Nuclear Spent Fuel Policy: Examining Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses

that you you view this is a partnership with with Congress and I appreciate that. Will you commit that the commit uh to the committee that the department will be more transparent with the Congress,

When?

as it runs the nuclear energy launch pad initiative?

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 uh on the public record and those materials are available now and those

Well, because we've also heard from former Department of Energy staffers, they've raised concerns that uh this is an overly rapid pace coupled with um this uh 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 gonna com- require community buy-in, uh, which will need to last beyond any one administration. Uh, given that this administration has gutted certainty for communities invested in other forms of energy, of 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.

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 will ask anyone that participated on the other side, they will tell you we were the toughest regulators that they had the experience, and they learned a lot in the process. And I think you will see a change in the entrepreneurs that are coming forward now in understanding that.

Can you do this with the the staff that you have right now, because we know that an independent analysis found in January

uh 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 our regular appropriations process

thank you i yield back

thank you

thank you much the general meeting's time has expired and yields back the chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subject community general from texas for five minutes for questions

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Assistant Secretary Garish, as DOE considers the role of NLICs, do you p- 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 de- development or I should say deployment?

Absolutely, these are these will be private facilities and they uh will need uh licensing assistance we we need to help the entire process and uh that going forward is uh will be a top priority for us

well thank you for that listening to your uh discussion with the ranking member castro i was uh reminded that uh it's it's important to note obviously that reprocessing now is proving out actually in our opinion to be economical um companies there are some companies like the creole company i'm familiar with uh is leading the way on spent fuel recycling innovation uh it can be done safely and cleanly i've said that for long time the the uh we had a nuclear plant in when i was in the state rep uh back in canada matagorda county and they did it cleanly and safely spent changed out spent fuel rods so i hope that we're all paying attention um i also wanna 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 brave thing and do it cleanly and safely. Would you agree?

Uh, w yes, well we we can't do this these campuses and authorize these campuses by the department. The way 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

Oh. Right.

to move forward.

We'd like it on that Texas applied, I think it was one of the twenty-one states you named. How do you know, are you familiar with what uh how they either rated or didn't rate?

Uh, uh, 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 backing 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.

Along those lines, will authorizing secondary disposal pathways in the law actually enable DOE to continue to negotiate with those various states that came forward?

Yes. Uh, we can't do it without it.

Okay. Uh, will the DOA ensure that there is linkage to permanent disposal in any negotiations?

That that is uh all this cannot be temporary. We must go to a final solution. We must close the fuel cycle.

Yeah, well, final solution was a bad term in World War Two.

Yeah.

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 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?

This is a question that Congress is going to have to work with us on. Obviously, uh, this program needs to be paid for, and we do have sufficient funds to start. We have fifty-six billion in the nuclear waste fund. So we have money to start. I understand the reluctance uh 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.

Well, thank you for that. The law requires the nuclear waste fund to be spent on programs linked to permanent disposal. I'm assuming DOE supports that.

Uh, that is how that money is to be used, that is the way the law is. and that that is also subject to some discussion as to what is needed to make this successful. What we wanna do is make it successful, and we wanna work with you to determine how to do that.

So this this may be getting a little uh progrostin procrastinating, or maybe we're prognosticating is what it is. Should federal policies be updated to include reprocessing as part of a of the very system we're discussing for permanent disposal of waste, do we need to do something with those policies?

uh I think it would be helpful to have that uh actually demonstrated as a policy of the United States in favor of reprocessing where uh technically and economically feasible.

Well, I don't have mu- much time, so I'm I'm down to four seconds. Thank you for your testimony.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's fiftieth district for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all the sharing.

Uh, one key a- 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. Uh, 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 would share a lot of past last month and that would do just that. Uh, you mentioned uh, Mister 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 fifteen percent of our uranium imports. Um, 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.

W w w we are looking at all mechanisms to really reduce import importation of uranium and that is one that we'll we will examine

thank you i'm also encouraged that these proposed uh nuclear life cycle innovation campuses uh that can be an important part of our domestic nuclear strategy as well as our strategy for addressing uh the question of um waste disposal um 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 and shut down plants. Um, I seek unanimous consent, uh, Mister Mister Chairman, to um add to the record this article, um, entitled " As the coast begins to crumble, the clock ticks on moving San Onofre's, uh, San Onofre's radioactive waste."

Without objection, so ordered.

Uh, experts agree that the nuclear waste stored at San Onofre is stored safely, However, it was never meant to be there in per perpetuity, so we need to get moving. We need to get this right. Uh, Mister 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, uh, use. How does the department plan to prioritize what nuclear waste is getting transported to these campuses? Uh, and can you commit to working with Congress to ensure that waste that shut down plants in high-risk areas like San Onofre can get prioritized.

Yep. 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 uh waste that currently exists at shutdown plants and at all plants. And I think we need a combination, what we refer to as the which is which comes first and and who who actually goes to the site. My suggestion is that we will come up with some kind of rule making at the department. This is we probably will need some provisions in whatever uh is done here in the committee uh or we could do it in some rule making to determine which waste goes first, and how we do it. It's a combination of both the old waste and the new waste,

Right.

but first we have to get started. The p- the most important thing right now is to get something moving.

I I agree. What what kind of timing are you thinking of for that rule making that you mentioned?

Well, as soon as we have the authority, I think we could probably do it in uh less than six months, I would think.

That's great. Um, also soon uh the d- understand the department's long-term plans for the waste involves reprocessing and do- 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 plan for finding a permanent geological storage site for this waste as part of the nuclear life-cycle in life-cycle innovation campuses and are you seeing success through the collaborative siting process the department is employing?

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 the type of of mind repository would be along the lines of what is currently in finland which is a much simpler

ok

uh repository however the deep borehole is it can be just as effective as a methodology to do that Uh, and the only difference is mining or drilling holes and it's just the size of the, uh, of the final, uh, area where that receives the waste. So either one will work and the states, as part of their arrangement with us, this will be, uh, agreed to as a collaborative process with us.

Great. Thank you for being with us today and I yield back.

Thank you. The gentleman's time has The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chair of the full committee, for five minutes for questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the recognition. Thank you, secretary, for being here. So six states have already voluntarily voluntarily stepped up to express initial interest in hosting these campuses. The concept of gaining consent for disposing of spit fuel is not a new one, but it's vulnerable to shifting politics. Can you describe what will be different with your approach and what are the roles of governors and state legislators and what we require to them to show any agreements will be durable.

Uh 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 method as opposed to what we refer to as consent-based sites, which r- sounds like uh you're going to require something that's 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 are arrangements are going to be for us to do it the federal government will actually do this part of the project but we need the site and the uh local communities uh agreement to move forward with this this will be a an extremely um economic and uh useful uh process f- for the local communities and they'll find this uh very economically beneficial.

Thank you. Um you know, and I know a lot of local communities debate a lot of things that that a lot of us up here think are economically beneficial and they they don't think they're economically beneficial in their communities so we need to be careful with that. So uh and it should be their decision. That's kind of my view on it. But what uh so we wanna be careful about rushing any policy that would undermine our obligation to rate payers. 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?

Well, in terms of if you're referring to the discussion draft, there was a suggestion made as to how uh how this this some of these funds would be used. Generally speaking, the idea is i- unless it is useful to reduce the amount of 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 uh in terms of if you've got a reprocessing plant that reduces either the quantity or toxicity, is it useful for some of those monies 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 uh opinions on this, and this is an extremely important area that we'll have to resolve.

Alright, thanks. Can you update us on the timeline for any negotiations with states?

Oh, right now what we would like to do is we're going to have uh 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 uh fifteenth, if possible. The thing I wanna 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 uh uh to basically lock that in Uh, so in other words, what you were referring to in terms of durability is extremely important. And once this gets started and the economic benefits begin, I think that you will see uh tremendous approval from the states in allowing to do this. Generally speaking, the communities uh that are closest to nuclear facilities are the most positively inclined uh to support,

Yeah.

because they understand the safety elements and the risk and also the financial benefits for that particular project. So generally speaking, it's it's the communities that are closest that we wanna deal with, and we wanna deal with that first. And that is what we w- we want to do now, once we get the authority for the state to designate these areas.

Thanks. So everything we we need to be doing here needs to be focused on how do you raise the standard of living for all Americans or or how does it improve our, our, our national security or our leadership in the strategic relationship with our our friends around the globe. So how does the current nuclear technology development and increased focus on reprocessing help the United States regain leadership in nuclear technology and what does this mean for us in a global race?

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 of affordable electricity

Thanks, I'll ask you a long question as my time is expiring. I apologize, I'm sure we'll hear more and my time has expired, so I appreciate your answer. Thank you.

Well,

Goodbye.

thank you very much, the gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's eighth district for five minutes for questions.

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 wanna know that their energy infrastructure is safe. Mister 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?

It needs to be handled properly, and we know how to handle it properly, and we can do that, and we have done that.

Is it correct that uh you testified before Congress more than twenty years ago as Deputy Director of DOE's Radioactive Waste Office?

I may have done that, yes.

I believe you did. I believe you told Congress that Yucca Mountain program was quote poised for success. Um, twenty-one years later we still don't have a permanent repository for commercial spent nuclear fu fuel. Um, you're now back before Congress proposing a new approach. What specifically did DOE get wrong then, and what are you doing differently?

With this uh 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.

I appreciate that. Um, as the Trump administration, states and tech companies increasingly turn toward

Well, Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, waste handling, waste handling, uh, uh, in, in, in other countries is extremely important, and other countries is extremely important, and the way this works is each country must handle its own waste. and the way this works is, each country must handle its own waste.

My question was specifically about community trust being essential to this process. Do you agree or disagree?

The c- c- community trust is absolutely essential.

Just yes or no.

Safety is the number one priority, community understanding of the risks, and having a complete understanding of what what this is in their community. And I have always found that all of these nuclear projects, as uh we we mentioned here previously, the people that are closest understand it best, and are the most supportive.

So will you commit that the DOE will not site a nuclear waste facility in a community without that community's consent?

That that is what we intend to do at this time. That is our that is our plan.

I appreciate that, and I'll take that as a commitment. Um, and trust is built through independent regulators that keep safety at the center of their of their work. Is that accurate?

I I didn't understand the question.

Um, I apologize, and trust is built through independent regulators that

the regulators must be uh have high integrity and independence and i'm certain that the nuclear regulatory commission will adopt those uh the principles.

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?

that is an incorrect uh statement as to what what has happened there.

that's a direct quote. in terms of what the intent of this administration was to do with the nrc

is not a direct quote from me and i can tell you this but

i appreciate that but you have to understand that there are other people in the administration who are saying those things

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

ok so on independence again just yes or no do nrc commissioners expressing fear of being fired if they

They need to be independent. I cannot tell you what it takes to make them independent. They have to make

I think I think uh 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.

I'm not there is no pressure being exerted on these on these commissioners.

That's not what they testify to here in Congress.

Well, I'd listened to some of the some of the testimony and I did not hear that.

Well, I would urge you to to to listen to it once again. And what about a mass excess of staff in safety offices at NRC and in your own office? Does that foster trust?

Well, that was done because the uh incentives that were provided to reduce the amount of em employment in the federal government that was done for for other purposes. And many people took advantage of that. And we have to

Be I would say because there was this 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 number of forced uh retirements and so listen we gotta get this right. And I think you know that we have to get this right, but we need folks who 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.

Uh thank you very much. The gentleman's time has Byron Yields is back, the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota. The at-large member, five minutes for questions.

Good morning, sir. Thank you for your expertise, your time here, and your uh your recognition of the um important tone we need to take when we're dealing with this important issue one that's of great concern to the public, and uh deserves you know complete transparency and utmost professionalism. which you are providing today, so I appreciate that. Um, I'm curious about, I'm a former utility regulator, so I've, we don't have any nuclear in the s- 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, uh, generating a lot of power for the region, uh, coal-fired power, natural gas, firepower, and wind power. So we're very familiar with that industry. Um one of the issues of course uh one of the big challenges is the disposal and the waste disposal, so I'm I'm very intrigued by this campus approach and excited that you guys are pursuing the whole life cycle of the fuel. Um so you've mentioned one of the big things that Congress needs to do is authorize more than one campus. Is that is that correct? What else do we need to do to help facilitate uh the growth of this concept?

Well, uh, let me just uh go back to the first part of y 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 way the current arrangement. So uh what needs to be done is the there is a tremendous economic benefit to these states that determined to do this. So what's happening is that they are looking at those benefits and and judging uh 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 uh appropriately

mmm

do we need to do anything else besides authorizing more than one campus so to help facilitate the growth of these campuses

uh i would allow us to authorize as many as in the end uh we need

ok

uh i think it's more than one

mmm

and it may not be more than three but in other words i wouldn't want to necessarily limit the amount and the numbers

ok

and the characteristics because each of these states have different characteristics and could potentially take different types of of ultimately disposal uh materials

sure how you mentioned earlier that you're gonna have to at some point create rules prioritize which waste um is uh processed and moved first. How will you go and I I wanna get to a couple other questions, so kind of briefly, how will you go through uh that process of prioritizing the waste?

It'll probably done done through a rule making in which we require the people that that wanna take the waste for reprocessing, then we wanna take a look at the the locations where it would go and how that would fit together.

And how will this waste be transported? From like I know there's a lot of waste stored uh outside of nu- nuclear power,

Um.

generating facilities in the Minneapolis area. How will that get to the place for processing?

Largely by rail.

Okay. And how will that be handled? Will that be publicly known or do you do you can you provide any insight on that?

Rail. The the trans-

You have concerns about that at all?

transportation of nuclear waste is one of the the the items that most Americans don't really realize there's a tremendous amount of transportation currently of these materials and it uh is done completely safe safely and there has been virtually no incidents and this is an ongoing activity that happens every day

perfect so it's a proven well established uh safe process

yep

ok um what percent of the waste do you envision will ultimately be recycled and then how much will ultimately have to be stored

I I I can't even give you a an estimate of that.

Permanently.

It's gonna depend on the technologies by the reprocessing folks. So some waste um 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 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.

Okay. And then I just have like thirty seconds left. What country is currently kinda leading the way in the in the uh recycling of the waste, and who are we kind of emulating?

Well, there's probably more recycling done in France than anywhere else currently.

And what percent do they recycle versus store?

Oh. I I don't know. I I can get you that answer and I will.

Okay. Okay, very good. Thank you, sir. That's all my questions. I yield back.

The gentlelady uh yields, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mister Bisse.

Uh, thank you.

Hi, Bisse.

Um, yeah, the nuclear spent fuel policy is, I think, one of the really central unresolved questions standing between the United States and serious, uh, nuclear, uh, uh, power expansion. Uh, and we really do need to come up with a path on how we do this. And we've had our issues even in in Texas where I think that we've probably balanced energy probably better than any other state. Wouldn't wouldn't we have well we had the controversy in Andrew County. Andrew County over the years, uh part of it going and being resolved all the way up to the Supreme uh Court, at least a p- a portion of it being resolved. Uh and I think that the nuclear uh life cycle 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. Um and uh this is why I think this hearing is really important today and i wanted to ask you uh mister secretary before the federal government selects a new uh uh site uh uh for repository uh it needs uh to first establish a generic uh technology neutral public health standard against which potential uh designs and geologies can be evaluated uh how do you suggest uh regulations best be updated

this is going to be a subject that the Congress will wanna be involved with, I'm I'm sure.

Mm-hmm.

However, uh there are several methodologies that how this could be done. My personal view is it 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 s- I think that that is exactly the same methodology that should be used.

Yeah, yeah. Uh, how will the Department of Energy um uh pursue the site selection under the NLIC program compared to how Yucca Mountain was selected in nineteen eighty-seven? Uh, and what methods do you think DOE will use?

Before we proceed in any of these. campuses and determine we 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.

Right.

Now the the the process that the Congress went through was took years and years uh to to actually do the science uh in order to 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 and work through what needs to be done and make sure it is safe at the time before we proceed.

Yeah, I I wanted to ask you, um, in your opinion, do you think that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides enough flexibility for modern spent f- for a modern fin- spent fuel system that includes interim storage, and reprocessing, and eventual uh permanent disposal, or does or does Congress need to clarify the statue before uh the nuclear life cycle innovation campuses can function as envisioned.

We need clarification and we need a uh provision to e- so that we don't have exclusivity to only Yucca Mountain as the only solution. But uh w- we we need to work on that on that bill eventually to to change several aspects of it to make it work for the new program.

Yeah. And just to give the American public a more clear picture of what that looks like, Uh, can you explain that if we were to be able uh to move forward with innovation campuses' plan, what would success look like ten uh twenty years from now? Because I think with a lot of the issues that we're having around energy,

Mm-hmm.

you know, now you can throw, you know, data centers in there and and their energy consumption. I think that people wanna have a better and clear understanding of, you know, what that looks like in the immediate future. Uh, but as you know, the nuclear process is is obviously takes some time. So what does success look like ten, twenty years from now?

Three or four successful campuses operating the complete aspects of the of the nuclear fuel cycle, from enrichment and reprocessing and all of the other elements and including some uh campuses that have circular uh programs for uh power and waste together. And I would see that three or four campuses operating successfully. And there would be wage disposal at those sites.

Yeah. Wow. Wow, that's amazing. Uh, okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. I'll yield back on time.

Yep.

Gentlemen yields, the chair now recognizes uh the gentleman from Texas or uh Georgia, Mister Allen, excuse me.

Good. Thank you.

Yeah, you got you got you got you got a promotion.

Sorry, not Texas.

Uh, well, we're we're both having fun right now in Georgian, Texas. But anyway, uh, I wanna thank Chair Lata for holding this important, uh, hearing, uh, to discuss the federal government managing spent fuel and I thank you, Mister Gerish, for, uh, being here, uh, from the Department of Energy to talk about, uh, this important subject and, uh, and what current law offers. Uh, as we work to expand nuclear energy capabilities in the United States, compared, we address the management's fuel. I think we all agree on that. Uh, this issue is particularly significant for my district and state, given that both Plant Vogel, the largest nuclear energy uh producing plant in the country, and Savannah River site, located across Savannah River, which forty percent of my district works for works at, currently house spent nuclear fuel. Congress previously previously took action to address spent nuclear fuel by amending the nuclear waste policy. Act of nineteen eighty-two and selecting Yucca Mountain in nineteen eiv- eighty-seven as the site for that permanent uh repository and set up a trust line to uh to do this. Uh, in your testimony, Mister Gierish, you're offering an option for nuclear waste that involves new host states taking up some of the burden for disposing of fuel. I wanna be real clear. Uh, you and the administration are not walking that you and the U. administration are not walking away from existing law for a repository at Yucca Mountain, you're offering a sup- or are you offering a supplementary military p- uh supplementary path and is that the right direction to go?

Well, we 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 the fuel cycle in their areas so what i would like to do is say ok to the yes folks and follow through and develop a program that makes it work for them

so uh so we're kind of starting all over here and you'd agree that even a supplementary path requires a lot of work to prove itself and where are you in the process of signing agreements with the the host states that you say have said yes

We we've had very positive uh discussions with with most of the governors and the and the governor's staffs in these states. These are extremely positive and I just wanna emphasize that 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.

And so how time consuming and uh how difficult is this

It's going

process going to involve?

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.

Well, Congress has supported uh DOE developing a pilot consent based program for interim storage. Uh, how does uh the work uh of that program inform uh what you are proposing to do today.

That was a start uh but it did not include that was just for waste in other words they went around to see if they could find other states would do consent based siting. The the department has spent a lot of money with a lot of states with very little positive results what we wanna 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 wanna say yes,

Mm.

not just take our money and say, okay, let's do some studies.

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 uh campuses are capable of dealing with both the front end and back of the fuel cycle. what is uh the urgent what is the urgency to move forward when the reprocessing technologies haven't been uh haven't been demonstrated on a commercial site scale?

Uh they are being demonstrated uh at in our labs and they are being demonstrated uh in smaller capacities. I believe that these technologies will work and what we need to do is uh 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.

Okay. Uh, well, I am uh out of time. So, Mister Chairman, I have uh f- some further questions. I'll submit those for the for the record and would appreciate your response on that and with that,

Thank you.

I yield back.

The gentleman yields, the chair now recognizes the member from uh Massachusetts, Mister Auchincloss, for five minutes.