 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
A Review of the President's Recommendation to Develop a Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
Mr. Joe F. Colvin
Chairman Barton, ranking member
Boucher and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Joe Colvin,
president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify regarding the
President's recommendation of the Yucca Mountain, Nev., site as our nation's
repository for used fuel rods from commercial nuclear power plants and
high-level radioactive waste from our country's defense programs. NEI coordinates public policy
on issues affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the management of
used nuclear fuel from 103 commercial nuclear power plants that produce
electricity for one of every five homes and businesses in the United States.
The Institute represents nearly 275 companies, including every U.S.
company licensed to operate a commercial nuclear reactor, industry suppliers,
fuel fabrication facilities, architectural and engineering firms, organized
labor, law firms, radiopharmaceutical companies, research laboratories,
universities and international nuclear organizations. The nuclear energy industry
strongly supports the decision by President George Bush that Yucca Mountain be
further developed as a disposal facility to manage used nuclear fuel and other
high-level radioactive waste. The industry appreciates this
opportunity to provide its perspective on this important program. Building a
specially designed repository at Yucca Mountain will begin the process of moving
used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste now stored at 131 sites¾including
Department of Energy facilities, university reactors, defense sites and
commercial nuclear plants¾to
one safe and secure facility under a remote Nevada desert ridge. Used fuel is safely stored at
nuclear power plant sites, either in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with
water or in steel or steel-reinforced concrete casks or bunkers with steel inner
canisters. Although the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) determined that used fuel could be stored safely at
plant sites for 100 years, scientific consensus supports disposal in a specially
designed underground repository. The
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 codified this longstanding federal policy, and
the 1987 amendments to the law required the Energy Department to study Yucca
Mountain solely as a specially designed underground repository.
Nonetheless,
more than four years ago, the federal government defaulted on its
obligation-under the law and in contracts between utilities and DOE-to begin
moving used fuel from the nation's nuclear power plants. Because of the
government's default, electricity consumers still are paying for additional
on-site storage over and above the $18 billion already committed to the federal
repository program. DOE's delay in managing the federal nuclear fuel program
has forced nuclear power companies to store more used fuel than expected for
longer than originally intended. By
the end of 2006, about 60 reactors will run out of their original storage space,
and by the end of 2010, 78 reactors will have exhausted their original storage
capacity. Companies that have not added on-site storage capacity by those dates
would have to do so at that point. As a result of the Energy
Department's default on its January 31, 1998, obligation to begin moving used
nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants, electricity consumers will have to pay
an additional $5 billion to $7 billion for used fuel management, assuming the
repository is available in 2010¾and
much more if repository operation does not begin by 2010.
Nuclear power plant owners are suing the federal government in the U.S.
Federal Claims Court due to DOE's failure to meet the 1998 obligation. The court
has reaffirmed the federal government's obligation and the lead cases are in
the damages phase. The Department of Energy must move forward with the Yucca
Mountain project, under the current schedule, to meet its legal commitment to
consumers to begin receiving used nuclear fuel at a federal disposal facility
and to limit the federal liability for missing the 1998 deadline to a minimum. Nevada's
April 8 notice of disapproval of the President's Yucca Mountain recommendation
brings the federal government to the next step in the deliberative process
established in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It is now up to the Congress to
approve Yucca Mountain and advance the program from the study phase to the
license application phase. The nuclear energy industry calls on Congress to
fulfill its responsibility to advance the national interest and approve the
site. Approval of a repository at
Yucca Mountain is key for U.S. energy security, our national security, future
growth of our economy and nuclear energy, and absolutely essential for
environmental protection. Scientific Basis Supports Yucca Mountain
Recommendation
Deep geologic disposal, like the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, has been identified by the world's leading scientists as the best way to isolate radioactive byproducts while protecting public safety and the environment for thousands of years. Twenty years of world-class study by hundreds of expert scientists and engineers¾36 million hours in all¾have produced an indisputable body of evidence supporting the designation of Yucca Mountain as a repository site. The
scientific evaluation of Yucca Mountain is unmatched by any other comparable
endeavor in the United States. Teams
of the world's best scientists examined every aspect of the natural
environment at Yucca Mountain-including collecting and examining more than
75,000 feet of core rock and 18,000 geologic and water samples, mapping and
modeling various features of the mountain, and conducting an array of scientific
experiments in six and one-half miles of tunnels in an underground laboratory.
One of those experiments is the largest known test in history to simulate
heat effects of a repository on the rock at Yucca Mountain. Scientists
have used this vast collection of data to develop computer simulations of the
natural features, events and processes that exist at Yucca Mountain.
They also have used these models to forecast how the facility will
perform hundreds and thousands of years from today.
In addition to the natural systems that would protect the public and the
environment, a series of man-made safety features-including
corrosion-resistant alloy containers that will hold the reactor fuel rods-will
be incorporated in the repository design to further protect public safety and
the environment. Numerous oversight
groups have thoroughly reviewed the results of DOE's scientific studies,
including the NRC, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the University of
Nevada system, as well as international groups. These scientific studies also
have been subject to extensive scientific peer review. In Secretary Abraham's
recommendation to the President, he said: "The first consideration in my
decision was whether the Yucca Mountain site will safeguard the health and
safety of the people, in Nevada and across the country, and will be effective in
containing at minimum risk the material it is designed to hold.
Substantial evidence shows that it will." A broad spectrum of experts, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, agree that there is scientific information to support the President's recommendation of Yucca Mountain as a safe repository site. The
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a scientific advisory panel to the U.S.
Congress, reported to Congress in a January 24 letter that research at Yucca
Mountain indicates that "no individual technical or scientific factor has been
identified that would automatically eliminate Yucca Mountain from consideration
as the site of a permanent repository." Although pointing out issues where
further DOE attention should be focused, the NWTRB said that there is no reason
that the Yucca Mountain program should not move forward. The outstanding issues
identified by the NWTRB will be resolved during the DOE licensing process with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In fact, several of these issues already have
been resolved to NRC's satisfaction. We urge Congress to join the scientific community and a far-reaching group of bipartisan governors, state legislators and local officials across the nation who have endorsed the Yucca Mountain repository program. Despite
the comprehensive record of science, some opponents of this project continue to
call for additional study. Their
claims are thinly veiled attempts to delay this important national facility. The President's recommendation is consistent with the
National Academy of Sciences' conclusion in 1990 that a deep geologic
repository is "the best option for disposal of high-level radioactive
waste." There is no need for
additional study on the mode of disposal, or the Yucca Mountain site in
particular, in advance of the site selection. Scientific Analysis Continues During NRC
Licensing Phase
I want to clarify an important
point regarding Yucca Mountain. The site approval process is a first, but
necessary, step that starts the formal design and safety evaluation process for
a repository at Yucca Mountain. Scientific
evidence supports the approval of the Yucca Mountain site for an underground
repository, where used nuclear fuel can be securely managed.
After congressional approval of the President's decision, DOE will
continue a multi-year scientific process through an extensive licensing review
process and, if the license is approved, operation of the facility.
The NRC, through its exacting licensing process, must ensure that the
repository meets stringent regulatory requirements to protect public safety and
the environment. This independent
licensing review process will require the resolution of outstanding scientific
issues identified in the siting process. No repository construction can
proceed at Yucca Mountain without first being licensed by the NRC.
If new scientific issues arise in the process of the licensing review or
operation of the repository, they must be resolved or DOE cannot continue.
The nuclear energy industry, as a stakeholder in the Yucca Mountain
project, will participate in this program with safety as our foremost
consideration-just as it is with operation of the nation's nuclear power
plants. Although some 600 scientific and technical reports have been completed on Yucca Mountain over the course of the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and current administrations, scientific research will continue. This ensures that the best scientific insight will continue to be provided in combination with cutting edge engineering and the natural features of Yucca Mountain to protect public safety and the environment. The
U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report last December reviewing the Yucca
Mountain project. Instead of
investigating the site using scientific reports assembled in the course of 20
years of study, the GAO relied extensively on conversations with DOE's
contractor about the project schedule and budget.
Remarks by this contractor regarding the licensing schedule for the
repository have since been retracted. The
GAO report stated that there are 293 technical items that DOE should resolve
with the NRC before a site recommendation could be made.
This reflects a fundamental lack of understanding by the GAO about the
repository siting process. Neither
the law nor the NRC licensing process requires that these items be resolved
before a site recommendation can be made. Rather, regulations require that any
scientific issues related to assuring protection of public health and safety be
resolved during the NRC licensing process and DOE has plans to do so. This
requirement has been satisfied. The
NRC stated that it "believes that sufficient .analysis and waste form
proposal information, although not available now, will be available at the time
of a potential license application such that development of an acceptable
license application is achievable." Electricity Consumers Deserve Return on $18
Billion Investment
Mr. Chairman, the time to move forward with licensing and building a repository has never been more appropriate. The Department of Energy has spent more than $7 billion on scientific and engineering studies that demonstrate that the site is suitable for disposal of used nuclear fuel and that the site is ready to proceed to the license phase. It is important to note that the Yucca Mountain project is funded largely by a tax on the millions of consumers who benefit from the use of nuclear energy. Last year, nuclear power plants generated a record 767 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. The tax for the Yucca Mountain program collected by the U.S. Treasury totaled more than $728 million. Since 1983, more than $18 billion, including interest, has been committed by consumers solely for DOE's used nuclear fuel management program. The federal Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of more than $10 billion because consumer payments into the fund have far exceeded appropriations by Congress for this important environmental program for decades. For example, consumers committed well over $500 million more for the Yucca Mountain program in 2001 than was spent on the project. The industry greatly appreciates the Energy and Commerce Committee's and this subcommittee's commitment to consumer fairness embodied in your efforts to take the Nuclear Waste Fund "off budget" in last year's energy policy legislation. Yet,
delays in the repository program can no longer be tolerated. Although the
federal government was to start accepting used nuclear fuel on January 31, 1998,
no fuel has been moved to a federal fuel management facility, and DOE projects
that no fuel will start moving until 2010 at the earliest. The Energy Department's
delays have resulted in dual payments by electricity consumers for used nuclear
fuel management¾one
to fund the Yucca Mountain project and a second to pay for additional temporary
storage at nuclear plants because of DOE's default. Operation of a federal repository at Yucca Mountain would
begin the process of removing used fuel rods from commercial nuclear power
plants and the radioactive byproducts from the nation's defense facilities in
39 states-where it was never intended to be stored for the long term.
Electricity consumers deserve a solution to this issue that is based on sound
science and that protects public safety and the environment. Conclusion The federal government must
continue on schedule with its program to site, license, and build a used nuclear
fuel repository to provide the nation with continued energy security,
environmental protection, economic growth and national security.
Used nuclear fuel and radioactive defense waste is safely stored at
nuclear power plants in 39 states, but the federal government has a legal
obligation to consolidate this material at a central location where it can be
efficiently managed for the long term. A repository 1,000 feet below
the surface of Yucca Mountain is the safest and most secure place for the
permanent disposal of used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors and high-level
radioactive byproducts from our U.S. defense programs. The vast scientific
record supports the site designation, and domestic energy security,
environmental protection and national security considerations should compel
Congress to support the President's recommendation and provide the funding
needed to proceed with licensing and construction of a specially designed
repository at Yucca Mountain.
In
the press, editorial pages by a margin of 7 to 1 support the Yucca Mountain
project, including:
In
his letter forwarding the Yucca Mountain site recommendation to the President,
Energy Secretary Abraham said, "First, and most important, I have considered
whether sound science supports the determination that the Yucca Mountain site is
scientifically and technically suitable for the development of a repository.
I am convinced that it does." Mr.
Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee, scientists and
policymakers alike are convinced that the Yucca Mountain site is scientifically
and technically suitable to be the nation's repository for used nuclear fuel
from nuclear power plants and high-level radioactive waste from Defense
Department programs. It is
imperative that Congress support continued timely progress toward development of
a national repository at Yucca Mountain. A
repository is imperative for our energy security,
given that nuclear energy provides 20 percent of all U.S. electricity and is the
largest emission-free source of electricity. A
repository is imperative for our national security
because about 40 percent of our Navy's most essential vessels, such as
aircraft carriers and submarines, are nuclear-powered ships. A
repository is imperative for future growth
of our economy and nuclear energy, which is the only large source of electricity
that is readily expandable and does not produce greenhouse gasses or other
harmful emissions. A
repository is imperative for environmental protection,
particularly at facilities in Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, New York, South
Carolina and Tennessee where defense waste is stored, and in Maine, Connecticut,
Oregon, Illinois, California and other states where sites with decommissioned
reactors cannot be returned to greenfield status without a repository to accept
used fuel rods stored at those plants. And,
a repository is imperative to promote
U.S. non-proliferation objectives by providing a disposal facility for
surplus weapons grade plutonium. Mr.
Chairman, an editorial in the March 9 New
York Times summarizes, I believe, the prevailing notion held by many
regarding Yucca Mountain. The Times said, "It is time to determine, once and for all, whether
Yucca Mountain is a suitable disposal site, or whether the nation will need to
look elsewhere.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the chief guardian of the
public's health, has ruled that enough information will be available to
support a licensing application. The
reason to proceed now is that it will force all parties to come up with final
answers to a problem that has been allowed to fester too long." After
20 years of scientific and engineering study and billions of dollars from
consumers used to fund this research, a large, indisputable body of research
results supports the President's decision. Thank
you
|
|||||||||||
|
