Mr. Chairman, before I begin my statement, I would like to submit for the record nuclear agreements that were signed just this month between Department of Energy Secretary Chu and the Italian Minister for Economic Development. It seems to me that any movement on the bill we’re looking at today would violate the spirit of these agreements. I would also like to submit the court ruling from the case EnergySolutions vs. Northwest Interstate Compact.
As a strong supporter of nuclear power, I hope today’s hearing on importing low-level waste will lead to discussing the larger issues of long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and the nuclear fuel cycle as a whole. The issue of waste disposal and new nuclear power plants are directly related. I see the bill we’re looking at today as anti-nuclear power. This bill some would view as a political NIMBY issue. Directly from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s written testimony: “The regulatory authorities in both Tennessee and Utah have informed the NRC that the material can safely go to the EnergySolutions facilities in their respective states. The Southeast Compact Commission expressed no objection to this application. The Executive Branch expressed no objection to the application and provided the NRC with the Italian Government views that the application is consistent with the Joint Convention obligations.” Also from the NRC: “there appears to be ample available disposal capacity for the foreseeable future … particularly at the EnergySolutions facility in Utah.”
So why are we even debating this bill? A court has made a ruling. The appeals court is reviewing the case. EnergySolutions has voluntarily agreed to limit the disposal of foreign generated waste to no more than 5 percent of its licensed capacity or 10 years, which ever comes first. This is just 4.3 acres of a 640 acre site. And EnergySolutions has offered to make this a legally binding condition of its license. Congress should not be interfering here. We should instead have hearings on building new nuclear power plants, recycling spent fuel, and what happens now that the Administration has scrapped Yucca Mountain.
While I have great respect for my friends on the other side who introduced this legislation, I am concerned it will be used by the opponents of nuclear power to delay new plants from coming on-line, causing further roadblocks to the recycling and safe disposal of spent fuel and low-level waste.
This bill is a continuation of the attacks on the nuclear industry. The first attack was on the disposal of spent fuel at Yucca Mountain. This bill is attacking the safe disposal of a small amount of low-level waste and is being used by those who would like to stop nuclear energy to attack the disposal of domestic-generated depleted uranium (DU). The NRC has stated that the disposal of DU is safe. If we can’t dispose of DU, then we can’t enrich uranium for fuel. If we don’t have fuel, then we are unable to power the source of 70 percent of our nation’s zero-emission electricity generation. The sponsors of this bill may not believe that it is anti-nuclear, but the anti-nuclear groups attempt to stop nuclear energy by attacking waste, not the generation.
Despite what the proponents of this legislation may claim, this isn’t about importing waste from Italy – which happens to be identical to the domestic waste safely being processed and disposed of today. This is the camel’s nose under the tent and that is shutting down all of our domestic processing and disposal capabilities. And eventually, the moth-balling all of our zero-emissions nuclear power plants.
Low-level radioactive material from nearly all 104 domestic nuclear plants is sent to the Bear Creek facility, for processing and on to the Clive facility in Utah for safe disposal. We cannot compete on a global scale if we shut down our domestic facilities. Members of this very subcommittee represent 18 different states that send waste to be processed and disposed by EnergySolutions at their facilities. I have two nuclear power plants in my district, literally just miles from my doorstep, that send their low-level waste across state lines for processing and disposal. These services are essential to the success of nuclear power.
I know there are some concerns on how importing Italian waste to the Clive, Utah site will impact the Compact system. It won’t. The Compact system remains unaffected. The court has already unequivocally ruled on this issue and I expect the appeals court will affirm the ruling. We should let the process move forward. The judge’s ruling in EnergySolutions vs. Northwest Interstate Compact stated that the Clive facility is not a regional disposal facility and not part of the Northwest Compact. Some quotes from that ruling:
- “The Court finds that the Clive Facility was not established by Northwest [compact], that it is not operated under Northwest [Compact]…”
- “At no time did Northwest [Compact] assume any authority for licensing or operating the Clive Facility.”
- “Under the 1980 Act, Northwest would have no authority to exclude out-of-region waste from the Clive Facility.”
- “The Clive Facility is not a regional disposal facility, as defined by the 1985 Act.”
I hope this ruling and the upcoming affirmation from the appeals court will alleviate all concerns.
It is imperative that clean, safe nuclear power is at the forefront as we seek to solidify our nation’s energy supply and foster a new era of energy independence and reduced emissions. As applications for nearly 30 new nuclear plants are expected over the next few years, we are on our way to fulfilling our commitment to safe, clean nuclear power. Not only will our environment be better for it, our national security will also be bolstered. Millions of households will be powered by clean zero-emission nuclear power and our nation’s economy will be powered by nuclear as well. Nuclear energy is the right course and we’ll all be better for it.
The United States is on the cusp of a nuclear renaissance that will create countless jobs at a time when our nation endures near double-digit unemployment. These new plants will also boost our supply of clean and green base-load power. But without restoring some sanity to our nation’s nuclear policy, we risk never realizing the full potential nuclear has to offer. The Administration’s diversion from Yucca Mountain is a step in the wrong direction. This bill takes us in the wrong direction also. I urge any member of this committee that wants to see clean energy be part of the United States’ future to oppose this bill
I yield back.
