Senate Environment and Public Works: Hearings to examine updating America's nuclear waste management policy.

Good morning, everybody. Good morning to my ranking member, Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you. She remarked, as we both know, that we are both Blue Devils, both graduates of Duke University. So if we start slipping into basketball talk, you'll understand that.

Welcome to today's hearing to everybody. This morning we will discuss the status of and the need to update our nation's nuclear waste management policy. Nuclear energy is a foundational part of America's energy systems, that provides reliable, clean power to our electric grid. This committee's done quite a bit in this area in terms of nuclear. However, nuclear power generation produces spent nuclear fuel as a byproduct, which then must be safely managed and disposed of.

Who manages and disposes of this material and how and where they do it has been the subject of national policy discussions for 60 years. More than 4 decades ago, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Formalizing a national framework to address the challenging issue. While much progress has been made over multiple administrations of both political parties, the Obama administration illegally halted the program in 2010. Since then, the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all considered different formulations and structures to a nuclear waste program.

To work with states on nuclear waste disposal, the current administration proposes to create a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, or NLICs. This concept would co-locate nuclear facilities that play a role in the entire nuclear supply chain, as well as potentially other industrial facilities in interested states. In return for the economic benefits associated with these facilities, the host state would agree to be the permanent disposal site for a portion of our nation's nuclear waste inventory. To date, the Department of Energy has signed memorandums of understanding with 6 states, including my state of West Virginia, to further talks on the NLCs. This initial step is a good conversation starter, and I appreciate the leadership of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy for this effort.

Importantly, any new approach, including the NLC initiative, requires Congress to update the law. Today we will explore key principles that must be considered in future legislation. First and foremost, history has shown that nuclear waste management is a multigenerational infrastructure project. A successful policy must be built for the long term and durable, with strong bipartisan buy-in from Congress. Should West Virginia or any other state proceed forward and sign an ENLIC agreement, the full terms of the deal must be clearly understood and legally enforceable.

My constituents need to know the answers to such questions as: What is the federal government's long-term commitment to the state? What is the state's long-term commitment to the federal government? What mechanisms are available to all parties to enforce an agreement? What are the forms and characteristics of the nuclear waste that will be disposed in the state? What storage and disposal facilities will be developed, and how will these be safely regulated?

And lastly, how will the different —provisions of the agreement be funded. Second, it is imperative that each potential host state has confidence that nuclear waste will be safely managed, managed alongside the numerous nuclear facilities that could compose their innovation campus. For example, in moving away from a single national nuclear waste repository, it must be clear what disposal options are available for the many forms of radioactive material. New disposal technologies will also require clear regulatory standards that can be relied upon to protect health and safety for generations to come. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be integral to this conversation.

For private entities that sign up to join an innovation campus, the NRC will be responsible for licensing and regulating these facilities and must continue to prioritize nuclear safety. Finally, for potential host states, the private sector, and the federal government, we must address the challenge of properly funding a nuclear waste disposal program. Ratepayers have paid the federal government to dispose of the spent nuclear fuel generated at nuclear power plants. That fee was collected and is accounted for—over $50 billion to date. However, Congress did not appropriate sufficient funding and the license, regulatory, and program costs were never fully covered.

Ultimately, this lack of appropriated funding was the reason that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act failed to achieve its goals and why we are here today. We must ensure that there is a funding structure that gives a new policy the best chance for success. I look forward to exploring these issues today so I can better understand how to be— how to deliver an effective, durable update to our nuclear waste policy. I will now recognize Senator Alsobrooks for her opening statement. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you as well to all of our witnesses for joining us today.

Given the prevalence of nuclear in Maryland and the role that it can play in lowering energy costs for consumers, I'm pleased to be standing in for our ranking member this morning. The past 2 years have seen a major uptick in nuclear activity, from the passage of the ADVANCE Act to new NRC licenses issued for advanced reactors and fuel facilities to dozens of project and investment announcements from American nuclear developers. It's an exciting moment for American nuclear leadership and a new deployment. And let me say, not a moment too soon, as the nation and world face a dual energy crunch and a worsening climate crisis. But as we enter an age of new nuclear opportunity, we have yet to address an old nuclear liability.

The permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Spent nuclear fuel from today's commercial reactors can continue to be stored safely for decades, but a permanent solution is crucial if nuclear deployment is to continue with credibility. New coolants and fire— fuel types used in advanced nuclear reactors will require new waste management approaches and technical reviews to ensure safe disposal. Nuclear fuel reprocessing can help reduce our waste problem by recovering about 90% of the energy still contained in spent nuclear fuel, reducing the amount and radioactivity of the waste left. But reprocessing cannot fully eliminate the need for waste disposal.

Responsible— responsible development of nuclear power requires durable solutions for waste management that have support from all stakeholders. Current U.S. law under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which currently allows only Yucca Mountain to be considered as the site of a repository, is not sufficient to address the long-term challenges of nuclear waste disposal. Updating our nuclear waste policy to incorporate the technologies of the future and finally addressing the waste of the past and present will be a major undertaking. Such an effort can only succeed with technical rigor, meaningful community engagement, and durable regulation. Short-term political decisions or shortcuts cannot drive a process for developing disposal solutions that must last for millennia.

DOE can play an important role in spurring private sector investment, but it cannot alone ensure the storage or disposal of commercial nuclear waste. Long-term durability and technical credibility in the licensing of waste storage and disposal facilities can only be possible with an NRC license. The legitimacy of any nuclear waste strategy and the legitimacy of America's nuclear industry as a whole requires NRC independence. I've raised concerns about efforts that could undermine the NRC's independence as well as the need to protect jobs and retain the experienced staff needed for the agency to carry out its mission. As the Committee of Jurisdiction, it is our responsibility to exercise continual oversight to ensure that the strength of NRC independence and its expert staff endures.

I appreciate the expertise of today's witnesses in providing insight and clarity on the complex problem of nuclear waste and look forward to their testimony. Now, at this moment, Madam Chair, I'd like to also ask unanimous consent to insert a letter from the Nevada Resort Association into the record. Without objection. Thank you. Okay.

Well, I thank our witnesses for being here. I really do. And I would like to welcome our first presenter, Lake Barrett, who's chair of the American Nuclear Society's Nuclear Waste Policy Task Force. Mr. Barrett has been involved in numerous major nuclear projects, including serving as site director for the cleanup of the Three Mile Island reactor, running the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program, and now as an advisor to the Japanese government on recovering from Fukushima. Welcome, Mr. Barrett.

You're now recognized for your opening statement. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Elsa Brooks, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the American Nuclear Society about the opportunity that our nation has to update our nuclear waste management policies. Our organization represents over 12,000 nuclear energy professionals who have delivered safe, dependable, and life-saving nuclear technologies for over 70 years to the benefit of our nation and the world. All energy-producing technologies generate waste that we must manage responsibly for ourselves and future generations.

The good news is that used nuclear fuel from electricity generation is a robust, compact, and stable form that the nuclear industry has a strong record of storing and transporting very safely. High-level radioactive waste from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel can also be mobilized in robust, stable forms suitable for geologic disposal. However, these materials do remain highly radioactive for many years and must be isolated from the environment for millennia. The longstanding international consensus is that such materials should ultimately be disposed of in stable geologic formations, and several countries are making very good progress towards siting and actually constructing their repositories. We in America have sadly fallen well behind and have accomplished little for the past 16 years.

We must now engage our great American capabilities to revitalize and adapt to meet our longstanding legal and moral obligations to the American people. Today, our U.S. electricity demand is rapidly rising, and this makes sustaining nuclear energy expansion more important than ever. This growth creates an opportunity to break America's longstanding stalemate over the permanent disposal of our used nuclear fuel. Growing state interest in an integrated nuclear fuel cycle and disposal projects offers Congress an opportunity that can advance our nuclear waste management disposal policy help fuel our next generation of nuclear reactors, and strengthen the U.S. nuclear industrial base all at the same time. The American Nuclear Society supports DOE's Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation— Innovation Campus initiative.

This effort has helped bring significant economic opportunities into— of the nuclear fuel cycle into broad focus. Potential host states and creative private industries are now exploring the campuses that combine the nuclear fuel cycle recycling and disposal activities that are needed to support our critically needed nuclear expansion and being able to find actual geologic disposal sites. Congress can assist in this work with a stepwise approach that sustains willing state participation, begins to fulfill federal obligations for used nuclear fuel, and supports fuel cycle innovation and protects affordability while maintaining geologic disposal as an essential part of this effort as recycling technologies and markets develop. So as this committee considers its near-term nuclear policy agenda, the American Nuclear Society recommends a bipartisan focus on these 6 priorities: enabling DOE to develop durable campus partnerships with willing host states and private partners through business agreements that define activities, milestones, benefits, responsibilities, and ultimate disposal pathways in a long-lasting, durable manner. Authorizing the investigation of permanent disposal pathways beyond Yucca Mountain and advance the regulatory framework needed to support different sites.

We have learned a lot from the Yucca Mountain and international experiences, and this knowledge can improve our regulatory framework for new potential geologic disposal sites moving forward. Enabling DOE to begin accepting and removing nuclear fuel, especially that that is stranded at permanently shut-down reactors, through existing authorities and new authorities and resources necessary to take title to that fuel, transport it, and store it, including for potential recycling within a program for permanent passive geologic disposal. We should continue supporting recycling research and development and early commercial deployment as these technologies and markets mature. We should also approach providing adequate resources for DOE to carry out its statutory disposal mission while relying on private investment and other federal and state support for broader campus activities. This should include near-term robust appropriations for DOE to start this process immediately.

Establishing near-clear organizational guidance for contractual performance steps and sustainable, durable partnership business-like arrangements for the host states and their private industry partners and local communities as well, utilizing our nation's exceptional commercial market— free market capabilities. In closing, our society believes our nation is now at a point to be able to finally break out of a 16-year doldrum and move forward with willing state and private industry partners to work together to create a revised, integrated, innovative nuclear waste management policy that can serve Americans now and for hundreds of generations in the future. We can do this as a nation if we have your support. Thank you and look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Next, we will hear from Katrina McMurrian, Executive Director of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition. The NWSC— the NWSC represents a broad membership of entities that advocate for a nuclear waste solution, such as state utility regulators, tribal and local governments, and electric companies that host spent nuclear fuel on site. Ms. McMurrian, I hope I'm saying that correctly. Thank you for being here and you are recognized for your opening statement.

Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Osterbrooks, and members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition. I'm Katrina McMurray, the coalition's executive director. The NWSC is an ad hoc organization formed in 1993 to represent the collective interest of public and private members on nuclear waste policy matters. Our work today remains focused on, one, holding the federal government accountable for its statutory and contractual obligations to secure a durable integrated waste disposal program for commercial spent fuel.

Two, protecting electric utility customers. And three, securing the leadership and sustainable funding for a decades-long program to succeed. We are a member-led, bipartisan, purpose-driven, and will happily disband when our mission is complete. After enduring years of federal failure, we are 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.

As Congress considers next steps on nuclear waste policy, the NWC hopes the following will guide your work. First, Congress must reestablish a national integrated nuclear waste disposal program that includes four interconnected and necessary components: removal, transportation, storage and essential permanent geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel now stranded at numerous operating and shutdown commercial reactor sites in communities in 35 states. Yes, it's safely stored on site, but taxpayers are being charged millions each day beyond the January 31st, 1998 checkout date established in federal law. Second, evidence points to the need to form an independent waste management organization outside of DOE But in the near term, Congress should urge DOE's immediate reestablishment of an internal office reporting directly to the Secretary that is dedicated to a successful disposal program. Not only does this comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it prioritizes critical functions that have been neglected to the detriment of its— of existing host communities, electric customers, and all U.S. taxpayers.

Third, we call upon 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 disposal program. Congress has figured it out for other trust funds, and there's no better time to restore the trust part for electric customers who thus far have gotten nothing in return for the fund part, meaning the part where they paid billions in fees until NARUC and others sued to stop it. In the interim, Congress can and should appropriately fund DOE priorities that advance removal, transportation, storage, and permanent disposal through annual appropriations. The Nuclear Waste Fund must only be used for its intended purpose, which is to pay for the federal waste disposal program. The Nuclear Waste Fund's $51 billion balance, along with annual interest accruals, provides more than sufficient funding for virtually any program work for the foreseeable future.

Initiatives to restart the Nuclear Waste Fund fee should be considered only after verified federal performance and a demonstration of need. Finally, the NWSC recognizes that an integrated nuclear waste program could include reprocessing or recycling, which we view as complementary, not competing strategies with disposal. While recycling may reduce waste volume, questions remain about— remain about cost-effectiveness and new waste streams. In any case, a repository remains necessary under every scenario with recycling or not. In closing, permanent geologic disposal is foundational to all effective nuclear waste policy approaches.

The consequences of prolonged federal inaction to achieve disposal are significant but avoidable with timely action. It is often said that the first question in any forum about nuclear is, what about the waste? The experts have long had the technical answers, but we've allowed those to be sidelined. Nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities are critical infrastructure that support an energy option that many of our states are considering in real time to meet growing electricity demand correctly. And finally, recognizing nuclear waste disposal as critical infrastructure moves it from the nice-to-have column to the must-have column.

We thank you for your leadership with respect to this call to action. Thank you. Thank you very much. And our final witness is, uh, Dr. Katherine Huff. She's a professor and department chair for the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dr. Huff served as the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the DOE under President Biden, where she oversaw department activity related to nuclear energy advancement, research, and development. Welcome, Dr. Huff, and please proceed with your opening statement. Chair Capito, Ranking Member Alsop Brooks, and members of the committee, it is an honor to be with you today. The United States safely manages over 90,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel in about 70 locations across the country. For decades, electricity consumers paid into the nuclear waste fee in exchange for the federal government's acceptance and disposal disposal of that fuel.

DOE was obligated to begin accepting it in 1998, the year I turned 12, and has still not done so. Consequently, taxpayers remain liable for continuing costs of storage. Federal consolidated interim storage would begin to solve both issues. During my time at DOE, Congress funded a consent-based siting program that allowed us to begin conversations with communities about hosting such facility. Those conversations confirmed that communities see greater value in interim storage when it is connected to research, laboratories, technology, and sustained economic activity.

A campus that includes those advanced reactors and fuel cycle research centers and recycling facilities would offer a prospective host more than storage alone. And DOE's vision of these nuclear Life cycle innovation campuses has therefore inspired productive engagement with states. However, turning these conversations into operating facilities will require authorization and appropriated funding from Congress. Sustaining public support will also require transparency regarding ownership, costs, hazards, and long-term responsibilities, as well as accountability in case a contractor withdraws or fails. Recycling provides one productive purpose for these campuses.

We should recycle nuclear fuel for the same sustainability reasons that we recycle aluminum and paper at home. Used fuel contains recoverable energy and useful isotopes. Furthermore, recycling long-lived radionuclides can allow radioactivity of the remaining waste to fall below that of natural uranium ore in hundreds of years rather than thousands. Simplifying the final repository. But those benefits don't guarantee favorable economics.

Commercial-scale civilian reprocessing has not developed anywhere as a purely private market-financed enterprise. La Hague in France is operated by, by Orano, which is approximately 90% owned by the French government. Meanwhile, Rokasho is privately held, but operates within a Japanese national framework for consistent financing and regulation and waste management more broadly. Having visited both, I've seen the scale of infrastructure and management and government integration involved. And so I would say that proposals of a US facility that can rely on market revenues alone for recycling should be evaluated rigorously.

All that said, realizing the promise of these innovation campuses will demand some clear division of institutional responsibility. Research, development, demonstration may appropriately proceed under DOE authorization, but facilities intended to serve commercial purposes should follow NRC licensing pathways from the beginning. Independent regulation supports safety and public confidence and continuity across administrations. Congress separated nuclear promotion from nuclear regulation in 1974, assigning DOE responsibility for authorized federal missions and NRC exclusive responsibility for commercial nuclear facilities. The credibility of both the licensing process and the broader waste management program are strengthened when that separation is preserved.

Finally, recycling can reduce the material requiring disposal, but as has been said already, it cannot eliminate it. And so with Yucca Mountain off the table, the federal government does need a mission-focused organization to develop a consent-based —based storage and disposal facility system to transport the fuel to sustain that work across administrations, and they will require predictable access to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Electricity consumers have already contributed more than $51 billion to that Nuclear Waste Fund, and it could give the organization the resources it needs to deliver a final repository. The United States knows how to store and trans— support use nuclear fuel safely. And we also know that this fuel contains resources worth recovering for the public good.

Congress, along with DOE and NRC, has the opportunity to establish a coherent program that can accept the fuel, support willing host communities, recover valuable materials, provide permanent disposal, and preserve independent regulation. Thank you. I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank all three of you.

Great, great presentations. And I'm gonna begin with the questions, and I'm gonna begin with you, Mr. Barrett. Um, our historic experience with managing nuclear waste policy shows how state, local, and federal politics can change over time and undermine a multigenerational project. So, uh, as the Department of Energy looks to enter into agreements with states, what are the key components that Congress should consider to ensure that those agreements can withstand that test of time and the political winds that flow from time to time in the states. This will be a challenge.

This will be a challenge for everyone to be able to put this together, but I believe it can be done with hard work and good faith to build the required trusted relationships to sustain this very complex arrangement in multi-states dozens of billion-dollar facilities that have to work together as a team. Our nation, under our— with our commercial abilities and our creativity and our free market fundamentals, we can pull this together. We've done this before with great projects, and we can do this now, but it's going to be— have to work through a lot of delicate issues of technology development, continued safe performance, under a rigorous safety and environmental protection regime, which we have and we will continue to have. Um, and we can do this if we work together. Um, so it's gonna take teamwork.

It's gonna have to sustain itself past many, um, administrations, Congresses, governorships, uh, as we go forward. But if we have a, a continued national vision that we have this accountability and responsibility for energy that we need now and also environmental protection for our great-great-grandchildren in the future. We can do this, but it's going to take a lot of work by everyone—states, the federal government, the governance—to set that up to make this happen. Right. I mean, I think we know from the failed 60 years of stop-and-go that this is—this is a—will be difficult.

I want to ask Dr. Huff, you talked about this in your statement, the interplay between NRC and DOE. The Department of Energy envisions that the NLC initiative to consist of multiple nuclear campuses with a range of privately owned facilities to support our national commercial interests. Based on your experience at the Department of Energy, will you please describe the relevant licensing requirements that could be applicable as these— on these campuses? Thank you, Senator. It's a critical question.

So if an NLC contains a collection of facilities, it will probably fall under a number of different NRC requirements. So Part 72 is for spent fuel storage, right? Mm-hmm. Whereas Part 71 is for transportation of packages of spent fuel. Parts 50 or 52 are for reactors, et cetera.

So NRC has a number of these, but it's not just NRC. NRC would be the primary nuclear safety regulator, but not the only regulator. Agreement states, EPA, the Department of Transportation, and other agencies also retain some responsibilities. And so NRC oversight will guide that kind of public evaluation, but stable requirements and licensing of a variety of different facilities at one location will not fall under one particular regulatory framework or even one particular regulatory agency. Well, I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission obviously has its number one priority is safety.

And I think as communities and states look to incorporate this as part of their interest, I think the safety aspect is gonna be the most difficult one from a public perception. And so that's where I see the value of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission being, because that is their goal, is safety. So would you agree with that statement? Yes, ma'am. Yeah, okay.

Mr. Barrett, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act designated a sole location, as we know, Yucca Mountain. It was also expected to dispose of nuclear waste resulting from our national security programs, such as spent fuel from submarines and aircraft carriers and other waste that is slightly less radioactive. Based on your experience, can you describe what a system would look like with respect to a number of disposal sites, cost, and regulations required to— this is leading on to the last question I asked— protect public health and the environment and to establish a suite of disposal options for a multiple— multitude of waste forms and disposal sites. The NLC approach will be much more complex than what was envisioned 40 years ago with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was one repository first and a second one to follow, and it would basically contain all the high-level waste, all the spent fuels, and all highly radioactive long-life material that's generally called intermediate-level waste or greater than Class C in other countries, but all would be deeply disposed of.

That was a simpler system. The NLEG system, well, the simpler system then, but it's not working because of the social-political situation that we're in now. So the NLEG system is a much more complicated system, multiple states, has the opportunity today to possibly include more advanced technologies, possible recycling if it can be demonstrated, and all that. So it'll be much more larger system, probably considerably more expensive, but also doable. And we should go forward now and do what is plausible and achievable in a time frame we have.

For the last 16 years, we've done nothing. We need to move forward now. All right, thank you. Uh, Senator— Thank you. The federal government has contractual obligations, uh, and this first question, by the way, is for Ms. McMurray and Mr. Barrett.

The federal government has contractual obligations to take spent nuclear fuel from utilities. However, Calvert Cliffs in my state, along with other facilities throughout the country, continue to store spent fuel on site. So my first question is, if Congress creates a pathway for moving spent fuel to consolidated interim storage, what factors do you believe the Department of Energy should consider when determining which facility spent fuel is accepted first?

Um, it will be— to achieve this, okay, which is very important as to what will be the order, we first have to find a place to take it to. So assuming we have a place that's politically, socially acceptable to take it to, a receiving facility that can then start the process, which may include recycling and eventual disposal We have to have that place. Now, the Secretary has the authority to move permanently shut down reactors to the front. There are many details that are not yet worked out. For example, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act lays out the rights of utilities under contracts for basically the oldest fuel first, and they have a slot in the acceptance rate.

Uh, we have not yet as a nation worked out little details such as do they have to purchase these slots from one utility to another, or does the Secretary give a free pass to permanently shut down reactors, uh, where the fuel is stranded there? Those details we haven't worked out yet. I believe they are certainly solvable, um, in good faith between all the parties on how that would go. So exactly the details of how you would compare a continuously operating plant, as Calvert Cliff has been an excellent one, with a plant, say, San Onofre plant in California, to shut down, which has stranded fuel there. How we're going to balance that in the right order, we don't know that.

I suspect that the shutdown plants will have an earlier acceptance rate than, say, an operating plant. But as we bring on new reactors, advanced reactors in this country, there'll be different type fuel forms. And if we are successful with the recycling approaches, there's going to need to be a mix between old fuels and new fuels and different types of fuels to make them more economically viable going forward. So we'll have to work together on the details of exactly who goes when in the campaigns, the shipping campaigns, and how that will all work. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, how do you believe that DOE should ensure that the system is fair to utilities and ratepayers who've already paid into the nuclear waste fund?

Sure. Well, and I wanted to say with respect to the other, the other question as well, and I think it relates to this one, that it's important we hit the start button, right? We can get wrapped around the axle with respect to trying to figure out who goes first, but we really need to make sure we start. And we also are supportive of priority for shutdown reactor fuel. But it's important for Congress and the administration to all work together to try to make sure there's a a transparent and respected process.

And I think that you all, of course, have a, have a huge hand in that and can help make sure that customers are assured that this is, this is going to be a transparent process, a process that they can, that they can ensure is going to be safe with respect to NRC regulations. And I think we have an opportunity to show the public that the DOE and the NRC and other agencies involved in this can get prepared to make sure that everything is in place when it's time to start moving. But again, it's time to do that today. Thank you. I could add in that the contract holders that have rights, certain rights under their contracts for the money that they've paid for decades, there's an arrangement to do that.

And I'm very confident that we as a nation can, can solve these problems as we get on, once we start the process. Thank you. And then for all of our witnesses, very quickly, uh, the NRC is ultimately responsible for determining whether a proposal— a proposed repository satisfies the applicable licensing requirements. The credibility of that process will depend on public confidence in the independence of the NRC. So to each of you, yes or no, do you agree that the NRC should license any facility that stores or deposits spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Nothing further.

Senator Curtis. Thank you. And thank you for this hearing. Thank you to our witnesses. This is very important.

I've heard a lot of estimates about how much energy we need, and I don't think there's any plan out there that gets us there without a considerable amount of nuclear energy, far more than I think most people comprehend. And Utah wants to be a first mover in this field and has worked hard to place themselves in that position. But we need a clear regulatory pathway, a path forward for us. And as I think all of you know, Utah has been down-selected as one of the 6 sites. For these nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses.

And a lot of my remarks will be through those lenses today. I would also note that Utah's participation is exploratory. And what I mean by that is there's some important questions that have to be answered. Dr. Huff, you talked about the other aspects of this, but the one thing that, that I would like to bring up that wasn't really mentioned is does the state stay as a participant in decision-making, or does the state end up holding the bag for a— what started as a pilot program of storage and then nothing else, right, comes along? And also, does this keep pace with innovation?

What we've talked about today is based on what we know about recycling today, and I think we all know that we could get some innovation out there that would dramatically change this. And does this program keep pace with that, or does it get locked in time? You all have mentioned no matter what we do with recycling, we are still going to have waste that has to be dealt with. And I would say, and speaking somewhat on behalf of Utah, realizing that this really rests on the shoulders of our state leaders, we're interested in this, but we don't want to get in that position of looking around and saying, well, now what? Right?

We didn't quite have all these answers before we jumped into this. I think that means clear regulatory pathways, safety standards, meaningful state participation, partnership, and a critical path for managing nuclear material from generation all the way through disposition of it. Mr. Barrett, let me start with you. What coordination between DOE and the— what does coordination between DOE and the NRC look like as these projects move forward? As far as between DOE and NRC, DOE is the first mover.

They are the promoters, as was mentioned by the chairwoman.

The NRC is an independent safety regulator that will oversee everything at the end before it can go commercial. So they are the safety assurers. DOE and its partners in industry— and the state is a partner too— propose it and the NRC assures the safety. So that's the basic reaction. Yeah, what's your advice for what protection levels, what federal commitments should a state look for as they consider these campuses?

Well, governors today, I think, are quite savvy in this. Clearly, as I think the governor from Wyoming said 30-some years ago, you're dancing with the 800-pound gorilla here, so the federal government. So you need to protect yourself. Itself going forward. But there are ways to do that through contractual relationships, that there must be a true partnership between the federal government, the host state, and the private industry participants who are really going to be doing the work.

They're going to probably be owning many of these facilities. And all of those— that work will be under the safety umbrella to give extra assurance to the American people that whatever is being done is being done safely to protect the environment now and in the future as well. So the states need to be very wise about how they do this. These are not going to be Indian treaties from the 19th century that we're not going to have. And you have to prepare.

Yeah, I'm going to interrupt because they give me 5 minutes and I'm going to use all of it. But I do think all of us here today can see a scenario much like Senator Ossobrooke explained, like we didn't sign up for this. And states very likely could be saying like, No, we didn't sign up for a pilot program that permanently leaves this with no jobs, no economic development, and everything else. So it's about accountability, I think, for the federal government. Ms. McMarion, your organization represents states that deal with these.

This is a good opportunity for me to get some free advice for my state. What would you advise states as they look at these opportunities? I think that there's a lot that can be done short of legislation, actually. I think the Nuclear Waste Policy Act lays out a good framework, and I think you can look at that. But I think there are things that DOE could be doing in the short term, and you all can encourage them or, or direct them to do some of these things.

Right. I think that a program plan, similar to how we think of it in the public utility space, is almost like an integrated resource plan where you ask DOE to put together a plan for this multigeneration program. See how your states and other contender states fit into that. Give input and hopefully have an engaging dialogue with them. Have them set up an independent office again that focuses strictly on these issues so that you have a more direct line person to go to, to have this engagement.

You've got great people at DOE now. I think it just would be nice to revert back to that plan that was set up in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to have a dedicated office to this. So again, that would facilitate states' engagement. And then also making sure that there's money for DOE to engage with you all properly and to make sure that we don't get down the road and that there's not sufficient funding. And of course, fixing the nuclear waste fund, getting access to that money for disposal program, would really facilitate all of these things.

Well, as you can see, I would love to, to monopolize this whole hearing, but I will— I'm out of time and I'll yield. Thank you, Chair, for this hearing and for our witnesses for being here. You can see this is clearly an important topic for Utah. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chair Capito, and thank you so much to the panel for this important hearing. Delaware often ranks last among U.S. states in energy production and produces only a fraction of the energy that we consume. In response, our General Assembly created a 25-member bipartisan task force to look at whether small modular reactors could be developed in the state. One of the main concerns is the lack of long-term— of a long-term solution for high-level nuclear waste.

Despite the fact that there's been a law on the books for decades that requires the federal government to take ownership over this kind of waste, States like mine then have to weigh whether to invest in nuclear energy against doing it without a long-term solution. It's a real risk for our communities. This is an issue of public safety and public trust. So, Dr. Huff, what can the federal government do to build trust in communities interested in pursuing nuclear energy? Thank you, Senator.

And I think a key component is an independent organization like the one that's been described, but another is to provide resources for independent technical oversight from those communities. A part of the consent-based, uh, system that we put together in the previous administration and those that have succeeded in other nations like Finland and Canada includes providing resources directly to communities to help to evaluate those claims and safety assessments and work together with the government as they plan and design those facilities. And, and as a follow-up, are there benefits to continuing to pursue new reactors while determining a long-term waste disposal solution? Thank you, Senator. Yes, there absolutely are.

As a carbon-free source of energy, we absolutely need more nuclear Of course, it is reasonable for communities to want to see progress on the front of waste management before they do so. Thank you. I'm going to ask a question of the entire panel. Many of you may know that Delaware is the lowest-lying state in the country. Just a few days ago, there was an article in the newspaper about California and, you know, just the waves and the impact of climate on particularly creating more fears about this nuclear waste that's stored 100 feet below.

To the panel, what should coastal states like Delaware consider if storing spent nuclear fuel on site? I'll start quickly. I mean, I think the near-term safety— when I say near-term, like up to 100 years— Clearly, we have the engineering capability to handle that. So that's not an immediate concern that people should— the public should worry about. But there does need to go in parallel with developing new reactors, small modular or not, that there is a long-term disposal project that will complement and support that in the long term.

And the safe— the short-term safety for climate change or whatever, I think, can be handled through engineering of the whoever was running it. Got it. Ms. McMurray. Thank you, Senator. And, and while not an engineer or a safety expert, we have been assured by those who are that this is safe where it is.

It has proven to be safe where it is for a long time. We have experience for— with respect to, or at least, um, through, uh, articles and such about the experience even in Fukushima, that even in a tsunami, that nothing was released with respect to the spent fuel that was there on site. So we have tremendous assurance that it's safe where it is, but I would also say that an important thing to keep an eye on would be to make sure that the administration and Congress in facilitating these inlet campuses make sure that permanent disposal is a necessary part of that program so that you keep your eye on the ball, that there is going to be a place for this to go to. Long term. Thank you.

And Dr. Huff? Sure, from a practical perspective, I'll add that maintenance of the rail spurs on the way to those storage facilities is one of the things that separates a facility ready to move that fuel in the event of changing climate and a facility that may not be ready. I, I feel like you, um, were thinking about my next question. Uh, although Delaware does not host any active commercial nuclear reactors or high-level waste storage repositories, it does serve as a vital transportation hub for the Mid-Atlantic region. What measures must be considered regarding the transportation of spent fuel from its current site to a consolidated storage or permanent disposal facility?

And are there transportation issues that can be addressed simultaneously to siting a storage or disposal facility? Thank you, Senator. Yes, I'll add there's certified packages that need to be certified for advanced reactor fuels if we move in that direction. Fuel characterization and route planning is always underway at DOE and does so in collaboration with TRIMCCHC, a tribal coordination body that helps to make sure the tribal nations are involved in the transportation. Engagement with corridor communities as well is really pivotal to those processes.

Thank you. And I would just ask that Congress continue to fund those key components that are necessary to ensure that that transportation infrastructure is there and to support the states and tribes who also can add a lot of confidence and do add confidence to this whole program. Thank you. And continuing, the institutional informational aspects are very important, as my colleagues have mentioned, but also we're building on a 50-plus year experience of safely transporting this globally of tens of thousands of shipments. And they've all been done safely without any nuclear problems.

Thank you so much. And thank you, Madam Chair, for indulging my time. And I yield back. Senator Husted. Thank you, Chair Capito.

Appreciate everybody being here. I'm going to— my question is going to go to all of you. So as you hear me talk about it now, I'm going to ask each of you to respond to this.

America is going to need more baseload electricity. Every estimate says that's true for the foreseeable future. There's a desire for that to be as low of a carbon footprint as possible. I think most people agree on that goal too. Nuclear right now, with all of the existing technologies to be considered, is the best tool to do that.

And recycling nuclear fuel is one of the great ways that we can both solve the problem that we're discussing today and meet our future energy needs. The— based on the research I've done, there's 95,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. We create about 2,000 more tons a year. And at current rates, if you recycled all of it, it would provide electricity sufficient to power America for 160 years. Quibble about my years, but you get the point.

It's, it's a lot. And I sponsored, and this committee passed, the Nuclear Refuel Act, which created a regulatory and licensing framework to help get that done. Hopefully we can get it passed through the entire Senate. It would make recycling viable option— recycling a viable option for spent nuclear fuel in America, as they do, has been mentioned, in other, other nations. I have every reason to believe if we get the regulatory component right, that we will see private investment come off the sidelines to help make this all happen and solve a great portion of the problem that we're discussing today.

So I ask each of you, what additionally do you believe that we need to do to get this accomplished? And we'll start down there and come this way.

Recycling holds great promise for a lot of things, but there is a lot of work to do to assure that it is going to be commercially viable and support this. With recycling, without recycling, there's still going to be high-level waste that needs to be disposed. I reckon So that continues. But there is value, and I think the federal government through its development and R&D can certainly help and assist that to hopefully bring forward the vision that people have that you just described very well, sir. So yes, there's promise, but we have a lot of details and work to do yet.

No doubt. That's why we shouldn't delay. Yes. Go ahead. Being a non-expert, but I guess what I would say is maybe demonstrations and showing support and a commitment that we're going to take care of what's left after the recycling process is done.

I think all those would support recycling endeavors. Yeah, I know that, that there are plans to go with, with Tennessee and Ohio to get some of these things going in terms of the recycling and then the, the new small-scale nuclear reactors that can help, can use the fuel. Dr. Huff. I'll just add that DOE has had a strong fuel cycle research and development program throughout the whole last many decades, even when we didn't have a real policy towards recycling.

Boosting that program at the national labs and the universities in public-private partnerships with companies can help make sure that all of the learning that we've been doing over these last many decades contributes to some of those innovation. So I would say strengthen that research and development program and we'll be on our way. This— there, there's no doubt that, that this is a, a, a private-public partnership that is in great need of— but, but if you, you listen to what the others have had to say today, how long has this been going on? Like, it is, it is stunning to me how slow —this place operates. It really is.

We've known that this has been a problem for decades, but everybody always has a reason about why they can't do this, can't do that, even though they'll disagree about a detail, but, well, the whole thing goes down. We don't move ahead on it. And this is— this is a topic, the idea of res— Most people probably don't know that you can do it. They think, well, this is spent nuclear fuel out there, but it's still 95% viable for what it can be reused to do to power our future. It's just sitting there.

It's not— nothing's being done with it. We can do this. The technology is available, has been well documented, and we need to go forward. And I, I thank you, Chair Chair Capito for hosting this hearing, because America can't wait. We keep saying we want low-carbon options for electricity.

We know that demand is going up, and yet we do nothing, nothing to get that accomplished. I hope that we can get the Nuclear Refuel Act through the Senate, through the Congress, and on the President's desk. So that we can begin this process of powering our country and recycling the very waste product, as we call it, that we want to bury in the ground. Instead, we can use it to turn our lights on. Thank you for being here today.

Thank you, Senator Husted. And as you can see, I've— it's just me and the senator here. Before I close, I do want to ask, and I'm going to take license here and ask an additional question, because everybody's talked about this. And this is the funding source. We know there was a funding source set up 60 years ago.

We know that— I like the way you put it, trust and fund. And we have a highway trust fund. We have a harbor trust fund. We have experience with this. But I don't know.

Some of the estimates are $50, $51 billion. Well, it tells me it's not just sitting there, I can tell you that. It's probably already been spent in some form or fashion because it hasn't been spent what it was properly designated for. So how do we— do we continue with that system to be able to give predictable and adequate funding? Do we put more guardrails on it?

How would you suggest that? And I'll just kind of go through the panel here. Mr. Barrett, do you have any ideas on that? The federal IOUs are sitting there in the Treasury. Turning IOUs into cash is a challenge for the Congress and administrations.

So that has to go forward. I think there are arrangements. It can be done. One of the things that doesn't come into the discussion that should is the taxpayer liability for paying judgment funds, which is off-budget, basically. Liability, uh, to the taxpayers is over— is almost $60 billion.

All right, out of a new report we're coming out shortly. So that needs to come into it well, because we do need to get the funding to move to make this happen. Uh, it's a federal hazard. Government owes that money. So we have to find a way to generate that.

Yeah, and there is a way. There are ways to do it. Miss McMurray, thank you for this Important question. I'll say that we've been told over the years that if we fix your fund or the nuclear waste fund, we'd have to fix others. And this is a big problem for Congress.

And then since then, we've watched as Congress has addressed getting access to the Land and Conservation Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. So we know that Congress knows how to do it. We just need the leadership. And you all, of course, are showing that here today. And we're excited about the prospects of perhaps finding a way to return, to return access to that money that's in the fund, that $51 billion with $1.7 and up billion accumulating every year, and allow DOE to use that to make progress and really, and really build trust among the communities to make sure that as they look at new nuclear endeavors, that they have trust that this is going to be resolved and that the money will be there to do it.

Dr. Hoff. I'd like to associate myself with all the comments of my colleagues here. They are completely right, and I would say furthermore, Congress has also in small amounts been able to begin funding things like the Consent-Based Siting Program out of that fund, and that work can start off a little bit in the very near term, even before we figure out how to make a sort of more permanent access to that fund possible. Okay. Let me just ask a technical question that was Mr. Barrett, in your opening statement, I wrote down some— just so I understand, is all— I mean, I understand recycling, I understand reprocessing.

Is all nuclear waste— it's not all the same. So I'm thinking if you're a state such as mine, would you have— and keep in mind, we don't have any nuclear facilities. Would you if you're doing permanent disposal, do you have to have different facets to dispose of it, or can you put it all in one singular disposable geologic formation? Just, I'm kind of curious about that. There's nominally 3 types of nuclear waste.

There is low-level waste, which is currently disposed of in the United States and worldwide in, on surface facilities. Basically, it It lasts 100 years or so, or 200 years. Medical waste is a primary part of that. And then there is high-level waste. That's the highly radioactive part, like spent fuel or the residue from recycling.

That goes into a deep geologic repository worldwide. There's potentially a third level that's known as intermediate-level waste internationally, which would be sort of some of the less active residue from recycling primarily. Defense waste transuranics that is disposed of in New Mexico in the deep salt formation is an example of that sort of thing. We do not have that in the commercial world here of any significant amount. So you can always put them in— all waste could go into a very deep repository if you wish to do so, but you don't necessarily economically need to do it.

Now, the countries that are doing this, like Sweden and Finland and all, and French, they are putting all their intermediate level and high-level waste deep underground. But you could put it less to the surface, which might be less expensive. Okay. But you have to have the proper regulations for it. And the NRC is reviewing those, their current low-level waste, and looking at potentially having intermediate-level waste in a near-surface disposal, sort of in between.

So there are different types of waste, but they all can be disposed of in safely now and have long-term performance to protect future generations according to the type of waste it is and its toxicity and its characteristics. Okay. Well, thank you for that. I'm reflecting back to when I was a child and I would ask my dad for something and he goes, "Well, I don't have to be a nuclear scientist to tell you this, but I might have to be a nuclear scientist to understand all of this." So I appreciate that clarification. And while we were chatting, Senator Lummis, whose state I believe is affected by this as well, is here.

So as soon as she's ready, I'll let her begin her questioning. Madam Chairman, thank you. I'm so— I get a chance to ask a couple of questions to our witnesses, and thank you for your patience. So the cost of spent fuel storage As I understand, it is about $8 million per site per year for each year we do not have a permanent storage solution.

Ms.— is it Murian? Thanks for being here. Can you please speak to the significance of that number?

Absolutely. As a former public utility commissioner, we are We have been focused on this for a long time about the cost of this and trying to make sure that the government— and of course, we're excited about the leadership of this committee and others and working on this problem. Yes, these costs continue to mount. Those have consequences not only on the electric customers who've paid in to make sure that there is a solution, but also on taxpayers who are paying for the liability that's accumulating and is paid out of the that of the Judgment Fund, and also, of course, on the host communities who— we do believe that the fuel is spent, fuel is safe where it is. But they were promised that in return for payments and in return for their service in keeping this on site, that the government would start picking this up in 1998.

And of course, that has not happened. So we're hoping that going forward and with these inlet states and other states who are interested in new nuclear endeavors, that we can get this right next time and ensure that we have the program in place to support all of these states and all of these new investments. Thank you. So I understand that some of our European countries have geological repositories— France, Finland, Sweden— and Finland has constructed something called a nuclear waste TUM, which passed safety tests last month. So Mr. Barrett and Dr. Huff, is there anything the U.S. can learn from these countries with regard to site selections and licensing processes?

And are there technical or regulatory reasons those approaches could not be replicated here? Mr. Barrett? We've, we've worked with those countries for decades technically, so that's not an issue. The issue here is one of our social political establishment versus theirs.

Let's take Finland, which is the leader. They're actually building and will be in place shortly. They have no states, okay? It's basically the federal central government and local people. If we had that situation here in America, we would be— this would have been done years ago.

But we are the United States of America, okay? And so that is a big difference. So we have to adjust our policies to work in our culture. All right, so we've learned a lot, we know a lot, and many of the concepts of, of consent-based siting and collaboration work is exactly what they do in Finland and France and Canada as well. So we've learned that, we know that, and we now have to better balance our program.

In the past of Yucca Mountain, it was almost all technical and it was not enough social, political side to it. Now we must have a balanced program that has both, because without the social, political viability, we are not going anywhere. Dr. Huff? Yeah, I agree completely. And I would add that the example of Canada, which Mr. Barrett mentioned, is a good one in the context of this lack of states in other examples.

And the Nuclear Waste Management Organization there in Canada has successfully sort of down-selected to a final repository repository site. And I think it's a promising example, and gratefully DOE and NWMO have MOUs to work together and understand each other, much like they do with Finland and other nations. So there's great hope there. Okay. My, my state of Wyoming is exploring— specifically Gillette, Wyoming, Campbell County— is exploring triso fuel.

And it's my understanding that it takes the shape of poppy seed-sized particles, or even some designs are using liquid fuel. So, Mr. Barrett, can you elaborate on the technical considerations for including these fuel types in a nuclear waste disposal plan? That is a very robust fuel form that is probably the best we have, and it was very compatible with geologic disposal as other forms as well. So it doesn't really change much. It is a very good thing.

It's very safe. And has great, you know, economic promise as well. But it's not a big issue as far as disposal. It goes very nicely into any type of disposal system. Thank you.

Madam Chairman, may I ask one more question? Thank you. DOE's Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus program would put fuel fabrication and used fuel disposition on a single site. Ms. McMurray and Dr. Hoff, can you speak to the value of letting states decide for themselves which roles they can play in advanced nuclear energy and the fuel cycle? We already discussed the advantages of having not to deal with states, as is true in Finland and Canada.

What do we do given the fact that We have a 10th Amendment, we have states, we have at least theoretically robust state rights. So what role can they play in advanced nuclear energy and fuel cycle?

I would say we've definitely learned the value of having states as partners and working with the government hand in hand on these things. I would encourage any states looking at being a campus or moving forward with respect to new nuclear investment to really encourage the permanent disposal aspect that I think that having that solution for the country is going to serve all the states interested in new nuclear endeavors well and will definitely address the trust issues that have been questioned. Thank you. Dr. Huff? One practical benefit of having states pretty integrally involved in defining their own roles is that states are often the centroid of state regulators and permitting, and that can help smooth the path to successful licensing of such facilities or hinder the path of successful such licensing.

And so direct involvement with those states that have the power and engagement from their communities to see that path go smoothly is a real benefit. Are you aware of some states states that are interested in exploring this? My understanding is that there are 6. So 5 were announced on July 1st and then West Virginia shortly thereafter. States— it sounds like states that are accustomed to coal, oil, gas, uranium, nuclear culturally are adapted to those technologies or embracing it.

And I'm grateful for that. Mr. Barrett, If the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses are intended to support fabrication and other activities, what regulatory or statutory uncertainties need to be resolved before companies or the government can justify investments in these facilities? I think the conventional fuel fabrication enrichment is pretty well established fact for decades, so that I think can continue sort of in a normal way. I think for the— for the disposal aspect of things, we don't have— we only have modern standards for Yucca Mountain, and Yucca Mountain's not being considered here. So we need to establish the regulatory process from that for other— for other sites.

That can be done. We at American Nuclear Society proposed a report on how to do that, but the regulatory— EPA and the NRC need to pick that up. To work with the states to assure that that will— disposal part will be safe. As far as recycling, the NRC, I think, has the capability to— to support that from a regulatory safety point of view, and the DOE has technologies with its national laboratories to assist applicants as they are working together to develop recycling technologies and others that will meet all the safety requirements. So I think it's— there's a robust system there, and I think it can serve our nation well.

Well, I thank our witnesses. And Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for a little extra time. And I get to tee up Mr. Markey because I was taking too much time. So, Senator Markey. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Lummis. Yucca Mountain was never going to be a permanent repository for nuclear waste. For many reasons, but one major mistake was Congress's failure to ask for permission. Not only does proper nuclear waste management require a great deal of scientific and engineering prowess, which was missing, by the way— shouldn't be building a nuclear waste site on an earthquake fault next to a river— but it also requires social buy-in and public consent that can take a long time to build. But can be lost in an instant.

If we're going to ask a community to host radioactive waste, they need and deserve to be informed of the risks and have a role in planning and decision-making, whether it's interim or permanent storage. The consequences of this misstep have been massive. The current state of nuclear waste management is de facto on-site storage that has forced communities to host waste for longer than they planned for. Decades and decades longer than they planned for. It's endless and it's expensive.

We're spending $2 million every day of your taxpayer dollars for the government's failure to figure out an adequate solution. The Trump administration just proposed new interim storage facilities in 5 different states. Although many details remain unresolved, the Department of Energy signed memoranda with 5 governors, but it hasn't clarified how its vision will be developed in tandem with affected communities. Dr. Huff, do you think community-level stakeholders will need to participate in the discussion around life cycle campuses in addition to state governments in order to avoid consent-based disagreements? Yes, I do.

Very much so. I do. What will happen if they do not get that social buy-in? Dr. Huff. Yeah, long term, there is no robustness to a system that has a lot of lack of local support or, you know, state support or federal.

You have to have all three, and you have to have tribal nations engaged in a government-to-government activity as well. So these are, for all intents and purposes, going to be permanent interim storage. Once they're there, those sites are never going anywhere. So the community has to understand that it's It's an interim permanent location in 5 places in our country. You'll have that nuclear waste for the rest of that state's history.

So without radical transparency and public consent, we are bound to repeat the very same mistakes which we did 40 years ago. Americans can't keep paying for this mistake in their taxpayer dollars and in compromised safety. This administration has fired members of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Our independent scientific watchdog over DOE's waste management policy. It has infiltrated and undermined the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission by firing the former chair, sending DOJ into the headquarters, and issuing executive orders that have led to fast and furious deregulations that create new limitations on the Commission's ability to ensure the safety and security of our reactor fleet.

Fleet. The Department of Energy is asking communities to trust it on storing nuclear waste, as well as on regulating enrichment, recycling, and other activities that have major safety and national security implications. But much like consent, trust takes years to build but only seconds to lose. Mr. McMurray, you have previously served at the NRC and on the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Can you explain the importance of maintaining an independent NRC and scientific oversight of DOE's waste management policies?

I think you might have meant to direct that question to Mr. Barrett with respect to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, but I will say that independence is very important in all of these processes, and it's why The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition has certainly supported getting the program out of DOE over the long term, that the— all of the— this program's entirety of being subject to every 4 years, every 8 years, having, having the, the goalposts kind of move in a different strategy has not served this program well. So we think that ultimately getting that kind of independence that you speak of would definitely make make progress on this entire issue. Yeah, and I apologize. Again, public trust is paramount. If the Trump administration is serious about finding a real solution to nuclear waste in this country, it would relinquish its chokehold over the NRC and the review board.

If it's not clear to the public that safety is being given priority and instead utilities or others are in a compromise in those safety protections, then the community will just turn on a facility in a nanosecond because of the danger. So that's ultimately what we're talking about. And the DOE's Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus initiative would set up integrated full-cycle nuclear ecosystems that could co-locate and support the entire nuclear value chain. This includes interim storage for intermediate and high-level waste, fuel reprocessing reactors, and even onsite manufacturing and data centers. However, we received little or no detail on how the agency and host states plan to prevent and mitigate the many security risks that come with fuel reprocessing.

Once plutonium is separated from spent nuclear fuel, it can be used to produce nuclear weapons. And again, Dr. Huff, are there proliferation— nuclear proliferation risks that would be created by siting reprocessing facilities on a large campus like those proposed by DOE? I believe that nuclear material security can be managed, but it's costly. You know, we store and manage very dangerous nuclear materials across this nation. However, the process of enabling a private entity, for example, to conduct that work also has to include strict regulations with regard to nuclear material security at those facilities, which will need government oversight.

Site and is likely to be costly. So it'll have to incorporate itself into the economics. So, uh, yeah, there's definitely going to be big questions on personnel access, how it's going to be managed, reprocessing, um, and if DOE is going to change the campus plan to change traditional personnel and security measures, uh, we're going to have big proliferate nuclear proliferation risk because that uranium and plutonium is the only thing missing. From the ability to build a nuclear bomb. So the security will have to be intense.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, if I could, um, uh, let me add to that. I agree with much of what you just said about the importance of the independence and the connection, but DOE needs to work with the states and the communities to develop what the rules are. So DOE cannot initially say, here's how it's going to be, the details that you well spoke to that we have to do, but it has to be done in a partnership with the host state and with the communities. As it relates to the Technical Review Board, I was a Republican on the Technical Review Board appointed by President Biden.

I was fired on the first day, first full day of the Trump administration. But I have confidence that in the federal system of the NRC and others and my one remaining colleague on the Technical Review Board, that safety will be given to the American people no matter what goes forward, and that the American people should have confidence in what's going forward as some of these political things play their way out. So, I believe the safety is there, and we are now on an approach that will address the issues of the social side that we have got to do better on, and we're on our way to do that. Thank you. Yeah, I would just say, overconfidence breeds complacency.

And complacency breeds disaster. So to the extent to which everybody turns into a cheerleader and we've lost that sense of responsibility to make sure it is safe, then we're setting up a consequence where you go another 30 years with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as a shadow over the nuclear industry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you all very much.

With no further questions, I would like to thank the witnesses, as I just just did, and all of my colleagues for participation in today's hearing. Senators who wish to submit written questions for the record have until 5:00 PM on Wednesday, October 7th to do so. The witness responses to these questions are due back to the committee no later than 5:00 PM on Wednesday, October 21st, and will be submitted for the record. With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.