automatically receive any environmental permits and that none of the activities related to the innovation campuses would be subject to judicial review. And I want to be clear, that's an absolute non-starter, and those provisions cannot and will not become law.
I'm also cautious about the administration's focus on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Reprocessing technologies have potential, and I was happy to support a bill to clarify the licensing pathway for some reprocessing facilities just a few weeks ago at our markup. But the reality is that right now it's simply not economic and we don't know if it ever will be. I don't want states, taxpayers or ratepayers to get stuck with the bill for a technology that isn't proven or doesn't pan out. And while there may be a place for reprocessing in the nation's spent fuel disposal strategy, we must be strategic and thoughtful about what that place is and I'm concerned that the administration isn't quite there yet.
But I don't want to be overly negative about these initiatives, Mr. Chairman. I want to work with you and Assistant Secretary Garish and my colleagues to get this right. These innovation campuses represent a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make progress on an issue that our nation has struggled with for 70 years. Things are going to have to change if this is going to work. The Department of Energy will have to become much more transparent about all its activities in the nuclear space.
It will also have to make credible commitments that all interference with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will stop and never return.
But perhaps most important, we don't have to solve all these issues in one proposal. Just getting something on the table that would allow communities with shut down nuclear plants like Oyster Creek in my home state to start moving the fuel away and to a central site even if it's temporary will be more progress than we've ever seen. So with that Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Robert Latta
Well thank you very much the gentleman yields back and this concludes member opening statements. The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules all member opening statements will be made part of the record. We thank our witness for appearing before us today and taking time to testify. The witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from our members. Our witness today is the Honorable Theodore J. Garish, the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, the United States Department of Energy.
And Mr. Garish we really appreciate you being here and you're recognized for five minutes for an opening statement.
Theodore Garish
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and subcommittee ranking member Caster and Chairman Guthrie and ranking member Pallone. It is an honor to be back in front of the committee. I have spent many years in a bipartisan manner dealing with exactly the issues that we have today. I do want to focus on one word that you used that is very important and that is partnership. I come here to the committee, this is going to have to be a cooperative effort between the administration and the Congress to move forward and this is extremely important for us to do that.
I thought it would be helpful to begin today with a conversation. And let me start, I think the first question is why are we here now? It has been except for the 1980s and the Vogtle plants we haven't had much activity in nuclear. But now with the new demand electricity has been flat up until now we see a tremendous growth in nuclear. And what that is going to mean is we're going to need nuclear and nuclear's day is about to start.
The President set forth several executive orders and he really started some new enthusiasm for nuclear. And I want to talk about first the three criticalities that were set for July 4th. I think none of us thought that that was going to be possible for any of us to do that. But we went to work on the authorizations and new entrepreneurs came in and with their new designs got to work. I think we surprised ourselves.
Instead of three we got four and now we have five and we have more coming. And this has really set the path to the future for nuclear. And we proved that we could do this safely. This led to our next element which was the launchpad which we are going to try to institutionalize this approach for new designs and move them forward. Then the Department of War launched its microreactor programs.
And now the interest from countries all over the world to protect their bases from unreliable electricity so that they would have support for that. We're doing that in the United States, we plan to do that and this is very important. We also needed other things which we've started with this administration. The second item was the new domestic enrichment with the Russian ban we have three projects and we have Urenco also expanding, very important.
We have the advanced reactor development program, which is mainly involving TerraPower and X-energy, two really unique advanced reactors. We have the Gen III+ with we awarded for TVA and GE and Holtec. These are all important and important steps, but there has been one really new surprise to me, and that is we've seen new technologies and interest in reprocessing and recycling. At least six companies and maybe more have come forward with advanced reprocessing and want to develop systems, and some of this includes what I would refer as circular plants. In other words, they will actually make the electricity, they'll take the product that comes out, they will recycle it to some degree, and they'll actually, amazingly, burn their own radionuclides that they come out of the and the transuranics that come out of this process.
This is completely new and completely different, and what it does is it reduces the amount of waste and reduces the toxicity. So these are all some new ideas that have come and it has given us a huge advantage now because in addition to everything else with the development of these new businesses, everyone wants to be in the same location. And there are huge advantages to doing that. We have reduced transportation, we have shared security in these areas that will include it will include reprocessing, but it will also include enrichment, fuel fabrication, and potentially the circular processes for for the reactors. What has happened then, another factor has been the disposal technologies have changed too.
Instead of having a gold-plated Yucca Mountain, there are some new techniques in terms of deep borehole, which have allowed us additional methodologies to move forward to complete and dispose of nuclear waste, much simpler. So the industry is moving on. And this led us to the concept of the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. Twenty-six states had responded to our RFI. They said that they were all interested, twenty-six states.
And this was reduced after discussions to six states. And we are now down and we have signed MOUs with each of those states and are moving forward. The interest in these campuses is extremely broad in terms of economics. We anticipate fifty-one billion in outside private investment. This does not include the federal government's investment in whatever the waste aspect is, ten billion in tax base.
Robert Latta
I beg your pardon, Mr. Assistant Secretary, we're over time, if you could just wrap up real quick please.
Theodore Garish
Okay, wrap up very quickly. Let me tell you how I think we need to start. We need to do several things that we were asking the committee to take a look at. We would like to eliminate the exclusivity of Yucca Mountain. We would like to see a federal authorization of the administration to allow these lifecycle campuses.
We would like reprocessing to be made the policy of the United States. We would like to provide storage at sites and then work out the mechanism for the first fuel that would travel and resolve the financial aspects.
These are the ideas we would like to start in this program, and thank you for the opportunity to appear today and respond to your questions. Thank you.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you very much. This will conclude the testimony of our witnesses, and we will begin the questionings from our members, and I will begin with recognizing myself for five minutes. You know, you mentioned something a bit earlier, and I think it's really important because I think one of the great things about serving in the Energy and Commerce Committee is that when you sit up on this dais, you're always looking over the horizon five to ten years. And so we want to make sure that, you know, we're helping the entrepreneurs and innovators out there to be able to succeed. And hearing what your testimony said today, hopefully we've been helping out there to make sure these things are coming to pass.
And something else I always ask our witnesses, especially when we're dealing with energy, is, and you answered it in your testimony, I always ask, do we have to have more energy in this country or less? And you answered in your testimony that on page two, you said the country continues to need more energy, which is absolutely correct. And I think what I'd like to ask my first question, especially on the advanced reactor developments out there, because again, this is a lot of the future. You know, we're going forward with our larger facilities, but it's the SMRs out there that are really where there's so much technology. And, you know, how is it that now, because you know, if you sat in this committee five, six, seven years ago, this is something like pie in the sky that people said, oh, it's never going to happen, or it's just going to take too long.
And here we are today. So how is it all of a sudden now we are talking about SMRs and advanced reactors?
Theodore Garish
Well, they are the future. In other words, some of these new technologies are extremely advanced. They in many ways are safer than even our currently safe reactors, and they are easier to operate. They are what we refer to as walk-away safe. These are very important developments.
We have several that are currently coming along. They are being supported by the department, and this is the future. And the fuels that they're going to need are all new, everything is new, and this is the future.
Robert Latta
Well, and I think that's so important because one of the things I've looked at, and we know what the French have been doing, is on recycling. And, you know, estimates out there, we have between 100 to 150 years of fuel just in the spent rods we have all across the country. And, you know, when you're talking about these new technologies, what what again has spurred so many companies wanting to get involved in this today? Because again, just looking back just a few years, it was just like, well, never going to happen, and here we are on the cusp today of, especially when you look on the nuclear lifecycle innovation campus, that recycling is going to be such a big part.
Theodore Garish
Well, there are a couple of things that are important to these new technologies. One is that we are able to do a variety of new uses. They're smaller. They can be placed in in locations easier, or they can be put together. And some of these technologies, especially the circular programs, look like the real future.
In other words, they will be able to not have to go through a complete recycling, but do much to reduce the toxicity and quantities and move forward. So there is so much to do, and we are testing each of these right now, and that and that is what the job of the Energy Department at at the Idaho National Laboratory is, to really do the research to make sure that these are viable, economic, and safe.
Robert Latta
Well, and just to follow up on that, because up in Canada, in Darlington and Ontario, you know, they're talking about in '29 that that will be up and they'll be in full operation in 2030. How far in advance do you think it'll be before the United States is at that at that point?
Theodore Garish
Well, that particular reactor has also been granted some funds in our TVA GE program to develop that reactor. In addition to that, the Commerce Department has looked at developing ten more of those reactors at TVA and getting them into into place in the next couple of years to move that that forward.
So that has also been extremely good for the process of regulation because it has been a cooperative effort between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian authority to help regulate that.
Robert Latta
Well, you know, we're talking about on the recycling, but, you know, this committee's also been very active about making sure that we're not relying on Russia. And in the last 38 seconds that I have, how important is it to make sure that, you know, the United States has its own uranium and not rely on other countries in 30 seconds?
Theodore Garish
It is one of the most important aspects of this is we must have our own fuel cycle. We must enrich our own fuel. We must have our own uranium and our own reactors. And this is an extremely important program.
Robert Latta
Well, again, thank you very much for being here. And I will yield back the balance of my time and recognize the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member, for five minutes for questions.
Kathy Castor
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Garis, for being here. In January, the Department of Energy said it wanted initial nuclear lifecycle campuses online in the 2027 timeframe, and you referenced that the department has signed six MOUs. Can you clarify what those MOUs are? It looks like they are memorandums of understanding to continue conversations between the states and DOE.
It's not necessarily the identification of specific host communities or construction funding. Is that right?
Theodore Garish
Yes. Well, we're asking the communities to commit to certain things. And one is to co-locate their nuclear facilities, number one. And number two, to designate a site for final disposition within the state. So in other words, we will work through with them the manner in which that they would like to develop these.
In other words, there's economic benefit for the states to do this, and we believe that they can develop their own process to make this work. And we are going to then encourage the co-location and the centralization of this within the state because of the tremendous economic advantages.
So explain what you envision with the timeline working with those communities and with this committee and Congress.
Theodore Garish
The timeline will depend a lot on what our authorities are to move forward. And one of the things that we need most at this time is to allow the Department of Energy and the Secretary to work with the states to authorize us to do it. Currently, we cannot move forward on that because of the exclusivity of Yucca Mountain. In other words, that is the only area that we are currently authorized. And we would like the authority to move forward to help the states.
Kathy Castor
And move forward, you mean things like groundwater testing, geological screening, independent site characterization? I mean, there's a lot of work that has to be done.
Speaker 6
All of the things that the states will be very interested in doing in order to promote these facilities.
Kathy Castor
So earlier this month, the committee passed my bill, the DOE Nuclear Transparency Act, in response to some bipartisan concerns we've had over the past year with changes at DOE and the nuclear safety rules and the reactor pilot program. You mentioned in your opening remarks that you view this as a partnership with Congress, and I appreciate that.
That will you commit that the commit to the committee that the department will be more transparent with the Congress as it runs the nuclear energy launchpad initiative?
Theodore Garish
I hope I hope that we are transparent as opposed to more. I hope we're fully transparent with you. We were able to put all of those regulations and those changes on the public record. And those materials are available now and those decisions are made always notified to the Congress when we move forward with these.
Kathy Castor
Well because we've also heard from former Department of Energy staffers they've raised concerns that this is an overly rapid pace coupled with this deregulatory crusade by this administration that they think this would increase the risks of these projects. And when it comes to nuclear you have bipartisan support but what would put it in peril would be cutting corners on safety and transparency. And these these campuses are going to come require community buy-in which will need to last beyond any one administration given that this administration has gutted certainty for communities invested in other forms of energy such as the arbitrary illegal cancellation of fully permitted energy projects. Why should communities trust that the federal government and the Department of Energy is a trusted partner now?
Theodore Garish
Public engagement is our number one priority right now to make sure that the public understands number one. Number two all of these activities will be done safely to the highest standards. And I believe what we did in with the pilot program was mainly to eliminate redundancies and things that were these regulations had grown and grown over the years. And what we did is simplify them. We emphasized safety and I think if you'll ask anyone that participated on the other side they will tell you we were the toughest regulators that they had experienced and they learned a lot in the process.
And I think you will see a change in the entrepreneurs that are coming forward now and understanding that.
Kathy Castor
Can you do this with the the staff that you have right now because we know that an independent analysis found in January that DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy has lost about one third of its staff?
Speaker 9
It's always nice to have a larger staff. What we're trying to do is is make a judgment now of how to do that going forward and I think we will be making some announcements through our regular appropriations process.
Randy Weber
Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee the gentleman from Texas for five minutes for questions.
Thank you Mr. Chair. Assistant Secretary Gerush as DOE considers the role of NLICs do you do you see privately owned nuclear fuel recycling facilities as an important component of these campuses and are there areas perhaps where additional congressional authority could help support that very commercial development or I should say deployment?
Theodore Garish
Absolutely. These are these will be private facilities and they will need licensing assistance. We we need to help the entire process and that going forward is will be a top priority for us.
Randy Weber
Well thank you for that. Listening to your discussion with Ranking Member Castro I was reminded that it's important to note obviously that reprocessing now is proving out actually in our opinion to be economical. Companies there's some companies like the Curio company I'm familiar with is leading the way on spent fuel recycling innovation. It can be done safely and cleanly. I've said that for a long time.
The we had a nuclear plant in when I was in the state rep back in Matagorda County and they did it cleanly and safely spent changed out spent fuel rods.
So I hope that we're all paying attention. I also want to focus on something you said in earlier testimony. You said something about limiting the exclusivity of Yucca Mountain. So are you, we're paving the way for companies, individual processors to come in and do that very thing and do it cleanly and safely, would you agree?
Theodore Garish
Yes, well we can't do this, these campuses and authorize these campuses by the department the way that the law currently sits is we must do that at Yucca Mountain. And what we need to do is allow us the flexibility to have an additional method to move forward.
Randy Weber
Right. We'd like to know that Texas applied, I think it was one of the 21 states you named, how do you know, are you familiar with what, how they either rated or didn't rate?
Theodore Garish
They, these were self-rated. In other words, they came to us and said that they were interested. And they came to talk to us about what is needed. And we went down the line and one of the important elements was that not only did they get the economic benefits in the front end from the front end of the fuel cycle, but they had to be able to complete the back end of the fuel cycle and dispose of the materials. And that took more discussion and more understanding and we now have some additional technologies and some advancements that are improving that.
Randy Weber
Along those lines, will authorizing secondary disposal pathways in the law actually enable DOE to continue to negotiate with those very states that came forward?
Randy Weber
Okay. Will the DOE ensure that there is linkage to permanent disposal in any negotiations?
Theodore Garish
That is, all this cannot be temporary, we must go to a final solution. We must close the fuel cycle.
Randy Weber
Yeah, well final solution was a bad term in World War II, some of us are old enough to remember that. Under the law, users of nuclear power pay a fee into a nuclear waste fund to pay for a program of permanent disposal. That fee was set to zero under court order because DOE dismantled its program. Would you agree that Congress should not raise rates on electric customers for a program that's still being developed?
Theodore Garish
This is a question that Congress is going to have to work with us on. Obviously, this program needs to be paid for and we do have sufficient funds to start, we have 56 billion in the nuclear waste fund. So we have money to start. I understand the reluctance anyone to start the fee up again if we do not have a program that actually moves waste. So I am very cognizant of the problem, but we need to work with the Congress on how we resolve that in the long run.
Randy Weber
Well thank you for that, the law requires the nuclear waste fund to be spent on programs linked to permanent disposal. Now I'm assuming DOE supports that?
Theodore Garish
That is how that money is to be used, that is the way the law is currently worded and that is also subject to some discussion as to what is needed to make this successful. What we want to do is make it successful and we want to work with you to determine how to do that.
Randy Weber
So this, this may be getting a little procrastinating or maybe we're prognosticating is what it is, should federal policies be updated to include reprocessing as part of a, of this very system we're discussing for permanent disposal of waste, do we need to do something with those policies?
Theodore Garish
I think it would be helpful to have that actually demonstrated as the policy of the United States in favor of reprocessing where technically and economically feasible.
Robert Latta
Well, I don't have much time, so I'm down to four seconds, thank you for your testimony.
Thank you.
Scott Peters
Thank you very much, the gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's 50th district for five minutes for questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. One key aspect of our nuclear strategy that's been consistently ignored as we build new nuclear power is a solution to the question of nuclear waste, specifically the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel. We need to regain our ability to build nuclear power in this country and as we move toward a long-term solution for nuclear waste, it's not an either-or, we have to do both. We can and should build more nuclear power while encouraging innovation in advanced nuclear that can generate power while producing less waste.
That's why I was encouraged to see my Nuclear Refuel Act with Chair Latta pass last month, and that would do just that. You mentioned, Mr. Secretary, uranium. By the way, General Atomics, which is headquartered in my district, has been working on developing a uranium production facility that will be critical for national security and by itself would replace 15% of our uranium imports. I hope you're taking a good look at that project and that you'll let me know your thoughts on that at a later date.
Theodore Garish
We are looking at all mechanisms to really reduce importation of uranium, and that is one that we'll examine.
Scott Peters
Thank you. I'm also encouraged at these proposed nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. That can be an important part of our domestic nuclear strategy as well as our strategy for addressing the question of waste disposal. And I would just say finally that Congress needs to be a partner in making this idea a reality. The Trump administration can't do it alone.
This is especially important for members in districts like mine whose constituents are very concerned about spent nuclear fuel at shutdown plants. I seek unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to add to the record this article entitled "As the Coast Begins to Crumble, the Clock Ticks on Moving San Onofre's Radioactive Waste."
Scott Peters
Experts agree that the nuclear waste stored at San Onofre is stored safely, however it was never meant to be there in perpetuity, so we need to get it moving, we need to get this right. Mr. Secretary, you say in your written testimony that your mission with these campuses is not just to manage the nation's nuclear waste, but to maximize its beneficial use. How does the department plan to prioritize what nuclear waste is getting transported to these campuses? And can you commit to working with Congress to ensure that waste at shutdown plants in high-risk areas like San Onofre can get prioritized?
Theodore Garish
This is a very complex question because it has a lot to do with which waste can be most easily reprocessed. And what I see is a combination program where we'll look for waste that is the easiest to do first, but we also need to take into account waste that currently exists at shutdown plants and at all plants. And I think we need a combination, what we refer to as the queue, which is which comes first and who actually goes to the site. My suggestion is that we will come up with some kind of rulemaking at the department. This is, we probably will need some provisions in whatever is done here in the committee, or we could do it in some rulemaking to determine which waste goes first and how we do it.
It's a combination of both the old waste and the new waste, but first we have to get started. The most important thing right now is to get something moving.
Scott Peters
I agree. What kind of timing are you thinking of for that rulemaking that you mentioned?
Theodore Garish
As soon as we have the authority, I think we could probably do it in less than six months, I would think.
Scott Peters
That's great. I also understand the department's long-term plans for the waste involves reprocessing and drilling deep boreholes into the ground where waste could potentially go. But one strategy that's proven and being used internationally is deep geological storage. What are the department's plans for finding a permanent geological storage site for this waste as part of the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, and are you seeing success through the collaborative siting process the department is employing?
Theodore Garish
That is the concept behind these campuses. In other words, these states have agreed for final disposal, and that could be either technology. And what we'll look at is what the geology will work, which geology will work best. The type of mined repository would be along the lines of what is currently in Finland, which is a much simpler repository. However, the deep borehole can be just as effective as a methodology to do that.
And the only difference is mining or drilling holes, and it's just the size of the final area that receives the waste. So either one will work, and the states, as part of their arrangement with us, this will be agreed to as a collaborative process with us.
Great. Thank you for being with us today, and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chair of the full committee, for five minutes for questions.
So six states have already voluntarily stepped up to express initial interest in hosting these campuses. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The concept of gaining consent for disposing of spent fuel is not a new one, but it's vulnerable to shifting politics. Thanks for the recognition. Thank you, Secretary, for being here.
Can you describe what will be different with your approach, and what are the roles of governors and state legislatures, and what will be required of them to ensure any agreements will be durable?
Theodore Garish
Durability is essential for this process. And what we would like to do is make the arrangements and get the understanding with the states in a collaborative manner, as opposed to what I refer to as consent-based siting, which sounds like you're going to require something that will then be consented in. We want states to want to do this. And the thing that we will ask as we go forward is the location, what it's going to cost, and what our arrangements are going to be for us to do. The federal government will actually do this part of the project.
But we need the site and the local community's agreement to move forward with this. This will be an extremely economic and useful process for the local communities, and they'll find this very economically beneficial.
Brett Guthrie
Thank you. You know, a lot of local communities debate a lot of things that a lot of us up here think are economically beneficial, and they don't think they're economically beneficial for what's in their community. So we need to be careful with that, and it should be their decision. That's kind of my view on it. But so we want to be careful about rushing any policy that would undermine our obligations to the ratepayers who have paid into the fund to ensure permanent disposal of fuel.
Your proposal includes significant non-waste-related economic development. What will states and others bring to the table in terms of financial support for these campuses?
Theodore Garish
Well, in terms of if you're referring to the discussion draft, there was a suggestion made as to how some of these funds would be used. Generally speaking, the idea is, unless it is useful to reduce the amount of the waste or the toxicity of the waste, it would not be supported by the federal government. So in other words, we would have to devise the mechanisms for expenditure of the nuclear waste fund, and currently that is only for waste disposal. The issue would be before the Congress: are there other things that you may want to use it for in terms of if you've got a reprocessing plant that reduces either the quantity or toxicity, is it useful for some of those moneys to be paid out of the fund?
Those are questions that are still to be answered and I would look to the Congress for their opinions on this and this is an extremely important area that we'll have to resolve.
Brett Guthrie
All right, thanks. Can you update us on the timeline for any negotiations with states?
Theodore Garish
Well, right now what we would like to do is we're going to have a more formalized host agreement by the end of September. We anticipate that we are going to try and reach some kind of contractual methodology. We are looking for December 15th if possible. The thing I want to avoid are handshakes and MOUs. In other words, I'd like to have some contractual arrangement with the federal government and an agreement to do so and that would include necessarily some type of state legislation to basically lock that in.
So in other words, what you referred to in terms of durability is extremely important. And once this gets started and the economic benefits begin, I think you'll see tremendous approval from the states in allowing to do this. Generally speaking, the communities that are closest to nuclear facilities are the most positively inclined to support because they understand the safety elements and the risks and also the financial benefits for that particular project. So generally speaking, it's the communities that are closest that we want to deal with and we want to deal with that first. And that is what we want to do now once we get the authority for the states to designate these areas.
Brett Guthrie
Thanks. So everything we need to be doing here needs to be focused on how do you raise the standard of living for all Americans or how does it improve our national security or our leadership in the strategic relations with our friends around the globe. So how does the current nuclear technology development and the increased focus on reprocessing help the United States regain leadership in nuclear technology and what does this mean for us in a global race?
Theodore Garish
Homegrown, reliable nuclear power is affordable and economic and reliable. This is exactly what we need in the country and some of these new technologies like either the micros or the small modular reactors allow us to spread this around the country and so that many communities can get the advantages of this type of affordable electricity.
Brett Guthrie
Thanks. I asked you a long question as my time was expiring. I apologize, I'm sure we'll hear more and my time has expired. So I appreciate your answer. Thank you.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you very much, the gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's 8th district for five minutes for questions.
Robert Menendez
Thank you, Chairman. For decades, the United States has struggled to address the storage of nuclear waste. Communities are highly cautious of hosting waste storage facilities and it's easy to understand why. Families want to know that their energy infrastructure is safe. Mr. Garish, is it fair to say that nuclear waste, if not handled properly, can create serious risk of the health of our communities and the environment?
Theodore Garish
It needs to be handled properly and we know how to handle it properly and we can do that and we have done that.
Speaker 13
Is it correct that you testified before Congress more than 20 years ago as deputy director of DOE's radioactive waste office?
I may have done that, yes.
Robert Menendez
I believe you did and I believe you told Congress that Yucca Mountain program was quote poised for success. 21 years later, we still don't have a permanent repository for commercial spent nuclear fuel. You're now back before Congress proposing a new approach. What specifically did DOE get wrong then and what are you doing differently today?
Theodore Garish
With this project, we went and did file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, the implementation of that was never funded by the Congress. So what we need to do is have the foresight to make sure that whatever we start, we finish. And the problem was lack of funding at the time.
Robert Menendez
I appreciate that.
As the Trump administration states and tech companies increasingly turn toward nuclear energy to meet growing energy demands from AI data centers, it's essential that we figure out how to safely and correctly handle nuclear waste. Mr. Garish, at every hearing we've had on nuclear power, witnesses have testified that community trust is essential when it comes to building nuclear power plants. Would you agree or disagree?
Theodore Garish
Well, waste handling in other countries is extremely important and the way this works is each country must handle its own waste.
Robert Menendez
My question was specifically about community trust being essential to this process. Do you agree or disagree, just yes or no?
Theodore Garish
Community trust is absolutely essential. Safety is the number one priority. Community understanding of the risks and having a complete understanding of what this is in their community. And I have always found that all of these nuclear projects, as we mentioned here previously, the people that are closest understand it best and are the most supportive.
Robert Menendez
So will you commit that the DOE will not site a nuclear waste facility in a community without that community's consent?
Robert Menendez
I appreciate that and I'll take that as a commitment. And trust is built through independent regulators that keep safety at the center of their work. Is that accurate?
I didn't understand the...
Speaker 30
I apologize. And trust is built through independent regulators that keep safety at the center of their work. Is that accurate?
Theodore Garish
The regulators must have high integrity and independence and I'm certain that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will adopt those.
Robert Menendez
I appreciate that. And so just yes or no, would you say that turning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission into a quote rubber stamp, would that foster trust with communities?
Robert Menendez
That's a direct quote in terms of what the intent of this administration was to do with the NRC.
Robert Menendez
I appreciate that, but you have to understand that there are other people in the administration who are saying those things.
Theodore Garish
We have spent considerable amount of time to make sure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy in the process of doing these pilot programs had their own independent systems of how you evaluate.
Robert Menendez
Okay, so on independence again, just yes or no, do NRC commissioners expressing fear of being fired if they fail to approve a reactor foster trust and foster the idea of independence?
Theodore Garish
They need to be independent. I cannot tell you what it takes to make them independent. They have to be...
Robert Menendez
I think not having political pressure and a president's pressure over them allows them to be independent. You've served in multiple administrations. I think you would agree with that statement.
That's not what they testified to here in Congress.
Theodore Garish
Well, I'd listen to some of the testimony and I did not hear that.
Robert Menendez
Well, I would urge you to listen to it once again. And what about a mass exodus of staff in safety offices at NRC and in your own office? Does that foster trust?
Theodore Garish
That was done because of the incentives that were provided to reduce the amount of employment in the federal government. That was done for other purposes. And many people took advantage of that.
Robert Menendez
I would say because there was this looming political pressure of this administration where they didn't feel like they'd be able to fulfill their mission at the DOE or the NRC and that's why they resigned or were forced out because there were a number of forced retirements. And so listen, we got to get this right. I think you know that we have to get this right, but we need folks to feel like they can operate independently to put safety at the center of everything that we do.
So I thank you for being here and I yield back.
Robert Latta
Thank you very much, the gentleman's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota, the at-large member, five minutes for questions.
Kelly Armstrong
Good morning, sir. Thank you for your expertise, your time here, and your recognition of the important tone we need to take when we're dealing with this important issue, one that's of great concern to the public and deserves, you know, complete transparency and utmost professionalism, which you are providing today, so I appreciate that. I'm curious about, I'm a former utility regulator, so I've, we don't have any nuclear in the state of North Dakota. It's something that our legislature is looking at and communities in North Dakota are looking at because we do have a long history of power generation, generating a lot of power for the region, coal-fired power, natural gas-fired power, and wind power. So we're very familiar with that industry.
One of the issues, of course, one of the big challenges is the disposal and the waste disposal. So I'm very intrigued by this campus approach and excited that you guys are pursuing the whole lifecycle of the fuel. So you've mentioned one of the big things that Congress needs to do is authorize more than one campus. Is that correct? What else do we need to do to help facilitate the growth of this concept?
Theodore Garish
Well, let me just go back to the first part of what you were saying. It seems to me that in your state you can take advantage of nuclear power and you don't have to have a campus. In other words, many states, that's the current arrangement. So what needs to be done is the, there is a tremendous economic benefit to these states that determine to do this. So what's happening is that they are looking at those benefits and judging what the risks are, and they see the risks as low and are moving forward to doing that.
So nuclear is not a risky enterprise. There are risks and they are taken care of appropriately.
Speaker 24
Do we need to do anything else besides authorizing more than one campus so to help facilitate the growth of these campuses?
Theodore Garish
I would allow us to authorize as many as in the end we need. I think it's more than one and it may not be more than three. But in other words, I wouldn't want to necessarily limit the amount and the numbers and the characteristics because each of these states have different characteristics and could potentially take different types of ultimately disposal materials.
Speaker 22
Sure. How, you mentioned earlier that you're going to have to at some point create rules to prioritize which waste is processed and moved first. How will you go through, and I want to get to a couple other questions, so kind of briefly, how will you go through that process of prioritizing the waste?
Speaker 28
It'll probably be done through a rulemaking in which we inquire of the people that want to take the waste for reprocessing, then we want to take a look at the locations where it would go and how that would fit together.
Kelly Armstrong
And how will this waste be transported? From, like I know there's a lot of waste stored outside of nuclear power generating facilities in the Minneapolis area. How will that get to the place for processing?
Largely by rail.
Theodore Garish
Okay. And how will that be handled? Will that be publicly known or do you, can you provide any insight on that? You have concerns about that at all?
The transportation of nuclear waste is one of the items that most Americans don't really realize, there's a tremendous amount of transportation currently of these materials and it is done completely safely and there has been virtually no incidents. And this is an ongoing activity that happens every day.
Speaker 22
Perfect. So it's a proven, well-established safe process. Okay. What percent of the waste do you envision will ultimately be recycled and then how much will ultimately have to be stored permanently?
Theodore Garish
I can't even give you an estimate of that. It's going to depend on the technologies by the reprocessing folks. Some waste is of a particular type that it is more difficult to reprocess and will then be taken in its form, put into a cask, and then disposed of in that form. That is a very straightforward method. That's the way that we've always thought it was going to be done anyway without the reprocessing.
Kelly Armstrong
Okay. And then I just have like 30 seconds left. What country is currently kind of leading the way in the recycling of the waste and who are we kind of emulating?
Speaker 29
Well, there's probably more recycling done in France than anywhere else currently.
Speaker 20
The gentlelady yields and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey.
Speaker 21
Okay, very good. Thank you, sir. That's all my questions. I yield back.
Marc Veasey
Thank you. The nuclear spent fuel policy is I think one of the really central unresolved questions standing between the United States and serious nuclear power expansion. And we really do need to come up with a path on how we do this. And we've had our issues even in Texas where I think that we've probably balanced energy probably better than any other state. But we've had the controversy in Andrews County over the years, part of it going and being resolved all the way up to the Supreme Court, at least a portion of it being resolved.
And I think that the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses are the Department of Energy's latest attempt to build that path forward. But we have to make sure that we get this policy right. And this is why I think this hearing is really important today. And I wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary, before the federal government selects a new site for a repository, it needs to first establish a generic technology-neutral public health standard against which potential designs and geologies can be evaluated. How do you suggest regulations best be updated?
Theodore Garish
This is going to be a subject that the Congress will want to be involved with, I'm sure. However, there are several methodologies that how this could be done. My personal view is it needs to be done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the manner in which we would license plants in the same identical framework. In other words, we are the applicant and we must prove our case and they must provide adequate assurance of public safety in the process of approving our ability to move forward. That's the way I would do it and that's the way we do it throughout the country for plants.
And I think that that is exactly the same methodology that should be used.
Marc Veasey
Yeah. How would the Department of Energy pursue the site selection under the NLIC program compared to how Yucca Mountain was selected in 1987 and what methods do you think DOE will use?
Theodore Garish
Before we proceed in any of these campuses and determine, we will have some look at the geology that we're dealing with. So we will have some understanding as to the feasibility of that. Now, the process that the Congress went through was took years and years to actually do the science in order to make that determination.
And then at the end of the day, it was Congress that made the determination as to how to proceed. I'm hoping that we can do this voluntarily with the states and work through what needs to be done and make sure it is safe at the time before we proceed.
Speaker 27
Yeah, I want to ask you, in your opinion, do you think that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides enough flexibility for a modern spent fuel system that includes interim storage and reprocessing and eventual permanent disposal, or does Congress need to clarify the statute before the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses can function as envisioned?
Theodore Garish
We need clarification and we need a provision so that we don't have exclusivity to only Yucca Mountain as the only solution. But we need to work on that bill eventually to change several aspects of it to make it work for the new program.
Marc Veasey
Yeah, and just to give the American public a more clear picture of what that looks like, can you explain that if we were to be able to move forward with innovation campuses as planned, what would success look like 10, 20 years from now? Because I think with a lot of the issues that we're having around energy, you know, now you can throw, you know, data centers in there and their energy consumption. I think that people want to have a better and clearer understanding of what that looks like in the immediate future. But as you know, the nuclear process obviously takes some time. So what does success look like 10, 20 years from now?
Theodore Garish
Three or four successful campuses operating the complete aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle from enrichment and reprocessing and all of the other elements and including some campuses that have circular programs for power and waste together. And I would see that three or four campuses operating successfully and there would be waste disposal at those sites.
Speaker 34
Yeah, wow, that's amazing. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. I yield back my time.
Speaker 36
Gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas or Georgia, Mr. Allen, excuse me.
Rick Allen
Good, thank you. Sorry, not Texas. We got a promotion. Well, we're both having fun right now, Georgia and Texas, but anyway. I want to thank Chair Latta for holding this important hearing to discuss the federal government managing spent fuel.
And I thank you, Mr. Gerish, for being here from the Department of Energy to talk about this important subject and what current law offers. As we work to expand nuclear energy capabilities in the United States, it's imperative we address the management of spent nuclear fuel. I think we all agree on that. This issue is particularly significant for my district and state, given that both Plant Vogtle, the largest nuclear energy producing plant in the country, and Savannah River Site, located across the Savannah River, which 40% of my district works at, currently house spent nuclear fuel. Congress previously took action to address spent nuclear fuel by amending the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and selecting Yucca Mountain in 1987 as the site for that permanent repository and set up a trust fund to do this.
In your testimony, Mr. Gerish, you're offering an option for nuclear waste that involves new host states taking up some of the burden for disposing of fuel. I want to be real clear. You and the administration are not walking away from existing law for a repository at Yucca Mountain. Are you offering a supplemental path, and is that the right direction to go?
Theodore Garish
Well, we are offering and would like to have a collaborative approach. Nevada says they don't want it and I have six yeses that said that they are willing to do it along with the rest of the fuel cycle in their areas. So what I would like to do is say okay to the yes folks and follow through and develop a program that makes it work for them.
Rick Allen
So, so we're kind of starting all over here and you'd agree that even a supplemental path requires a lot of work to prove itself and where are you in the process of signing agreements with the host states that you say have said yes?
Theodore Garish
We've had very positive discussions with most of the governors and the governors' staffs in these states. These are extremely positive and I just want to emphasize that they want to move forward with this approach. There is tremendous economic benefit to these states and they recognize that and they are anxious to conclude an arrangement to make this work.
Speaker 31
And so how time consuming and how difficult is this process going to involve?
Theodore Garish
It's going to be very time consuming for us, but we need as a first element the authority to do it and to eliminate the exclusivity question with Yucca Mountain.
Rick Allen
Well, Congress has supported DOE developing a pilot consent-based program for interim storage. How does the work of that program inform what you're proposing today?
Theodore Garish
That was a start, but it did not include, that was just for waste. In other words, they went around to see if they could find other states that would do consent-based siting. The department has spent a lot of money with a lot of states with very little positive results. What we want to do is put the incentives in to allow the states the benefits of the entire fuel cycle, including the waste end. And when we did, when we do that, we get people that want to say yes, not just take our money and say okay, let's do some studies.
Rick Allen
Well, we know spent fuel is completely safe being stored on site and will be for the foreseeable future, even as we all hope the nuclear campuses are capable of dealing with both the front end and back of the fuel cycle. What is the urgency to move forward when the reprocessing technologies haven't been demonstrated on a commercial scale?
Theodore Garish
They are being demonstrated at our labs and they are being demonstrated in smaller capacities. I believe that these technologies will work and what we need to do is give them a chance to make it work. And I think that they're going to invest their own money in doing this. So I say let's bring it on.
Rick Allen
Okay. Well, I am out of time, so Mr. Chairman, I have further questions I'll submit those for the record and would appreciate your response on that. With that I yield back.
Speaker 33
The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the member from Massachusetts, Mr. Auchincloss, for five minutes.
Jake Auchincloss
Thank you, Chair. Assistant Secretary, appreciate your testimony.
I strongly support nuclear power as a clean, sovereign, reliable, and when built to scale, affordable power source for the American people. And I understand that whether we're talking about microreactors that are forward-deployed at military sites, whether we're talking about small modular reactors, whether we're talking about grid-scale, utility-scale large reactors, this issue of fuel, both as an operating expense and as a recycling issue, is critical. For that reason, I visited just last week Project Omega, which is a startup company in my district in Fall River that's doing incredible work on next-generation nuclear recycling technology. And they're partnering with ARPA-E with some grants to demonstrate how they can continue to reprocess nuclear waste to capture economically valuable fuel in a way that releases us from dependency on Russia and also saves taxpayer dollars because the Department of Energy spends billions of dollars every year on handling this stuff, and it's a lot cheaper to manage 1,000 kilograms than 100 million kilograms of nuclear waste. So this is promising technology.
They're working with ARPA-E. They could be, I think, a very valuable stakeholder in the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, which concept I do support. How can the Department of Energy help, in addition to ARPA-E grants, Project Omega and other similar startups applying technology to help solve this problem?
Theodore Garish
We met with Omega, and I too was impressed with their technology and what they intended to do. And they intend to bring their own funds to make this happen. And that was the entire presentation was very impressive. I think what we need, they're just asking for a chance to actually do this in the United States.
Speaker 37
They're asking for a chance to save taxpayer dollars and deliver cheaper energy.
Theodore Garish
That's exactly it. And this company and others have come to us, and it is amazing to me to see five or six companies just like them for different technologies, sometimes the complete recycling, sometimes for medical isotopes, sometimes a combination of all these things. And I think, to me, what we should do is give them a chance to do this because I think this is really going to be a tremendous future business, and it's going to help the nuclear industry be successful.
Jake Auchincloss
Agreed. Yeah, I think we want to just unlock a lot more entrepreneurship and investment into this industry. I think we have the rules largely in place now, and we need to now just build some stuff and build it fast. On that point, I want to pivot on you for these last two minutes and ask you about India, actually. You know, this week we're likely to pass legislation that would levy tariffs, maybe even sanctions on India for importing Russian oil, which I think is appropriate.
We don't want India importing Russian oil and funding that war machine. But there's also an opportunity at the same time as we're telling them, hey, less Russian oil, we could also be saying, and more American nuclear. The Indians want to build more nuclear. They've got to, you know, air condition one billion people, and they've got to do so in a scalable way. I have heard from industry that there's increasing interest in building out nuclear power in India in a collaborative way.
How is your department thinking about partnership with India to go from N of one to one of N scale nuclear deployment?
Theodore Garish
Without getting into the sanctions questions, which is out of my expertise, I have followed India for a long time. They have the potential of being an extremely large nuclear country.
The question has always been liability. And they have passed law, a recent law, which has been reported to me by the industry that they see a lot of improvements in the risk that they would take in working with India. So I look at this as a huge potential for American industry for export. And they have, we've got to make sure that the non-proliferation aspects and the 123 aspects are taken care of as we move forward, but has tremendous potential.
Jake Auchincloss
Well, I intend to be going there on a delegation in February and I want to make this the issue I raise, so perhaps we could talk ahead of time and figure out how we can drive that relationship.
Theodore Garish
I'd be happy to work with you on the liability question. I know the industry is very interested in that.
Troy Balderson
Gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the member from Ohio's 12th district, Mr. Balderson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Garis, thank you again. Good to see you again, sir. I'll kick off with reprocessing has operated for decades in France, but under government subsidy. Given the current market for fresh fuel, what are the Department of Energy's thoughts on commercial feasibility of reprocessing in the United States?
Theodore Garish
Well, it appears to be economic. In other words, we have companies coming to us to say, let us try, we're willing to put our money in to make this work. And I believe that we should allow them the opportunity to do that. The French use a slightly different system and there's new technologies out now that look like they are going to be more economic. The French have invested huge amounts of money into reprocessing of a particular technology.
And we have the opportunity now to look at some new technologies to see other ways to do this. And I would just like to have the industry allowed to do that. Let them, let them get in here and show us how it works.
Troy Balderson
Thank you. In previous hearing in the subcommittee, witnesses' testimony suggested that allowing reprocessing in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as part of a system of disposal may help the private sector access the commercial viability. Would you agree with that assessment?
Troy Balderson
Thank you. Families and businesses across the country are already concerned about rising electricity costs. As we are examining the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, how can we achieve the benefits of a modernized nuclear fuel cycle and expand nuclear development while ensuring that increased costs are not simply shifted onto our ratepayers?
Theodore Garish
Well, we're going to take the materials within the nuclear products and we're going to recycle them and these companies are going to make money from that process. So they're going to help us reduce the costs ultimately of what is left of the disposal. So I think in the long run this is advantageous to a more economic fuel cycle.
Troy Balderson
Okay, thank you. Some testimony from the second panel in today's hearing indicates concern about tapping the waste fund to prove viability and that it should be used only for viable projects. Assistant Secretary, how can the private sector step up to accelerate reprocessing for fuel production?
Theodore Garish
Well, it seems to me and I understand where the industry comes on this point and this is a matter that's going to have to be dealt with the Congress and the question is whether or not there are aspects of the fuel cycle that could be facilitated with some of the funds. But this is a matter that's going to be debated in the Congress and I'm sure will be resolved here.
Troy Balderson
Thank you. Last question, how does increased US nuclear growth, especially with advanced reactors, affect the prospects of new approaches to spent fuel management, especially for new fuel forms and reprocessing?
Theodore Garish
Well, one of the more interesting aspects to me is the these recycle campuses where you have the power, the recycling, the refabrication of the materials right directly there in one location. Some of these I'm waiting to see some of these plants in operation, but I think that this is a tremendous opportunity to have everything in one place and save tremendous dollars from transportation, security and all the aspects to make this a more efficient process.
Kim Schrier
Gentleman yields, the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Schrier, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Garish, for being here to discuss potential solutions for nuclear spent fuel and weapons waste. There are some important lessons to learn from Yucca Mountain and the ongoing, still ongoing Hanford cleanup, that the federal government should never make decisions about where to store this waste all by itself in a vacuum. Communities have got to be at the table right from the start when it comes to nuclear waste disposal. And we Washingtonians, we know the cost all too well when they're not part of the decision making.
In the 70s and 80s, Department of Energy mishandled its relationships with the state, the people in my state, resulting in endless lawsuits, delayed action and escalating cleanup costs. And it's taken decades to rebuild that trust needed to move forward. And then recent stalling by this administration on the vitrification plant and proposed cuts on funding has now brought up, stirred the pot again on the exact kind of doubt that slows progress. And so, although I'm happy DOE is leading with a voluntary federal-state partnership model for this initiative, I just want to set things straight and make sure of a couple things with Hanford. Can you just confirm that the Department of Energy does not view this new initiative as altering the agreed-upon legally binding Tri-Party Agreement governing waste disposal at Hanford?
Theodore Garish
That has not been discussed that that I've heard. It is not my intention to deal with. Let me, I do want to mention one thing. The environmental management waste will be included in this program so that those wastes will also be moved potentially to these campuses. However, there are some assets at some of the sites, and I think, and I'm not sure about Hanford completely, where reprocessing some of the materials are extremely valuable for reprocessing and we want to reprocess.
Kim Schrier
So this is this is my concern. Like there was an agreed-upon deal, we got public support, lawsuits ended. I just want to make sure that this is an ironclad agreement and that this administration is not trying to shift the ground.
Theodore Garish
That is not our intention with that's not my intention with Hanford. That has not ever been discussed.
Kim Schrier
It I cannot overstate the importance of that to making progress and continuing to have goodwill from our state. In addition, I wanted to ask about the storage of defense-level waste and how that's going to be incorporated into this initiative. Like, do you anticipate that the geologic repositories through this initiative will also accept weapons waste?
Kim Schrier
Great, thank you.
And then we also have the Columbia Generating Station that's increasing generating capacity with new advanced reactors and we are very excited about that. I'm pleased to see that this initiative is designed to attract enthusiastic state partners on a voluntary basis rather than having the siting done by DOE. Can you tell me what measures the Department of Energy is taking to ensure that state partners are working in good faith with their own stakeholders to avoid hiccups, just to make sure everybody's at the table because we should all feel enthusiastic about nuclear energy?
That is what we are trying to do.
Robert Latta
Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance of her time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 11th district for five minutes for questions.
Speaker 46
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant Secretary, welcome. Thank you for being here. I think a lot of the questions today seem to be revolving around the confidence in DOE to take either spent fuel or materials that have been used in the lifecycle of nuclear energy and use them in some way, shape, or form. And despite me wanting to ask you about Yucca Mountain, I'm actually going to skip into other questions.
What do you need to get this full lifecycle as productive as possible and to have the least amount of liability and the maximum amount of use so that new startups like the ones that are in Texas at Abilene Christian University and Natura can benefit and eventually we can add electrons to the grid? What do you need?
Theodore Garish
We're very supportive of your school down there and their needs. Let me tell you, I think we need the elimination of exclusivity of Yucca Mountain. We need federal authorization to allow the Secretary to begin to negotiate with these states and have the states lay out the methodology that they would like to do the campuses. We would like to eliminate or we would like to allow interim storage at reprocessing sites or at the sites themselves so we can begin movement. We would like to have the funding reestablished eventually and to work through the economic benefits for the states in doing this.
Speaker 45
What percentage of our grid could be serviced by nuclear energy if we were to do what you just asked?
Theodore Garish
We're at 20% now. I would say in the future we want to quadruple it.
So 80%?
Theodore Garish
Well, I don't what'll happen is obviously our the grid requirements will grow. So if we can maybe go halfway, that would be if we can get up to 50%, that would be over a period of to 2050, that would be quite significant.
Speaker 47
What role do you see recycled material playing in small reactors and in already established nuclear power plants?
Theodore Garish
Well, I think it's going to be essential for us to have a solution to the complete fuel cycle. So these companies, these small companies will be able to participate in however they can do it economically. In other words, we want to make the materials available. Some may want smaller needs, for instance, isotopes. They can use medical isotopes for whatever their particular process is and that may be less than someone that wants to actually recycle and make uranium hexafluoride that's then then be re-enriched.
So these could be all sizes depending on what the needs of the company are.
Speaker 46
Talk to me about challenges related to transportation, the classification of the material that you're transporting, and issues that we have seen in the public sphere and how we overcome those.
Theodore Garish
Well, transportation is the one part of of nuclear that is well-established and currently underway and has virtually no incidents. So there is concern about transportation, but I believe that generally speaking that has been well-handled by the industry over many years.
Speaker 46
Well, we want to see this lifecycle much more efficient and used properly. This is I I believe you when you say you could quadruple it from the the current amount of electrons that are being produced by nuclear energy at 20% of our current usage, but demand is going to continue to grow. Nuclear has a big piece in that, and we want to see see this industry flourish because it's it's a gift that we have. There are concerns in West Texas obviously of storing high-level waste in and around the production of oil and gas, and you know, let's find a solution that allows that to be used prior to to getting to that point.
Theodore Garish
I'm with you. Nuclear, the future nuclear is really almost unlimited. So this is homegrown energy and can be affordable and reliable. This is what we need.
Robert Latta
Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, or sorry, pardon me, from New York's 20th district for five minutes for questions.
Paul Tonko
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Secretary. All right, if we are serious about encouraging a bigger role for nuclear in our future energy mix, then it should be our responsibility to come up with a solution for our waste issues. It is clear that we have not been on the path toward a permanent solution for some time, and I think it is good that the administration is exploring a new approach. So Secretary Garish, based on the responses you received to the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus proposal, can you discuss how important it is for these sites to embrace the full fuel lifecycle, including storage and disposal, as part of an agreement?
Theodore Garish
That is the essence of the plan. In other words, they must accept the full fuel cycle in order to be part of our program.
Paul Tonko
Okay, thank you. And have you found that the potential incentives being offered by the department on other aspects of the fuel lifecycle, maybe the potential for fuel production or recycling, have improved states' willingness to accept the less desirable parts of the lifecycle?
Absolutely.
Paul Tonko
I tend to believe that robust, long-term, and certain incentive packages are needed for a consent-based approach to work. In the past several Congresses, I have proposed legislation to establish a national cap and invest program, which would allocate a portion of the revenues raised to any state that permanently stores spent nuclear fuel. It seems like the administration agrees that providing benefits is an important part of an agreement that will include states consenting to some form of storage and some form of disposal. And I think it is worth us trying to get creative about just how we can encourage states to voluntarily commit to being part of the solution. But it seems to me that certainty is incredibly important for this arrangement to work, both certainty for the states and their campus partners to know that federal support will continue as agreed upon, as well as certainty that states will follow through with their commitments.
So it is possible, I believe, that with changes in political leadership, energy markets, or even a potential safety incident, that public and political opinion could also change, and states could decide they no longer want responsibility for waste storage and disposal. So Secretary Garish, what could this process look like moving forward?
Theodore Garish
Well, I agree with your basic statement that benefits, I think, are essential in the ultimate program. I should, however, point out that one of the benefits is not necessarily from the government. It comes from the private sector and the investment that they will make in the community and the number of jobs, because you're looking at 22 to 25,000 jobs collectively, we believe, from this program. So yes, benefits directly into the state for accepting the waste, I personally believe is an essential element, but there are benefits beyond simply the federal government payments. The jobs that are created and the private investment are also important.
Paul Tonko
Thank you. And I'm sure there would be a period of technical review and feasibility studies, but at a certain point, will a binding commitment be made?
Theodore Garish
That would be my approach, a final commitment and a binding commitment. We want, we want continuity and we don't want to start and stop this program.
Paul Tonko
And when would you imagine, envision that happening in this, in this process as defined?
Theodore Garish
It's hard for me to give you an exact date, but let me just put it this way. We need to start. In other words, I would like to start this year with some kind of commitments with the states to begin to move the process along. And then these, these campuses will have to be developed. But to me, the most important thing that the Congress can do for us right now is authorize us to begin the process.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama's 6th District for five minutes of questions.
Gary Palmer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant Secretary Garish, both Japan and France have operated commercial reprocessing facilities for decades. The US has the technical knowledge and industrial capability to invest in reprocessing commercialization, but does not have the regulatory framework to do that. Do you think developers have the adequate standards and legal clarity they need to pursue licensing for a nuclear lifecycle innovation campus?
Theodore Garish
I believe they do, and they have told us that they believe that they do. I should point out that some of this is new technologies. They are using pyroprocessing as opposed to the way that it has been done in the past. And some of these new technologies are more efficient and will lead to results in a quicker fashion, especially some of these circular processes with plants and reprocessing and fabrication built in.
Gary Palmer
One of the concerns that I have, and I constantly talk about the need to recycle spent fuel. As you know, it retains 90% of its energy capacity and we could recover 95% of it. It's obviously very expensive, a lot more expensive than mining raw uranium and processing and refining it for use. But I've had a number of meetings with, here in the US, there's a huge push towards small modular reactors. We're reopening full-scale reactors in different places around the country.
But I've also had a number of meetings with people from around the world that want small modular reactors. I had a meeting with representatives from Poland, they want a Vogtle-scale full-scale reactor.
So the demand for processed and refined uranium is going to increase substantially to a point where we could potentially exhaust the current known reserves by 2080. In the context of recycling, doesn't it make sense that we invest more in the recycling as the demand for uranium goes up?
Theodore Garish
I agree completely. I mean, that has been one of the problems, has always been it is cheaper to buy fresh uranium than it is to recycle. But I believe that with the increased demand... And the other thing I believe is when the reprocessors come in and tell me, "Let us have a chance to invest our own money. We know how to do this and we can make money at it," I believe them.
So if they want to do it, I want to help them.
Gary Palmer
Well, you just used a word that has, I think, compromised our national security and economic security, and that word is "cheaper." Consequently, we no longer have the capacity to meet our supply of critical minerals, processed, refined critical minerals, processed, refined rare earth elements. And it has put us in a very difficult situation in terms of our economic security and our national security. And I would ask you, are you concerned that because we have pivoted in the same direction with uranium, that we could find ourselves in the same situation in terms of reliance on adversarial nations to supply us with fresh uranium?
Theodore Garish
Fresh uranium, unobligated uranium in the United States is essential for national security. We have to have it. And it also is domestic enrichment. We need domestic enrichment in the United States. That was, to me, when I started this job, that was the most important problem that we faced, especially with the cutoff of the Russian uranium.
A large portion of our enrichment comes from overseas. These are extremely important processes and we need to make sure that it is all domesticated. And domestic uranium, domestic enrichment, and reprocessing all kind of go together. So I agree with you completely.
Gary Palmer
Well, I think in this pursuit of cheaper this, cheaper that, we put ourselves in a really bad place. We need to reindustrialize the country. And not only here, but our European allies, our Western Hemisphere allies need to be thinking the same way because we'll all be in the same bucket.
Theodore Garish
Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be that more expensive either, because fuel is a very small part of the cost of the electricity. So I'm not of the view that this is going to raise the cost of electricity unreasonably. I do not believe that necessarily has to be true.
Gary Palmer
And I really like the fact that you think there are people in the private sector that can do this and do it economically so that we'll no longer have that dependence, but we'll have the fuel supply we need. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Jennifer McClellan
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia's Fourth District for five minutes for questions.
Thank you, Chair Latta and Ranking Member Castor, for holding this hearing today, and thank you to our witness for being here. The United States has produced over 90,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and produces 2,000 tons of nuclear waste every year.
And despite establishing the Nuclear Waste Policy in 1982, we have yet to establish a facility that can safely store and manage this waste long-term. That is completely unacceptable, especially as this committee takes steps to expand nuclear energy generation in the United States and improve the efficiency of nuclear energy safety protocol. As my colleagues and I have said repeatedly in this committee, nuclear energy must be safe, reliable, and well-regulated, and that includes when nuclear fuel has reached the end of its usable lifecycle and must be stored long-term while it slowly breaks down into less toxic material, which is a process that can take thousands of years. The current administration proposes significant changes to how we have historically approached nuclear spent fuel through the creation of the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses. And while I have significant concerns and disagreements with the legislative specifics of the current proposal and questions about how these facilities would function in practice, I agree that our nuclear waste policy needs significant updates and changes.
So Mr. Gerush, the White House sent legislative text to Congress that would eliminate the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. As this administration is proposing to upend over four decades of nuclear waste policy, it seems counterintuitive to silence the expert independent advice from NWTRB that could prove invaluable in getting these facilities set up in a safe and effective manner. Why has the administration sought to cut out independent expert review from the development of the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus as opposed to seeking ways to update the board so that it can work more effectively for this new direction?
Theodore Garish
Well, I believe the Technical Review Board originally was set up to deal with the Yucca Mountain experience, which was a very different type of approach. There was considerable evaluations of various states and various geologies, and it was kind of the first time through. We're at a different position now. That's not to say that we don't need independent review. I think those are important.
But I believe that the appropriate agency to really do this is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to have them do it in a totally independent manner so that they would judge whether or not it is appropriate for a particular location to have some sort of fuel disposition. So I appreciate your position. That paper was sent out as a policy paper with a number of ideas in it, and a lot of people have had thoughts on it, and that is one thought. I mean, these are issues that the Congress is going to have to ultimately deal with because these bodies still exist and we need to determine what makes sense today.
Jennifer McClellan
Thank you. The administration's legislative proposal would allow DOE to use money from the Nuclear Waste Fund to support purposes other than final storage of nuclear waste, such as for nuclear waste recycling and reprocessing. Given that this technology, while promising in some regard, still comes with many concerns around increased output of plutonium and costs to make it feasible, how does the administration justify these changes and what safeguards, if any, would we see to ensure that the money still goes towards final storage for spent nuclear fuel and not to provide a fund for other nuclear priorities that the DOE Secretary might deem of interest?
Theodore Garish
Well, as I said, this was a policy draft for discussion. And that is one of the ideas that we've received considerable amount of reaction to. To me, the important thing is that the fund be used for the purpose that it was intended primarily, and that is to bury the waste or the final disposition. There has been some discussion as to whether or not if we're going to have reprocessing and it reduces the amount of waste, whether or not there is any logic to having other things covered for that purpose.
So I think that there are some benefits to doing that, but I'm not here necessarily to to say that that is a program that we are going to support. I really would like to know how the Congress feels about that and the allocation of these funds, and we would like to cooperatively work through a program to do that with you to determine what what makes the most sense.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee's first district for five minutes for questions.
Speaker 56
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Gates, for being here today. I applaud the efforts of the department to tackle our nation's spent nuclear fuel policy. You know, and it's a challenge we've had for decades, and unfortunately, we still haven't found a durable solution. So what's different about the nuclear lifecycle innovation campus model that gives you confidence that it can finally progress on this issue, because Tennessee's one of the six states that signed an MOU with the Department of Energy this year, sir?
Theodore Garish
First, let me let me just congratulate Tennessee. It has been unbelievably helpful, and we have worked through all of these issues with the state, and and it has just been remarkable, and I really do appreciate their support. One of the things that is really different, and I know that Tennessee is very interested in this, is reprocessing for health. In other words, isotopes and types of things that that you have in your medical facilities in Tennessee that are really unique. And I think that they have looked at some of these aspects to help us reduce the quantity of of waste and to take the valuable portions out of it and use it for for other purposes, and and health was was one of the aspects.
So I think to me, Tennessee's approach has been really quite across the board in terms of how do we use these materials, what's the best way to do this. Tennessee has tremendous nuclear expertise. So working together with the state, there's a lot of things that we can do together with you on making this work.
Speaker 56
Basically, you know, we've got Oak Ridge. I have East Tennessee, which has NFS. So I guess that's why you picked Tennessee to be one of the spots. You know, we talk about the spent fuel and some of the innovations they're doing with HALU and some of that. But you know, it is, it's really, we want it to be a hub for nuclear advancements, and to be chosen as one of the spots, that's pretty remarkable.
And isotopes, you know, I've been a compounding pharmacist my whole life, and it'll be 40 years, and that's something that you can't replace. You have to have that. It's the only thing I haven't done in in my career. But what's the single biggest thing Congress can do right now to remove uncertainty for states like Tennessee that have made good faith commitment by signing that MOU?
Speaker 57
Provide us some mechanism to help us with the authority to work with the states to begin to do contracts with the states that are durable. That's exactly. Everyone needs to come together on this.
Okay.
Theodore Garish
There's advantages not only to the host states, there's advantage to the other states because you need to move the waste out and it needs to have a final home.
How important is it to give those willing host states the latitude to establish their priorities?
And the host states will get the economic benefits of the reprocessing and the other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Tennessee understands that well because you do it now, you do it very well already. So it's a combination of both from the states that give up the waste, the states that it's brought to, it is mutually beneficial to everyone.
Speaker 56
Well it totally is. You have Oak Ridge National Laboratory, you have everything you need right in one part of Tennessee in everything to carry the project through. So I appreciate your work on that and whatever we can do to help you in the future, all you have to do is call me.
Thank you.
Robert Latta
Well thank you, the gentlelady yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California's 7th district for five minutes for questions.
Speaker 60
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing today. And Mr. Secretary, thank you for testifying before this committee today. Developing a safe and effective solution for our country's nuclear waste has long been a top priority for me. The Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in my district is one of several decommissioned nuclear plants across the country that have been forced to store and manage nuclear waste indefinitely. The federal government made a promise to come and collect that nuclear waste almost 20 years ago, but we're still waiting.
So I'm glad to see the Department of Energy is proposing to build nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities at these nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. But it is unclear from what has been shared publicly what kind of disposal activities you expect to happen at these sites. Secretary Garris, can you share exactly what the six states have committed to with regards to storing and disposing of nuclear waste?
Theodore Garish
Well it's still early in the process of discussions with the states, but there'll be one of two methods most likely, well first is reprocessing. We will get the beneficial elements as much as we can out of the materials that we can. And then there will be a couple of different disposal methods. One will be a mined repository and the second will be a deep borehole arrangement, both of which will be effective methods of isolating the waste safely for millennia.
Theodore Garish
Yeah, would you commit to make any host agreements public for any of these sites?
Speaker 60
We will do that at the appropriate time, but we want to negotiate in good faith with the states and make sure we can have very frank and candid discussions early on.
Okay. The Department of Energy has proposed to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow the department to build long-term storage and disposal sites other than at Yucca Mountain. Mr. Garris, do you believe that the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses can entirely replace Yucca as the final resting place for all commercial nuclear waste?
Yes, it could.
Speaker 60
Okay. The reason I'm asking for clarity about how these sites will store and dispose of nuclear waste is because the department has really focused on the potential to recycle waste at these sites rather than long-term storage and disposal. But these recycling technologies are unproven at scale, so I think we need to acknowledge that long-term storage and disposal will still be a necessity. What happens to these sites if the new recycling technologies don't develop as planned?
Theodore Garish
Well, I believe that that I have confidence that these companies that are coming in with these technologies now and they're putting substantial funds in it, they will be successful, I believe. And there is there is reprocessing technology that does work currently, so that that is not a question in terms of of its ability. Now, I think we will we will do it all. In other words, we will not only do the recycling, but we'll do the final disposition because there are some some materials that will require final disposition that cannot be either technically or or economically recycled.
Speaker 60
Okay. Um, you're also proposing to use the nuclear waste fund to build these sites, but that money is set aside for one purpose: to develop long-term storage and disposal facilities and transport waste to those facilities. What exactly do you plan to use the nuclear waste fund for beyond storage and disposal?
Theodore Garish
Well, this is a matter that is going to be much of this up to Congress. In other words, our intention is right now to use the funds for the purpose of disposal and potentially there is a possibility of reduction. In other words, if we can reduce the the amount of waste through reprocessing, there could be some potential to assist the reprocessed in some fashion. For instance, it has been suggested that loans could be used that would be repaid back into the fund if someone has a technology that will reduce either the toxicity or the quantity of the nuclear waste so it does not have to be disposed. They get the benefit from selling the materials, but the the process by which they set up could potentially be assisted through some kind of guaranteed loans of some type.
That has been suggested. That is a question that Congress is going to have to pass on to determine whether or not we can do that.
Speaker 59
Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina's 7th District for five minutes for questions.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Geresh, thank you for being here. South Carolina has long been a nuclear state and our ratepayers have more than done their part when it comes to the federal government's nuclear waste program. South Carolina ratepayers have paid $1.5 billion to the nuclear waste fund and altogether with the interest attributable to those contributions, that investment represents more than $3 billion. Yet decades after the federal government committed to taking responsibility for spent nuclear fuel, the Department of Energy still has not begun accepting that fuel as promised.
I think 1998, I was 13 years old in 1998. I'm 41 now, so it's been a long time. That history should inform how we approach, I think, the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. I think there's a tremendous opportunity to strengthen America's domestic nuclear fuel cycle, encourage private investment, and find innovative solutions to our long-standing spent fuel challenge. The administration's campus initiative has the potential to advance all three of those.
As this effort moves forward, Congress has an important role in ensuring the nuclear waste fund continues to support its intended disposal mission while also identifying the right mix of federal, state, and private investment to support the broader activities envisioned by these campuses. Mr. Geresh, real quick, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was very specific in the authority DOE has to spend money from the fund. How is DOE ensuring that ratepayers' investment in the nuclear waste fund is protected as it pursues these innovation campuses?
Theodore Garish
Well, the Department of Energy will, whatever the Congress eventually puts in as the requirements for the nuclear waste fund, we will adopt and implement. There's no question about that in my mind. Currently, right now, the fund is in the Treasury and earns interest, and that interest goes back into the fund. For those particular companies that have waste currently now within your state, they do have the right to go into the Court of Claims, and for anything after the failure of the government to pick up waste in 1998, they can get paid for the cost for that materials and the failure of the government to meet its contractual duties.
Speaker 33
Yeah, at what point does the, I guess, the return here not make sense? I mean, at what point is the federal government going to do what it's supposed to do, which is to take that material?
Theodore Garish
They need to do it as soon as we can physically do it. I mean, that's what we're here for. That's what this idea was. We wanted to break the logjam. We've been going for too many years without a solution.
We go through these consent-based siting exercises, we send money to states, and we get nowhere. We have a lot of good talk. We have right now six states that have said yes, and I want to pursue those states and we want to get this done. So that's the difference.
Speaker 33
Should Congress, in that same vein, modernize the way, or give the Department of Energy greater flexibility to use the nuclear waste fund in ways that measurably would reduce the government's long-term used fuel management disposal obligations?
That is a possibility, yes.
Speaker 33
Should Congress also modernize the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to give Department greater flexibility to use that, I just asked that, I'm sorry. I'm rereading my stuff here. South Carolina obviously was not selected as a nuclear innovation campus state, despite us having the Savannah River Site and the national lab. Even though South Carolina was not selected in this initial group, how can the Department of Energy continue leveraging the expertise in South Carolina as this initiative develops?
Theodore Garish
Well, the expertise at Savannah River is well known and will be utilized by the Department in all matters nuclear. So we will continue to use the Savannah River expertise. The reason that South Carolina was not selected was that at the time that the governor's office was not prepared to say yes at the time. So that is the reason why South Carolina is not in among these campuses. Now, we're at the currently, the expertise within the state could be used in other places, just the way we do it at Idaho National Laboratory, and we do that around the country, and we do it also with Oak Ridge.
So there is a lot of expertise that could be utilized, but right now South Carolina is not a selected...
Theodore Garish
That is open to discussion. We have not reached that decision, but the first part of that decision would be the governor would need to say other than what he has said to date.
Robert Latta
All right, thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has expired, but I have many more questions, so I hope we can visit soon. Thank you.
Well, thank you very much. The gentleman's time has expired and yields back. The chair seeing no other member seeking to ask questions to our witness, Mr. Assistant Secretary, we're very glad you were able to appear before us today. We're going to take a quick recess to allow staff to get the witness table set up for our second panel. So thank you very much, and we'll take a brief recess.
Well thank you very much. I'd like to reconvene our subcommittee hearing today and again we want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Each witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from our members. Our witnesses for this second panel are the Honorable Stacey Paradis, the Commissioner from Illinois Commerce Commission, Ms. Maria Korsnick, President and CEO Nuclear Energy Institute, Mr. Jared DeRosier, the Vice President for Public Government and Regulatory Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, and Greg R. White, the Legacy Officer of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition. Again we appreciate you all being here today and at this time I will recognize Commissioner Paradis for five minutes for an opening statement.
Thank you.
Stacey Paradis
There we go. Sorry about that. Good afternoon, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, and members of the Subcommittee on Energy. My name is Stacey Paradis and I'm a Commissioner with the Illinois Commerce Commission. I'm here today to testify on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, NARUC, in my role as chair of the NARUC Subcommittee on Nuclear Energy.
NARUC is a nonprofit organization with members consisting of public utility commissions from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories. NARUC's mission is to serve the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of public utility regulation. Utility regulators are responsible for ensuring safe, reliable, and affordable delivery of essential electric utility service.
Nuclear energy is a source of baseload generation that meets those needs. Unfortunately, the federal government has not fulfilled its responsibility on the final component of the nuclear fuel cycle, the waste that is produced. The program initially envisioned under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was essentially shut down after the Yucca Mountain license was abruptly withdrawn in 2010 and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management was disbanded. To date, the nation's utility customers have paid billions of dollars toward the federal nuclear waste disposal program that does not exist. Both NARUC and its members have dedicated a tremendous amount of time and resources over the past 40 years to ensure the electricity consumers receive all the services for which they have paid.
NARUC has participated in numerous lawsuits against DOE, consistently seeking better performance and greater accountability from the federal government while protecting the interests of ratepayers. In 1995, the court upheld NARUC's assertion that DOE is obligated to take nuclear waste from the plant since 1998. In 2013, the court granted NARUC's request that DOE suspend collection of the nuclear waste fund fees. In fact, ratepayers and taxpayers have paid more than they should have for decades because of the federal government's inaction. Electricity customers have paid over 20 billion dollars into the nuclear waste fund, the balance of which currently sits in excess of 51 billion dollars.
In addition to the federal government's failure to establish a permanent nuclear waste depository costs all US taxpayers nearly 2 million dollars a day in legal judgment payments. NARUC's position remains clear and longstanding. The federal government must fulfill its statutory and contractual obligation to remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites, provide for safe permanent disposal, and give nuclear-generated electricity customers the nuclear waste management program that they have paid for and deserve. In recent resolutions, NARUC has outlined steps for the nation's nuclear waste program to get back on firm footing. First, Congress must secure one or more geologic repositories for the permanent disposal of nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
Congress should exercise its oversight to ensure that DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are complying with waste programs outlined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. NARUC agrees that the best and long-term solution for permanent disposal is in deep geologic repositories and supports the use of nuclear lifestyle innovation campuses to site, license, and construct a second geologic repository. Recycling may warrant research, demonstration, and separate federal policy consideration, however, no amount of reprocessing will eliminate the need for a permanent repository. NARUC strongly opposes diverting funds from the nuclear waste fund for private recycling, commercialization, or fuel cycle ventures that would undermine the agreement ratepayers have already made. Second, the nuclear waste fund must be managed responsibly and used only for its intended purpose.
The program must have access to revenues generated by the ratepayer fee payments, if they resume, and the balance of the nuclear waste fund. Under no conditions should the nuclear waste fund fee be restarted until either the Yucca Mountain license proceeding is complete or a second permanent repository is secured. Third, if Congress is to make licensing a permanent repository, it should make it much easier to site consolidated interim storage. Current reactor site spent fuel storage is safe, but retaining spent fuel indefinitely at working reactor sites was never intended by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and is both inefficient and unacceptable. Continued storage at permanent shutdown plants imposes costs on ratepayers without equivalent benefit and prohibits economic reuse of those sites.
Fourth, Congress should consider assigning the used fuel management to a new organization. NARUC greatly supports the concept of creating a new organization outside of DOE with the sole responsibility to manage nuclear waste, which would require new legislation. Since the former waste management organization was disbanded in 2010, a new organization is needed, or an old one must be reconstituted, even if that responsibility is retained by DOE.
This new organization should be charged to engage with states and local governments in a more collaborative manner, whether for storage or disposal of nuclear waste. The nuclear lifestyle innovation campuses seem to be a step forward in such an engagement. NARUC commend you all for your efforts to break the current logjam on nuclear waste and will assist in any way that we can. Thank you.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you very much. And Ms. Korsnick, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
Maria Korsnick
Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Caster, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for the committee's continued leadership to advance nuclear energy. When I appeared before you earlier this year, I described a nuclear industry moving from policy development toward project execution, including reactors and fuel cycle facilities. That momentum continues. As electricity demand rises, nuclear energy will be increasingly important to provide clean, reliable, and affordable power and strengthening America's energy and national security. This is also a timely opportunity to make progress on a challenge that has remained unresolved for decades: used nuclear fuel.
Used fuel continues to be stored safely at reactor sites across the country, but more than 40 years after Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the federal government still has not begun accepting used fuel as required by law and contract. Today, however, we have an opportunity to change that. DOE's innovation campus initiative has generated significant interest from states. This interest gives Congress an opportunity to establish a durable disposal program while supporting innovation across the nuclear lifecycle. The best approach is to act now to make meaningful progress, measure it against clear milestones, and use what we learn to inform longer-term decisions.
I want to highlight six areas for congressional focus. First, build durable partnerships with willing host states. As projects advance, hosting agreements should become increasingly specific and enforceable, clearly defining responsibilities, federal commitments and host benefits, and the ultimate disposal of nuclear materials. If states make long-term commitments, they need confidence that the federal government will keep its commitments as well. Second, begin federal performance.
Congress should give DOE the authority to take title to, transport, and temporarily store used fuel and integrate those activities with repository development. It also would begin fulfilling a federal obligation that has gone unperformed since 1998. Third, create additional pathways to permanent disposal. Federal law should allow DOE to investigate and evaluate additional repository sites beyond Yucca Mountain. Mined geologic repositories must remain a cornerstone of the federal disposal program; other technologies, including deep boreholes, may complement that capacity.
Fourth, support recycling innovation. New recycling technologies offer promising opportunities to recover useful materials, strengthen domestic fuel security, and potentially reduce certain disposal burdens. But deployment also requires commercially viable technologies, qualified fuels, customers for recycled products, and disposal pathways for the remaining waste. Congress should support research, demonstrations, and early deployment now and let technical and commercial results inform the role recycling ultimately plays in the fuel cycle. Recycling should complement, not delay or replace, progress on permanent disposal.
Fifth, preserve the Nuclear Waste Fund for disposal. The fund was created to support the federal disposal program and it should be used for that purpose. Repository development and transportation and storage integrated with the disposal program can appropriately be supported by the fund. Consistent with DOE's vision, other activities, such as recycling, enrichment, and fuel fabrication, should have other funding sources, primarily private sector, supplemented by federal support and state incentives.
Finally, restarting the collection of the nuclear waste fee must be based on demonstrated need for additional funding and government performance. Commercial nuclear generators and their customers have already contributed billions of dollars to the nuclear waste fund. The fund now has a balance of more than $51 billion and continues to earn substantial investment income. Restarting the fee has direct implications for electricity affordability. Any resumption of fee collection must be based on a well-founded program, demonstrated funding need, and considered only after DOE begins accepting and moving used fuel.
And Congress must retain a direct role in approving any collection of the fee. In summary, Congress should support innovation campuses and enable moving fuel and opening additional disposal pathways, while protecting electricity customers from unnecessary costs. We can make future decisions based on demonstrated progress. If we do that, the next five years can produce more tangible progress on used nuclear fuel than the country has seen in decades. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you very much. And Mr. Derosier, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
Jared DeRosier
Good afternoon. I am Jared Derosier, the Vice President of Public Government Regulatory Affairs and the Deputy General Counsel of the Yankee Companies. I thank Subcommittee Chairman Latta and Subcommittee Ranking Member Caster for giving me this opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy's efforts to establish nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. My testimony today is offered on behalf of the Decommissioning Plant Coalition, the DPC. The three Yankee companies once managed single-unit nuclear generating stations that provided electricity to the New England grid.
Given the economics of the electric power business at the time when these facilities needed significant additional investment, decisions were made to decommission the facilities. Indeed, each of the Yankee facilities have been shut down for almost three decades and all traces of their nuclear heritage have been removed but for 115 dry cask storage systems containing used nuclear fuel and eight additional casks containing greater-than-class-C waste. Under the standard contract established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the federal government is legally obligated to remove this fuel from our sites. In fact, if the department had begun removing this material on schedule in 1998 at the rates promised, all three of the sites would have been available for repurposing to the benefit of our local communities more than 15 years ago, and our companies would have achieved their goal of going out of business. Unfortunately, our companies and the host communities are not alone in this situation.
While not all of the 11 companies that are members of the DPC have completed decommissioning, all have moved used fuel and greater-than-class-C waste to dry storage systems. Collectively, we safely manage more than 6,250 metric tons of used fuel. And because of the federal government's failure to remove this waste, our companies have collectively recovered approximately $2.25 billion in damages from the taxpayer-financed judgment fund. For every year going forward that the federal government fails to perform, the DPC members will incur more than $100 million more of additional taxpayer-financed damages.
We are here today because the DOE's NLIC proposal provides a promising pathway for the development of a durable solution to this problem. When the NLIC proposal was put forward in January, we were gratified to see that it sought state participation in partnerships, and I quote, supporting durable pathways for managing used nuclear materials in a safe, secure, and fiscally responsible manner. This approach recognizes what past efforts have too often overlooked, that durable solutions required informed state leadership, local engagement, transparent commitments, and a clear connection between national policy goals and the potential host state priorities. We were further encouraged when the department announced in July and last week that it had entered MOUs with six states that had agreed to pursue NLIC hosting agreements. We congratulate Secretary Wright and Assistant Secretary Garrish on this remarkable achievement.
States have said yes. We have seen many promising initiatives falter because they lack sustained political support, clear authorities, adequate funding, and a consent-based path that could actually endure across federal, state, tribal, and local government administrations. The NLIC initiative holds promise that it can avoid these same pitfalls. Now, the DPC believes the NLIC hosting agreements will be an important next step. But even before those agreements, we believe that tailored legislation would be beneficial to support the NLIC proposal.
Legislation that authorizes DOE to conduct initial site investigations, to engage in demonstration projects of disposal and recycling technologies that may be employed on NLIC sites, and to take title, and Secretary Garrish spoke of this, to clear the hurdle or to address exclusivity, to be able to take title today for the movement of used fuel for either interim storage or staging of recycling could be useful and important components of the NLIC initiative. And we specifically support in any legislation clear priority for the removal of the used fuel and high-level waste from shutdown sites, consistent with the Secretary's authority under the standard contract. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you very much for your testimony. And Mr. White, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
Greg White
Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, members of the subcommittee on energy, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition. My name is Greg White, and I serve on the executive committee. The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition is an ad hoc organization formed back in 1993 to represent the collective interests of public and private members to secure a federal repository for spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Our mission has always been focused on accountability for the federal government to meet its long-standing statutory and contractual obligations to execute a national nuclear waste disposal program. We're further focused on protecting electric utility customers who have received nothing in returns for the billions in fees they've paid into the federal nuclear waste fund.
This includes those who could be subject to reinstated fees without adequate action to establish a functioning federal program. After enduring years of federal failure, we're encouraged by this hearing and by the administration's Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus initiative that reportedly includes the critical waste disposal component. Having states as partners should increase the likelihood of success.
Speaker 66
As Congress considers the next steps on nuclear waste policy, the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition offers the following steps that we hope will guide your work. First, Congress must reestablish a national integrated nuclear waste disposal program that includes the removal, transportation, storage, and essential permanent geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel now stranded at numerous operating and shutdown commercial reactor sites in communities across the United States. These are interconnected components and no single element can succeed in isolation. Second, a new independent waste management organization should be formed to properly lead the program. That includes the interim action by the Department of Energy to reestablish an internal dedicated office along the lines of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management that had been established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
No such office has existed since 2010 and we urge this action as soon as possible. Unfortunately, 44 years of experience suggests that the DOE, a multifaceted department, will struggle to sustain a program like this. Therefore, over the longer term, we encourage the creation of a new independent single-purpose waste management organization authorized to implement the transportation, storage, and disposal components of an integrated US program. As cited in our full testimony, this is not a new idea and more work has been done on these concepts this year. Third, we call on Congress to reform the federal budgetary treatment of the Nuclear Waste Fund such that sustainable access to the funds is provided to support the development of this multigenerational management and disposal program.
We further urge the interim step of appropriately funding the Department of Energy program priorities via annual appropriations. Regarding the Nuclear Waste Fund, it must only be used for its intended purpose and that is to pay for the federal waste disposal program. The 51 billion dollar balance currently in the Nuclear Waste Fund along with annual interest accruals provides more than sufficient funding for virtually any program work for the foreseeable future. Any initiatives to restart the Nuclear Waste Fund fee should be considered only after meaningful federal performance has been verified and a demonstrated need has been established. Finally, the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition recognizes that a national integrated nuclear waste program could include reprocessing or recycling.
Please note that while reprocessing may reduce waste volume, a repository remains necessary under every scenario and will always be needed for effective nuclear waste management. Given that fact, it's our view that reprocessing and disposal are complementary and not competing strategies. In closing, we note that the permanent geologic disposal is foundational to all effective federal nuclear waste policy approaches. The consequences of continuing prolonged federal inaction are significant. The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition stands ready to help.
Thank you.
Robert Latta
Well thank you very much for your testimony and that will conclude our witness testimony for the second panel and we'll start the questions from our members and the chair will recognize himself for five minutes. This to the panel in general and maybe we can answer some of these just in a yes and no and we'll just go right down the line. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act focuses exclusively on a repository Yucca Mountain. Do you support authorizing potential secondary disposal pathways in the law to enable DOE to continue to negotiate nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses?
Stacey Paradis
So NARUC, I have to work with the resolutions that we've passed, and it's been a while since we've done one. So let me say this: we do support a second repository. We think these campuses have the potential to get there, but we need to update our policies anything more than that.
Greg White
Also yes. We believe that these states are offering additional opportunities and that's a welcome.
Robert Latta
Thank you. The law and this subcommittee's work has focused on ensuring an integrated system for ultimate disposal of waste. Do you believe DOE should ensure there's a linkage to permanent disposal in any future negotiations?
Robert Latta
The law and this subcommittee's work has focused on ensuring an integrated system for ultimate disposal of waste. Do you believe DOE should ensure there is a linkage to permanent disposal in any negotiations?
Absolutely.
Okay, thank you.
Robert Latta
Thank you. Under the law, users of nuclear power pay a fee into a nuclear waste fund to pay for a program of permanent disposal. This fee was set to zero under a court order because DOE dismantled its program. Would you agree that Congress should not raise rates on electric customers for a program that's still being developed?
Robert Latta
Thank you. The law requires the nuclear waste fund be spent on programs linked to permanent disposal. This might take a little bit more than just a simple yes or no. How should federal policies be updated to include reprocessing as part of a system for permanent disposal of waste?
Stacey Paradis
So under NARUC's current policy, as I noted before, we are supportive of using the waste fund fees to do anything related to site license and construct anything related to interim and permanent through a geological repository as our positions. We do believe that what has been proposed on these campuses has an ideal opportunity, but as we noted, no matter how much reprocessing and recycling that you do, there's still at some point in time waste that needs to be managed. So I think this is an area of discussion that Congress definitely needs to be involved in, but at some point in time we need to recognize that under the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act and based on what ratepayers have paid, the first priority is disposal.
Thank you. Ms. Korsnick?
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, I would say similarly, there is a lot that can be paid from the waste fund in terms of activities that are going to help transport this, the temporary storage on its way to final disposal, and obviously ultimately a final disposition. But when you get into some of the other areas, recycling, some of the other things that are in innovation campuses, we believe that should come from other funding sources until it's a proven part of the disposal mechanism.
Jared DeRosier
I agree with the co-panelists that the purpose of the fund is for the removal and disposal of the waste.
Recycling may play a role, but we need to demonstrate that it is both commercially and financially viable. And so that's why we're recommending demonstration projects to demonstrate that. If and at the time that recycling demonstrates that it actually can play a role to reduce the overall cost and total cost of the spent fuel cycle, then it may be appropriate to be funded. But until that time, more needs to be known. And we need to hear and see the opportunities that are presented through the N-L-E-C campuses.
Thank you. Mr. White?
Greg White
Likewise, I support the answers of my fellow panelists. If reprocessing can be technologically and economically found feasible, it could be a very important component of an integrated program. So we would support that, but likewise, funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund, current Nuclear Waste Fund, should not be used for those purposes at this time.
Robert Latta
Well, thank you. And I know that my time's running short, so I'm going to submit the rest of my questions to you all. But again, on the recycling side, you know, we've had quite a few discussions and hearings here. And, you know, it's being, it's thought, and when you look at the numbers out there, we could have up to maybe 150 years' worth of energy just coming from those spent rods. So as we work forward, we're going to need to be working with everybody out in the nuclear community, with the states and everyone else.
So I appreciate you all being here today. My time has expired, and I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for five minutes for questions.
Kathy Castor
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So let's continue this thread. Mr. DeRosier, can you give us just a snapshot of what you think the potential is? Because right now we have a lot of the spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage across the country. What truly is the potential to take any of that into reprocessing, recycling, compared to what you think the bulk of it go to, to storage somewhere else?
And maybe, Mr. White, you might have an idea.
Jared DeRosier
I mean, certainly, as my co-panelists have said, there will need to be permanent storage facilities. Recycling cannot adequately address all of the spent fuel that already exists and that will be created by today's generators and those that are added in the future. Now, we understand, and I know the Congressman from Massachusetts spoke of Omega, some of the processors are very focused on the fuel that is stored on the sites like ours, the Decommissioned Plant Coalition, that is older fuel that is in casks. That is why it's appropriate, we submit, to put them out, have them test, have them explore, do demonstration projects to see what's viable, all recognizing that there still will need to be permanent disposal facilities, and hopefully at each of the campuses that are developed.
Speaker 74
So do we not have an idea yet what that mix could be, what the potential is?
Jared DeRosier
I think that's where we need to see the hosting agreements to understand what the states are committing to, what technology they're putting forward and what they're committing to, and what the developers of the recycling facilities at each of the campuses is committing to.
Kathy Castor
Mr. White, do you, can you give us anything more specific on what the potential would be for recycling versus just another storage in another geological formation?
Greg White
I'm not necessarily an expert on recycling technology, but I can tell you that not all current waste forms that are being stored are, will be technologically feasible for recycling. Some will be, and it's certainly our hope that a significant component of future nuclear fuel could come from recycling, reprocessing. But there will still be a significant portion regardless that will need to be disposed of. And we do know that any form of recycling or reprocessing that we know of today creates a waste stream in and of itself that also has to be managed appropriately.
Okay. Ms. Gorsnick, I'm going to ask you that that same question too. And, you know, I know the committee is, um, examined what happens in France, but it seems like if we're going to move towards a coordinated national fuel recycling strategy, this is going to take a lot of work and a lot of investment. What would you advise?
Maria Korsnick
Uh, thank you. Well, um, I think very much pursuing recycling is a smart thing for us to do. I think we should establish a milestone approach so it becomes very clear which are commercially viable, uh, ways to do it. Um, I think we've seen around the world, and I think we have some technologies here in the United States, we can take things apart. I don't think that's the question.
The question is, do you are you left with a product that's commercially, uh, viable that has customers? Um, and so I think that's some of the things that need to be, you know, looked at over the next few years as people bring their technology to more of a commercial level. And at the same token, you're changing what are you recycling for? Right, you're building fast reactors. Well, we don't have those today.
Well, that would be a different recycled product. Are you going to feed the reactors that we have today? Well, no, those are thermal reactors. That would be a different approach. So I know you're asking for a really clear answer, and the reason is because we're changing so many pieces at the same time.
So different style reactors, that's a different kind of food, and you'd have to decide what food you're trying to make in order to figure out how to tune, if you will, that recycling process. And so that's great, we have all of this opportunity. Let's do it in a stepwise fashion, tune it correctly, and have a good idea at the end of the day that the waste fund should feed and should be spent on things that, um, lead to a long-term disposal option.
Okay. It seems like we're going to need a lot of technical review, um, Mr. DeRosier. You know the importance of public trust in this industry. Um, what is your view of the administration's gutting of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, um, perhaps even disbanding it entirely? Can you speak to the review board's current role and any harm that might arise, um, by disbanding it?
Jared DeRosier
Well, we certainly recognize it's important to have confidence in the system and that any storage or recycling or any other facility developed at a campus is safe and adequately and securely maintained, and that independent advice and feedback on that is important.
Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Speaker 70
Gentlelady yields back and I recognize Representative Allen for his five minutes.
Rick Allen
I thank the lady and, uh, thank Chair Latta for holding the second panel, uh, for this hearing to discuss managing our spent nuclear fuel. And I want to thank the witnesses for being here in the second panel to testify. I mentioned this in the first panel, uh, it's imperative we address managing spent nuclear fuel as we work to expand nuclear energy capabilities in the United States, and that is critical. Uh, my district is home to Plant Vogtle, the largest commercial nuclear energy plant in the US. My district also is adjacent to the Savannah River Site, with both, uh, of those facilities housing spent nuclear fuel.
So addressing the management of spent nuclear fuel is very important to my district and the state of Georgia and South Carolina. Uh, the administration has proposed innovative campuses, and I'd like to discuss this proposal with you. Um, Ms. Paridis and Mrs. Gorsnick, how important is it to demonstrate that reprocessing technologies are commercially viable in the United States without federal subsidies like we see in the country of France?
Stacey Paradis
Uh, thank you for the question. Um, as I noted before, um, NARUC, I work for, I'm representing an association here, so I can only work based on the resolutions that we've passed.
And we haven't given a lot of talk because these campuses are so new in all of this. What I can speak to is the fact that what we know up to this date, and as my colleagues on the panel have said today, any type of reprocessing or recycling always has additional waste that's left. And as Ms. Korsnick properly identified, it also then, as we start to work in different technologies, then we have all kinds of different types of waste and different types of storage technologies. So I think as we look going forward, yes, we have to understand what's economically viable, what's environmentally sound, what is safe and reasonable for our communities. But I think the intention from a regulator's perspective is the commitment that has been made from the beginning, which is that our ratepayers, those that generate from nuclear energy, they have paid into this fund and they have not been met with anything.
As I said, they've paid in $20 billion and that fund is in excess of $51 billion now. So from a NARUC perspective at this time, the priority is as we need to understand what's next and happening with the waste and how that is being managed, both including the transportation and the storage of it on a way to permanent. However, there are these other new opportunities that are coming and they definitely should be evaluated.
Maria Korsnick
Yeah, I think it's critical that the product be commercially competitive. The challenge that you otherwise have is who bears that additional cost, right? So either the customers are going to otherwise buy natural uranium and enrich it, and then you don't have the product for that recycled. If you say, no, you have to buy that recycled product, then where does that cost go? It would get transferred to the customer, to the electric customer, and that means electric bills go up.
And so it's really something we have to balance, which is why we should take a stepwise approach. I'm very confident on the innovation here in the United States, and I think we need to appropriately let that play out. But I wouldn't suggest that that funding come from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Rick Allen
Based on the hearings this subcommittee held earlier this year, I think we heard that reprocessed fuel can't currently compete on price with new fuel. Either the cost of reprocessing needs to come down or the cost of new fuel would have to go up to make reprocessed fuel competitive from a cost perspective. Once we establish these technologies can be made commercially viable, only then should we proceed. I have heard from my colleagues that have visited France and have seen firsthand the way the French reprocess their spent nuclear fuel. Now, I'm not suggesting we should follow any models from the French.
This has been a success in the operation of their nuclear fuel fleet. What is the cost of French reprocessing operations? Does the French government subsidize this? Is the commercial viability of reprocessing in France the result of government subsidies to both of you again?
Maria Korsnick
Yes, it's my understanding that in fact the product that is produced is over the market price. At the same token, they have a different system in France, right? The utilities are also part of the government in France. So it's a little bit of a different situation.
I got about 17 seconds.
Speaker 75
Okay. All right, great. Well, my time is up and I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Speaker 73
Thank you. The gentleman yields back and I will now call on Representative Menendez for his five minutes.
Robert Menendez
Thank you. AI data centers have dramatically increased energy demand. The Trump administration, states, and tech companies are turning toward nuclear power to address these growing demands. New Jersey recently passed several new laws to increase our nuclear power production. Earlier this year, Governor Sherrill signed a bill that lifted a state ban on new nuclear power until the federal government establishes a plan for dealing with nuclear waste.
In July, she signed a law to direct the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to solicit interest in constructing new nuclear power plants with the goal to bring 1,100 megawatts of power to the state. New Jersey is also home to Oyster Creek, one of the country's oldest nuclear power plants. Oyster Creek is in the process of decommissioning and is expected to host advanced nuclear reactors once the decommissioning process is complete. Mr. DeRosier, can we expect to see more and more decommissioned nuclear power plants turned into new advanced nuclear power plants?
Jared DeRosier
Certainly, there's been a number of plants that have decided to repower, and that is moving forward. I think there's an opportunity with the infrastructure and the technology and the experience at the sites of existing plants to invest in repowering or new technology. That said, to do that, I think it's important to have an answer for the waste that those facilities will produce. And that is why it's so important to have a policy that also deals with the back end and the waste that will come out of whether they're existing plants or new plants that are created.
Robert Menendez
And it would strike me then, in terms of sequencing, you would want to figure out, since we haven't yet, exactly what to do with existing nuclear waste before you create more potential generation of nuclear power, which would also create more nuclear waste. Isn't that fair?
I think that's very fair.
Robert Menendez
Yet, that's not what this administration is doing. It's sort of generation first and moving at light speed on that front without having figured out what the plan is and without congressional authority for a plan on nuclear waste.
Jared DeRosier
Well, I'll say the concept of the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses and by focusing on the complete energy lifecycle is a step forward. It is, yes, there is a focus on new generation, but there's a recognition by the Department of Energy that we have to deal with the back end too. And that is an important part of the process. And we're heartened because we understand that each of the states that has made it to be a finalist has committed to deal with and take waste for storage and disposal purposes. So, and that needs to be a part of the energy policy going forward.
Robert Menendez
I appreciate that. And you also in your testimony say that the United States cannot fully realize the benefits of current and future nuclear energy without a credible, sustained, and publicly trusted program for the disposal of nuclear waste materials. Could you expand a little more on trust and credibility and how it is built?
Jared DeRosier
Well, certainly, I think it's built by transparency. It's built by honoring commitments. And our government for a long time has failed to live up to its obligations to fully complete and store the nuclear waste. And so honoring those commitments, being transparent about it, and having a proper oversight to ensure safety are key all along to have so that ratepayers, customers, and the public have confidence in the nuclear industry.
Robert Menendez
Yeah, and that's what the work that we've been doing on this committee and the full committee is trying to ensure that we hold this administration accountable with what we've seen at the NRC the last 19 months because we want the public to have complete confidence, especially as we consider increasing nuclear capabilities not just in New Jersey but across the country. And why we've been so concerned, especially at the NRC, with some of the things that have transpired the last several months.
And it was a conversation that we had earlier today with the Assistant Secretary, and we're going to continue to be mindful of because, you know, these attacks raise some concerns about the administration's ability to build trusting partnerships with states and communities who have expressed interest in hosting these nuclear lifecycle campuses. The Trump administration has shown over and over again that, in my opinion, they can't be trusted. And their legislative proposal that erodes at our environmental protections and judicial review are serious causes for concern. We need to have serious bipartisan discussions about addressing nuclear waste so that decommissioned plants can be turned into facilities that serve their communities, whether they host emerging nuclear technologies or something else altogether. And any proposal must center safety, the health of our communities, and the environment.
That's what we'll continue to do with this administration and future administrations. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 73
Gentleman yields back, and I'll now recognize Representative Weber for his five minutes of questions.
Randy Weber
Thanks, the gentlelady. Ms. Korsnick, I'm going to come to you. Thank you for being here today. We had two of these panels, so we appreciate y'all being here for the second one. Your testimony provides meaningful insights into the policy complications surrounding the Nuclear Waste Fund.
As y'all all know, the fee for spent nuclear fuel disposal was suspended after significant challenges emerged with the federal nuclear waste management program. So, Ms. Korsnick, do you think restarting the Nuclear Waste Fund fee is a worthwhile policy goal?
Maybe wait until after lunch tomorrow?
Maria Korsnick
I think let's look at how much is in that fund, right, $51 billion. That should go a long way. When we take a look at that, we feel that that money, spent wisely, could take care of all the waste that's been generated by the current fleet and all the future waste that's going to be generated by the current fleet. And so, I think it should be spent, as we've discussed, you know, for the intended final disposal of waste. And until you need it, so somebody has to show us a game plan and a need for more money.
Randy Weber
You're reading my script here. That was my next question. Who gave her my script, right? What reforms or assurances should be in place before ratepayers are to begin paying the fee again? And so, I thought I'd have kind of a little thought of myself.
Would you live next to one of those facilities?
Would I live next to a waste facility?
Yeah.
Randy Weber
Okay. I'm just trying to make sure y'all are paying attention. Okay. Thank you for that. Mr. White, I'm coming to you.
You highlighted the potential need for a new independent organization to manage the nation's nuclear waste. And I didn't get to be here for y'all's testimonies, okay, I was at another event. But to you, Mr. White, what authorities do you envision this organization needing to have or having, and how could it or could we help reduce the regulatory, the financial, and the liability uncertainties that private organizations face while they're storing or transporting the stuff next to Ms. Korsnick where she lives, right, while they're storing the stuff or they're transporting it or disposing of it or recycling spent nuclear fuel? How do you envision this organization having that kind of regulatory and financial uncertainties, and how do we deal with it?
Greg White
Right. Clearly, the, you know, such an organization being an independent organization, and there are a couple models, different models that can be considered, including a Fed Corp, like a federal corporation or a public-private corporation or one that has been considered is what we would call a nuclear corporation where it would be owned by the nuclear generators themselves. But they would need substantial authority given to them by the federal government to be able to do these tasks that have currently been assigned to the Department of Energy. And eventually, they would need access to the funding to be able to carry out that mission.
Randy Weber
Do we have that ability right now in terms of funding? I know we talked about 81 billion, I think you said, you cited. Was that the figure, 81?
51 billion.
Randy Weber
51 billion, thank you. Do we have that ability now to have that kind of funding available should we be able to make it happen?
Greg White
Yes, we do. Certainly in addition to the 51 billion dollars, there is an interest that's accrued on an annual basis and in our view that that would provide more than sufficient resources to move a long ways down the road on such a program.
Speaker 80
Would any of y'all, I'll give y'all a question, I've got a minute left yet. Any of y'all compare the way France reprocesses their materials? How would that help us in this endeavor? Commissioner, I'm going to come to you.
Stacey Paradis
So generally, and I think Ms. Korsnick answered this earlier, France does do it. France is a different model, their utilities are government-owned. They actually also still need to process new uranium. Their recycling does not fulfill all the needs that they have in that in that country, which is an important part to take note of. The one thing I would share about the lifecycle campuses from the NARUC perspective is anything that involves used waste, the waste streams, disposition, needs to be very transparent and clear about their scope, regulatory authority, transportation implications, cost responsibility, and how it fits into a national integrated waste management program.
So even if we go forward with the campuses, we still need to have a comprehensive commitment of understanding what the federal role is.
Randy Weber
I appreciate you saying that, I've only got 16 seconds left. You said cost responsibility, but what I didn't hear was the liability. There's got to be processes in place that if something did happen, there's a lot of liability involved. So I was going to let y'all weigh in on that, but I'm out of time. Ms. Korsnick, very quickly.
Maria Korsnick
Well, I was just going to answer your first question. France does aqueous reprocessing, you can do that. There's also pyroprocessing. Either one can be done very safely, and the waste from either one can be stored very safely.
I thank you for that. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Speaker 73
Gentleman yields back and I now recognize Representative Palmer for his five minutes of questions.
Gary Palmer
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Korsnick, utilities and your customers have already paid about 59 billion dollars into the nuclear waste fund, but the federal government hasn't done hasn't begun disposing of the commercial used fuel. First of all, what concerns should the utilities have with reinstating that fee?
Maria Korsnick
Well, reinstating the fee gets passed on to customers. So at the end of the day, you're raising electricity rates on customers. The challenge really becomes why would you why would you reinstate the fee with 51 billion dollars currently collected and more interest accruing? There's more than enough funds if spent responsibly.
Gary Palmer
I'm a huge proponent of recycling spent fuel, as I've pointed out many times before the committee. The spent fuel rods retain 90 percent of their energy capacity and you can recover 95 percent of that. I'm just wondering what progress or given the process that's used in recycling technologies, does NEI support recycling and allowing existing nuclear some of the existing nuclear waste resources to help advance that as a broader used fuel management strategy?
Maria Korsnick
Absolutely, we support the concept of recycling as mentioned earlier.
I think the challenge becomes is the product that you end up with a commercially viable product, right? Is it cost competitive? And I think that's what we don't know.
Gary Palmer
But you've got private sector companies that say they can do this at a cost competitive...
Maria Korsnick
And we've heard that as well. And so I think the challenge is let's set up a process where you can demonstrate that.
Gary Palmer
I think this is something that we really need to focus on. In your testimony back in June, you said workforce development, supply chain expansion are not separate challenges. That that is a huge issue that I've been focused on on the critical mineral rare earth element side, but also on the nuclear side. And I have a lot of concerns about the workforce because we need to reshore that. There's progress been made in both areas, but more progress is going to be necessary for the long term.
This is what you said, progress in both areas will be necessary to support long-term operation of the existing fleet and successful deployment of new nuclear technologies. It's not just on the nuclear side, it's on the turbine side too, isn't it?
Gary Palmer
One of the going back to the whole supply chain issue, and I raised this issue in the first panel, we're really making a strong move towards small modular reactors. I think that's going to be huge for increasing our base load power. But we're also seeing a lot of international interest in this. I've met with folks from different countries that want SMRs. I met with some folks from Poland, they want a Vogtle-scale reactor.
And it's going to dramatically increase the demand for nuclear fuel. And one of the things that I saw was that given the projected demand that we could run out of our exhaust the current reserves by 2080. I'm very concerned about that because we're already in a position where we're very vulnerable in terms of our dependency on other nations for, like I said, critical minerals, rare earth elements, but also nuclear fuel. Would you agree with that?
Maria Korsnick
I'm not certain about the year of 2080, but clearly we're not the only ones that want to build nuclear power plants and build significant amounts of them. So absolutely, I would say long term, the situation would need to be a combination of resources fresh out of the ground as well as using recycled resources. And that's why it's a good opportunity for us to explore these and to get good at it.
Gary Palmer
But the connecting point I want to make, and I don't mean to ignore the other witnesses because all of you could I think answer this, but if we make a dedicated effort to recycle fuel, I don't think we have to have that much concern about the timeline for exhausting the known reserves of uranium because as we use up the fuel rods, we can recycle those. And I asked the director of the National Nuclear Laboratory if we went to recycled spent fuel, how long could we operate? And he said over a hundred years. So by then, I think our technologies will be so totally different we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But I do thank you for your responses.
I appreciate the witnesses being here. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Speaker 56
Gentleman yields back. And I'm going to go ahead and do my five minutes, so I recognize myself for five minutes, let him get ready. Thank you all for being here today and it's important that we talk about this lifecycle innovation campus. It's a big deal.
So, Ms. Korsnick, you outlined six principles for a congressional framework to make these innovation campuses successful, including durable agreements with host states, federal responsibility for spent fuel, and a credible path toward permanent disposal. So what does Congress need to put those principles into place to give the states the certainty they need to participate?
Maria Korsnick
Well, I would say some of the more straightforward things is to enable DOE to begin to move forward. You know, if you look at our current construct, as we've mentioned earlier, Yucca is, you know, the stated location, right? So open some flexibility there that more things can be considered than just Yucca Mountain, allow DOE to come into contracts with states to help them explore these innovation campuses. I believe Tennessee is one of these as an example, and I would believe in the beginning you could amount to some flexibility, let some states explore, what does it mean, explore some of the siting, let DOE apply some of their technical expertise. But once some sites are selected, that needs to be more of a binding contract that says, okay, if we're really going to go forward here, you need the states to lock in and you need the federal government to lock in so that we have a durable solution for the long term.
Speaker 56
Well, you've got to know the rules and to get it done. So building on that, how could these campuses strengthen the broader domestic nuclear industry, including American fuel production and manufacturing, which will help us with our growing energy needs? Commissioner Paridis, from the perspective of state regulators, what benefits could innovation campuses provide to states and their electricity consumers as we work to ensure reliable and affordable electricity to meet these growing demands?
Stacey Paradis
If the campus ends up becoming functioning, they need to take on the waste, right? We have waste that has been stored for forty plus years based on that commitment. So the first thing from a regulator perspective is these lifestyle campuses, if they help the federal government meet that outstanding commitment, that's the first priority.
Speaker 56
Yeah, exactly, and that leads into my question for you, sir, Mr. DeRosier. You represent the communities with nuclear plants that have already shut down but continue to store that spent nuclear fuel. So how would a successful innovation campus program and a federal commitment to moving forward with moving spent fuel, how would that help those communities to provide decommissioning and moving that forward?
Jared DeRosier
Well, for the members of the DPC, the removal of the fuel from our sites will allow the repurposing of our facilities to meet the needs of our local communities, whether that's for industrial or commercial development or for conservation or other public purposes. That can happen, but it can't happen when we have spent fuel stored on our facilities, and our host communities didn't sign up to be the default permanent storage location. Moving our fuel also, and you asked about economic benefit, every day that our fuel sits on decommissioned sites, the taxpayers of the United States are incurring additional liability to our companies to pay for that under the standard contract. So getting the fuel off our sites will reduce the cost for the federal government and the taxpayers.
Speaker 56
So make that decision, you know, Tennessee's one of them. Yeah, sounds like we need to get these innovation campuses up and going.
Paul Tonko
So, I guess that's it, and with that, I will recognize Representative Tonko for his five minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And Ms. Korsnick, earlier I asked Secretary Garish about the importance of long-term certainty to make DOE's lifecycle campus proposal work. Now, if we're going to pursue a voluntary, consent-based approach for lifecycle campuses, at what point in this process do states need to fully commit and forfeit their ability to change their minds on the effort?
Maria Korsnick
Thanks for the question. I think this is really something that has to be decided between the states and the federal government when they actually come together with their contracts. But I'll just, you know, give an example. I think right in the initial phases, you need some flexibility. You need some states to explore without feeling that their hands are tied until they fully understand, do they have some sites that are suitable?
And so I think there's some early flexibility. But I think once a site is identified and there's going to be commitment to license that facility and to move forward, I think in that case you need a much more firm relationship between the state and the federal government.
Paul Tonko
Thank you. And I think it's an important balance because I do want states to be willing partners in accepting waste as well as experience economic benefits stemming from it. But I also do not want us to fund more half-finished projects that will be tied up in litigation for years. So I also believe there is some urgency to begin to resolve the spent nuclear fuel question today while we remain on the precipice of a major nuclear revival, rather than after we have already started to deploy dozens, if not hundreds, of new reactors across our country. So Ms. Korsnick, do you believe like the new reactors being designed today have given more thought to how to reduce or otherwise address spent fuel issues?
Maria Korsnick
Well, I think we're going to have many different types and sizes of reactors going forward. And they have different waste forms, some of it high-assay LEU, some of it low-enriched uranium, some, again, some fast reactors, some thermal reactors. So in any of these cases, you're still going to have a waste form, right? And so I think as we look forward, we need to have an ultimate repository and just figure out the best way we want to do it. I've been to Finland and I've toured their waste repository.
I know other countries are getting pretty close to finalizing locations for theirs, and I have confidence that we in the United States can do the same thing.
Paul Tonko
Thank you. Well, I'm certain Mr. Desrosier would say the current situation is untenable and harms host communities, which I would agree with. But I will also acknowledge that from a safety perspective, onsite storage has been a safe short-term option at the 75 sites across the nation. But I think we all agree that this cannot be the long-term solution, and I worry what will happen if our 75 sites today become hundreds of sites into the future. Mr. White, do you have any thoughts on that?
Should we get closer to a long-term storage solution before encouraging the development of more sites that may become additional locations for onsite storage of spent fuel?
Greg White
Well, certainly. I think it was, yeah, Mr. White, if you could. Yes. So you noted that we are currently storing spent nuclear fuel safely, and we believe that that is, you know, a good, safe thing that we can do, okay? In terms of going forward, I think having a program in place will help facilitate the development of new nuclear.
Do we want to wait until we have a plan or a program in place?
Speaker 56
Okay. Any other comments from anyone about... Okay. Well, with that, I appreciate the opportunity and thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
And I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. Thank you, gentleman yields back. Members may have additional questions for you, and I'll remind the members that they have 10 business days to submit those additional questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses do their best to submit responses within 10 business days upon receipt of those questions. So I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included in the staff hearing documents list.
And without objection, so ordered. So without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.