Nuclear Spent Fuel Policy & Lifecycle Innovation Campuses Hearing — September 15, 2026

16:25Well, good morning. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to order, and the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. Today, the Energy Subcommittee will examine the Department of Energy's work to develop nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses.

16:43These campuses represent a new effort by the DOE and administration to, quote, transform the nuclear fuel cycle. The program intends to support the nation's nuclear policy ambitions, as well as begin to address the federal government's statutory responsibility for disposal of nuclear waste.

17:08This involves taking spent fuel from reactors around the nation to a state that volunteers to host a campus where the fuel can be stored, recycled, and related waste disposed. When it comes to increasing reprocessing my view is it about time Our policy should be to use our technological abilities to take full advantage of the remaining usefulness of spent fuel and this in turn reduces the waste that must be placed in a permanent repository Maximizing the remaining energy and other useful isotopes from spent fuel presents an attractive financial incentive for taking a more holistic look at the fuel cycle.

17:48This explains why six states so far are stepping up to negotiate how to develop in partnership with the DOE life cycle innovation campuses. Additionally, it may offer a workable path for updating our nuclear waste policy.

18:05But of course, there's a long way to go to develop durable state agreements and durability is the key. The idea of consolidating spent fuel from sites under a federal program with voluntary host states is not a new one.

18:21Congress authorized the nuclear waste negotiator to set up something like that in the early 1990s. For various reasons, that did not work out, as have other efforts with respect to attracting durable state support.

18:35What must be done differently this time around? There are also commercial and economic realities when it comes to our fuel cycle that factor into what may eventually develop. This hearing will help identify what Congress must do to enable continued work on these campuses given their potential.

18:56Our focus should be on policies that complement existing law and the designated federal disposal site at Yucca Mountain and protect the interest of ratepayers and taxpayers under this law. This means not rushing to restart fees on nuclear power generation or irresponsible the nuclear waste fund.

19:14We should not forget our bipartisan legislative work in 2018 provided substantial changes to the law that would have incentivized completion of the Yucca license, enhanced host state benefits, and accelerated the type of program envisioned in the current proposal.

19:30These reforms passed the House by a vote of 340 to 72. Unfortunately, politics obstructed the potential for the reforms. Perhaps the tremendous support of nuclear in recent years means we're in a different place today.

19:52We'll take testimony from two panels. On the first panel, we'll hear from the Department of Energy. The second is the Assistant Secretary of Energy, Ken Garish. who heads the Office of Nuclear Energy and can explain the program, state interactions, and what Congress may do to help enable its progress forward.

20:09Our second panel will provide perspective from key stakeholders. We will hear from Stacey Paradis and Illinois Public Utility Commissioner speaking on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Electric ratepayers under the law are responsible for paying for their ultimate disposal of nuclear waste, and she can speak to the importance of protecting rate pair funding and the Nuclear Waste Fund.

20:34Maria Korzenik will provide the perspective of the Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI, on the fuel cycle and on policies surrounding storage and disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Jared DeRosever will speak on behalf of the Decommissioned Plants Coalition, where it represents closed nuclear plants that continue to store spent fuel.

20:55And finally, Greg White, also a former state utility commissioner, will provide the perspective of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, which represents a range of stakeholders that seek to get our nuclear waste policy back on track.

21:10We welcome the witnesses that are with us today and I greatly appreciate your testifying. And I yield back the balance of my time. And at this time, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's 14th district, the ranking member of the subcommittee for a five minute opening statement.

21:23Well, thank you, Mr.

21:27Chairman, and welcome to our witnesses this morning. Today's hearing addresses an important bipartisan topic, how we deal with the issues of spent nuclear fuel. When we passed the Advance Act last Congress, we recognized that the Department of Energy must do more to safely manage, recycle, and store this fuel, particularly as we work to revitalize America's nuclear energy industry.

21:52Yet, as our country and our neighbors back home grapple with an energy crisis and exorbitant costs, it is frustrating that this will be the only hearing of the Energy Subcommittee for six months. This subcommittee last had a hearing in June, and after this week won't meet again until at the earliest in November.

22:19one hearing in 21 weeks Meanwhile the average household in the United States has had to pay an additional more due to the rising costs under this administration and this Congress Thanks to the president reckless war in Iran, the average family back home in my community in Tampa Bay has paid an additional $471 for gas.

22:40Farmers are facing diesel prices above $6 a gallon on top of increased costs for inputs like fertilizer right as we enter harvest season across the country. Electricity bills are way up to up 15% in the last 18 months and that's before the utilities requested even more rate increases to fund at least 1.4 trillion dollars in capital expenditures by 2030 largely driven by the demands of AI data centers and the rising costs due to illegal and arbitrary tariffs.

23:17This committee should be working to address these issues we need to advance bipartisan permitting reform particularly to plan permit and pay for the transmission needed to build a 21st century electric grid if we're serious about scaling all forms of energy including nuclear and connecting large loads to the grid then we need to reform our broken interconnection cues but this committee has been absent in that Nuclear energy is important, but the president's own energy information administration has told us what energy is coming online this year.

23:5386 gigawatts of generation is made up of 51 percent solar, 28 percent batteries, 14 percent wind, and 7 percent gas. Unfortunately, the administration's policies are making it harder for those, for many of those resources to connect, meaning that prices are going to continue to go up for our neighbors back home.

24:21I know these are challenging issues, but Republicans on this committee cannot keep running away from them. You cannot play ostrich. The costs are too high on the people we represent back home. Now, under this administration, the Department of Energy has taken some creative approaches to dealing with the challenge of nuclear waste.

24:42In July, DOE announced it had signed MOUs with five states interested in hosting nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, and a sixth state just signed on last week. The United States has more than 90 metric tons of spent fuel some of which could be recycled to produce power again and has like has been done in other countries While this progress is notable, I'm concerned that it may come at the expense of proper safety and environmental guardrails.

25:10And let me be clear, any efforts to find new sites for long-term nuclear waste disposal requires congressional approval. I worry that the administration is also ill-equipped to carry out this work after Doge forced out experts across the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

25:31Last year, President Trump illegally fired NRC Commissioner Hansen and then dismissed seven of the eight commissioners of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which is supposed to provide independent oversight. We are responsible for for protecting our communities that host nuclear plants and spent fuel.

25:53Like in Citrus County, Florida, about 90 miles north of Tampa Bay, which began retiring its Crystal River nuclear plant in 2013, following safety concerns about its containment facilities. When nuclear projects are not properly maintained, retired, and cleaned up, those costs are often paid by ordinary families in the form of higher electric bills.

26:17And that's not right. These communities are counting on us to keep them safe and make life more affordable. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today so this committee can conduct better oversight of the administration's progress and chart a path forward that protects our neighbors back home while advancing America's leadership in nuclear energy.

26:37Thank you, and I yield back.

26:38The gentleman yields back. And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.

26:46Thank you, Chair Alotta. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Thanks, Secretary, for being here today. We appreciate seeing you again. And so as momentum grows in support of nuclear energy, so do economic opportunities and potential new options for durable nuclear fuel and waste policy.

27:01States have been stepping up to expand to develop nuclear programs while working to provide the sites, the supply chains, and the fuels for the reactors we will need to secure our energy future. Today, we'll be examining a Department of Energy proposal relating to spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

27:19Packaging nuclear waste disposal obligations within a broader economic development program has prompted several states to come forward voluntarily to express interest in learning more about what it would mean to become a host site The economic benefits of the proposed Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation Campus program could amount to billions of dollars over decades and include workforce and tax-based benefits that could transform communities.

27:46Under current law, which I continue to support, the communities surrounding Yucca Mountain and the host state already stand to benefit from a $90 billion project to provide a permanent repository for nuclear waste. Yet, even under current law, the need to develop alternative repositories and new technologies to deal with spent fuel and waste has always been on the horizon.

28:07This project is in its beginning stages, so I look forward to discussing what may be done to enable an important opportunity while protecting the long-term interests of ratepayers who fund the nuclear waste program and taxpayers.

28:19Thank you, and I yield back.

28:22The gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.

28:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nearly 70 years ago, the US first ever commercial nuclear power plant opened, and ever since, nuclear energy has been an important source of carbon-free electricity generation. Unfortunately, while many things have changed, one thing was true back then that's still true today, and that is that we have no real plan about what to do with the spent fuel that comes out of nuclear reactors.

28:52Today we find ourselves on the edge of a potential nuclear renaissance. I have spent a lot of time this year discussing the risk to that renaissance posed by declining public confidence in the industry, especially after the Trump administration spent last year attacking our safety framework for nuclear energy.

29:10But just as important to public confidence, especially in the communities that actually host nuclear plants, is figuring out what to do with the waste. For years, the answer was that we would find a single location in the country to house all the waste.

29:23But after decades, we're no closer to achieving that goal than we were back when Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982. That's why recent proposals to get buy-in from states have much more promise than a top-down approach.

29:37However, at the end of the day, any agreement with the state will live and die by trust. And frankly, it's been impossible to trust the Trump White House or the Trump Administration's Department of Energy.

29:47DOE has admitted in court that it has canceled investments in states for political reasons, so I'm concerned that they could pull the same nasty illegal trick with states that commit to the nuclear innovation campuses.

30:00DOE has also had an astonishing lack of transparency when it comes to its plans to authorize nuclear reactors for research purposes. I also have deep concerns with some of the specifics of the legislative proposal the Administration has put forward to enable the innovation campuses.

30:17The proposal declared that the innovation campuses would automatically receive any environmental permits and that none of the activities related to the innovation campuses would be subject to judicial review. I want to be clear, that's an absolute non-starter, and those provisions cannot and will not become law.

30:37I'm also cautious about the Administration's focus on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Reprocessing technologies have potential, and I was happy to support a bill to clarify the licensing pathway for some reprocessing facilities just a few weeks ago at our markup.

30:53The reality is that right now it's simply not economic, and we don't know if it ever will be. I don't want states, taxpayers, or ratepayers to get stuck with the bill for a technology that isn't proven or doesn't pan out.

31:04And while there may be a place for reprocessing in the nation's spent fuel disposal strategy, we must be strategic and thoughtful about what that place is, and I'm concerned that the Administration isn't quite there yet.

31:17But I don't want to be overly negative about these initiatives, Mr. Chairman. I want to work with you and Assistant Secretary Garish and my colleagues to get this right. These innovation campuses represent a once in a generation opportunity to make progress on an issue that our nation has struggled with for 70 years.

31:35Things are going to have to change if this is going to work. The Department of Energy will have to become much more transparent about all its activities in the nuclear space. It will also have to make credible commitments that all interference with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will stop and never return.

31:51But perhaps most important, we don't have to solve all these issues in one proposal. Just getting something on the table that would allow communities which shut down nuclear plants like Oyster Creek at my home state to start moving the fuel away into a central site, even if it's temporary, will be more progress than we've ever seen.

32:11So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

32:16Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. And this concludes member opening statements. the Chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members opening statements will be made part of the record We thank our witness for appearing before us today and taking time to testify The witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from our members Our witness today is the Honorable Theodore J Garish, the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, the United States Department of Energy.

32:46And Mr. Garish, we really appreciate you being here and you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement.

32:55Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and subcommittee, Ranking Member Castor, and Chairman Guthrie, and Ranking Member Pallone. It is an honor to be back in front of the committee. I have spent many years in a bipartisan manner dealing with exactly the issues that we have today.

33:17I do want to focus on one word that you used that is very important, and that is partnership. I come here to the committee. This is going to have to be a cooperative effort between the administration and the Congress to move forward, and this is extremely important for us to do that.

33:33I thought it would be helpful to begin today with a conversation. Let me start, I think the first question is, why are we here now? It has been, except for the 1980s and the Bogle plants, we haven't had much activity in nuclear.

33:52But now with the new demand, electricity has been flat up until now. We see a tremendous growth in nuclear, and what that is gonna mean is we're going to need nuclear, and nuclear's day is about to start.

34:06The President set forth several executive orders, and he really started some new enthusiasm for nuclear. And I want to talk about first the three criticalities that were set for July 4th. I think none of us thought that that was going to be possible for any of us to do that.

34:26But we went to work on the authorizations and new entrepreneurs came in and with their new designs got to work. I think we surprised ourselves. Instead of three, we got four, and now we have five and we have more coming.

34:40And this has really set the path to the future for nuclear. And we proved that we could do this safely. This led to our next element, which was the launch pad, which we are going to try to institutionalize this approach for new designs and move them forward Then the Department of War launched its micro reactor programs And now the interest from countries all over the world to protect their bases from unreliable electricity so that they would have support for that.

35:14We're doing that in the United States. We plan to do that. And this is very important. We also needed other things which we've started with this administration. The second item was the new domestic enrichment with the Russian ban.

35:27We have three projects and we have Urenko also expanding, very important. We have the advanced reactor development program, which is mainly involving TerraPower and X-Energy, two really unique advanced reactors. We have the The Gen 3 Plus we awarded for TVA and GE and Holtec.

35:55These are all important and important steps, but there has been one really new surprise to me, and that is we've seen new technologies and interest in reprocessing and recycling. At least six companies and maybe more have come forward with advanced reprocessing and want to develop systems.

36:17and some of this includes what I would refer as circular plants. In other words, they will actually make the electricity, they'll take the product that comes out, they will recycle it to some degree, and they'll actually amazingly burn their own radionuclides that come out and the transuranics that come out of this process.

36:42This is completely new and completely different, And what it does is it reduces the amount of waste and reduces the toxicity. So these are all some new ideas that have come, and it has given us a huge advantage now because in addition to everything else with the development of these new businesses, everyone wants to be in the same location.

37:06And there are huge advantages to doing that. We have reduced transportation. We have shared security in these areas that will include reprocessing, but it will also include enrichment fuel fabrication and potentially the circular processes for the reactors What has happened then another factor has been the disposal technologies have changed too.

37:42Instead of having a gold-plated Yucca Mountain, there are some new techniques in terms of deep borehole which have allowed us additional methodologies to move forward to complete and dispose of nuclear waste. Much simpler.

37:58So the industry is moving on, and this led us to the concept of the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. Twenty-six states had responded to our RFI. They said that they were all interested, 26 states, and this was reduced after discussions to six states.

38:19And we are now down to, and we have signed MOUs with each of those states and are moving forward. The interest in these campuses is extremely broad in terms of economics. We anticipate $51 billion in outside private investment.

38:35This does not include the federal government's investment in whatever the waste aspect is. $10 billion in tax-

38:41And pardon me, Mr. Assistant Secretary, we're over time. Could you just wrap up real quick, please?

38:48quickly, let me tell you how I think we need to start. We need to do several things that we were asking the committee to take a look at. We would like to eliminate the exclusivity of Yucca Mountain.

38:59We would like to see a federal authorization of the administration to allow these lifecycle campuses. We would like reprocessing to make the policy of the United States. We would like like to provide storage at sites, and they would work out the mechanism for the first fuel that would travel and resolve the financial aspects.

39:22These are the ideas we would like to start in this program, and thank you for the opportunity to appear today and respond to your questions.

39:29Well, thank you very much. This will conclude the testimony of our witnesses, and we will begin the questionings from our members, and I will begin with recognizing myself for five minutes. You mentioned something a little bit earlier, and I think it's really important, because one of the great things about serving in the Energy and Commerce Committee is that when you set up on this diastrophe, we're actually looking over the horizon five to 10 years.

39:52And so we wanna make sure that we're helping the entrepreneurs and innovators out there to be able to succeed. And hearing what your testimony of the day, hopefully we've been helping out there to make sure these things are coming to pass.

40:04And something else I always ask our witnesses, especially when we're dealing with energy, is you answered it in your testimony. I always ask, do we have to have more energy in this country or less?

40:12And you answer in your testimony that on page two, you said the country continues to need more energy, which is absolutely correct. And I'd like to ask my first question, especially on the advanced reactor developments out there.

40:28Because again, this is a lot of the future. You know, we're going forward with our larger facilities, but it's the SMRs out there that are really, where there's so much technology. And, you know, how is it that now, because, you know, if you sat in this committee five, six, seven years ago, this is something like pie in the sky that people said, oh, it's never going to happen, or it's going to take too long.

40:51And here we are today. So how is it now we are talking about SMRs and advanced reactors?

40:58Well, they are the future. In other words, some of these new technologies are extremely advanced. They, in many ways, are safer than even our currently safe reactors, and they are easier to operate. They are what we refer to as walk-away safe.

41:17These are very important developments. We have several that are currently coming along. they're being supported by the department, and this is the future. And the fuels that they're going to need are all new.

41:29Everything is new, and this is the future.

41:33Well, and I think that's so important because one of the things I've looked at, and we know what the French have been doing, is on recycling. And, you know, there's estimates out there. We have between 100 to 150 years of fuel just in the spent rods we have all across the country.

41:50And, you know, when you talk about these new technologies, what again has spurred so many companies wanting to get involved in this today? Because again, just looking back just a few years, it's just like, well, never going to happen and here we are on the cusp today, especially when you look on the Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation Campus, recycling is going to be such a big part.

42:13Well, there are a couple of things that are important to these new technologies. One is that we are able to do a variety of new uses. They smaller they can be placed in locations easier or they can be put together And some of these technologies especially the circular programs look like the real future.

42:37In other words, they will be able to not have to go through a complete recycling, but do much to reduce the toxicity and quantities and move forward. So there is so much to do when we're testing each of these right now and that is what the job the Energy Department at the Idaho National Laboratory is to really do the research to make sure that these are viable, economic, and safe.

43:02Well, and just to follow up on that, because up in Canada and Darlington and Ontario, you know, they're talking about in 29 that that will be up and it will be in full operation in 2030.

43:14How far in advance do you think it will be before the United States is at that point?

43:19Well, that particular reactor has also been granted some funds in our TVA GE program to develop that reactor. In addition to that, the Commerce Department has looked at developing 10 more of those reactors at TVA and getting them into place in the next couple of years to move that forward.

43:43So that has also been extremely good for the process of regulation because it has been a cooperative effort between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian authority to help

43:54regulate that. Well, you know, we're talking about on the recycling, but, you know, this committee's also been very active about making sure that we're not relying on Russia. And in the last 38 seconds that I have, how important is it to make sure that, you know, the United States has its own uranium

44:12and not rely on other countries in 30 seconds? It is the one of the most important aspects of this is we must have our own fuel cycle, we must enrich our own fuel, we must have our own uranium, and our own reactors.

44:25This is an extremely important program.

44:28Well, again, thank you very much for being here, and I will yield back the balance of my time and recognize the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member, for five minutes for questions.

44:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Garris, for being here. In January, The Department of Energy said it wanted initial nuclear lifecycle campuses online in the 2027 timeframe and you referenced that the department has signed six MOUs Can you clarify what those MOUs are It looks like they are memorandums of understanding to continue conversations between the states and DOE.

45:08It's not necessarily the identification of specific host communities or construction funding. Is that right?

45:15Yes. Well, we're asking the communities to commit to certain things. One is to co-locate their nuclear facilities, number one, and number two, to designate a site for final disposition within the state. So in other words, we will work through with them the manner in which that they would like to develop these.

45:37In other words, there is economic benefit for the states that do this, and we believe that they can develop their own process to make this work. And we are going to then encourage the co-location and the centralization of this within the state because of the tremendous economic advantages.

45:54So Mark, explain what you envision with the timeline working with those communities and with this committee and Congress.

46:03The timeline will depend a lot on what our authorities are to move forward. And one of the things that we need most at this time is to allow the Department of Energy and the Secretary to work with the states to authorize us to do it.

46:22Currently, we cannot move forward on that because of the exclusivity of Yucca Mountain. In other words, that is the only area that we are currently authorized. And we would like the authority to move forward to help the state

46:35And move forward, you mean things like groundwater testing, geological screening, independent site characterization? I mean, there's a lot of work that has to do.

46:46All of the things that the states will be very interested in doing in order to promote these facilities.

46:53So earlier this month, the committee passed my bill, the DOE Nuclear Transparency Act, in response to some bipartisan concerns we've had over the past year with changes at DOE and the nuclear safety rules and the reactor pilot program.

47:10You mentioned in your opening remarks that you view this as a partnership with Congress, and I appreciate that. Will you commit to the committee that the department will be more transparent with the Congress as it runs the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad initiative I hope that we are transparent as opposed to more I hope we fully transparent with you

47:35We were able to put all of those regulations and those changes on the public record, and those materials are available now, and those decisions are made always notified to the Congress when we move forward with these.

47:50Well, because we've also heard from former Department of Energy staffers, they've raised concerns that this is an overly rapid pace, coupled with this deregulatory crusade by this administration, that they think this would increase the risks of these projects.

48:10And 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 campuses are going to require community buy-in, which will need to last beyond any one administration.

48:29Given that this administration has gutted certainty for communities invested in other forms of energy, such as the arbitrary illegal cancellation of fully permitted energy projects, why should communities trust that the federal government and the Department of Energy is a trusted partner now?

48:47Public 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. I believe what we did with the pilot program was mainly eliminate redundancies and things that were these regulations that had grown and grown over the years.

49:11What we did is simplify them. We emphasize safety, and I think if you'll ask anyone that participated on the other side, they will tell you we were the toughest regulators that they had the experience, and they learned a lot in the process.

49:26I think you will see a change in the entrepreneurs that are coming forward now and understanding

49:30that. Can you do this with the staff that you have right now? Because we know that an independent analysis found in January that DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy has lost about one-third of its staff.

49:43It's always nice to have a larger staff. What we're trying to do is make a judgment now of how to do that going forward, and I think we will be making some announcements through our regular appropriations process.

49:58I hope. Certainly, as time has expired and yields back, the chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee of the General from Texas, providing us for questions.

50:07Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assistant Secretary Garrish, as DOE considers the role of NLIC, do you see privately owned nuclear fuel recycling facilities as an important component of these campuses? And are there areas perhaps where additional congressional authority could help support that very commercial development, or I should say deployment.

50:30Absolutely. These will be private facilities, and they will need licensing assistance. We need to help the entire process, and that going forward will be a top priority for us.

50:47Well, thank you for that. Listening to your discussion with Ranking Member Castro, I was reminded that it's important to note, obviously, that reprocessing now is proving out actually, in our opinion, to be economical.

51:00Companies, there's some companies, like the Curio Company I'm familiar with, is leading the way on spent fuel recycling innovation. It can be done safely and cleanly. I've said that for a long time. We had a nuclear plant when I was in the state rep back in Matagorda County, and they did it cleanly and safely, changed out spent fuel rods.

51:21So I hope that we're all paying attention. I also want to focus on something you said in earlier testimony. You said something about limiting the exclusivity of Yucca Mountain. So are you we're paving the way for a company's individual processors to come in and do that very thing and do it cleanly and safely.

51:39Would you agree?

51:41Yes. Well, we can't do this, these campuses and authorize these campuses by the department. The way that law currently sits is we must do that at Yucca Mountain. And what we need to do is allow us the flexibility to have an additional method to move forward.

52:01We'd like to know now, Texas applied, I think it was one of the 21 states you named. Are you familiar with how they either rated or didn't rate?

52:12These were self-rated. In other words, they came to us and said that they were interested. And they came to talk to us about what is needed. And we went down the line and one of the important elements was that not only did they get the economic benefits in the front end from the front end of the fuel cycle but they had to be able to complete the back end of the fuel cycle and dispose of the materials And that took more discussion and more understanding, and we now have some additional technologies and some advancements that are improving that.

52:45Along those lines, will authorizing secondary disposal pathways in the law actually enable DOE to continue to negotiate with those very states that came forward?

52:54Yes. We can't do it without it.

52:56Okay. Will the DOA ensure that there is linkage to permanent disposal in any negotiations?

53:04That is, all this cannot be temporary. We must go to a final solution. We must close the fuel cycle.

53:14Well, final solution was a bad term in World War II. Some of us are old enough to remember that. Under the law, users of nuclear power pay a fee into a nuclear waste fund to pay for a program of permanent disposal.

53:27That 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?

53:41This is a question that Congress is going to have to work with us on. Obviously, this program needs to be paid for, and we do have sufficient funds to start. We have 56 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund, so we have money to start.

53:56I understand the reluctance to 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.

54:11Well, 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.

54:22That is how that money is to be used. That is the way the law is currently worded. And that is also subject to some discussion as to what is needed to make this successful.

54:33What we want to do is make it successful and we want to work with you to determine how to do that.

54:39So this may be getting a little procrastinating or maybe we're prognosticating is what it is. Should federal policies be updated to include reprocessing as part of the very system we're discussing for permanent disposal of waste?

54:53Do we need to do something with those policies I think it would be helpful to have that actually demonstrated as a policy of the United States in favor of reprocessing where technically and

55:06economically feasible. Well I don't have much time so I'm down to four seconds.

55:12Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's 50th district for five minutes for questions.

55:21Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for only this hearing. One key aspect of our nuclear strategy that has 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.

55:36We 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.

55:52That's why I was encouraged to see my Nuclear Refuel Act with Chair Lada pass last month, and that would do just that. You mentioned, Mr. Secretary, uranium. By the way, General Atomics, which is headquartered in my district, has been working on developing a uranium production facility that will be critical for national security and by itself would replace 15% of our uranium imports.

56:13I 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.

56:18We are looking at all mechanisms to really reduce importation of uranium, and that is one that we will examine.

56:26I'm also encouraged that these proposed nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, that can be an important part of our domestic nuclear strategy, as well as our strategy for addressing the question of waste disposal. And I would just say finally that Congress needs to be a partner in making this idea a reality.

56:45The Trump administration can't do it alone. This is especially important for members in districts like mine whose constituents are very concerned about spent nuclear fuel at shutdown plants. I seek unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to add to the record this article entitled, As the Coast Begins to Crumble, the Clock Ticks on Moving San Onofre's Radioactive Waste.

57:10Without objection, so ordered.

57:13Experts agree that the nuclear waste stored at San Onofre is stored safely. However, it was never meant to be there in perpetuity, so we need to get moving, we need to get this right.

57:22Mr. Secretary, you say in your written testimony that your mission with these campuses is not just to manage the nation nuclear waste but to maximize its beneficial use How does the department plan to prioritize what nuclear waste is getting transported to these campuses?

57:35And 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?

57:46This is a very complex question because it has a lot to do with which waste can be most easily reprocessed. And what I see is a combination program where we'll look for waste that is the easiest to do first, but we also need to take into account waste that currently exists at shutdown plants and at all plants.

58:11I think we need a combination, what we refer to as the Q, which is which comes first and who actually goes to the site. My suggestion is that we will come up with some kind of rulemaking at the department.

58:27We probably will need some provisions in whatever is done here at the committee, or we could do it in some rulemaking to determine which waste goes first and how we do it. It's a combination of both the old waste and the new waste, but first we have to get started.

58:47The most important thing right now is to get something moving.

58:50I agree. What kind of timing are you thinking of for that rulemaking that you mentioned?

58:56Well, as soon as we have the authority, I think we could probably do it in less than six months, I would think.

59:02That's great. I also understand the Department's long-term plans for the waste involves reprocessing and drilling deep boreholes into the ground where waste could potentially go. But one strategy that's proven and being used internationally is deep geological storage.

59:18What are the department's plans for finding a permanent geological storage site for this waste as part of the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses? And are you seeing success through the collaborative siting process the department is employing?

59:31That 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.

59:47The type of mined repository would be along the lines of what is currently in Finland, which is a much simpler repository. However, the deep borehole is, It can be just as effective as a methodology to do that.

60:04And the only difference is mining or drilling holes, and it's just the size of the final area that receives the waste. So either one will work, and the states, as part of their arrangement with us, this will be agreed to as a collaborative process with us.

60:27Great. Thank you for being with us today, and I yield back.

60:30Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chair of the full committee for five minutes for questions.

60:38Thank you Mr. Chair. Thanks for the recognition. Thank you Secretary for being here. So six states have already 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 is vulnerable to shifting politics.

60:53Can you describe what will be different with your approach and what What are the roles of governors and state legislators, and what will be required of them to assure any agreements will be durable?

61:05Durability is essential for this process. 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 I refer to as consent-based sites, which sounds like you're going to require something that will then be consented in.

61:26We want states to want to do this. And the thing that we will ask as we go forward is the location, what it's going to cost, and what our arrangements are going to be for us to do.

61:39The federal government will actually do this part of the project. But we need the site and the local communities agreement to move forward with this. This will be an extremely economic and useful process for the local communities, and they'll find this very economically beneficial.

62:08A lot of local communities debate a lot of things that a lot of us up here think are economically beneficial and they don't think they're economically beneficial or one of their communities. So we need to be careful with that.

62:18So, and it should be their decision. That's kind of my view on it. So we want to be careful about rushing any policy that would undermine our obligations to ratepayers who have paid into the fund to ensure permanent disposal of fuel Your proposal includes significant non economic development What will states and others bring to the table in terms of financial support for these campuses?

62:40Well, in terms of if you're referring to the discussion draft, there was a suggestion made as to how some of these funds would be used. Generally speaking, the idea is unless it is useful to reduce the amount of the waste or the toxicity of the waste, it would not be supported by the federal government.

63:03In other words, we would have to devise the mechanisms for expenditure of the nuclear waste fund, and currently that is only for waste disposal. The issue would be before the Congress, are there other things that you may want to use it for in terms of if you've got a reprocessing plant that reduces either the quantity or toxicity, is it useful for some of those monies to be paid out of the fund?

63:26Those are questions that are still to be answered and I would look to the Congress for their opinions on this and this is an extremely important area that we'll have to resolve. All right, thanks.

63:37Can you update us on the timeline for any negotiations with states? Right now what we would like to do is we're going to have a more formalized host agreement by the end of September.

63:48We anticipate that we are going to try and reach some kind of contractual methodology. We are looking for December 15th, if possible. The thing I want to avoid are handshakes and MOUs. In other words, I'd like to have some contractual arrangement with the federal government and an agreement to do so, and that would include necessarily some type of state legislation to basically lock that in.

64:20In other words, what you were referring to in terms of durability is extremely important. Once this gets started and the economic benefits begin, I think you will see tremendous approval from the states in allowing to do this.

64:36Generally speaking, the communities that are closest to nuclear facilities are the most positively inclined to support because they understand the safety elements and the risks and also the financial benefits for that particular project.

64:54Generally speaking it the communities that are closest that we want to deal with and we want to deal with that first That is what we want to do now once we get the authority for the states to designate these areas.

65:07Thanks. Everything we need to be doing here needs to be focused on how do you raise the standard of living for all Americans, or how does it improve our national security or our leadership in the strategic relationship with our friends around the globe?

65:21How 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?

65:32Homegrown, reliable nuclear power is affordable and economic and reliable. This is exactly what we need in the country. Some of these new technologies, like either the micros or the small modular reactors, allow us to spread this around the country so that many communities can get the advantages of this type of affordable electricity.

65:59Thanks. I'll ask you a long question as my time is expiring. I apologize. I'm sure we'll hear more. My time has expired. I appreciate your answer.

66:08Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's 8th District for five minutes for questions.

66:15Thank you, Chairman. For decades, the United States has struggled to address the storage of nuclear waste. Communities are highly cautious of hosting waste storage facilities, and it's easy to understand why. Families want to know that their energy infrastructure is safe.

66:28Mr. Garrish, 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?

66:36It needs to be handled properly and we know how to handle it properly and we can do that and we have done that.

66:46Is it correct that you testified before Congress more than 20 years ago as Deputy Director of DOE's Radioactive Waste Office? I may have done that, yes. I believe you did. I believe you told Congress that Yucca Mountain Program was, quote, poised for success.

67:0221 years later, we still don't have a permanent repository for commercial spent nuclear fuel. You're now back before Congress proposing a new approach. What specifically did DOE get wrong then, and what are you doing differently today?

67:16This 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

67:38I appreciate that. As the Trump administration, states and tech companies increasingly turn toward nuclear energy to meet growing energy demands from AI data centers. It's essential that we figure out how to safely and correctly handle nuclear waste.

67:50Mr. Garrish, at every hearing we've had on nuclear power, witnesses have testified that community trust is essential when it comes to building nuclear power plants. Would you agree or disagree?

68:00Well, waste handling in other countries is extremely important, and the way this works is each country must handle its own waste.

68:10My question was specifically about community trust being essential to this process. Do you agree or disagree, just yes or no?

68:16Community trust is absolutely essential. Safety is the number one priority. community understanding of the risks, and having a complete understanding of what this is in their community. And I have always found that all of these nuclear projects, as we mentioned here previously, the people that are closest understand it best and are the most supportive.

68:42So will you commit that the DOE will not cite a nuclear waste facility in a community without that community's consent?

68:49That is what we intend to do at this time. That is our plan.

68:53I appreciate that, and I'll take that as a commitment. And trust is built through independent regulators that keep safety at the center of their work. Is that accurate?

69:03I didn't understand that question.

69:05I apologize. And trust is built through independent regulators that keep safety at the center of their work. Is that accurate?

69:12The regulators must have high integrity and independence, and I'm certain that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will adopt those.

69:21I 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?

69:30That is an incorrect statement as to what has happened.

69:35That's a direct quote in terms of what the intent of this administration was to do with the NRC.

69:39It is not a direct quote from me, and I can tell you.

69:42I appreciate that, but you have to understand that there are other people in the administration who are saying those things.

69:46We have spent a 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.

70:00Okay, so on independence, again, just yes or no. Do NRC commissioners expressing fear of being fired if they fail to approve a reactor, foster trust, and foster the idea of independence?

70:10They need to be independent. I cannot tell you what it takes to make them independent. They have to make-

70:16I think not having political pressure and a president's pressure over them allows them to be independent. You've served in multiple administrations. I think you would agree with that statement.

70:25I'm not, there is no pressure being exerted on these commissioners.

70:31That's not what they testify to here in Congress.

70:34Well, I listened to some of the testimony and I did not hear that.

70:38Well, I would urge you to listen to it once again. And what about a mass exodus of staff in safety offices at NRC and in your own office? Does that foster trust?

70:48That was done because the incentives that were provided to reduce the amount of employment in the federal government. That was done for other purposes. Many people took advantage of that.

71:03I would say because there was this looming political pressure of this administration where they didn't feel like they'd be able to fulfill their mission at the DOE or the NRC, and that's why they resigned, or were forced out because there were a number of forced retirements.

71:18So listen, we got to get this right. I think you know that we have to get this right, but we need folks to feel like they can operate independently to put safety at the center of everything that we do.

71:27So I thank you for being here and I yield back.

71:29Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota, the at-large members. Five minutes for questions.

71:41Good morning, sir. Thank you for your expertise, your time here, and your recognition of the important tone we need to take when we're dealing with this important issue, one that's of great concern to the public and deserves complete transparency and utmost professionalism, which you are providing today.

72:01So I appreciate that. I'm curious about ... I'm a former utility regulator, so we don't have any nuclear in the state of North Dakota is something that our legislature is looking at and communities in North Dakota are looking at because we do have a long history of power generation, generating a lot of power for the region, coal-fired power, natural gas-fired power, and wind power.

72:24So we very familiar with that industry One of the issues of course one of the big challenges is the disposal and the waste disposal So I very intrigued by this campus approach and excited that you guys are pursuing the whole life cycle of the fuel.

72:43So you've mentioned one of the big things that Congress needs to do is authorize more than one campus. Is that correct? What else do we need to do to help facilitate the growth of this concept.

72:55Well, let me just go back to the first part of what you were saying. It seems to me that in your state, you can take advantage of nuclear power, and you don't have to have a campus.

73:06In other words, many states, that's the current arrangement. So what needs to be done is there is a tremendous economic benefit to these states that are determined to do this. So what's happening is that they are looking at those benefits and judging what the risks are.

73:27And they see the risk as low and are moving forward to doing that. So nuclear is not a risky enterprise. There are risks, and they are taken care of appropriately.

73:43Do we need to do anything else besides authorizing more than one campus so to help facilitate the growth of these campuses?

73:50I would allow us to authorize as many as, in the end, we need. I think it's more than one, and it may not be more than three. But in other words, I wouldn't want to necessarily limit the amount and the numbers and the characteristics because each of these states have different characteristics and could potentially take different types of ultimately disposal materials.

74:17Sure.

74:18You mentioned earlier that you're going to have to at some point create rules to prioritize which waste is processed and moved first. How will you go, and I want to get to a couple other questions, so kind of briefly, how will you go through that process of prioritizing the waste?

74:35It will probably be done through a rulemaking in which we require the people that want to take the waste for reprocessing. Then we want to take a look at the locations where it would go and how that would fit together.

74:47How will this waste be transported from, like I know there's a lot of waste stored outside of nuclear power generating facilities in the Minneapolis area How will that get to the place for processing Largely by rail OK And how will that be handled Will that be publicly known?

75:07Can you provide any insight on that? You have concerns about that at all?

75:11Transportation of nuclear waste is one of the items that most Americans don't really realize. There's a tremendous amount of transportation currently of these materials. and it is done completely safely and there has been virtually no incidents.

75:29And this is an ongoing activity that happens every day.

75:33Perfect. So it's a proven, well-established, safe process. What percent of the waste do you envision will ultimately be recycled and then how much will ultimately have to be stored permanently? I can't even give you an estimate of that.

75:50is going to depend on the technologies by the reprocessing folks. Some waste is of a particular type that it is more difficult to reprocess and will then be taken in its form, put into a cask, and then disposed of in that form.

76:06That is a very straightforward method. That's the way that we've always thought it was going to be done anyway without the reprocessing.

76:15Okay. And then I just have like 30 seconds left. What country is currently kind of leading the way in the recycling of the waste and who are we kind of emulating?

76:28Well, there's probably more recycling done in France than anywhere else currently.

76:33And what percent do they recycle versus store?

76:36I don't have, I can get you that answer.

76:39Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. That's all my questions. I yield back.

76:42The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bisi.

76:51The nuclear spent fuel policy is, I think, one of the really central unresolved questions standing between the United States and serious nuclear power expansion. We really do need to come up with a path on how we do this.

77:08We've had our issues even in Texas where I think that we've probably balanced energy probably better than any other state. We've had the controversy in Endrew County over the years, part of it going and being resolved all the way up to the Supreme Court at least a portion of it being resolved I think that the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses are the Department of Energy latest attempt to build that path forward But we have to make sure that we get this policy right And this is why I think this hearing is really important today.

77:40And I wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary, before the federal government selects a new site for repository, it needs to first establish a generic technology neutral public health standard against which potential designs and geologies can be evaluated.

78:01How do you suggest regulations best be updated?

78:06This is going to be a subject that the Congress will want to be involved with, I'm sure. However, there are several methodologies that how this could be done. My personal view is it needs to be done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the manner in which we would license plants in the same identical framework.

78:25In other words, we are the applicant and we must prove our case and they must provide adequate assurance of public safety in the process of approving our ability to move forward. That's the way I would do it and that's the way we do it throughout the country for plants and I think that that is exactly the same methodology that should be used.

78:47How will the Department of Energy pursue the site selection under the NLIC program compared to how Yucca Mountain was selected in 1987? What methods do you think DOE will use?

79:05Before we proceed in any of these campuses and determine, we will have some look at the geology that we're dealing with. we will have some understanding as to the feasibility of that. Now, the process that the Congress went through was, took years and years to actually do the science in order to make that determination.

79:30And then at the end of the day, it was Congress that made the determination as to how to proceed. I'm hoping that we can do this voluntarily with the states and work through what needs to be done and make sure it is safe at the time before we proceed.

79:47Yeah, I wanted to ask you, in your opinion, do you think that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides enough flexibility for a modern spent fuel system that includes interim storage processing and eventual permanent disposal, or does Congress need to clarify the statute before the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses can function as envisioned?

80:11We need clarification and we need a provision so that we don't have exclusivity to only Yucca Mountain as the only solution. We need to work on that bill eventually to change several aspects of it to make it work for the new program.

80:29Yeah. And just to give the American public a more clear picture of what that looks like, can you explain that if we were to be able to move forward with Innovation Campus's plan, what would success look like 10, 20 years from now?

80:46Because I think with a lot of the issues that we're having around energy, you know, now you can throw data centers in there and their energy consumption. I think that people want to have a better and clearer understanding of what that looks like in the immediate future, but as you know, the nuclear process obviously takes some time.

81:03So what does success look like 10, 20 years from now?

81:07Three or four successful campuses operating the complete aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, from enrichment and reprocessing and all of the other elements, and including some campuses that have circular programs for power and waste together.

81:24I would see that three or four campuses operating successfully and there would be waste disposal at those sites.

81:37Yeah, wow, that's amazing. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Are you all back on time?

81:46Gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas or Georgia, Mr. Allen, excuse me. Good, thank you. Sorry, not Texas.

81:54Well, we're both having fun right now in Georgia and Texas, but anyway. I want to thank Chair Lada for holding this important hearing to discuss the federal government managing spent fuel, and I thank you, Mr. Garrish, for being here from the Department of Energy to talk about this important subject and what current law offers.

82:21As we work to expand nuclear energy capabilities in the United States we address the management of spent nuclear fuel I think we all agree on that This issue is particularly significant for my district and state given that both Plant Vogel the largest nuclear energy producing plant in the country, and Savannah River site located across the Savannah River, which 40% of my district works at, currently house spent nuclear fuel.

82:43Congress previously took action to address spent nuclear fuel by amending the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and selecting Yucca Mountain in 1987 as the site for that permanent repository and set up a trust fund to do this.

83:11In your testimony, Mr. Garrish, you're offering an option for nuclear waste that involves new host states taking up some of the burden for disposing of fuel. I want to be real clear, you and the administration are not walking away from existing law for a repository at Yucca Mountain.

83:33Are you offering a supplementary path and is that the right direction to go?

83:41We are offering and would like to have a collaborative approach. 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.

83:53So what I would like to do is say okay to the yes folks and follow through and develop a program that makes it work for them.

84:07So 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 host

84:19states that you say have said yes? We've had very positive discussions with most of the governors and the governor's staffs in these states. These are extremely positive and I just want to emphasize that they want to move forward with this approach.

84:37There 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 and how difficult is this process going to involve It 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.

85:10Well, Congress has supported DOE developing a pilot consent-based program for interim storage. How does the work of that program inform what you're proposing to do today?

85:26That was a start, but it did not include, that was just for waste. In other words, they went around to see if they could find other states that would do consent-based siting. The department has spent a lot of money with a lot of states with very little positive results.

85:46What we want to do is put the incentives in to allow the states the benefits of the entire fuel cycle, including the waste end. When we do that, we get people that want to say yes, not just take our money and say, okay, let's do some studies.

86:05Well, we know spent fuel is completely safe being stored on site and will be for the foreseeable future. is we all hope the nuclear campuses are capable of dealing with both the front end and back of the fuel cycle.

86:19What is the urgency to move forward when the reprocessing technologies haven't been demonstrated on a commercial site scale?

86:31They are being demonstrated in our labs and they are being demonstrated in smaller capacities. I believe that these technologies will work, and what we need to do is give them a chance to make it work.

86:49And I think that they're going to invest their own money in doing this, so I say let's bring it on.

86:58Okay, well, I am out of time, so Mr. Chairman, I have some further questions. I'll submit those for the record and would appreciate your response on that. With that, I yield back.

87:09The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the member from Massachusetts, Mr. Auchincloss, for five minutes.

87:16Thank you, Chair. Assistant Secretary, I appreciate your testimony. I strongly support nuclear power as a clean sovereign reliable and when built to scale affordable power source for the American people And I understand that whether we talking about micro reactors that are forward deployed at military sites, whether we're talking about small modular reactors, whether we're talking about grid scale, utility scale, large reactors, this issue of fuel both as an operating expense and as a recycling issue is critical.

87:52For that reason, I visited just last week Project Omega, which is a startup company in my district in Fall River that's doing incredible work on next generation nuclear recycling technology. And they're partnering with ARPA-E with some grants to demonstrate how they can continue to reprocess nuclear waste to capture economically valuable fuel in a way that releases us from dependency on Russia and also saves taxpayer dollars because the Department of Energy spends billions of dollars every year on handling this stuff.

88:34And it's a lot cheaper to manage 1,000 kilograms and 100 million kilograms of nuclear waste. So this is promising technology. They're working with ARPA-E. They could be, I think, a very valuable stakeholder in the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, which concept I do support.

88:52How can the Department of Energy help, in addition to RPE grants, Project Omega and other similar startups applying technology to help solve this problem?

89:04We met with Omega, and I too was impressed with their technology and what they intended to do. They intend to bring their own funds to make this happen. The entire presentation was very impressive.

89:20I think what we need, they're just asking for a chance to actually do this in the United States.

89:28They're asking for a chance to save taxpayers dollars and deliver cheaper energy.

89:33That's exactly it. This company and others have come to us. and it is amazing to me to see five or six companies just like them for different technologies, sometimes the complete recycling, sometimes for medical isotopes, sometimes a combination of all these things.

89:55And I think, to me, what we should do is give them a chance to do this because I think this is really gonna be a tremendous future business, and it's going to help the nuclear industry be successful.

90:10Agreed, yeah, I think we wanna just unlock a lot more entrepreneurship and investment into this industry. I think we have the rules largely in place now, and we need to now just build some stuff and build it fast.

90:22On that point, I wanna pivot on you for these last two minutes and ask you about India, actually. This week, we're likely to pass legislation that would levy tariffs, maybe even sanctions on India for importing Russian oil, which I think is appropriate.

90:37We don't want India importing Russian oil and funding that war machine. But there's also an opportunity at the same time as we're telling them, hey, less Russian oil, we could also be saying, and more American nuclear.

90:47If the Indians want to build more nuclear, they gotta air condition one billion people, and they gotta do so in a scalable way. I have heard from industry that there's increasing interest in building out nuclear power in India in a collaborative way.

91:03How is your department thinking about partnership with India to go from one of n to, go from n of one to one of n scale nuclear deployment?

91:17Without getting into the sanctions question, which is out of my expertise, I have followed India for a long time. They have the potential of being an extremely large nuclear country. The question has always been liability, and they have passed law, a recent law, which has been reported to me by the industry, that they see a lot of improvements in the risk that they would take in working with India.

91:43So I look at this as a huge potential for American industry for export. And they have, we've got to make sure that the nonproliferation aspects and the 123 aspects are taken care of as we move forward, but as tremendous potential.

92:03Well, I intend to be going there on a delegation in February, and I want to make this the issue I raised. So perhaps we could talk ahead of time and figure out how we can drive that relationship.

92:13I'd be happy to work with you on the liability question. I know the industry is very interested

92:18Great. Yield back.

92:20The gentleman yields The chair now recognizes the member from Ohio 12th district Mr Balderson Thank you Mr Chairman Mr Garrish thank you again Good to see you again sir I kick off with reprocessing has operated for decades in France but under government subsidy.

92:38Given the current market for fresh fuel, what are the Department of Energy's thoughts on commercial feasibility of reprocessing in the United States?

92:48Well, it appears to be economic. In other words, we have companies coming to us to say, let us try. We're willing to put our money in to make this work. And I believe that we should allow them the opportunity to do that.

93:06The French use a slightly different system, and there are new technologies out now that look like they are going to be more economic. The French have invested huge amounts of money into reprocessing of a particular technology.

93:21And we have the opportunity now to look at some new technologies to see other ways to do this. And I would just like to have the industry allowed to do that. Let them get in here and show us how it works.

93:36In a previous hearing in the subcommittee, witnesses' testimony suggested that allowing reprocessing in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as part of a system of disposal may help the private sector access the commercial viability.

93:48Would you agree with that assessment? Yes. Thank you. Families and businesses across the country are already concerned about rising electricity cost. As we are examining the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, how can we achieve the benefits of a modernized nuclear fuel cycle and expand nuclear development while ensuring that increased costs are not simply shifted onto our ratepayers?

94:17Well, we're going to take the materials within the nuclear products, and we're going to recycle them, and these companies are going to make money from that process. So they're going to help us reduce the costs, ultimately, of what is left of the disposal.

94:33So I think in the long run, this is advantageous to a more economic fuel cycle.

94:39Okay, thank you. Some testimony from the second panel in today's hearing indicates concerned about tapping the waste fund to prove viability and that it should be used only for viable projects. Assistant Secretary how can the private sector step up to accelerate reprocessing for fuel production Well it seems to me I understand where the industry comes on this point

95:07and this is a matter that's going to have to be dealt with the Congress. And the question is whether or not there are aspects of the fuel cycle that could be facilitated with some of the funds.

95:16But this is a matter that's going to be debated in the Congress, and I'm sure will be resolved here.

95:27Last question. How does increased U.S. nuclear growth, especially with advanced reactors, affect the prospects of new approaches to spent fuel management, especially for new fuel forms and reprocessing?

95:41Well, one of the more interesting aspects to me is these recycled campuses where you have the power, the recycling, the refabrication of the materials right directly there in one location. Some of these, I'm waiting to see some of these plants in operation, but I think that this is a tremendous opportunity to have everything in one place and save tremendous dollars from transportation security and all the aspects to make this a more efficient process.

96:13All right, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

96:16Gentleman Yales, the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Schreier, for five minutes.

96:22Ms. Schreier, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Garish, for being here to discuss potential solutions for nuclear-spent fuel and weapons waste. There are some important lessons to learn from Yucca Mountain and the ongoing, still ongoing Hanford cleanup, that the federal government should never make decisions about where to store this waste all by itself in a vacuum.

96:49Communities have got to be at the table right from the start when it comes to nuclear waste disposal. And we Washingtonians, we know the cost all too well when they're not part of the decision making.

97:01In the 70s and 80s, Department of Energy mishandled its relationships with the state, people in my state, resulting in endless lawsuits, delayed action, and escalating cleanup costs. and it's taken decades to rebuild that trust needed to move forward.

97:18And then recent stalling by this administration on the vitrification plant and proposed cuts on funding has now brought up stirred the pot again on the exact kind of doubt that slows progress Although I happy DOE is leading with a voluntary federal partnership model for this initiative I just want to set things straight and make sure of a couple of things with Hanford.

97:40Can you just confirm that the Department of Energy does not view this new initiative as altering the agreed upon, legally binding, tri-party agreement governing waste disposal at Hanford?

97:57That has not been discussed that I have heard. That is not my intention to deal with it. Let me, I do want to mention one thing. The environmental management waste will be included in this program.

98:10So those wastes will also be moved potentially to these campuses. However, there are some assets at some of the sites, and I'm not sure about Hanford completely, where reprocessing some of the materials are extremely valuable for reprocessing.

98:29So this is my concern. There was an agreed upon deal. We got public support. Lawsuits ended. I just want to make sure that this is an ironclad agreement and that this administration is not trying to shift the ground.

98:45That is not our intention with it. OK, thank you. That wasn't my intention with Hanford. That has not ever been discussed.

98:52I cannot overstate the importance of that to making progress and continue to have goodwill from our state. In addition, I wanted to ask about the storage of defense-level waste and how that's gonna be incorporated into this initiative.

99:08Do you anticipate that the geologic repositories through this initiative will also accept weapons waste?

99:16Yes.

99:17Great, thank you. And then we also have the Columbia Generating Station that's increasing generating capacity with new advanced reactors, and we are very excited about that. I'm pleased to see that this initiative is designed to attract enthusiastic state partners on a voluntary basis, rather than having the siting done by DOE.

99:40Can you tell me what measures the Department of Energy is taking to ensure that state partners are working in good faith with their own stakeholders to avoid hiccups, just to make sure everybody's at the table because we should all feel enthusiastic about nuclear energy.

99:58That is what we're trying to do.

100:00Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I yield back.

100:04Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance of your time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas 11th district for five minutes for questions.

100:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Assistant Secretary. Welcome. Thank you for being here. I think a lot of the questions today seem to be revolving around the confidence in DOE to to take either spent fuel or materials that have been used in the life cycle of nuclear energy and use them in some way, shape, or form.

100:37And despite me wanting to ask you about Yucca Mountain, I'm actually going to skip into other questions. What do you need to get this full life cycle as productive as possible and to have the least amount of liability and the maximum amount of use so that new startups like the ones that are in Texas at Abilene Christian University and Natura can benefit and eventually we can add electrons to the grid?

101:18What do you need?

101:20We're very supportive of your school down there and their needs. Let me tell you, I think we need the elimination exclusivity of Yucca Mountain. We need a federal authorization to allow the secretary to begin to negotiate with these states and have the states lay out the methodology that they would like to do the campuses.

101:47We would like to allow interim storage at reprocessing sites or at the sites themselves so we can begin movement. We would like to have the funding reestablished eventually and to work through the economic benefits for the states in doing this.

102:09What percentage of our grid could be serviced by nuclear energy If we were to do what you just asked.

102:17We're at 20% now, I would say in the future we want to quadruple it. So 80 or 20 What will happen is obviously the grid requirements will grow So if we can maybe go halfway that would be if we can get up to 50 that would be over a period of to 2050, that would be quite significant.

102:41What role do you see recycled material playing in small reactors and already established nuclear power plants?

102:53Well, I think it's going to be essential for us to have a solution to the complete fuel cycle. So these companies, these small companies, will be able to participate in however they can do it economically.

103:07In other words, we want to make the materials available.

103:10Some may want smaller needs, for instance, isotopes. They can use medical isotopes for whatever their particular process is. And that may be less than someone that wants to actually recycle and make uranium hexafluoride that's then we be re-enriched.

103:27So these could be all sizes, depending on what the needs of the company are.

103:32Talk to me about challenges related to transportation, the classification of the material that you're transporting, and issues that we have seen in the public sphere and how we overcome those.

103:44Well, transportation is the one part of nuclear that is well established and currently underway and has virtually no incidents. So there is concern about transportation, but I believe that, generally speaking, that has been well handled by the industry over many years.

104:07We want to see this lifecycle much more efficient and used properly. This is, I believe you when you say you could quadruple it from the current amount of electrons that are being produced by nuclear energy at 20% of our current usage, but demand is going to continue to grow.

104:27Nuclear has a big piece in that, and we want to see this industry flourish because it's a gift that we have. There are concerns in West Texas, obviously, of storing high-level waste in and around the production of oil and gas.

104:46And let's find a solution that allows that to be used prior to getting to that point.

104:54I with you Nuclear the future nuclear is really almost unlimited This is homegrown energy and can be affordable and reliable. This is what we need.

105:09Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.

105:12Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the general from New York's 20th sister for five minutes for questions.

105:22Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Secretary. If we are serious about encouraging a bigger role for nuclear in our future energy mix, then it should be our responsibility to come up with a solution for our waste issues.

105:34It is clear that we have not been on the path toward a permanent solution for some time. I think it is good that the administration is exploring a new approach. So, Secretary Garish, based on the responses you received to the Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation campus proposal.

105:48Can you discuss how important it is for these sites to embrace the full fuel life cycle, including storage and disposal, as part of an agreement?

105:59That is the essence of the plan. In other words, they must accept the full fuel cycle in order to be part of our program.

106:09Okay, thank you. And have you found that the potential incentives being offered by the Department on other aspects of the fuel life cycle, maybe the potential for fuel production or recycling, have improved states' willingness to accept the less desirable parts of the life cycle?

106:25Absolutely. I tend to believe that robust long-term and certain incentive packages are needed for a consent-based approach to work. In the past several Congresses, I have proposed legislation to establish a national cap and invest program, which would allocate a portion of the revenues raised to any state that permanently stores spent nuclear fuel.

106:51It seems like the administration agrees that providing benefits is an important part of an agreement that will include states consenting to some form of storage and some form of disposal. I think it is worth us trying to get creative about just how we can encourage states to voluntarily commit to being part of the solution, but it seems to me that certainty is incredibly important for this arrangement to work.

107:15Both certainty for the states and their campus partners to know that federal support will continue as agreed upon, as well as certainty that states will follow through with their commitments So it is possible I believe that with changes in political leadership energy markets or even a potential safety incident that public and political opinion could also change and states could decide they no longer want responsibility for waste storage and disposal.

107:41So, Secretary Garish, what could this process look like moving forward?

107:46Well, I agree with your basic statement that benefits, I think, are essential in the ultimate program. I should, however, point out that one of the benefits is not necessarily from the government. It comes from the private sector and the investments that they will make in the community and the number of jobs because you're looking at 22,000 to 25,000 jobs collectively, we believe, from this program.

108:13So yes, benefits directly into the state for accepting the waste, I personally believe is an essential element, but there are benefits beyond simply the federal government payments. The jobs that are created and the private investment are also important.

108:34Thank you. I'm sure there would be a period of technical review and feasibility studies, but at a certain point, will a binding commitment be made?

108:44That would be my approach, a final commitment and a binding commitment. We want continuity, and we don't want to start and stop this program.

108:54And when would you imagine, envision that happening in this process as defined?

109:02It's hard for me to give you an exact date, but let me just put it this way. We need to start. In other words, I would like to start this year with some kind of commitments with the states to begin to move the process along.

109:18and then these campuses will have to be developed. But to me, the most important thing that the Congress can do for us right now is authorize us to begin the process.

109:28I appreciate that. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back and thank you. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.

109:36The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama's 6th District for five minutes. President Obama from California.

109:42Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant Secretary Garish, Both Japan and France have operated commercial reprocessing facilities for decades. The U.S. has the technical knowledge and industrial capability to invest in reprocessing commercialization but does not have the regulatory framework to do that.

110:03Do you think developers have the adequate standards and legal clarity they need to pursue licensing for a nuclear lifecycle innovation campus?

110:13I believe they do, and they have told us that they believe that they do. I should point out that some of this is new technologies. They're using pyro processing as opposed to the way that it has been done in the past.

110:28of these new technologies are more efficient and will lead to results in a quicker fashion, especially some of these circular processes with plants and reprocessing and fabrication built in.

110:42One of the concerns that I have, and I constantly talk about the need to recycle spent fuel. As you know, it retains 90 percent of its energy capacity and we could recover 95 percent of it.

110:57very expensive, a lot more expensive than mining raw uranium and processing and refining it for use. But I've had a number of meetings with here in the U.S. There's a huge push towards small modular reactors.

111:11We're reopening full-scale reactors in different places around the country. But I've also had a number of meetings with people from around the world that want small All modular reactors had a meeting with representatives from Poland.

111:29They want Vogel-scale, full-scale reactor. So the demand for processed and refined uranium is going to increase substantially to a point where we could potentially exhaust the current known reserves by 2080. In the context of recycling, doesn't it make sense that we invest more in the recycling as the demand for uranium goes up?

112:03I agree completely. That has been one of the problems. It has always been it is cheaper to buy fresh uranium than it is to recycle. But I believe that with the increased demand, and the other thing I believe is when the reprocessors come in and tell me let us have a chance to invest our own money we know how to do this and we can make money at it I believe them So if they want to do it I want to help them Well you just used a word that has I think compromised our national security

112:40and economic security, and that word is cheaper. Consequently, we no longer have the the capacity to meet our supply of critical minerals, process refined critical minerals, process refined rare earth elements, and it has put us in a very difficult situation in terms of our economic security, our national security.

113:03And I would ask you, are you concerned that because we have pivoted in the same direction with uranium that we could find ourselves in the same situation in terms of reliance on adversarial nations to supply us with fresh uranium?

113:21Fresh uranium, unobligated uranium in the United States

113:25is essential for national security. We have to have it, and it also is domestic enrichment. We need domestic enrichment in the United States. That was, to me, when I started this job, that was the most important problem that we faced, especially with the cutoff of the Russian uranium.

113:43We are a large portion of our enrichment, and it comes from overseas. These are extremely important processes, and we need to make sure that it is all domesticated. And domestic uranium, domestic enrichment, and reprocessing all kind of go together.

114:02So I agree with you completely.

114:04Well, I think in this pursuit of cheaper this, cheaper that, we put ourselves in a really bad place. We need to re-industrialize the country, And not only here, but our European allies, our Western Hemisphere allies, need to be thinking the same way because we'll all be in the same bucket.

114:22Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be more,

114:24that more expensive either, because fuel is a very small part of the cost of the electricity. So I'm not of the view that this is gonna raise the cost of electricity unreasonably. I do not believe that necessarily has to be true.

114:41And I really like the fact that you think people in the private sector that can do this and do it economically so that we can, we will no longer have that dependence, but we'll have the fuel supply we need.

114:51Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

114:54The gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes the general lady from Virginia 4th District for five minutes for questions Thank you Chair Lauda and Ranking Member Castor for holding this hearing today and

115:06thank you to our witness for being here. The United States has produced over 90,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and produces 2,000 tons of nuclear waste every year. And despite establishing the nuclear waste policy in 1982, we have yet to establish a facility that can safely store and manage this waste long term.

115:31That is completely unacceptable, especially as this committee takes steps to expand nuclear energy generation in the United States and improve the efficiency of nuclear energy safety protocol. As my colleagues and I have said repeatedly in this committee, nuclear energy must be safe, reliable, and well-regulated.

115:51And that includes when nuclear fuel has reached the end of its usable life cycle and must be stored long-term while it slowly breaks down into less toxic material, which is a process that can take thousands of years.

116:05The current administration proposes significant changes to how we have historically approached nuclear spent fuel through the creation of the nuclear life cycle innovation campuses. And while I have significant concerns and disagreements with the legislative specifics of the current proposal and questions about how these facilities would function in practice, I agree that our nuclear waste policy needs significant updates and changes.

116:32So, Mr. Garrish, the White House sent legislative texts to Congress that would eliminate the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. As this administration is proposing to upend over four decades of nuclear waste policy, it seems counterintuitive to silence the expert independent advice from NWTRB that could prove invaluable in getting these facilities set up in a safe and effective manner.

116:58Why has the administration sought to cut out independent expert review from the development of the Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation Campus, as opposed to seeking ways to update the board so that it can work more effectively for this new direction?

117:11Well, I believe the Technical Review Board originally was set up to deal with the Yucca Mountain experience, which was a very different type of approach. There was considerable evaluations of various states and various geologies and it was kind of the first time through We at a different position now That not to say that we don need independent review I think those are important but I believe that the appropriate agency to really do this is a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and to have them do it in a totally independent manner so that they would judge whether or not it is appropriate for a particular location to to have some sort of fuel disposition.

117:58So I appreciate your position. That paper was sent out as a policy paper with a number of ideas in it, and a lot of people have had thoughts on it. And that is one thought.

118:10I mean, these are issues that the Congress is going to have to ultimately deal with because these bodies still exist, and we need to determine what makes sense today.

118:23The administration's letter display of proposal would allow DOE to use money from the Nuclear Waste Fund to support purposes other than final storage of nuclear waste, such as for nuclear waste recycling and reprocessing.

118:37Given that this technology, while promising in some regards, still comes with many concerns around increased output of plutonium and costs to make it feasible, how does the administration justify these changes and what safeguards, if any, would we see to ensure that the money still goes towards final storage for spent nuclear fuel and not to provide a fund for other nuclear priorities that the DOE Secretary might deem of interest?

119:05Well, as I said, this was a policy draft for discussion. And that is one of the ideas that we've received a considerable amount of reaction to. To me, the important thing is that the fund be used for the purpose that it was intended primarily, and that is to bury the waste or the final disposition.

119:32There has been some discussion as to whether or not, if we're going to have reprocessing, and it reduces the amount of waste, whether or not there is any logic to having other things covered for that purpose.

119:45So I think that there are some benefits to doing that, but I'm not here necessarily to say that that is a program that we are going to support. I really would like to know how the Congress feels about that and the allocation of these funds And we would like to cooperatively work through a program to do that with you to determine what makes the most sense.

120:06Okay, thank you, and I yield back.

120:08Well, thank you very much. The General Lady yields back. The Chair now recognizes the General Lady from Tennessee's First District for five minutes for questions.

120:17Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Gersh, for being here today. I applaud the efforts of the Department to tackle our nation's spent nuclear fuel policy. You know, and it's a challenge we've had for decades, and unfortunately we still haven't found a durable solution.

120:34So what's different about the nuclear lifecycle innovation campus model that gives you confidence that it can finally progress on this issue? Because Tennessee is one of the six states that signed an MOU with the Department of Energy this year, sir.

120:51First, let me just congratulate Tennessee. It has been unbelievably helpful, and we have worked through all of these issues with the state, and it has just been remarkable, and I really do appreciate their support.

121:09One of the things that is really different, and I know that Tennessee is very interested in this, is reprocessing for health. In other words, isotopes and the types of things that you have in your medical facilities in Tennessee that are really unique.

121:26And I think that they have looked at some of these aspects to help us reduce the quantity of waste and to take the valuable portions out of it and use it for other purposes.

121:37And health was one of the aspects. So I think, to me, Tennessee's approach has been really quite across the board in terms of how do we use these materials what's the best way to do this?

121:53Tennessee has tremendous nuclear expertise. Yes. Working together with the state, there's a lot of things that we can do

122:04together with you on making this work. So I guess that's why you picked Tennessee to be one of the spots. Basically, you know, we've got Oak Ridge. I have East Tennessee which has NFS.

122:14You know, we talk about the spent fuel and some of the innovations that we're doing with HALU and some of that. But it is It really we want it to be a hub for nuclear advancements and to be chosen as one of the spots that pretty remarkable In isotopes you know I been a compounding pharmacist my whole life and it'll be 40 years and that's something that you can't replace.

122:39You have to have that. It's the only thing I haven't done in my career. But what's the single biggest thing Congress can do right now to remove uncertainty for states like Tennessee that are made good faith commitment by signing that MOU?

122:53Provide us some mechanism to help us

123:00with the authority to work with the states to begin to do contracts with the

123:07states that are durable. Okay. How important is it to give those willing host states the latitude to establish their priorities? That's exactly it.

123:20Everyone needs to come together on this. There's advantages not only to the host states, there's advantage to the other states, because you need to move the waste out and it needs to have a final home.

123:30The host states will get the economic benefits of the reprocessing and the other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Tennessee understands that well because you do it now, you do it very well already.

123:44It's a combination of both from the states that give up the waste, the states that it's brought to, it is mutually beneficial to everyone.

123:56Well, it totally is. You have Oak Ridge National Laboratory. You have everything you need right right in one part of Tennessee and everything to carry the project through. So I appreciate your work on that and whatever we can do to help you in the future.

124:09All you have to do is call me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. And with that, I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.

124:19Well, thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California's 7th district for five minutes for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank

124:30you and the ranking member for having this hearing today. And Mr. Secretary, thank you for testifying before this committee today. Developing a safe and effective solution for our country's nuclear waste has long been a top priority for me.

124:41The Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in my district several decommissioned nuclear plants across the country that have been forced to store and manage nuclear waste indefinitely. The federal government made a promise to come and collect that nuclear waste almost 20 years ago but we still waiting So I glad to see the Department of Energy is proposing to build nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities at these nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses, but it is unclear from what has been shared publicly what kind of disposal activities you expect to happen at these sites.

125:18Secretary Garish, can you share exactly what the six states have committed to with regards to storing and disposing of nuclear waste?

125:26Well, it is still early in the process of discussions with the states, but there will be one of two methods most likely. Well, first is reprocessing. We will get the beneficial elements as much as we can out of the materials that we can.

125:44And then there will be a couple of different disposal methods. One will be a mined repository, and the second will be deep borehole arrangements, both of which will be effective methods of isolating the waste safely for millennia.

126:01Sure.

126:02And has any state committed to host a deep geologic repository?

126:07Well, one of the potentials is a mined deep geologic repository.

126:14Okay. Will you commit to making any host agreements public?

126:20I didn't understand that exactly.

126:21Yeah. Would you commit to make any host agreements public on many of these sites?

126:27We will do that at the appropriate time. But we want to negotiate in good faith with the states and make sure we can have very frank and candid discussions early on.

126:39OK. The Department of Energy has proposed to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow the department to build long-term storage and disposal sites other than at Yucca Mountain. Mr. Garris, do you believe that the Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation Campuses can entirely replace Yucca as the final resting place for all commercial nuclear waste?

127:01Yes, it could.

127:02OK. The reason I'm asking for clarity about how these sites will store and dispose of nuclear waste is because the department has really focus on the potential to recycle waste at these sites rather than long-term storage and disposal.

127:14But these recycling technologies are improving at scale, so I think we need to acknowledge that long-term storage and disposal will still be a necessity What happens to these sites if the new recycling technologies don develop as planned Well I believe that I have confidence that these companies that are coming in with these

127:39technologies now and they're putting substantial funds in it, they will be successful, I believe. And there is reprocessing technology that does work currently, so that is not a question in terms of its ability.

127:55I think we will do it all. In other words, we will not only do the recycling, but we'll do the final disposition, because there are some materials that will require final disposition that cannot be either technically or economically recycled.

128:12You're also proposing to use a nuclear waste fund to build these sites, but that money is set aside for one purpose, to develop long-term storage and disposal facilities and transport waste to those facilities.

128:27What exactly do you plan to use a nuclear waste fund for beyond storage and disposal?

128:31Well, this is a matter that is going to be much of this up to Congress. In other words, our intention is right now to use the funds for the purpose of disposal. And potentially, there is a possibility of reduction.

128:49In other words, if we can reduce the amount of waste through reprocessing, there could be some potential to assist the reprocess in some fashion. For instance, it has been suggested that loans could be used that would be repaid back into the fund if someone has a technology that will reduce either the toxicity or the quantity of the nuclear waste so it does not have to be disposed.

129:18They get the benefit from selling the materials, but the process by which they set up could potentially be assisted through some kind of guaranteed loans of some type. That has been suggested. That is a question that Congress is going to have to pass on to determine whether or not we can do that.

129:37Thank you, and I run out of time, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

129:40Thank you very much. The General Lee's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina 7th District for five minutes for questions.

129:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Garrish, thank you for being here. South Carolina has long been a nuclear state and our rate payers have more than done their part when it comes to the federal government's Waste Program, South Carolina ratepayers have paid $1.5 billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund, and altogether with the interest attributable to those contributions, that investment represents more than $3 billion.

130:13Yet decades after the federal government committed to taking responsibility for spent nuclear fuel, the Department of Energy still has not begun accepting that fuel as promised. I think 1998, I was 13 years old in 1998, I'm 41 now, so it's been a long time.

130:27history should inform how we approach, I think, the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. I think there's a tremendous opportunity to strengthen America's domestic nuclear fuel cycle, encourage private investment, and find innovative solutions to our long-standing spent fuel challenge.

130:40The administration's campus initiative has the potential to advance all three of those. As this effort moves forward, Congress has an important role in ensuring the Nuclear Waste Fund continues to support its intended disposal mission, while also identifying the right mix of federal, state, and private investment to support the broader activities envisioned by these campuses.

131:00Mr. Garrish, real quick, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was very specific in the authority that DOE has to spend money from the fund. How is DOE ensuring that ratepayers' investment in the nuclear waste fund is protected as it pursues these innovation campuses?

131:20Well, the Department of Energy will, whatever the Congress eventually puts in as the requirements for the Nuclear Waste Fund, we will adopt and implement. There is no question about that in my mind. Currently, right now, the fund is in the Treasury and earns interest, and that interest goes back into the fund.

131:41For those particular companies that have waste currently now within your state, they do have the right to go into the court of claims, and for anything after the failure of the government to pick up waste in 1998, they can get paid for the cost for that materials and the failure of the government to meet its contractual duties.

132:03Yeah, at what point does the, I guess the return here not make sense? I mean, at what point is the federal government going to do what it's supposed to do, which is to take that material?

132:13They need to do it as soon as we can physically do it. I mean, that's what we're here for. That's what this idea was. We wanted to break the log jam. We been going for too many years without a solution We go through these consent citing exercises We send money to states and we get nowhere We have a lot of good talk We have right now six states that have said yes, and I want to pursue those states, and we want to get this done.

132:38So that's the difference.

132:44Should Congress, in that same vein, modernize the way or give the Department of Energy greater flexibility to use the Nuclear Waste Fund in ways that measurably would reduce the government's long-term used fuel management disposal obligations?

133:01That is a possibility, yes.

133:03Should Congress also modernize the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to give the department greater flexibility to use that? I just asked that. I'm sorry. I'm rereading my stuff here. South Carolina obviously was not selected as a nuclear innovation campus state.

133:20Despite us having the Savannah River site and the national lab, even though South Carolina was not selected in this initial group, how can the Department of Energy continue leveraging the expertise in South Carolina as this initiative develops?

133:36Well, the expertise at Savannah River is well known and will be utilized by the department in all matters nuclear, so we will continue to use the Savannah River expertise. The reason that South Carolina was not selected was at the time that the governor's office was not prepared to say yes at the time.

134:00So that is the reason why South Carolina is not in among these campuses. Now, currently, the expertise within the state could be used in other places, just the way we do it at Idaho National Laboratory.

134:17And we do that around the country and we do it also with Oak Ridge. So there is a lot of expertise that could be utilized, but right now, South Carolina is not a selected state.

134:29Right now? So you're saying that other states could be later?

134:34That is open to discussion. We have not reached that decision, but the first part of that decision would be the governor would need to say other than what he has said to date.

134:51All right, thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.

134:54I see my time has expired but I have many more questions so I hope we can visit soon Thank you Well thank you very much The gentleman time has expired and yields back The chair is seeing no other members seeking to ask questions to our witness Mr. Assistant Secretary, we're very glad you would be able to appear before us today.

135:12We're going to take a quick recess to allow staff to get the witness table set up for our second panel. So thank you very much, and we'll take a brief recess.

139:25you

141:30Well, thank you very much. I'd like to reconvene our subcommittee hearing today, and again, we want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee.

141:45Each witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a round of questions from our members. Our witnesses for this second panel are the Honorable Stacey Paradis, the Commissioner from Illinois Commerce Commission, Ms. Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of Nuclear Energy Institute, Mr. Jared DeRozier, the Vice President for Public Government and Regulatory Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, and Greg R.

142:12White, the Legacy Officer of the Nuclear Waste strategy coalition Again we appreciate you all being here today and at this time I will recognize Commissioner Paradis for five minutes for an opening statement Thank you There we go

142:40Sorry about that. Good afternoon Chairman Lada, Raking Member Castor and members of the Subcommittee on Energy. My name is Stacy Paradis and I'm a Commissioner with the Illinois Commerce Commission. I'm here today to testify on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, NARUC, and my role as Chair of the NARUC Subcommittee on Nuclear Energy.

142:59NARUC is a nonprofit organization with members consisting of public utility commissions from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories. NARUC's mission is to serve the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of public utility regulation.

143:13Utility regulators are responsible for ensuring safe, reliable, and affordable delivery of essential electric utility service. Nuclear energy is a source of baseload generation that meets those needs. Unfortunately, the federal government has not fulfilled its responsibility on the final component of the nuclear fuel cycle, the waste that is produced.

143:31The program initially envisioned under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was essentially shut down after the Yucca Mountain license was abruptly withdrawn in 2010, and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management was disbanded. To date, the nation's utility customers have paid billions of dollars toward the federal nuclear waste disposal program that does not exist.

143:50Both NAIRC and its members have dedicated a tremendous amount of time and resources over the past 40 years to ensure the electricity consumers receive all the services for which they have paid. NAIRC has participated in numerous lawsuits against DOE, consistently seeking better performance and greater accountability from the federal government while protecting the interests of ratepayers.

144:10In 1995, the court upheld NAIRC's assertion that DOE is obligated to take nuclear waste from the plant since 1998. In 2013, the court granted neighbors' request that the DOE suspend collection of the nuclear waste fund fees.

144:25In fact, ratepayers and taxpayers have paid more than they should have for decades because of the federal government's inaction. Electricity customers have paid over $20 billion into the nuclear waste fund, the balance of which currently sits in excess of $51 billion.

144:39In addition to the federal government's failure to establish a permanent nuclear waste dispositor costs all U.S. taxpayers nearly $2 million a day in legal judgment payments. NAIRC's position remains clear and longstanding. The federal government must fulfill its statutory and contractual obligation to remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites provide for safe permanent disposal and give nuclear electricity customers the nuclear waste management program that they have paid for and deserve.

145:10In recent resolutions, NARUC has outlined steps for the nation's nuclear waste program to get back on firm footing. First, Congress must secure one or more geologic repositories for the permanent disposal of nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

145:24should exercise its oversight to ensure that DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are complying with waste programs outlined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. NAWRG agrees that the best and long-term solution for permanent disposal is in deep geologic repositories and supports the use of nuclear lifestyle innovation campuses to site, license, and construct a second geologic repository.

145:46Recycling may warrant research demonstration and separate federal policy consideration. However, no amount of reprocessing will eliminate the need for a permanent repository. NAIRUK strongly opposes diverting funds from the nuclear waste fund for private recycling, commercialization, or fuel cycle ventures that would undermine the agreement ratepayers have already met.

146:07Second, the nuclear waste fund must be managed responsibly and used only for its intended purpose. The program must have access to revenues generated by the ratepayer fee payments if they resume and the balance of the nuclear waste fund.

146:20Under no condition should the nuclear waste fund fee be restarted until either the Yucca Mountain license proceeding is complete or a second permanent repository is secured. Third, if Congress is to make licensing a permanent repository, it should make it much easier to site consolidated interim storage.

146:39Current reactor site spent fuel storage is safe, but retaining spent fuel indefinitely at working reactor sites was never intended by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and is both inefficient and unacceptable. Continued storage at permanent shutdown plants imposes costs on ratepayers without equivalent benefits and prohibits economic reuse of those sites.

146:57Fourth, Congress should consider assigning the used fuel management to a new organization. NAIRU greatly supports the concept of creating a new organization outside of DOEE with the sole responsibility to manage nuclear waste, which would require new legislation.

147:10Since the former Waste Management Organization was disbanded in 2010, a new organization is needed or an old one must be reconstituted even if that responsibility is retained by DOE This new organization should be charged to engage with states and local governments in a more collaborative manner whether for storage or disposal of nuclear waste The Nuclear Lifestyle Innovation campuses seem to be a step forward in such an engagement Nayru, commend you all for your efforts to break the current logjam on nuclear waste, and we'll assist in any way that we can.

147:45Well, thank you very much. And Ms. Korsnick, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

147:52and Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for the committee's continued leadership to advance nuclear energy.

148:05When I appeared before you earlier this year, I described a nuclear industry moving from policy development toward project execution, including reactors and fuel cycle facilities. That momentum continues. As electricity demand rises, nuclear energy will be increasingly important to provide clean, reliable, and affordable power and strengthening America's energy and national security.

148:29This is also a timely opportunity to make progress on a challenge that has remained unresolved for decades – used nuclear fuel. Used fuel continues to be stored safely at reactor sites across the country, but more than 40 years after Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the federal government still has not begun accepting used fuel as required by law and contract.

148:52Today, however, we have an opportunity to change that. DOE's Innovation Campus Initiative has generated significant interest from states. This interest gives Congress an opportunity to establish a durable, disposable program while supporting innovation across the nuclear life cycle.

149:09The best approach is to act now to make meaningful progress, measure it against clear milestones, and use what we learn to inform longer-term decisions. I want to highlight six areas for congressional focus. First, build durable partnerships with willing host states.

149:27As projects advance, hosting agreements should become increasingly specific and enforceable, clearly defining responsibilities, federal commitments and host benefits, and the ultimate disposal of nuclear materials. If states make long-term commitments, they need confidence that the federal government will keep its commitments as well.

149:47Second, begin federal performance. Congress should give DOE the authority to take title to transport and temporarily store used fuel and integrate those activities with repository development. It also would begin fulfilling a federal obligation that has gone unperformed since 1998.

150:07Third, create additional pathways to permanent disposal. Federal law should allow DOE to investigate and evaluate additional repository sites beyond Yucca Mountain. Mine geologic repositories must remain a cornerstone of the federal disposal program. Other technologies, including deep boreholes, may complement that capacity.

150:28Fourth, support recycling innovation. New recycling technologies offer promising opportunities to recover useful materials, strengthen domestic fuel security, and potentially reduce certain disposal burdens. But deployment also requires commercially viable technologies, qualified fuels, customers for recycled products, and disposal pathways for the remaining waste.

150:52Congress should support research, demonstrations, and early deployment now, and let technical and commercial results inform the role recycling ultimately plays in the fuel cycle. Recycling should complement, not delay, or replace progress on permanent disposal.

151:10Fifth, preserve the Nuclear Waste Fund for disposal. The fund was created to support the federal disposal program, and it should be used for that purpose. Repository development and transportation and storage integrated with the disposal program can appropriately be supported by the fund.

151:28Consistent with DOE's vision, other activities, such as recycling, enrichment, and fuel fabrication, should have other funding sources, primarily private sector, supplemented by federal support and state incentives. Finally, restarting the collection of the nuclear waste fee must be based on demonstrated need for additional funding and government performance.

151:50Commercial nuclear generators and their customers have already contributed billions of dollars to the Nuclear Waste Fund. The fund now has a balance of more than $51 billion and continues to earn substantial investment income.

152:03Restarting the fee has direct implications for electricity affordability. Any resumption of fee collection must be based on a well-founded program, demonstrated funding need, and considered only after DOE begins accepting and moving used fuel.

152:19And Congress must retain a direct role in approving any collection of the fee In summary Congress should support innovation campuses and enable moving fuel and opening additional disposal pathways while protecting electricity customers from unnecessary costs We can make future decisions based on demonstrated progress.

152:40If we do that, the next five years can produce more tangible progress on used nuclear fuel than the country has seen in in decades. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. Well thank you very much and Mr.

152:56DeRosier you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. Good afternoon. I am Jared

153:02DeRosier, the Vice President of Public Government Regulatory Affairs and the Deputy General Counsel of the Yankee Companies. I thank Subcommittee Chairman Lada and Subcommittee Ranking Member Castor for giving me this opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy's efforts to establish nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses.

153:18My testimony today is offered on behalf of the Decommissioning Plant Coalition, the DPC. The three Yankee companies once managed single-unit nuclear generating stations that provided electricity to the New England grid. Given the economics of the electric power business at the time when these facilities needed significant additional investment, decisions were made to decommission the facilities.

153:40Indeed, each of the Yankee facilities have been shut down for almost three decades, and all traces of their nuclear heritage have been removed but for 115 dry cask storage systems containing used nuclear fuel and eight additional casks containing greater than Class C waste.

154:04Under the standard contract established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the federal government is legally obligated to remove this fuel from our sites. In fact, if the Department had begun removing this material on schedule in 1998 at the rates promised, all three of the sites would have been available for repurposing to the benefit of our local communities more than 15 years ago, and our companies would have achieved their goal of going out of business.

154:36Unfortunately, our companies and the host communities are not alone in this situation. While not all of the 11 companies that are members of the DPC have completed decommissioning, all have moved used fuel and greater C waste to dry storage systems Collectively we safely manage more than 6 metric tons of used fuel Because of the federal government failure to remove this waste our companies have collectively recovered approximately $2.25 billion in damages from the Taxpayer Finance Judgment Fund.

155:15For every year going forward that the federal government fails to perform, the DPC members will incur more than $100 million more of additional taxpayer finance damages. We are here today because the DOE's NLIC proposal provides a promising pathway for the development of a durable solution to this problem.

155:35When the NLIC proposal was put forward in January, we were gratified to see that it sought state participation in partnerships, and I quote, supporting durable pathways for managing used nuclear materials in a safe, secure, and fiscally responsible manner.

155:58This approach recognizes what past efforts have too often overlooked, that durable solutions required informed state leadership, local engagement, transparent commitments, and a clear connection between national policy goals and the potential host state priorities.

156:18We were further encouraged when the Department announced in July and last week that it had entered MOUs with six states that had agreed to pursue Enlick hosting agreements. We congratulate Secretary Wright and Assistant Secretary Garish on this remarkable achievement.

156:36States have said yes. We have seen many promising initiatives falter because they lack sustained political support. authorities, adequate funding, and a consent-based path that could actually endure across federal, state, tribal, and local governmental administrations.

156:59The ENLIC initiative holds promise that it can avoid these same pitfalls. The DPC believes the ENLIC hosting agreements will be an important next step, but even before Before those agreements, we believe that tailored legislation would be beneficial to support the NLIC proposal, legislation that authorizes DOE to conduct initial site investigations, to engage in demonstration projects of disposal and recycling technologies that may be employed on NLIC sites and to take title and Secretary Garish spoke of this to clear the hurdle or to address exclusivity to be able to take title today for the movement of news fuel for either interim storage or staging of recycling could be useful and important components of the NLIC initiative.

157:49And we specifically support in any legislation clear priority for the removal of the used fuel and high-level waste from shutdown sites consistent with the Secretary's authority under the standard contract. Thank you and I welcome your questions.

158:06Well, thank you very much for your testimony. And Mr. White, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

158:15Chairman Lada, Ranking Member Castor, members of the Subcommittee on Energy, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition. My name is Greg White, and I serve on the Executive Committee.

158:28The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition is an ad hoc organization formed back in 1993 to represent the collective interests of public and private members to secure a federal repository for spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

158:45Our mission has always been focused on accountability for the federal government to meet its longstanding statutory and contractual obligations to execute a national nuclear waste disposal program. We are further focused on protecting electric utility customers who have received nothing in returns for the billions in fees they've paid into the federal nuclear waste fund.

159:08This includes those who could be subject to reinstated fees without adequate action to establish a functioning federal program. After enduring years of federal failure, we're encouraged by this hearing and by the administration's Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation Campus initiative that reportedly includes the critical waste disposal component.

159:30Having states as partners should increase the likelihood of success. As Congress considers the next steps on nuclear waste policy, The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition offers the following steps that we hope will guide your work.

159:44First, Congress must reestablish a national integrated nuclear waste disposal program that includes the removal, transportation, storage, and essential permanent geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel now stranded that numerous and shut down commercial reactor sites in communities across the United States.

160:05These are interconnected components and no single element can succeed in isolation. Second, a new independent waste management organization should be formed to properly lead the program. That includes the interim action by the Department of Energy to re-establish an internal dedicated office along the lines of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management that had been established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

160:30No such office has existed since 2010 and we urge this action as soon as possible. Unfortunately, 44 years of experience suggests that the DOE, a multifaceted department, will struggle to sustain a program like this.

160:47Therefore, over the longer term, we encourage the creation of a new independent, single-purpose waste management organization authorized to implement the transportation, storage and disposal components of an integrated U.S. program. As cited in our full testimony, this is not a new idea, and more work has been done on these concepts this year.

161:12Third, we call on Congress to reform the federal budgetary treatment of the Nuclear Waste Fund such that sustainable access to the funds is provided to support the development of this multi-generational management and disposal program.

161:29We further urge the interim step of appropriately funding the Department of Energy Program priorities via annual appropriations. Regarding the Nuclear Waste Fund, it must only be used for its intended purpose, and that is to pay for the Federal Waste Disposal Program.

161:46The $51 billion balance currently in the Nuclear Waste Fund, along with annual interest accruals, provides more than sufficient funding for virtually any program work for the foreseeable future. Any initiatives to restart the Nuclear Waste Fund fee should be considered only after meaningful federal performance has been verified and a demonstrated need has been established.

162:10Finally, the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition recognizes that a national integrated nuclear waste program could include reprocessing or recycling. Please note that while reprocessing may reduce waste volume a repository remains necessary under every scenario and will always be needed for effective nuclear waste management Given that fact it our view that reprocessing and disposal are complementary and not competing strategies In closing, we note that the permanent geologic disposal is foundational to all effective federal nuclear waste policy approaches.

162:47The consequences of continuing prolonged federal inaction are significant. The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition stands ready to help. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony and that will

163:04conclude our witness testimony for the second panel and we'll start the questions from our members and the chair will recognize himself for five minutes. This is to the panel in general, and maybe we can answer some of these just in a yes and no.

163:24And we'll just go right down the line. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act focuses exclusively on a repository at Yucca Mountain. Do you support authorizing potential secondary disposal pathways in the law to enable DOE to continue to negotiate nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses?

163:44So, NARUC, I have to work with the resolutions that we've passed, and it's been a while since we've done one. So, let me say this. We do support a second repository. We think these campuses have the potential to get there, but we need to update our policies anything more than that.

163:59Ms. Korsnick?

164:00Yes.

164:01Yes.

164:02Also, yes, we believe that these states are offering additional opportunities, and that's a welcome.

164:12The law in this subcommittee's work has focused on ensuring an integrated system for ultimate disposal of waste. Do you believe DOE should ensure there's a linkage to permanent disposal in any future negotiations?

164:27Yes. I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

164:35The law in this subcommittee's work has focused on ensuring an integrated system for ultimate disposal of waste. Do you believe DOE should ensure there is a linkage to permanent disposal in any negotiations?

164:49Absolutely.

164:50Okay, thank you. Yes. Under the law users of nuclear power pay a fee into a nuclear waste fund to pay for a program of permanent disposal This fee was set to zero under the court order because DOE dismantled its program.

165:10Would you agree that Congress should not raise rates on electric customers for a program that's still being developed?

165:19Yes. Yes.

165:21Yes. The law requires the nuclear waste fund be spent on programs linked to permanent disposal. This might take a little bit more than just a simple yes or no. How should federal policies be updated to include reprocessing as part of a system for permanent disposal of waste?

165:45So under New York's current policy, as I noted before, we are supportive of using the waste fund fees to do anything related to site license and construct anything related to interim and permanent through a geologic repository as our positions.

166:01We do believe that what has been proposed on these campuses has an ideal opportunity, but as we noted, no matter how much reprocessing and recycling that you do, there's still at some point in time waste that needs to be managed.

166:15So I think this is an area of discussion that Congress definitely needs to be involved in, But at some point in time, we need to recognize that under the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act and based on what rate payers have paid, the first priority is disposal.

166:29Ms. Corthwick?

166:30Yeah, I would say similarly, there is a lot that can be paid from the Waste Fund in terms of activities that are going to help transport this, the temporary storage on its way to final disposal, and obviously, ultimately, a final disposition.

166:48But when you get into some of the other areas, recycling, some of the other things that are in innovation campuses, we believe that should come from other funding sources until it's a proven part of the disposal mechanism.

167:03Vote your mic, please. I agree with the co-panelists that the purpose of the fund is for the removal and disposal of the waste. Recycling may play a role but we need to demonstrate that it is both commercially and financially viable and so that why we recommending demonstration projects to demonstrate that If and at the time that recycling demonstrates that it actually can play a role to reduce the overall cost and total cost of the spent fuel cycle, then it may be appropriate to be funded, but until that time, more needs to be known.

167:48And we need to hear and see the opportunities that are presented through the NLIC campuses.

167:55Mr. White. Likewise, I support the answers of my fellow panelists. If reprocessing can be technologically and economically found feasible, it could be a very important component of an integrated program. So we would support that, but likewise, funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund, current Nuclear Waste Fund should not be used for those purposes at this time.

168:20And I know that my time is running short, so I'm going to submit the rest of my questions to you all. But again, on the recycling side, we've had quite a few discussions and hearings here.

168:33And it's thought, when you look at the numbers out there, we could have up to maybe 150 years' worth of energy just coming from those spent rods. So as we work forward, we're going to need to be working with everybody out in the nuclear community, with the states and everyone else.

168:49So I appreciate you all being here today, and my time has expired. And I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for five minutes for questions.

168:58So let's continue this thread. Mr. DeRogers, can you give us just a snapshot of what you think the potential is? Because right now, we have a lot of the spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage across the country.

169:17What truly is the potential to take any of that into reprocessing recycling compared to what you think the, will the bulk of it go to storage somewhere else? And maybe Mr. White, you might have an idea.

169:33Certainly, as my co-panel also said, there will need to be permanent storage facilities. Recycling cannot adequately address all of the spent fuel that already exists and that will be created by today's generators and those that are added in the future.

169:51Now, we understand, and I know a congressman from Massachusetts spoke of Omega. Some of the processors are very focused on the fuel that is stored on the sites like ours, that's the decommissioned plant coalition that is older fuel that is in casks.

170:06That is why it's appropriate, we submit, to put them out, have them test, have them explore, do demonstration projects to see what's viable, all recognizing that there still will need to be permanent disposal facilities, and hopefully at each of the campuses that are developed.

170:24So do we not have an idea yet what that mix could be, what the potential is?

170:30I think that's where we need to see the hosting agreements to understand what the states are committing to, what technology they're putting forward and what they're committing to, and what the developers of the recycling facilities at each of the campuses is committing to.

170:45Mr. White, can you give us anything more specific on what the potential would be for recycling versus just another storage in another geologic formation?

171:00I'm not necessarily an expert on recycling technology, but I can tell you that not all current waste forms that are being stored will be technologically feasible for recycling. Some will be, and it's certainly our hope that a significant component of future nuclear fuel could come from recycling, reprocessing.

171:25there will still be a significant portion regardless that will need to be disposed of. And we do know that any form of recycling or reprocessing that we know of today creates a waste stream in and of itself that also has to be managed appropriately.

171:37Okay. Ms. Gorsnick,

171:43I'm going to ask you that same question too. And I know the committee has examined what happens in France, but it seems like if we're going to move towards a coordinated national fuel recycling strategy, this is going to take a lot of work and a lot of investment.

171:57What would you advise?

172:03Thank you. Well, I think very much pursuing recycling is a smart thing for us to do. I think we should establish a milestone approach so it becomes very clear which are commercially viable ways to do it.

172:18I think we've seen around the world, I think we have some technologies here in the United States, we can take things apart. I don think that the question The question is are you left with a product that commercially viable that has customers And so I think that some of the things that need to be looked at over the next few years as people bring their technology to more of a commercial level.

172:40And at the same token, you're changing what are you recycling for, right? You're building fast reactors. Well, we don't have those today. Well, that would be a different recycled product. Are you going to feed the reactors that we have today?

172:51Well, no, those are thermal reactors. That would be a different approach. So I know you're asking for a really clear answer, and the reason is because we're changing so many pieces at the same time.

173:01So different style reactors, that's a different kind of food. And you'd have to decide what food you're trying to make in order to figure out how to tune, if you will, that recycling process.

173:10And so that's great. We have all of this opportunity. Let's do it in a stepwise fashion, tune it correctly, and have a good idea. the end of the day, the waste fund should feed and should be spent on things that lead to a long-term disposal option.

173:28It seems like we're going to need a lot of technical review. Mr. DeRosier, you know the importance of public trust in this industry. What is your view of the Administration's gutting of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, perhaps even disbanding it entirely?

173:45Can you speak to the review board's current role and any harm that might arise by disbanding

173:50it? Well, we certainly recognize it's important to have confidence in the system and that any storage or recycling or any other facility developed at a campus is safe and adequately and securely maintained, and that independent advice and feedback on that is important.

174:09Okay.

174:10Thank you very much. I yield back.

174:12The gentlelady yields back, and I recognize Representative Allen for his five minutes.

174:18I thank the lady and thank Chair Lauda for holding the second panel for this hearing to discuss managing our spent nuclear fuel. I want to thank the witnesses for being here and the second panel to testify.

174:35I mentioned this in the first panel. It's imperative we address managing spent nuclear fuel as we work to expand nuclear energy capabilities in the United States, and that is critical. My district is home to Plant Vogel, the largest commercial nuclear energy plant in the U.S.

174:50My district also is adjacent to the Savannah River site Both of those facilities housing spent nuclear fuel Addressing the management of spent nuclear fuel is very important to my district and the state of Georgia and South Carolina The administration has proposed innovative campuses and I'd like to discuss this proposal with you.

175:15Ms. Paradis and Mrs. Gorsnick, how important is it to demonstrate that reprocessing technologies are commercially viable in the United States without federal subsidies like we see in the country of France?

175:34Thank you for the question. As I noted before, NARUC, I work for, I'm representing an association here, so I can only work based on the resolutions that we've passed, and we haven't given a lot of talk because these campuses are so new in all of this.

175:48What I can speak to is the fact that what we know up to this date, And as my colleagues on the panel have said today, any type of reprocessing or recycling always has additional waste that's left.

176:00And as Ms. Korsnick properly identified, it also then, as we start to work in different technologies, then we have all kinds of different types of waste and different types of storage technologies. So I think as we look going forward, yes, we have to understand what's economically viable, what's environmentally sound, what is safe and reasonable for our communities.

176:20But I think the intention from a regulator's perspective is the commitment that has been made from the beginning, which is that our rate payers, those that generate from nuclear energy, they have paid into this fund and they have not been met with anything.

176:35As I said, that they've paid in $20 billion and that fund is in excess of $51 billion now. So from a neighborhood perspective, at this time, the priority is we need to understand what's next and happening with the waste and how that is being managed, both including the transportation and the storage of it on the way to permanent.

176:52However, there are these other new opportunities that are coming and they definitely should be evaluated.

176:57Ms. Corsi.

176:58Ms. Yeah, I think it's critical that the product be commercially competitive. The challenge that you otherwise have is who bears that additional cost, right? So either the customers are gonna otherwise buy natural uranium and enrich it, and then you don't have the product for that recycled.

177:18If you say, no, you have to buy that recycled product, then where does that cost go? It would get transferred to the electric customer and that means electric bills go up And so it really something we have to balance which is why we should take a stepwise approach I very confident on the innovation here in the United States and I think we need to you know, appropriately let that play out.

177:39But I wouldn't suggest that that funding come from the Nuclear Waste Fund.

177:45Mr. Based on the hearings this subcommittee held earlier this year, I think we heard that reprocessed fuel can't currently compete on price with new fuel. Either the cost of reprocessing needs to come down or the cost of new fuel would have to go up to make reprocessed fuel competitive from a cost perspective.

178:06Once we establish these technologies can be made commercially viable, only then should we proceed. I have heard from my colleagues that have visited France and have seen firsthand the way the French reprocessed their spent nuclear fuel.

178:25I'm not suggesting we should follow any models from the French. This has been a success in the operation of their nuclear fuel fleet. What is the cost of French reprocessing operations? Does the French government subsidize this?

178:39Is the commercial viability of reprocessing France the result of government subsidies? To both of you again.

178:47Yes, it's my understanding that, in fact, the product that is produced is over the market price and at the same token, they have a different system in France, right? The utilities are also part of the government in France.

179:04So, it's a little bit of a different situation.

179:06I got about 17 seconds.

179:09I would just echo what my colleague said.

179:11Okay, all right, great. My time is up and I yield back to Madam Chairman.

179:18The gentleman yields back and I will now call on Representative Menendez for his five minutes.

179:26AI data centers have dramatically increased energy demand. The Trump administration states and tech companies are turning toward nuclear power to address these growing demands. New Jersey recently passed several new laws to increase our nuclear power production.

179:39Earlier this year, Governor Sherrill signed a bill that lifted a state ban on new nuclear power until the federal government establishes a plan for dealing with nuclear waste. In July, she signed a law to direct the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to solicit interest in constructing new nuclear power plants with a goal to bring 1,100 megawatts of power to the state.

180:00New Jersey is also home to Oyster Creek, one of the country's oldest nuclear power plants. Oyster Creek is in the process of decommissioning and is expected to host advanced nuclear reactors once the decommissioning process is complete.

180:13Mr. DeRosier, can we expect to see more and more decommissioned nuclear power plants turned into new advanced nuclear power plants?

180:20Mr. Certainly there's been a number of plants that have decided to repower, and that is moving forward. I think there's an opportunity with the infrastructure and the technology and the experience at the sites of existing plants to invest in repowering or new technology.

180:37That said, to do that, I think it's important to have an answer for the waste that those facilities will produce, and that is why it's so important to have a policy that also deals with the back end and the waste that will come out of whether they're existing plants or new plants

180:55that are created. It would strike me that in terms of sequencing, you would want to figure out, since we haven't yet, exactly what to do with existing nuclear waste before you create more potential generation of nuclear power, which would also create more nuclear waste.

181:07Isn't that fair? I think that's very fair. Yeah, that's not what this administration is doing. It's sort of generation first and moving at light speed on that front without having figured out what the plan is and without congressional authority for a plan on nuclear waste?

181:30Well, I'll say the concept of the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses and by focusing on the complete energy lifecycle is a step forward. It is, yes, there is a focus on new generation, but there's a recognition by the Department of Energy that we have to deal with the back end too, and that is an important part of the process.

181:48And we understand and we're heartened because we understand that each of the states that has made it to be a finalist has committed to deal with and take waste for storage and disposal purposes.

182:05So then that needs to be a part of the energy policy going forward. I appreciate that.

182:10And you also in your testimony say that the United States cannot fully realize the benefits of current and future nuclear energy without a credible, sustained and publicly trusted program for the disposal of nuclear waste materials.

182:22Could you expand a little more on trust and credibility and how it is built Well certainly I think it built by transparency It built by honoring commitments And our government for a long time has failed to live up to its obligations to fully complete and store the nuclear waste.

182:42And so honoring those commitments, being transparent about it, and having a proper oversight to ensure safety are key all along to have so that ratepayers, customers, and the public have confidence in the nuclear industry.

182:58Yeah, and that's what the work that we've been doing on, you know, this committee and the full committee is trying to ensure that we hold this administration accountable with what we've seen at the NRC, you know, the last 19 months, because we want the public to have complete confidence, especially as we consider increasing nuclear capabilities, not just in New Jersey, but across the country.

183:18why we've been so concerned, especially at the NRC, with some of the things that have transpired the last several months. And it was a conversation that we had earlier today with the Assistant Secretary, and we're going to continue to be mindful of because, you know, these attacks raise some concerns about the administration's ability to build trusting partnerships with states and communities who have expressed interest in hosting these nuclear lifecycle campuses.

183:45The Trump administration has shown over and over again that in my opinion they can't be trusted and their legislative proposal that erodes that are environmental protections and judicial review are serious causes for concern.

183:57We need to have serious bipartisan discussions about addressing nuclear waste so that decommissioned plans can be turned into facilities that serve their communities where they host emerging nuclear technologies or something else altogether. And any proposal must center safety, the health of our communities and the environment.

184:15That's what we'll continue to do with this administration and future administrations. And I yield back.

184:20The gentleman yields back and I'll now recognize Representative Weber for his five minutes questions.

184:28Thank you, the gentlelady. Ms. Gorsnick, I'm going to come to you. Thank you for being here today. We had two of these panels, so we appreciate you all being here with the second one.

184:37Your testimony provides meaningful insights into the policy complications surrounding the Nuclear Waste Fund. As you all know, the fee for spent nuclear fuel disposal was suspended after significant challenges emerged with the Federal Nuclear Waste Management Program Ms Korzeny do you think restarting the nuclear waste fund fee is a worthwhile policy goal Ms I don think we should restart it now

185:08And I think…

185:09Would you wait until after lunch tomorrow?

185:10Ms. I think let's look at how much is in that fund, right? $51 billion. That should go a long way. When we take a look at that, we feel that that money spent wisely could take care of all the waste that's been generated by the current fleet and all the future waste that's gonna be generated by the current fleet.

185:30And so I think it should be spent, as we've discussed, for the intended final disposal of waste. And until you need it, so somebody has to show us a game plan and a need for more money.

185:45You're reading my script here. That was my next question. Who gave her my script, right? What reforms or assurances should be in place before rate payers are to begin paying the fee again. And so I thought I have kind of a little thought on myself.

185:59Would you live next to one of those facilities?

186:04Would I live next to a waste facility?

186:05I ask you first.

186:06Yeah. Okay.

186:08I'm just trying to make sure y'all are paying attention. Okay. Mr. White, I'm coming to you. You highlighted the potential need for a new independent organization to manage the nation's nuclear waste. And I didn't get to be here for y'all's testimonies, so I'll have to do another event.

186:26But to you, Mr. White, what authorities do you envision this organization needing to have or having, and how could it or could we help reduce the regulatory, the financial, and the liability uncertainties that private organizations face while they're storing or storing the stuff next to Ms. Korsnick, where she lives, right?

186:50while they're storing this stuff, or they're transporting it, or disposing of it, or recycling spent nuclear fuel. How do you envision this organization having that kind of regulatory financial uncertainties, and how do we deal with it?

187:05Right. Clearly, such an organization, being an independent organization, and there are a couple models, different models that can be considered, including a Fed Corp, like a federal corporation, or a public-private corporation, or one that has been considered as what we would call a nuclear corporation where it would be owned by the nuclear generators themselves But they would need substantial authority given to them by the federal government to be able to do these tasks that have currently been assigned to the Department of Energy.

187:38And eventually they would need access to the funding to be able to carry out that mission.

187:45Do we have that ability right now in terms of funding? I know we talked about $81 billion, I think you said, you cited. Was that the figure? $51 billion. $51 billion. If they have that ability now, they have that kind of funding available, should we be able to make it happen?

187:59Yes, we do. Certainly in addition to the $51 billion, there is an interest that's accrued on an annual basis. And in our view that that would provide more than sufficient resources to move a long ways down the road on such a program.

188:15Would any of y'all, I'll give y'all a question, I got a minute left yet. Would any of y'all compare the way France reprocesses their materials? How would that help us in this endeavor? Commissioner, I'm going to come to you.

188:28So generally, and I think Ms. Korsnick answered this earlier, France does do it. France is a different model. Their utilities are government owned. They actually also still need to process new uranium. Their recycling does not fulfill all the needs that they have in that country, which is an important part to take note of.

188:46The one thing I would share about the lifestyle campuses from the NAICS perspective, is anything that involves use waste, the waste streams, disposition, needs to be very transparent and clear about their scope, regulatory authority, transportation implications, cost responsibility, and how it fits into a national integrated waste management program.

189:08So even if we go forward with the campuses, we still need to have a comprehensive commitment of understanding what the federal government is.

189:13I appreciate you saying that. I've only got 16 seconds left. You said cost responsibility, but what I didn't hear was the liability. There's got to be processes in place that if something did happen, there's a lot of liability involved.

189:24So I was going to let you all wait on that, but I'm out of time. Ms. Corsing, very quickly.

189:28Well, I was just going to answer your first question. France does aqueous reprocessing. You can do that. There's also pyro processing. Either one can be done very safely, and the waste from either one can be stored very safely.

189:40I thank you for that. Madam Chair, I yield back.

189:42The gentleman yields back, and I now recognize Representative Palmer for his five minutes of questions.

189:50Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Coruscant Utilities and your customers have already paid about $59 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund. federal government hasn't begun disposing of the commercial used fuel. First of all, what concerns should the utilities have with reinstating that fee?

190:14Well, reinstating the fee gets passed on to customers, so at the end of the day, you're raising electricity rates on customers. The challenge really becomes why would you reinstate the fee with $51 billion currently collected and more interest accruing?

190:36There's more than enough funds if spent responsibly.

190:39I'm a huge proponent of recycling spent fuel. As I've pointed out many times before the committee, the spent fuel rods retain 90 percent of their energy capacity, and you can recover 95 percent of that.

190:58I'm just wondering what progress, or given the process that's been used in recycling technologies, does NEI support recycling and allowing existing nuclear – some of the existing nuclear waste resources to help advance that?

191:15is a broader use fuel management strategy?

191:20Absolutely. We support the concept of recycling, as mentioned earlier. I think the challenge becomes, is the product that you end up with a commercially viable product, right? Is it cost competitive? And I think that's what we've got now.

191:35You've got private sector companies that say they can do this at a cost competitive.

191:39And we've heard that as well. And so I think the challenge is, let's set up a process where you can demonstrate that.

191:45I think this is something that we really need to focus on. And in your testimony back in June, you said workforce development, supply chain expansion are not separate challenges. That is a huge issue that I've been focused on, on the critical mineral, rare earth element side, but also on the nuclear side.

192:07And I have a lot of concerns about the workforce because we need to reassure that. There's progress that's been made in both areas, but it's going to be more progress that's going to be necessary for the long term.

192:21This is why you said progress in both areas will be necessary to support long term operation of the existing fleet and successful deployment of new nuclear technologies It not just on the nuclear side it on the turbine side too isn it

192:36Absolutely.

192:37Yes, balanced plan as well.

192:40One of the, going back to the whole supply chain issue, and I raised this issue in the first panel, we're really making a strong move towards small modular reactors. I think that's going to be huge for increasing our baseloid power.

192:59But we're also seeing a lot of international interest in this. I've met with folks from different countries that want SMRs. I met with some folks from Poland. They want a Vogel scale reactor. And it's going to dramatically increase the demand for nuclear fuel.

193:23And one of the things that I saw was that given the projected demand that we could run out of or exhaust the current reserves by 2080. I'm very concerned about that because we're already in a position where we're very vulnerable in terms of our dependency on other nations for, like I said, critical mental health elements, but also nuclear fuel.

193:49Would you agree with that?

193:54I'm not certain about the year of 2080, but clearly we're not the only ones that want to build nuclear power plants and build significant amounts of them. So absolutely, I would say long term, the situation would need to be a combination of resources fresh out of the ground, as well as using recycled resources.

194:17And that's why it's a good opportunity for us to explore these and to get good at it.

194:21But the, I guess the connecting point I want to make, and I don't mean to ignore the other witnesses because all of you could, I think, answer this, but if we make a dedicated effort to recycled fuel.

194:39I don't think we have to have that much concern about the timeline for exhausting the known reserves of uranium, because as we use up the fuel rides, we can recycle those. And I asked the director of the National Nuclear Laboratory if we went to recycling spent fuel how long could we operate And he said over 100 years So by then, I think our technologies will be so totally different, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

195:10But I do thank you for your responses. I appreciate the witnesses being here. Madam Chair, I yield back.

195:15Ms. The gentleman yields back. And I'm going to go ahead and do my five minutes, so I recognize myself for five minutes. him get ready. Thank you all for being here today and it's important that we talk about this you know lifecycle innovation campus.

195:29It's a big deal. So, Ms. Korsnick, you outlined six principles for a congressional framework to make these innovation campuses successful, including durable agreements with host states, federal responsibility for spent fuel, and a credible path toward permanent disposal.

195:47So, what does Congress need to do to put those principles into into place to give the states the certainty they need to participate?

196:00Well, I would say some of the more straightforward things is to enable DOE to begin to move forward. If you look at our current construct, as we've mentioned earlier, Yucca is the stated location.

196:13So open some flexibility there that more things can be considered than just Yucca Mountain. Allow DOE to come into contracts with states to help them explore these innovation campuses. I believe Tennessee is one of these as an example.

196:28And I would believe in the beginning, you could amount to some flexibility. Let some states explore what does it mean, explore some of the siting, let DOE apply some of their technical expertise. But once some sites are selected, that needs to be more of a binding contract that says, OK, if we're really going to go forward here, you need the states to lock in, and you need the federal government to lock in, so that we have a durable solution for the long term.

196:55So I think that framework can be established. You've got to know the rules to get it done. So building on that, how could these campuses strengthen the broader domestic nuclear industry, including American fuel production and manufacturing, which will help us with our growing energy needs?

197:16Commissioner Paradis, from the perspective of state regulators what benefits could innovation campuses provide to states and their electricity consumers as we work to ensure reliable and affordable electricity to meet these growing demands Turn your There we go

197:35Sorry about that. If the campuses become functioning, they need to take on the waste, right? We have waste that has been stored for 40-plus years based on that commitment. So the first thing from a regulator perspective is these lifestyle campuses, if they help the federal government meet that outstanding commitment, that's the first priority.

197:55Yeah, exactly. And that leads into my question for you, sir, Mr. DeRocher. You represent the communities with nuclear plants that have already shut down but continue to store that spent nuclear fuel. So how would a successful innovation campus program and a federal commitment to moving forward with to moving spent fuel help those communities to provide decommissioning in moving that forward?

198:21Well, from the members of the DPC, the removal of the fuel from our sites will allow the repurposing of our facilities to meet the needs of our local communities, whether that's for industrial or commercial development or for conservation or other public purposes.

198:42That can happen, but it can't happen when we have spent fuel stored on our facilities and our host communities didn't sign up to be the default permanent storage location. Moving our fuel also, and you asked about economic benefit, every day that our fuel sits on decommissioned sites, the taxpayers of the United States are incurring additional liability to our companies to pay for that under the standard contract.

199:08So getting the fuel off our sites will reduce the cost for the federal government and the taxpayers.

199:18Yeah, sounds like we need to get these innovation campuses up and going. So make that decision. You know, Tennessee is one of them. So I guess that's it. And with that, I will recognize Representative Tonko for his five minutes.

199:33Thank you, Madam Chair. And Ms. Korczak, earlier I asked Secretary Garrish about the importance of long-term certainty to make DOE's life cycle campus proposal work. Now, if we're going to pursue a voluntary, consent-based approach for life cycle campuses, at what point in this process do states need to fully commit and forfeit their ability to change their minds on the effort?

200:00Thanks for the question. I think this is really something that has to be decided between the states and the federal government when they actually come together with their contracts. But I'll just give an example.

200:12I think right in the initial phases, you need some flexibility. You need some states to explore without feeling that their hands are tied until they fully understand do they have some sites that are suitable.

200:25And so I think there's some early flexibility. But I think once a site is identified and there's going to be commitment to license that facility and to move forward, I think in that case you need a much more firm relationship between the state and the federal government.

200:41And I think it's an important balance because I do want states to be willing partners in accepting waste as well as experience economic benefits stemming from it. But I also do not want us to fund more half-finished projects that will be tied up in litigation for years.

200:57So I also believe there is some urgency to begin to resolve the spent nuclear fuel question today while we remain on the precipice of a major nuclear revival rather than after we have already started to deploy dozens, if not hundreds, of new reactors across our country.

201:14So Miss Korsnick, do you believe like the new reactors being designed today have given more thought to how to reduce or otherwise address spent fuel issues?

201:24Well, I think we're going to have many different types and sizes of reactors going forward, and they have different waste forms, some of it high SALEU, some of it low enriched uranium, some again, some fast reactors, some thermal reactors.

201:42So in any of these cases, you're still going to have a waste form, right? And so I think as we look forward, we need to have an ultimate repository and just figure throughout the best way we want to do it.

201:58I've been to Finland and I've toured their waste repository. I know other countries are getting pretty close to finalizing locations for theirs and I have confidence that we in the United States can do the same thing.

202:12I'm certain Mr. Derozier would say the current situation is untenable and harm's host communities, which I would agree with, but I will also acknowledge that from a safety perspective, onsite storage has safe short-term option at the 75 sites across the nation.

202:30I think we all agree that this cannot be the long-term solution and I worry what will happen if our 75 sites today become hundreds of sites into the future. Mr. White, do you have any thoughts on that?

202:41Should we get closer to a long-term storage solution before encouraging the development of more sites that may become additional locations for on-site storage have spent fuel? Oh, sir.

202:52I think it was.

202:54Yeah, Mr. White. Yes, good.

202:57Yeah, so you noted that we are currently storing, spent with your fuel safely, and we believe that that is, you know, a good, safe thing that we can do, okay? In terms of going forward, I think having a program in place will help facilitate the development of new nuclear.

203:28Do we want to wait until we have a plan or a program in place? I think that we would want to try to do that concurrently.

203:35Okay. Any other comments? Sorry.

203:39Any other comments from anyone about?

203:41Okay. Well with that, I appreciate the opportunity and thank you Madam Chair, and I yield back.

203:48Thank you, gentlemen, you'll spec. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. Members may have additional questions for you. And I'll remind the members that they have 10 businesses today to submit those additional questions for the record.

204:00And I ask that witnesses do their best to submit responses within 10 business days on receipt of those questions. So I asked unanimous consent in certain record the documents included in the staff hearing documents list.

204:15And without objection, so ordered. So without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.