[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FISCAL YEAR 2017 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BUDGET
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 20, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-138
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-654 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
(ii)
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois JERRY McNERNEY, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania PAUL TONKO, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi GENE GREEN, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia LOIS CAPPS, California
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois KATHY CASTOR, Florida
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILLY LONG, Missouri JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILL FLORES, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma officio)
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
------
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio LOIS CAPPS, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
BILL FLORES, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina officio)
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 6
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 55
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, prepared statement................... 56
Witnesses
Stephen G. Burns, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission........ 7
Prepared statement \1\....................................... 10
Answers to submitted questions............................... 57
Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 24
William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 24
Jeff Baran, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... 25
----------
\1\ Mr. Burns submitted a written statement on behalf of the
Commission.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
joint with the
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
(chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy)
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Olson,
Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Ellmers,
Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Cramer, Tonko, Rush, Engel, Green,
Capps, McNerney, Welch, and Loebsack.
Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Rebecca
Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief
Counsel, Energy and Power; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy
Advisor; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the
Economy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer,
Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Andy Zach, Counsel,
Environment and the Economy; Tiffany Guarascio, Democratic
Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Rick Kessler,
Democratic Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; John Marshall, Democratic Policy Coordinator;
Jessica Martinez, Democratic Outreach and Member Services
Coordinator; Alexander Ratner, Democratic Policy Analyst;
Timothy Robinson, Democratic Chief Counsel; Andrew Souvall,
Democratic Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member
Services; and Tuley Wright, Democratic Energy and Environment
Policy Advisor.
Mr. Shimkus. Let's call the hearing to order. If staff
could close the door; staff, members take their seats. And I
would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
We want to welcome the NRC. Welcome for coming. Good
morning and welcome to examine the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's budget request. Nuclear energy is and must remain
a central component of our Nation's electricity mix. The NRC's
role in overseeing civilian nuclear power reactors serves to
ensure that nuclear energy will remain an integral part of our
energy future. Thank you for all being here. I would like to
add a special thank you to Commissioner Bill Ostendorff for his
service on the Commission. This will be his last appearance
before this committee as a Commissioner. I know that breaks
your heart.
I appreciate Commissioner Ostendorff's willingness to speak
up on the need for the Federal Government to fulfill its legal,
I will add, obligation to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. You
will be an invaluable asset to your alma mater, United States
Naval Academy. Of course, they need a lot of help there, and as
a distinguished visiting professor of national security. The
next generation of military leaders will greatly benefit from
your deep knowledge and expertise on national security issues.
Good luck to you.
My home State of Illinois generates the most nuclear energy
in the Nation. Nuclear energy is a major contributor to
Illinois' economic wellbeing, and must continue to remain so.
Our reliance on nuclear power plants also means my constituents
and ratepayers throughout the State provide more funding to the
NRC than any other State. Therefore, the agency's effort to
right-size the organization and streamline efficiency is of
great importance to me and my constituents.
This morning, we will examine the NRC's fiscal year 2017
budget request. I appreciate the initial steps the Commission
has taken to reduce its budget to date, but the budget
reductions thus far are inadequate. Yesterday, the House
Appropriations Committee considered the energy and water
appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year. And I support
Chairman Simpson's funding level for the NRC of $936 million,
including $20 million for the Nuclear Waste Fund for Yucca
Mountain activities.
This committee will continue to provide close oversight of
the Commission to find further opportunities to increase
efficiency and reduce the budget. Let me also be clear, these
efforts will not compromise the safety of our nuclear power
plants, nor will they prevent the NRC from fulfilling its
mission to protect public health and safety.
Last Wednesday the Commission approved an additional $30
million in reductions through rebaselining and prioritization
efforts. I hope that the additional reduction in workload and
responsibility will translate to a tangible reduction of NRC
staff. However, just because the Commission has voted on these
recommendations, Project Aim 2020 is not complete. As the
Commission stated, and I quote, ``It is important that the
completion of the rebaselining effort and the other Project Aim
tasks be view by the NRC staff and stakeholders as the
beginning and not the end in our goal to be better positioned
to respond to the challenges of 2020 and beyond.''
I would be remiss if I didn't express my dissatisfaction
that once more, the Commission failed to include funding to
continue consideration of Yucca Mountain's license application.
This Congress, I have held a series of hearings to examine
different issues associated with development of a comprehensive
solution to disposal of used fuel. I will continue to advocate
for a bipartisan solution that must include Yucca Mountain.
This committee has been persistent in its oversight to
assure the NRC complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The
courts directed the NRC to spend previous appropriated nuclear
waste fund money. And I understand that funding will be nearly
exhausted by the end of this fiscal year. I hope you are taking
all the necessary steps to maintain the necessary expertise and
infrastructure to continue consideration of the Yucca Mountain
license application.
I look forward to hearing from the Commissioners today. And
I thank you for your service. With that, I've ended my opening.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Nuclear energy is and must remain a central component to
our Nation's electricity mix. The NRC's role overseeing
civilian nuclear power reactors serves to ensure that nuclear
energy will remain an integral part of our energy future. Thank
you all for being here.
I would like to add a special thanks to Commissioner Bill
Ostendorff for his service on the Commission. This will be his
last appearance before this committee as a Commissioner. I
appreciate Commissioner Ostendorff's willingness to speak up on
the need for the Federal Government to fulfill its obligation
to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. You will be an invaluable
asset to your alma mater, the United States Naval Academy, as a
Distinguished Visiting Professor of National Security. The next
generation of military leaders will greatly benefit from your
deep knowledge and expertise on national security issues. Good
luck.
My home State of Illinois generates the most nuclear energy
in the Nation. Nuclear energy is a major contributor to
Illinois' economic well-being and must remain so. Our reliance
on nuclear power plants also means my constituents and
ratepayers throughout the State provide more funding to the NRC
than any other State. Therefore, the agency's efforts to right-
size the organization and streamline efficiency are of great
importance to me and my constituents.
This morning we will examine the NRC's fiscal year 2017
budget request. I appreciate the initial steps the Commission
has taken to reduce its budget to date, but the budget
reductions thus far are inadequate. Yesterday, the House
Appropriations Committee considered its Energy & Water
Appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year, and I support
Chairman Simpson's funding level for the NRC of $936 million,
including $20 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund for Yucca
Mountain activities. This committee will continue to provide
close oversight of the Commission to find further opportunities
to increase efficiency and reduce the budget. Let me also be
clear, these efforts will not compromise the safety of our
nuclear power plants nor will they prevent the NRC from
fulfilling its mission to protect public health and safety.
Last Wednesday, the Commission approved an additional $30
million in reductions through rebaselining and prioritization
efforts. I hope that the additional reduction in workload and
responsibilities will translate to a tangible reduction of NRC
staff. However, just because the Commission has voted on these
recommendations, Project Aim 2020 is not complete. As the
Commission stated, ``it is important that the completion of the
re-baselining effort and the other Project Aim tasks be viewed
by the NRC staff and stakeholders as the beginning and not the
end in our goal to be better positioned to respond to the
challenges of 2020 and beyond.''
I would be remiss if I didn't express my dissatisfaction
that once more the Commission failed to include funding to
continue consideration of the Yucca Mountain's license
application. This Congress I have held a series of hearings to
examine different issues associated with developing a
comprehensive solution to disposal of used fuel. I will
continue to advocate for a bipartisan solution that must
include Yucca Mountain.
This committee has been persistent in its oversight to
assure that NRC complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The
courts directed the NRC to spend previously appropriated
Nuclear Waste Fund money and I understand that funding will be
nearly exhausted by the end of this fiscal year. I hope you are
taking all necessary steps to maintain the necessary expertise
and infrastructure to continue consideration of the Yucca
Mountain License Application.
Mr. Shimkus. Anyone want the last minute? If not, I yield
back the balance of my time and I now yield to my ranking
member, Mr. Tonko, from the great State of New York, for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Chair Shimkus and Chair Whitfield, for holding this hearing.
And I want to thank my good friend and cohost on our side,
Congressman Rush, for joining with us. I also welcome Chairman
Burns and Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Ostendorff--and
the best to you, Commissioner, as you move forward--and
Commissioner Baran for appearing before the subcommittees
today.
We are here to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
fiscal year 2017 budget request of $982.3 million, which
reflects a decrease of some $19.8 million below last year's
enacted level. It is a decrease of $73.7 million, and 279.7
full-time equivalent employees when compared to the fiscal year
2014 enacted budget. We know the electric utility sector is
undergoing major changes. New technologies and markets are
changing, grid management, deployment of distributed
generation, and the relationship between our utilities and
their customers. Nuclear power still accounts for a significant
amount of baseload generation. And in some areas, it plays an
important role in the mix of power supply, and to ensure the
important concept of reliability.
But we must start to consider, seriously, how nuclear power
will best fit into the new grid and sector structures that are
emerging. Given the trends occurring in the nuclear industry,
the Commission has undertaken Project Aim to find deficiencies
and streamline the Commission. I understand the goals of
Project Aim to right-size the agency in light of the ratio of
decommissioning plants to new licenses while still continuing
to meet its mission to ensure the safe operation of nuclear
facilities and the protection of public health and the
environment.
Some Project Aim reductions have already been included in
the fiscal year 2017 budget request. Members on this committee
have a wide range of views on existing and new nuclear power.
But there is unanimous agreement that we need high standards
for safety and enforcement of those standards. There is no
compromising on that agenda. So I think it is fair that as the
Commission's budget and staff is shrinking, we look at calls
for expediting the licensing process very closely, and
potentially with some skepticism, we must recognize the need
for the Commission to be staffed and resourced at levels
appropriate for carrying out its very critical oversight and
safety missions, first and foremost.
In addition to changes in the utility sector, we must also
pay more attention to those changes to the climate. Just
reported, The New York Times yesterday, under the title of 2016
Already Shows Record Global Temperatures, according to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, 2016 has
been the hottest year to date with January, February, and March
each passing the mark set in the year 2015. Out West,
persistent drought will pose challenges to the nuclear
industry, as most designs require significant availability of
water. As a Nation, we will face water scarcity challenges, and
nuclear plants' access to sufficient water and sufficiently
cool water must be considered.
Elsewhere, floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters
are becoming more and more common. These events can pose
serious operation and safety challenges. Some plants may not
have been designed or constructed with the frequency and
magnitude of these events in mind. The nuclear industry is not
immune to the threats of climate change. In the future, severe
weather events will happen even more often.
So, I know I speak for many of us when I say the nuclear
industry and the Commission need a concerted effort to put
strong adaptation and resiliency plans in place to mitigate the
effects of climate change.
Last month was the 5-year anniversary of Fukushima
disaster. The Commission has worked on developing and
implementing lessons learned, and expects a number of safety
enhancements to be completed this year. Other longer-term
issues will be looked at in the years ahead. And I look forward
to hearing what we have learned from this tragedy and what
steps are necessary to ensure such a disaster never occurs here
in the United States.
I look forward to hearing from all of you today about the
Commission's efforts to guide the nuclear industry, and to
guide it through the transition that is underway. Again, I
thank you all for being here. And I yield back the balance of
my time, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Chairman
Whitfield for holding this hearing. And thank you, Chairman
Burns, Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Ostendorff, and
Commissioner Baran for appearing before the subcommittees
today.
We are here to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
fiscal year 2017 budget request of $982.3 million, which
reflects a decrease of $19.8 million below last year's enacted
level. It is a decrease of $73.7 million and 279.7 full-time
equivalent employees when compared to the fiscal year 2014
enacted budget.
We know the electric utility sector is undergoing major
changes. New technologies and markets are changing grid
management, deployment of distributed generation, and the
relationship between utilities and their customers.
Nuclear power still accounts for a significant amount of
base load generation. And in some areas it plays an important
role in the mix of power supply and to ensure reliability. But
we must start to consider seriously how nuclear power will best
fit into the new grid and sector structures that are emerging.
Given the trends occurring in the nuclear industry, the
Commission has undertaken Project Aim to find efficiencies and
streamline the Commission.
I understand the goals of Project Aim to right size the
agency in light of the ratio of decommissioning plants to new
licenses while still continuing to meet its mission to ensure
the safe operation of nuclear facilities and the protection of
public health and the environment. Some Project Aim reductions
have already been included in the fiscal year 2017 budget
request.
Members on this committee have a wide range of views on
existing and new nuclear power. But there is unanimous
agreement that we need high standards for safety and
enforcement of those standards. There is no compromising on
that.
So I think it is fair that as the Commission's budget and
staff is shrinking, we look at calls for expediting the
licensing process very closely--and potentially with some
skepticism. We must recognize the need for the Commission to be
staffed and resourced at levels appropriate for carrying out
its critical oversight and safety missions first and foremost.
In addition to changes in the utility sector, we must also
pay more attention to the changes to the climate.
Just yesterday the New York Times reported, ``2016 Already
Shows Record Global Temperatures.'' According to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2016 has been
the hottest year to date, with January, February, and March
each passing the mark set in 2015.
Out west, persisting drought will pose challenges to the
nuclear industry as most designs require significant
availability of water. As a nation we will face water scarcity
challenges, and nuclear plants' access to sufficient water-and
sufficiently cool water-must be considered.
Elsewhere floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters
are becoming more and more common. These events can pose
serious operation and safety challenges. Some plants may not
have been designed or constructed with the frequency and
magnitude of these events in mind.
The nuclear industry is not immune to the threats of
climate change. In the future, severe weather events will
happen even more often. So I know I speak for many of us when I
say, the nuclear industry and the Commission need a concerted
effort to put strong adaptation and resiliency plans in place
to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Last month was the 5-year anniversary of the Fukushima
disaster. The Commission has worked on developing and
implementing lessons learned and expects a number of safety
enhancements to be completed this year.
Other, longer-term issues will be looked at in the years
ahead. I look forward to hearing what we have learned from this
tragedy and what steps are necessary to ensure such a disaster
never occurs in the United States.
I look forward to hearing from all of you today about the
Commission's efforts to guide the nuclear industry through the
transition that is underway. Again, I thank you all for being
here, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The Chair looks to the majority side. Seeing no interest,
the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the Energy and
Air Quality Committee, Bobby Rush, from the great State of
Illinois, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank all of the NRC Commissioners for being here today. I
would also, Mr. Chairman, like to welcome back a former staffer
from our committee, Commissioner Jeff Baran, who worked
diligently in the past on a variety of issues with my office.
Welcome back, Commissioner Baran.
Mr. Chairman, it appears that the NRC has fully embraced
Project Aim, an initiative designed to significantly downsize
the agency that has received much support from members of my
colleagues here on Capitol Hill. Five years after the Fukushima
disaster, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we are not
becoming overly complacent in our attitudes towards nuclear
safety, and we are constantly being vigilant in our efforts to
prevent a catastrophe from ever occurring here in the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, in fact, the NRC request of fiscal year 2017
of $982.3 million represents a decrease of $19.8 million below
the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Additionally, Mr. Chairman,
in the area of nuclear reactor safety, specifically, the NRC
request of $587.5 million to support activities at current
nuclear facilities represents a $1.7 million decrease from the
fiscal year 2016 enacted budget.
Mr. Chairman, as part of the Project Aim initiative, the
NRC has identified at least 151 activities to be reduced or cut
out entirely, including discontinuing or delaying rulemakings,
reducing travel, and, in some cases, reducing staff and/or
their workloads.
Mr. Chairman, while I understand that many of my colleagues
applaud these deep cuts, I think it is important to understand
the practical implications of making these decisions before we
all start patting each other on the back.
Mr. Chairman, foolishness must never be the sum total of
our frugality. With Illinois housing, more nuclear reactors
than any other State in the country, my constituents, Mr.
Chairman, want to be assured that the agency in charge of
safety has all of the funding, all of the staff, and all of the
resources it needs to do its job. To that point, Mr. Chairman,
I understand that there are still currently 10 Tier 2 and Tier
3 items that remain unresolved from the NRC task force that was
established following the Fukushima accident back in 2011. Some
of these unsettled items that are still being evaluated by the
Commission include various emergency preparedness activities
and evaluation of natural hazards, among others.
So, Mr. Chairman, today, I look forward to engaging the
Commissioners on these outstanding items, as well as hearing
from them directly on the impacts of their proposed funding
cuts on the overall safety protocols of the NRC.
Mr. Chairman, as we move towards a more sustainable,
reduced energy economy, there is no doubt in my mind that
nuclear power must play a vital role in our Nation's overall
energy portfolio if we are to achieve these objectives.
However, we must also, Mr. Chairman, continue to assure the
American public that we have the best safety protocols and
practices in place, and that the agency in charge of overseeing
these systems have all the resources that they need.
So I look forward to hearing from our Commissioners on
these issues in more depth. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. And based
on the two openings statements by my colleagues on the Democrat
side, we also want to point out that if climate is a national
debate, then the largest baseload generation of carbon-free
energy is nuclear. And that has an important part of our debate
in this portfolio. So I just want to raise that.
Now, I would like to, again, welcome the NRC. We are going
to recognize the Chairman first for 5, and then, I think, 2
minutes each for the other Commissioners. And with that,
Chairman Burns, welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF STEPHEN G. BURNS, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION; AND KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF,
AND JEFF BARAN, COMMISSIONERS, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. BURNS
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Members
Tonko and Rush, and other distinguished members of the
committee. My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to give an overview of the NRC's fiscal
year 2017 budget request and the agency's current regulatory
activities. The NRC, of course, is an independent agency
established to license and regulate the civilian use of
radioactive materials in the United States, to ensure adequate
protection of the public health and safety, to promote the
common defense and security, and to protect the environment.
The resources we are requesting will allow the NRC to
continue to carry out our important mission. Our proposed
budget is $970 million, and 3,462 full-time equivalent staff,
excluding the office of the inspector general. The proposal
represents a net decrease of nearly $20 million and 90 full-
time equivalent from the 2016 enacted budget. The 2017 request
reflects a decrease of roughly $74 million and 280 full-time
equivalent employees from the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget.
And the inspector general's component of the 2017 budget is $12
million.
Consistent with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, our
request provides for 90 percent fee recovery, resulting in a
net appropriation of $121 million. This is an increase of $2
million over 2016 due to the inclusion of $5 million in non-fee
recoverable resources for advanced nuclear reactor technology.
Our budget request reflects our continuing focus on our
important mission, while continuing our Project Aim initiative.
The Commission has concluded its review of the rebaselining
paper, as the chairman noted, and approved a total savings of
about $41 million in 2017, of which about $10 million is
reflected in the President's budget.
However, we can't emphasize strongly enough that while we
expect to be a smaller agency, as a reflection of workload
reductions and efficiency gains, the need for the great
majority of the services we provide the American people remains
unchanged. And as we proceed, the agency remains mindful of the
importance of its highly skilled technical staff, and the need
to maintain our expertise. We must keep a focus on knowledge
management as senior staff retire and new experts take their
place.
I would like to highlight one area that the Commission is
attending to: improvement in our rulemaking process. The
Commission has revised its processes to improve its
understanding of and where possible to reduce the cumulative
effects of regulation. The Commission is currently considering
a proposal to establish a single unified approach to tracking
rulemaking activities so the public and stakeholders have
access to current information. We carry out our activities
through two major programs: the Nuclear Reactor Safety, which
includes both operating reactors and new reactors, and Nuclear
Materials and Waste Safety, consisting of fuel facilities,
nuclear materials users, decommissioning and low-level waste,
and spent fuel storage and transportation.
The 2017 budget request for the operating reactors business
line supports the implementation of lessons learned from the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan. The
requested resources support the continued implementation of the
safety significant--most safety significant Tier 1 activities,
including continuing implementation of the orders on mitigation
strategy, spent fuel pool instrumentation, and severe accident
capable hardened containment vents. Resources will also support
reviews associated with seismic and flooding hazard
reevaluations. The bulk of the most safety-significant
enhancements should be completed in calendar year 2016. And we
expect to bring to closure our valuation of longer term Tier 2
and Tier 3 issues. We will inspect the work that has been done
and ensure that plants maintain their progress. We strongly
believe that the United States plants are better prepared for
extreme events now than they were in 2011.
The budget request for the new reactors business line will
allow us to begin review of a small modular reactor design
certification application from NuScale. The budget request
includes $5 million in non-fee recoverable activities to
implement a strategy for developing the regulatory
infrastructure for advanced non-light water nuclear reactor
technologies. We will hope it will help us to undertake
licensing reviews consistent with the maturity and development
pace of the technologies.
Again, members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be
here, and we will be pleased to answer your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize
Commissioner Svinicki for 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Members
Rush and Tonko, distinguished members of the subcommittees for
the opportunity to appear before you today. The Commission's
Chairman, Steve Burns, in his statement on behalf of the
Commission has provided an overview of the agency's budget
request, as well as a description of several ongoing activities
that are central to carrying out NRC's important work. The NRC
continues to implement safety-significant lessons learned from
the Fukushima accident in accordance with agency processes and
procedures, while maintaining our focus on ensuring the safe
operation of nuclear facilities and the safe use of nuclear
materials across the country. The past few years have been a
particularly dynamic period for the NRC as an organization, and
our staff has been addressing these challenges in a systematic
fashion.
Our fiscal year 2017 budget request was developed
concurrent with the ongoing implementation of our Project Aim
initiative. Beyond the rebaselining effort discussed in
Chairman Burns' testimony, the NRC continues to pursue
improvements to our programs, processes, and procedures. The
NRC staff is also developing guidance for the disciplined
implementation of approved changes and for monitoring the
impacts of changes after they are implemented.
I thank you for your consideration of our budget request
and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes
Commissioner Ostendorff. Again, thank you for your service, and
you are recognized for 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF
Mr. Ostendorff. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking
Members Rush and Tonko, and distinguished members of the
subcommittees. I appreciate the chance to be here today.
Chairman Shimkus and Tonko, thank you for your kind remarks. It
has been an honor and privilege to serve on the Commission.
Today is my twenty-sixth time to testify before Congress as a
Commissioner. And I have always appreciated the respect and
civility which you and both sides of the aisle have afforded
this Commission. And I am very grateful for that.
I am in complete alignment with the Chairman's testimony. I
want to emphasize the deliverables that the Chairman mentioned
do not represent the end state for Project aim. Project Aim is
not just a temporary exercise, but the beginning of a longer-
term initiative.
I will make two very specific comments. First, the
Commission's recent direction to our staff to seek Commission
approval before embarking upon rulemaking activities is a
significant step towards better efficiency and better
stewardship of agency resources. Second, our budget request of
$5 million in non-fee billable resources to further develop our
regulatory infrastructure for advanced non-light water reactor
technology. It is important for the long-term health of the NRC
and the industry that we retain the ability to license new
technologies.
In closing, I appreciate the chance to be here today, and I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
now recognizes Commissioner Baran. Welcome back. And you are
recognized for 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN
Mr. Baran. Thanks. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking
Members Tonko and Rush, and members of the subcommittees, for
the opportunity to testify today. It is great to be back to
discuss NRC's fiscal year 2017 budget request and the work of
the Commission.
With respect to Project Aim, I have been very impressed by
the willingness of the NRC staff to take a hard look at the
work the agency is doing and how we are doing that work. The
NRC staff generated a list of 151 proposals that would reduce
costs in the coming months. The Commission recently approved
nearly all of those proposals. I think a large majority of
these items make a lot of sense. But I have concerns about a
number of them, including a few that would reduce inspection
hours. In my view, Project Aim should not be about relaxing
regulatory oversight of licensee performance and safety.
On March 22, I traveled to Fukushima Daiichi to take a
firsthand look at conditions at the site. The scale and
decades-long duration of the cleanup effort there are a
sobering reminder of the need to learn and implement the
lessons of Fukushima. Last month marked 5 years since the
accident in Japan. It is a natural time to take stock of where
we are. I think it is clear that we have made significant
progress, but still have a lot of work left to do.
Decommissioning is another important issue for NRC. In the
last few years, five U.S. reactors have permanently shut down,
and three more have announced plans to close in the near term.
I see two main purposes for the decommissioning rulemaking
effort that is now underway. And both are important. First, it
will allow NRC to move away from regulating by exemption in
this area. The exemption approach isn't efficient for anyone,
and it provides no opportunity for public comment. And second,
the rulemaking provides a chance for NRC and all of our
stakeholders to take a fresh look at our decommissioning
process and requirements. We need to thoughtfully consider
stakeholder ideas with an open mind.
There are, of course, other important efforts underway at
NRC. The staff is preparing for the first small module reactor
design application expected later this year. The budget request
also includes funds to ramp up NRC's efforts to prepare for
advanced reactor designs that may be submitted further into the
future.
We are happy to discuss these and any other issues of
interest. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
Now, I will recognize myself 5 minutes for the opening of
the questions. And I will begin with Chairman Burns. I
appreciate your efforts to identify and reduce the workload of
the agency through the Commission's recent approval, and the
vast majority of the proposals, including in the staff's
integrated priority and rebaselining agency activities.
Will you please tell the committee the total funding
reductions and reductions in full-time equivalents that were
approved by the Commission?
Mr. Burns. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The full reductions in the
rebaselining effort is on the order of about 40 to $50 million.
Actually, the number escape me. We have about $10 million that
is reflected in the reductions that came through the
President's budget. And what we are suggesting since then is it
is about another $31 million. There is an additional $8
million. That is how I get to my about 50 number that we really
were reflecting on beyond fiscal year 2017 into the 2018
period. I would have to give you----
Mr. Shimkus. Well, I have--maybe I can help. We have $49
million and 185 FTEs.
Mr. Burns. OK.
Mr. Shimkus. Of the FTEs that were approved to eliminate
those activities, what are they doing now?
Mr. Burns. Well, some of those--they may be involved in
some of the tasks. What we would be doing is reducing those
FTEs. For example, we are seeking, as we did last year, early-
out buyout authority for some staff in those areas. And then
attrition would also address some----
Mr. Shimkus. So you are shifting some folks around waiting
for the ability for----
Mr. Burns. Yes. And we also--I think we have also shifted
in the technical--some of the technical discipline's staffing
to other offices where the technical work may be. But, I mean,
this is--it is an attempt to, I mean, in terms of real
reductions, in terms of the number of staff where we see we
don't need the staff anymore.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. This is still directed, next
question to you, Chairman, but Commissioner Ostendorff
mentioned in his opening statement about Project Aim continues
to go forward. Obviously, it is labeled 2020. What is next on
your goal as you look at Project Aim 2020? What is the next
type of reorganization?
Mr. Burns. Well, I think we have adopted the notion it is
Project Aim with--originally it was called 2020. But I think,
as Commissioner Ostendorff and my other colleagues have said,
it is important that we keep a focus on this. So a few other
things that are--that would be coming to us, the EDO and our
CFO have asked for a hard look at the corporate support
offices. And in terms of looking at reductions there, we
anticipate a merge--re-merger of the new reactors office and
the NRR office. And so those are highlights of activities that
come. But I think what I want to do, certainly as Chairman, and
talk to the EDO about this, is--and as reflected in the
Commission direction is inculcate this idea--we need to look at
ourselves in terms of how do we carry out our mission
effectively in the most efficient way possibly.
Mr. Shimkus. And right back at you, again, on another
question. Obviously, I am going to--in previous testimony, we
know that when you submitted your budget, obviously you didn't
put in the money to finish the work on Yucca Mountain. And in
testimony on the Senate side, your comment was, the question
was asked by Chairman Alexander, your response was, It is the
President's budget. So here is the question: How does your
legal standing as an independent safety regulator comport with
your comment that it is the President's budget?
Mr. Burns. Well, thanks for the question. We ultimately--we
are the regulator. We have to make a decision one way--on the
application that comes before us. The difficulty that we are in
is that we don't have an applicant that is sponsoring its
application in front of us. We have done the work that we can
do and----
Mr. Shimkus. But you are really not answering the question.
The point being is you are an independent agency. You have
requirements under the law. This is part of the portfolio of
responsibilities, but yet, you don't request the dollars. And
in a question, a comment, you say, Because it is the
President's budget. It is not the President's budget. It is
your budget. You are independent of the executive branch. And
so that is the issue I want to raise.
My time has expired. There will probably be some follow-up.
But, you know, I am tired of agencies not following the law,
especially when they are independent. And I yield back my time,
and now turn to my ranking member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. And I thank the Chair.
In the aftermath of the Fukushima tragedy, the Commission
set a goal of completing its response within 5 years, as has
been mentioned here this morning. We have passed that date. And
while there is still more work to be done, there has been
progress.
Chair Burns, can you please explain the tiered system for
Fukushima Lessons Learned activities?
Mr. Burns. It--excuse me. The tiered----
Mr. Tonko. Yes.
Mr. Burns. What the Commission did, and some of my
colleagues who were on the Commission at the time adopted might
want to add to my responses. The Tier 1 were considered--those
are the things where we saw the most safety benefit from--and
that is what we focused on first. And those are the things,
particularly, that are coming to closure this year and into
next year. The Tier 2, actually many of the Tier 2 items were
absorbed into the Tier 1 activities, some of our rulemaking
activities, the orders that were issued to licensees. The Tier
3 were considered longer term items. These are things worth
looking at. Not clear whether ultimately there would be some
new requirement coming out of them. But it was deemed that
those were things that could be looked at on a later period.
The significant things, for example, the installing equipment
to deal with these beyond-design basis events, the seismic and
flooding evaluations, the spent fuel pool instrumentation.
Those were the things that were in the first tier or deemed
most significant.
Mr. Tonko. And then is it accurate then that Tier 2 and 3
items may also involve significant safety issues?
Mr. Burns. They involve safety issues, particularly from
the standpoint that they are things that I think we thought
needed to be looked at. Whether or not a particular requirement
might come out of them, that--I think that is left to be seen.
And as I say with some of the Tier 2--or much of the Tier 2 was
really absorbed into a lot of the initial activities.
Mr. Tonko. And, Commissioner Baran, do you feel more work
needs to be done on longer term Tier 2 and 3 issues?
Mr. Baran. Yes. My view is that NRC should do a thorough
safety analysis for each open item that is a Tier 2 or Tier 3
item before deciding whether additional action needs to be
taken in that area. The staff did this--did a good job on some
items, but I thought their analysis was insufficient on other
items. A full analysis doesn't necessarily mean you are going
to take additional regulatory action, as the Chairman
mentioned. But when someone asks me, you know, whether we fully
examined all of the items identified as lessons of Fukushima, I
want to be able to respond with an unqualified yes, not, well,
we didn't look at this as hard as I thought we should have. So
I thought there were cases where the staff should have taken a
harder look at it.
Mr. Tonko. One issue addressed by the Near Term Task force
focused on reevaluating external hazards, that would include
drought and extreme temperatures. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, we are already seeing significant impacts from
climate change. These hazards are expected to be worse in many
parts of the country in the future. Commissioner Baran, do you
agree with that observation?
Mr. Baran. I do. And I am actually very encouraged with how
seriously the NRC staff is taking this Near Term Task Force
recommendation to reevaluate external hazards. The Near Term
Task Force recommended doing it every 10 years. And I think the
staff is absolutely right that we need to be more proactive as
an agency than we have been about getting additional scientific
information, the latest scientific information, that could
deepen our understanding of those external hazards. And I think
you are exactly right that this reevaluation is going to be
critical, particularly for climate-related hazards, like
drought, or hurricane, or extreme temperatures or flooding,
where we cannot assume that the magnitude or the duration or
the intensity of those hazards are going to be static in the
future.
And so what the staff is doing right now throughout 2016 is
trying to figure out, well, one approach is we could reevaluate
every 5 years or 10 years or 15 years. What they are looking at
is can we do it on a more continuous pro-active basis to make
sure that we are getting the latest information, considering
that and making sure that if our understanding of the hazards
change, or if the hazards themselves change, our plants are--
the plants we regulate are prepared for that.
Mr. Tonko. OK. So that obviously, then, you think the
Commission needs to do more in terms of requiring that
proactive, forward look to potential hazards?
Mr. Baran. I think as an agency, we need to do better than
we have been doing. The staff recognizes that. And they are
working on the process to do a better job of that and be more
pro-active and make it more of a routine part of what we do,
gathering that information and incorporating that into our
analysis. Right now, I think we consider information when we
get it, but we are just a little too passive. We need to be
more forward-leaning to get that information.
Mr. Tonko. OK. With that, I yield back and thank you, Mr.
Chair
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi,
Mr. Harper, the vice chair of my subcommittee. And you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you
for being here.
Chairman Burns, in February, the Commission provided a
report to Congress on Commission involvement in the early
stages of rulemaking. This effort was conducted in a very
timely manner and appears to be a well thought-out product. And
I would like to ask you a couple of questions about this
report.
Will you please provide a bit of background as to what
prompted this effort and describe how this will increase
efficiency in the Commission?
Mr. Burns. Certainly. Thank you for the question. Part of--
as we were looking at things, I think actually Commissioner
Svinicki had gone back and identified a time, a period of about
10 years ago or so, at which the Commission decided to not be
as involved at the early stages. And I think we were looking at
that. We also got congressional direction in one of our reports
last year. And I felt, as the Chair, before there was a final
report on that, we should go forward and take a look at that,
those types of things. And that is sort of how we got to where
we are in terms of putting more of a Commission imprimatur on
the initial stages of the rulemaking process.
Mr. Harper. And, you know, that report did acknowledge that
NRC changes over a decade ago eventually developed into a lack
of discipline by the staff and their authority to initiate
rulemaking. So the report is--we would like to see that. But
how can we assure that those long-term trends don't resurface
in the future?
Mr. Burns. Well, I think that is the role of the Commission
as it--as individual rulemakings come before it, or proposals
is for us to take a hard look at why we might be going forward
and making that type of judgment. I think that is--the idea is
that the senior leadership of the Commission--at the Commission
level would be doing that. So that is how I would see it going
forward.
Mr. Harper. Has the Commission used this new process yet?
And if so, was the supporting staff documentation adequate?
Mr. Burns. I don't think--because I don't think we have had
a particular proposal that has come in front of us as yet. I
don't--yes. We haven't had that as yet.
Mr. Harper. We will ask that when it happens then. How
about that?
The new streamline rulemaking plan will include a
preliminary evaluation of the cumulative effects of regulation.
What else is the Commission doing to address cumulative
effects?
Mr. Burns. Well, part of that effort, which has been
ongoing was initiated several years ago, asks that at the front
end that there were--that we have a better idea, make sure we
have a good idea of what the impacts of adopting a particular
rule are on the industry. And so, that when we are in the
process of deliberating the rule, we have that in front of us.
We have a better consciousness of that. I think that is
probably the--I would say the highlight of the significant
things that we would do in that area.
Mr. Harper. The Commission directed the staff to address
whether the advisory committee on reactor safeguards should
review the proposed rule. How would this recommendation as a
part of the Commission's early involvement in the rulemaking
affect the ACRS workload?
Mr. Burns. I am not sure I have a--the ACRS is an important
organization. I am not sure I have a particular impact as yet.
The ACRS can help us in terms of providing--it was created to
provide this expert panel outside the Commission to advise it.
And I think we can fold its recommendations into our
deliberation.
Mr. Harper. You know, in 1980 Congress passed the low-level
waste Policy Act providing a framework for States to
voluntarily join compacts and then work within the compact to
site a low-level waste disposal facility. While this merely
addressed low-level waste, it provides relevant experience
about a consent-based process for nuclear waste disposal. After
the Act was passed in 1980, it wasn't until 1985 that Congress
approved the compacts. And it was 1990 before a disposal
facility opened in Utah, but only for class A waste, the lowest
class of low-level waste. Congress didn't approve the Texas/
Vermont compact until 1998, 18 years after the Act passed, many
others in the history there. And in light of the limited
success and lengthy process for consent-based siting for low-
level waste, what gives you confidence that DOE will find an
interim storage site for used nuclear fuel and have it
operating 8 years from now?
Mr. Burns. I am not sure that we are particularly in a
position to answer that. What----
Mr. Shimkus. They are an independent agency.
Mr. Burns. Well, that is right, Mr. Chair. We are not part
of the consent development process either for the low-level
waste compacts or this. The one thing--what we have seen is we
have seen interest in both an applicant in western part of the
State of Texas and in eastern New Mexico who are interested in
pursuing applications for independent consolidated storage
sites.
Mr. Harper. I am over my time. And so I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. I
want to note that the pesky Cubs beat my Cards last night. But
the Blues took care of the Blackhawks. So we are even today,
and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. It is only the beginning of the season, Mr.
Chairman. You have got a lot of hurt coming your way.
Chairman Burns, as you know, my home State, the chairman's
home State, is home to more nuclear plants than any other
State. And our constituencies have some concerns when they hear
that the NRC is requesting a $20 million decrease in the budget
for this year that would--then the one that was enacted in last
year's budget.
I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, and each of the
Commissioners, can you, for the record, as short of a
guarantee, state that the NRC is doing its absolute best to
eliminate any and all known threats to nuclear safety in this
Nation?
Mr. Burns. I believe we are, Mr. Rush. One of the things we
do is we evaluate operating experience. We take into account
information we have in terms of new analysis of, for example,
in the seismic and flooding area, and we apply that experience
in terms of looking at assurance of the safety of nuclear power
plants. So I think that is something--that is at the core of
our mission to do that, and I think it is something we strive
to do on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Rush. Commissioner Svinicki?
Ms. Svinicki. Congressman Rush, I am confident that the
NRC's experts are doing their best in the areas that you
describe. And I want to note that although there is a small
reduction in our operating reactor activity area in the fiscal
year 2017 budget, those reductions are not principally
attributable to Project Aim. They are attributable to work and
issues that are concluding in fiscal year 2016, and there is
not a need to request budget in fiscal year 2017 on some
technical issues that will conclude this year. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Commissioner Ostendorff?
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir. I would agree with my colleagues.
I will also add one other perspective from the international
community. The Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris that is part of
the OECD regime as well as the International Atomic Energy
Agency, part of the United Nations, have both issued reports in
the last year dealing with Fukushima issues. And our staff's
review and the Commission's review of those two reports have
not identified any issues that we did not explore as part of
the Fukushima lessons learned. And so I just give you that as a
data point that the committee may not be aware of.
Mr. Rush. Commissioner Baran?
Mr. Baran. Well, Mr. Rush, I agree with my colleagues.
Safety and security is our priority. It is our focus. It is our
core mission. And when I evaluate a potential efficiency or
potential cost savings, what I have at the forefront of my mind
is we can't do things that are going to weaken our safety
oversight. We can't do things that are going to erode the
technical capabilities of the agency. And that is exactly the
test that I apply when I am looking at those kinds of
questions.
Mr. Rush. Commission Baran, in my opening statement, I
mentioned 10 outstanding Tier 2 and Tier 3 items that remain
unresolved from the NRC task force recommendations. Can you and
any of the other Commissioners briefly discuss these unresolved
issues? Also, can you assure the public that these outstanding
items pose no significant threat, and they are actively being
addressed?
Mr. Baran. So going back to the conversation I was having
with Mr. Tonko, there are a number of Tier 2 and Tier 3 items--
the staff did an analysis of all of those, and they submitted
their recommendations for closure to the Commission. A number
of the items were closed at that time. For several other items,
there is work going on this year. And one of the items was the
one I discussed with Mr. Tonko about how are we going to
reevaluate external hazards. That workis going on.
And, you know, there are potentially significant safety
issues in these Tier 2 and Tier 3 categories, which is why I
think it is important that for each one of those items, the NRC
staff does a solid safety analysis to ensure that we have
looked at the issue, we have evaluated whetherthere is
something there that needs to be done, and have made a decision
accordingly. You know, there were issues where I thought the
staff could have done a better job on that. And I will give you
one. And I guess I would put these in the category of we don't
know whether the safety enhancement would have made sense, but
I wanted to see a better analysis to really know.
And, so, one example I would briefly give you is just,
every plant right now in the country is required to have what
is called an Emergency Response Data System. And it provides
real-time information to the NRC on various conditions at the
plant, the reactor, the spent fuel pool, the weather
conditions.
And in the event of an emergency or an incident at the
plant, a natural disaster, this would be a mechanism for NRC to
have real-time instantaneous data on what is going on at the
plant. One of the lessons of Fukushima, and actually from
earlier natural disasters is, well, ERDS, this Emergency
Response Data System, it is an Internet-based system. And in
the event of a natural disaster, it is not clear you would have
the Internet connectivity anymore. You might lose this
functionality. Well, what would that mean? Well, we could still
get information. We would have to do it by phone. We would have
to talk to the operators at the site. And when we asked the
staff, well, what are the implications of that, the answer was,
well, you are probably getting updates every 20 minutes instead
of instantaneously automatically every 30, 60 seconds. You are
probably getting less information and it may not be as
accurate.
So the staff took a look at this as part of the Tier 3
items, and they did an evaluation. And they looked at, Well,
what would it take to do a backup system that didn't rely on
the Internet? And their initial--it was fairly preliminary.
They looked at potential costs, and the costs were not enormous
for at least the equipment itself. It was on the order of like
a million dollars for the whole fleet nationwide. The staff on
that item decided to recommend closing it, not to take further
action. And there wasn't really much of an analysis of the pros
and cons. And for an issue like that where the costs are pretty
modest, to my mind, the time you want to have the system
functioning is when you have a natural disaster when you really
need it. I wanted to see more of an analysis there. Is there a
potential safety enhancement we could have made that would have
made plants even safer? I wanted to see more on that.
Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. It was important to hear the final answer, and
appreciate that.
The Chair now recognizes a great Texan, Mr. Olson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair. And welcome to all our NRC
Commissioners, especially Commissioner Ostendorff. It is your
last time before this committee.
Our chairman failed to mention that he is a graduate of
West Point. You are a graduate of Annapolis Naval Academy. He
failed to mention that for the last 14 years, 14 straight
years, our Navy has beat Army in football.
Mr. Shimkus. Really?
Mr. Olson. Just to set the record straight.
Mr. Shimkus. I didn't know that.
Mr. Olson. All seriousness, sir. May you have fair winds
and following seas in your next endeavor.
Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you.
Mr. Olson. I want to thank you all for moving forward with
the South Texas plant's units 3 and 4 in Bay State, Texas with
the final safety evaluation report for a combined license for
units 3 and 4. Thank you, thank you, thank you. As we say in
Texas, much obliged.
My first question is for you, Commissioner Burns. In
November, Dominion Power announced it would seek a second
license renewal for its Surry Power Station. It would be one of
the first American nuclear plants to obtain a second license,
20-year license, since--first one ever. And I hope this is one
of many. I want to know is the NRC ready for these next new
applications? What specific progress has been made to prepare
for a second license extension since our hearing last year?
Mr. Burns. Thank you for the question, Congressman. First
of all, what the Commission before I returned to the agency
about a year or so ago, the Commission decided that the basic
framework for license renewal that was in place for the first--
for the 40 to 60, the basic framework was sound and adopted
that. Since then, what the staff has been doing and engaged
with the industry and other stakeholders is reviewing the
guidance--there is this generic aging lessons learned report
that helps in the review process. And that has been out for
comment. I think the staff has gotten comments on that as
resolving that. The announcement from Dominion, I think, puts
the potential for the application a couple years down the road.
So I would expect by that time this additional work on the
guidance documents will be done, and I think we are ready to
entertain those applications.
Mr. Olson. Great. Is NRC working with the Department of
Energy on their research and development efforts to extend the
life of our existing fleet of nuclear power plants? How closely
are you working with DOE to extend our current power plants?
Mr. Burns. Yes. Thank you for that. We maintain a
communication with DOE on some of the research that they are
doing. That helps us and keeps us informed. So we have open
communication with the Department of Energy. Obviously, we have
different roles, but we are able to take that into account.
Mr. Olson. Any comments of the three Commissioners?
Commissioner Svinicki, Captain Ostendorff, Commissioner Baran,
about the issue of being ready for the new renewals, 20-year
renewals? Anything to add?
Mr. Ostendorff. I will just say that our staffhas been
looking at this for some time. The buried piping, buried
cables, reactor vessel fluence from neutron exposure. All these
different technical issues are well coordinated between--as the
Chairman mentioned, between us and the Department of Energy.
Also, we work with EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute, on
these issues. And so I think we are in pretty good shape.
Mr. Olson. OK. One further question. Commissioner Burns,
last week, I was talking about 21st century nuclear power with
the lead of our power company. I was talking about south Texas,
obviously, being a Texan. He said that is the past. The future
is small modular reactors. And I want to talk briefly about
those reactors. They have unique safety features and designs
that the NRC has not seen before. I am curious, how do you plan
to make sure that these can have applications on time? You can
get these things done quickly. Because these are new for the
NRC. Any idea how you are going to get this done?
Mr. Burns. Well, yes. I think this are a number of things
that we are doing. First, what I would distinguish on some of
the small modular technology is light water technology, like
the South Texas plants and other plants that have been
installed in the United States. And, in fact, we are going to
get a design certification application from NuScale at the end
of this year. It is--and we have been working with them and
make sure we have mutual understanding of expectations. The
other piece of this is the smaller--sometimes small modular
reactors may be referring to advanced reactor technologies that
are non-light water reactors. There is experience in the United
States with those. But longer term, what we are doing, and one
of the things this $5 million in our budget request would help
us do is to continue engagement with those who are interested
in those technologies, making sure we have got the right
framework. Again, this is an area we work with DOE. So I think
we will see where the interest goes on this. But I think it is
something we can be prepared for.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. My time--end by saying go Navy, beat
Army 15 straight. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Diablo Canyon, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, to our
witnesses for appearing today and all your testimonies.
As was indicated by the chairman, and as some of you know,
I do represent Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis
Obispo, California. This power plant, which is owned and
operated by PG&E, is the largest private provider of jobs in
that county and a very important part of our economy as well as
our energy portfolio. But Diablo also sits very close to two
significant earthquake faults, the Hosgri and the Shoreline
fault. The Shoreline, which was most recently discovered,
actually lies only a few hundred yards from the plant. Given
the proximity to these faults, the potential for seismic
activity and its impact on Diablo Canyon is ever present. This
is especially true in a post-Fukushima era, as we recognize the
dangers that seismic activity can pose.
As such, we have responsibility to ensure we are
considering these risks when it comes to operating all nuclear
plants as safely as possible. And I keep this in mind as we are
due very shortly for relicensure of Diablo Canyon.
So my question, I am going to address this to you,
Commissioner Baran, it was a pleasure to serve with--to work
with you on this committee in a previous lifetime of yours, can
you please elaborate on the funding in the fiscal year 2017 NRC
budget to implement the lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi
accident. How would this funding help to make nuclear power
plants like Diablo Canyon safer?
Mr. Burns. Sure. I don't have the number right on hand. I
think it is in the order of $15 million or $16 million in
fiscal year 2017 for the various Fukushima lessons-learned
activities.
One of the key things going on--and this is true at Diablo,
but it is true for a number of sites across the country--is the
seismic reevaluation, looking at the latest information about
seismic hazards affecting different plants. It is a longish
process, you know. There was an initial phase where every plant
was screened to determine whether a very detailed seismic
probabilistic risk assessment needed to be done. Diablo is one
of the sites where that is being done. I believe, for Diablo,
that would be submitted by September 2017, and that analysis
would be--at Diablo or any other plant--would be the basis for
determining, are there any additional safety enhancements that
would be necessary at a plant to address seismic hazards?
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. Ensuring that we are prioritizing
safety and transparency is supremely important, and the safety
of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, all of the nuclear power
plants across the country, is really the highest priority for
plant employees, many of whom live in the surrounding
communities, and all the communities in which these plants are
located.
As such, this budget absolutely must prioritize safety, and
we must institute the lessons learned from Fukushima and apply
the best science in order to meet this need. In my district,
and I am sure across the country, community stakeholders are
very interested in being better informed and participating in
the ongoing discussions surrounding nuclear power plants.
However, it has come to my attention that sometimes community
members feel they don't have the information to access and
productively participate.
So I will start again with you, Commissioner Baran, but I
would welcome comments from any of the rest of you on how the
fiscal year 2017 budget supports increased transparency and
facilitates stakeholder engagement and participation.
Mr. Baran. I would just briefly say I think it is less of a
budgeting issue, and it is more about just a focus on outreach,
on having good meetings with communities where they have an
opportunity to express their concerns or ask their questions
and have the staff ready. We are always trying to improve at
this, really listening to those concerns, really focusing on
the questions and getting good responses to community members
who care about these issues. Some of the issues are really
complicated and technical, and we have to do a good job of
explaining it in a way that people can understand.
Mrs. Capps. Good.
Mr. Baran. And really taking their concerns to heart, if
they have concerns.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
I have a few seconds if maybe, Chairman, or any of you
would like to respond, either to the issue of the comparison
with Fukushima and also the transparency.
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Congresswoman Capps. What I would
note is there are a couple of opportunities coming up. I think
in summer 2016, we would have our annual assessment meeting,
have a townhall style meeting out near the site. And then also
because it is related to the license renewal application, there
is a public meeting to discuss the draft supplemental
environmental impact statement roughly in September of this
year. So I want to highlight those as examples.
I know, last year, you cosponsored a townhall out in the
area which we were pleased to participate in.
So I think it is something, as Commissioner Baran says, we
can continue to look for opportunities. I think also making
sure that we give good information on our Web site and are
responsive, hear from you and others in the community, are ways
we can improve, so we can continue to work at that.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And to the Commission, thanks very much for being here
today.
On Monday of this week, Congressman McNerney and I
introduced the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act,
which would require the NRC and Department of Energy to address
issues that are currently hindering the development of advanced
reactor technologies, such as the need for a predictable risk-
informed regulatory framework. The legislation would also
codify the Commission's proposal, including the fiscal year
2017 budget request of $5 million for the development of
regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor
technologies that is not subject to the fee-based, which the
NRC must recover from the NRC licenses and applicants.
If I could start, Commissioner Ostendorff, with you with a
couple of questions, but, first, also just to follow up, thank
you for your tenure at the Commission and wish you all the best
in your future endeavors.
You have spoken on the need to examine the current
regulatory framework to create more certainty for non-light
water reactor technologies. Would you please describe the
nature of your $5 million proposal? And, for example, what is
it specifically intended to address, and what is the expected
timeline to develop that regulatory framework?
Mr. Ostendorff. Certainly. Thank you for the question,
Congressman Latta. The proposal for the $5 million for fiscal
year 2017 would basically have us engaged in looking at other
technologies that are being discussed in the industry vendor
side of the house, would have us participate in outreach
activities, and also look at our particular regulatory
requirements to ensure that we understand how a prospective
application might fit into those requirements.
Let me give you one example that has been discussed earlier
this year by our staff, by Dr. Jennifer Uhle, who is in charge
of our New Reactors Office, and by others. That is, we are
embracing now a phased approach to look at new technology in a
way that would provide incremental feedback to a prospective
vendor to break it down, not into just one package that comes
in 3 years from now, but in year one, they have two major
conceptual design issues they want to discuss at NRC. We are
prepared now to provide that type of feedback and do it in a
phased way to make it, quite frankly, easier but also
recognizing the limitations of venture capital funding for new
ideas and new projects. So that is one example of a specific
regulatory adaptation we are ready to make that would be
facilitated by the $5 million funding if we receive it.
Mr. Latta. Chairman Burns, the Commissioner recently issued
a construction permit for a new facility to generate medical
isotopes. Would you please describe how the Commission
approached the permitting process and if there are lessons
learned that could be applied to the licensing of other non-
power reactors or non-light water reactors?
Mr. Shimkus. I think he had a hard time hearing your
question.
Mr. Burns. Could you repeat the question? I couldn't quite
hear the----
Mr. Latta. OK. Well----
Mr. Burns. I understand. I think you are asking about the
SHINE application.
Mr. Latta. Well, right. So I guess, describe how the
Commissioner approached the permitting process and if there are
lessons learned that could be applied to the licensing of other
non-power reactors or non-light water reactors.
Mr. Burns. Yes, thanks for the question. What it showed I
think is some adaptability in terms of the agency looking at
something that didn't quite fit, perhaps, the part 50 reactor
framework and looking at--that that was a good approach in
terms of going forward with the licensing.
Now what they did is use what I will call the traditional
two-step approach: construction permit, come back ultimately
for operating license.
I think what that does--the advantage of that two-step
process was it allowed development finalization of design. What
led us to go into the part 52 or one step was a concern about
certainty and that type of thing. But I think where you--it was
a good example here where you had new technology, where it
didn't quite fit the model, that we discussed it with the
applicant. We found a place where it could go, and I think it
has been successful in terms of getting through the
construction permit phase. I don't know if any of my colleagues
have anything else to add.
Mr. Ostendorff. One thing, a fine point, maybe 2 \1/2\
years ago, our staff came to us with our help--with the help of
our Office of General Counsel and said: This part 50, the way
it is written would require perhaps some modification or
change. They proposed that to the Commission. With the general
counsel's help, we approved it, and it was dealt with.
Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would yield, it almost sounds
like a design build type thing instead of the two processes--
current construction, you are kind of doing it together in the
process. Is that true?
Do you understand design build in construction?
Mr. Burns. Yes, yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Where it is not a two-step? It is designing
and building; in essence, one firm operating together in two
different operations. No.
Mr. Burns. Yes, I may not fully--again, I think what it
allows is there may be some finalization of the design for the
final phase for the operating license, and that is--but that
allows them to go forward. It gave them some opportunity in
terms of making a safety case, showing that the technology was
viable, and some of the details in operation that can be dealt
with in the second phase. I think that was the advantage of it.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman form California, Mr.
McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Latta, for
introducing with me H.R. 4797. Are you all familiar with that
legislation yet? Have you had a chance to look at it?
Mr. Burns. I have had just a very brief chance to look at
sort of the high points of it.
Mr. McNerney. Well, do you believe that the NRC can play an
effective role in developing advanced regulatory technology?
And in particular, would a memorandum of understanding with the
DOE be helpful?
Mr. Burns. It could be. We have ongoing discussions with
the Department, and we maintain awareness of what they may be
doing in terms of assistance to new technologies. Again, we
have a development role--they have the development role; we
have the regulatory role. But across that, I think we have good
discussion and can work appropriately together.
Mr. McNerney. How quickly are some of these technologies
being developed, the new advanced technologies?
Mr. Burns. That is a good question, because some of these
technologies have existed. What we have not had particularly
presented to us--other than, say, for example, a small modular
reactor, a NuScale, which is a light water reactor design--we
really haven't had a lot of them presented to us. There has
been some discussion. So I probably am not well-equipped to
understand how far along they are on development. I think some
are further along than others, quite honestly.
Mr. McNerney. One of the areas that the NRC may need to
improve is--I mean, we have already discussed licensing and
outreach--is technical preparation. And I see you have reduced
staff by 90 folks. Were those done by attrition? I think you
mentioned that some of them were anyway.
Mr. Burns. Some is attrition. Some we had an early-out
buyout last year, so some were buyout as well.
Mr. McNerney. Do you expect to see additional reductions?
Mr. Burns. Well, yes, given the budget request for fiscal
year 2017.
But what I say is what we try--what we have to maintain
awareness of and we keep a focus on is, where do we see the
demands on in terms of our staff, in terms of workload? And we
reach out to the industry to try to tell us, what do you think
you are going to be putting on our plate? So that helps inform
our planning process. And that is part of what we would be
doing with this $5 million, nonfee-based, in the fiscal year
2017 budget.
Mr. Ostendorff. If I may add to the Chairman's comment,
Congressman, I think one very positive aspect of your
legislation with Congressman Latta is the fact that it excludes
from the fee base work on advanced reactor technologies. That
is a very constructive and helpful change, because that has
been a tension for us to have staff working on areas that are
preparatory to receiving applications, so that is a very
positive aspect.
Mr. McNerney. So how is the morale of the agency, seeing
that you have reductions and will see additional reductions?
Mr. Burns. I think the overall the morale is pretty good.
Before I retired, I had served in the agency 34 years before
going to Paris and then coming back as a Commissioner. I saw,
across the course of my career, those ups and downs, after
Three Mile Island, the early 1990s, when licensing had been
done.
This is a pretty resilient staff. It is a high-quality
staff, very dedicated to the mission of the agency. Yes, there
are some uncertainties, but that is part of what I think our
role is and senior leadership's role is, is to work on the
morale. But, overall, I think it is good. I think that is
reflected in our----
Mr. McNerney. I will ask a question that will make the
Chairman happy, I think. Are there any realistic paths for
long-term storage of nuclear waste? Is there anything out there
that we can hang our hats on that is realistic, given the
politics?
Mr. Burns. Well, I will avoid the politics. But what I
mentioned before, we have two potential applicants who--I think
we may get the one application this month and another one later
on in the year.
Mr. McNerney. For high-level waste.
Mr. Burns. For high-level waste, consolidated storage of
high-level waste. This is the one in western Texas and in
eastern New Mexico. So we will see how that proceeds, but we
have the authority to license----
Mr. McNerney. Yucca Mountain, is it completely dead?
Mr. Shimkus. You have been there. You have seen it.
Mr. McNerney. I want to hear what the Commission says. It
looks----
Mr. Burns. I am not going--I am not going to weigh in on
that.
Mr. McNerney. OK.
Mr. Shimkus. But I will say DOE has no authority under
current law to move on high-level nuclear waste anywhere but
current law, which is Yucca Mountain.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman form
Ohio, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the panel for being with us this morning. I
want to talk about a little bit of a different topic. NRC has
invoked the adequate protection standard to require a backfit
in a provision of the draft rulemaking known as mitigating
beyond-design-basis events. Now, by invoking adequate
protection, NRC staff doesn't have to submit the rulemaking to
the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, or CRGR, make a
determination of safety significance, or conduct a cost-benefit
analysis. It appears that, in making this determination, NRC
staff's draft regulatory analysis did not account for actions
already required for licensees to comply with nor did the
regulatory analysis appropriately justify the need for a
backfit application.
So I am concerned that NRC staff's invocation of adequate
protection in this situation is not warranted and, in doing so,
undermines the credibility of the NRC and your principles of
good regulation.
So, Commissioner Ostendorff, you have previously been vocal
about the need for discipline, clarity, and reliability in the
Commission's rulemaking process. Why is it important for the
Commission to have a high threshold for requiring a backfit?
Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you for the question.
Let me just, if I can, talk very briefly about the overall
experience from Fukushima issues. Along with Commissioner
Svinicki, each of us has voted on 25 separate decisions
associated with Fukushima regulatory actions in the last 5
years. Throughout that, we have looked very carefully at
ensuring that we have adhered to our historic principles of
adequate protection, which is a Commission decision. It is not
something our staff decides. We are the only group that can
decide adequate protection issues. If it does not meet the
adequate protection threshold, then to move forward from a
regulatory standpoint requires identification of a substantial
safety enhancement that passes a cost-benefit test. So that is
the backfit piece you are talking about, Congressman.
And I would offer from my experience that the Commission--I
am drawing a line here--the Commission decisionmaking, as a
result of Fukushima issues, has adhered to the adequate
protection standard and the backfit rule. The only--it is not
a----
Mr. Johnson. I don't mean to interrupt you, because I don't
have a whole lot of time. But adequate protection, that is a
qualitative assessment.
Mr. Ostendorff. That is correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. That is not a quantitative objective
assessment, like having to submit the rulemaking to CRGR.
Correct?
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir. But it is a qualitative decision
by the Commission, not the staff.
Mr. Johnson. Right. Well, given that, though, is that the
same standard of discipline and reliability on the rulemaking
process when we do a qualitative rather than a quantitative
analysis?
Mr. Ostendorff. I think the Commission takes this adequate
protection notion very seriously. There is Supreme Court case
law here, significant Commission precedent. I think the end
result of the decisions, though it may not be as predictable as
a quantitative analysis, I think the decision----
Mr. Johnson. Well, I am glad you said that, because if
looking at the NRC's backfit rule, 10 C.F.R.--I have got to get
my glasses on--50.109 provides that, before a new requirement
can be added to an existing licensed facility, the NRC must
demonstrate that the new requirement would result in a
substantial increase in the protection of public health and
safety, and that the direct and indirect cost of implementation
for that facility are justified in view of this increased
protection. How in the world can you meet that standard with a
qualitative assessment rather than a quantitative assessment?
How can you meet your own rule?
Mr. Ostendorff. Well, the----
Mr. Johnson. With simply a qualitative adequate protection
standard?
Mr. Ostendorff. The adequate protection piece which you
are--you are not referring to. You are talking about the
backfit--there is the adequate protection that does not have
the cost-benefit. Then----
Mr. Johnson. But your rulemaking, but the backfit rule
requires that you do determine cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. Ostendorff. That is for something that is not at the
level of adequate protection. So if something is required for
adequate protection--and we have had this with respect to the
station blackout mitigation of beyond-design-basis event
rulemaking, as you referenced--costs are not a consideration.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I guess when it comes to the backfit
rule and requiring--when it requires that facilities fund and
pay for backfit control technology, that the taxpayers would
expect that we get that higher degree of certainty and cost-
benefit analysis, because it is affecting the industry. It
affects the industry. It affects jobs. But I have extended my
time.
Mr. Ostendorff. If I can ask the opportunity----
Mr. Shimkus. Talk quickly, quickly.
Mr. Ostendorff. If I can ask the opportunity to come back
with Congressman Johnson, either in the context of a question
for the record or come by to brief him in the office, I would
be happy to do that.
Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Engel, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank our guests for coming here. As this panel knows,
the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York just outside
my district is operating under two expired licenses.
Applications to renew these licenses are currently pending.
Serious people have serious concerns about the safety of this
aging and troubled plant located only 24 miles from our
Nation's largest metropolitan area, which, of course, is New
York City.
In 2015, Indian Point suffered seven major malfunctions:
pump and power failures, a transformer explosion, radiation
leaks, a fire, and an oil spill. In early 2016 this year,
enhanced levels of radioactive tritium were found in the water
of three monitoring wells near the plant, including one well
with the radioactivity level increased by 65,000 percent. Then,
last month, the plant operator found that 227 of the 832 core
baffle bolts--these are the bolts that keep the inner walls of
the reactor core from coming apart--were either missing or
impaired, degraded by the high levels of radiation inside the
reactor.
For these and many other fundamental reasons, I have
believed for a long time now, and the Governor agrees with me,
that the reactors at Indian Point should be shut down. Indian
Point's relicensing applications have been pending for years,
and yet you have been unable to reach a decision.
Your budget request includes a $1.7 million cut in funding
for activities at operating nuclear reactors, which includes
the review of pending license renewal applications nationwide.
Will this budget request help or hinder your timeline for
reaching a decision on Indian Point? And when do you think we
can expect that decision? Anyone who cares to answer.
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Our
budget provides for the anticipated license renewal work we
have. So it is not a reduction to defer license renewal work.
My best understanding of the status of the applications, the
renewal applications, is that there is a supplemental
environmental impact statement that would be issued in 2016 or
September 2016. The baffle bolt issue that you have alluded to
is a matter in litigation before--as part of the renewal
proceedings, so that may impact where that goes. But I would,
again, the next--the other document I expect is this
supplemental environmental statement, which would be in
September of this year.
Mr. Engel. So you don't feel that the budget impedes any
decision that will be made?
Mr. Burns. No. I do not.
Mr. Engel. OK. Let me ask one other question. I have so
many questions, but let me just say, about Indian Point, before
we leave: I just think it is a disaster waiting to happen. I
never called for the closing of it, frankly, until we learned
that, prior to the tragedy of September 11, 2001, one of those
planes flew right over the Indian Point plant on its way to
ramming into the World Trade Center. And that really made me
look, and I have come to the conclusion that this plant should
be shut down.
Let me ask a question about cybersecurity, because I think
it is important. This also happened just outside of my
district: The Department of Justice recently indicted seven
Iranian hackers for their role in a cyber attack on a dam in
Rye, New York. Terrorists and hostile foreign actors are
looking for vulnerabilities in our infrastructure every day, so
we have to be vigilant about these threats.
When it comes to securing our Nation's infrastructure, we
need to consider whether we incorporate adequate safeguards
against cyber attack, and we need to consider whether the right
people are evaluating this question.
So let me ask, when licensing new reactors, do you consult
with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that these
facilities are hardened against cyber threats? Have you
consulted with DHS about potential cyber threats to Indian
Point? Anyone who cares to answer that.
Mr. Burns. I will do it. I think one of my colleagues may
want to add to it. We do consult with the Department of
Homeland Security, and also the NRC has had, for about 6 years
or so, rules that apply to existing power plants with respect
to maintaining cybersecurity. It is within what we call our
design-basis threat. One of the things, the differences between
the dam in New York and Indian Point and other nuclear plants,
is basically the air gap between the essential systems, safety
systems in the plant. My understanding is this dam was actually
connected to the Internet, which is not something that is
allowed for the essential safety systems within the plant.
So we have some requirements. There is some additional work
we expect licensees to do in the coming year. But you are
correct: it is something we want to keep a focus on. And I
think we are trying to do the responsible thing on cyber.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Long, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burns, as part of the agency's efforts to identify
low-priority activities, NRC staff identified nine rulemaking
activities to be discontinued. Can you enlighten us and tell us
what the considerations were that went into the staff's
recommendations?
Mr. Burns. I think what the staff was focused on is whether
those rules--essentially whether they added value in terms of
the regulatory scheme. I am not sure whether the Commission--I
am blanking as to whether the Commission has completed its
deliberation on that paper. When I look at it, I think, from my
standpoint, most of those are matters that I think--I thought
that we don't need to continue proceeding. But I think what
they looked at is, again, whether or not it added a particular
value in terms of our regulatory footprint or assuring safety
or security on certain matters.
Mr. Long. Will the Commission encourage staff to expand
this level of scrutiny to all regulatory actions as well as
maintain the scrutiny into the future?
Mr. Burns. Yes, I think the Commission will maintain that
scrutiny. That is part of the reason for the reintroduction of
the Commission's review of rulemaking or proposals at the
outset to assure there is Commission endorsement at least at
the exploratory stage of going forward. So I think that is an
important part of our effort there.
Mr. Long. In early June, your staff will cohost for the
Department of Energy a second workshop to discuss developing
advanced nuclear technologies. Will you please describe the
purpose of these workshops? For example, what is on the agenda,
and what are the goals of these workshops?
Mr. Burns. I might give you the particular agenda, provide
you that for the record. The purpose----
Mr. Long. The purpose, yes.
Mr. Burns. The purpose of the workshops has been really to
reach out to this community of--that has an interest in
potentially pursuing the advanced reactor designs and try to
give them information about us, the NRC; us hearing from them
about what their concerns are, how we might address them; and
also hear from the Department of Energy in terms of DOE type of
initiatives, DOE research and the like. So the first workshop
was very successful, and I think we are looking forward to the
next one. I know I have talked to John Kotek at DOE regarding
it and--
Mr. Long. Any ah-ha moments or takeaways you can relate
from that first workshop?
Mr. Burns. Well, I think the one, again, is this
understanding in terms of the phased approach, what we call the
phased approach or topical approach, to looking at the designs
and how that--from the standpoint of the potential vendors--how
that helps them in terms of their need for venture capital and
to some assurance that you are not just going down a trail that
leads to a dead end, that there is, you know, you have got some
idea of where you are going with the particular technology.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
I have got some extra time. I don't know if Mr. Flores
would like for me to yield. He usually has several questions.
Mr. Flores. I have got several. I will take your time.
Mr. Long. All right.
Mr. Flores. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
Chairman Burns, I really appreciate the NRC's efforts to
right-size itself in light of the fact that the nuclear
industry is not growing nearly like all of us would like it to
in order to address environmental issues. But I am concerned
that, while the NRC talks about trying to right-size itself, it
does some things that sort of take your breath away. For
instance, 2 days before the end of fiscal year last year, they
signed a $20 million contract for new office furniture. Well,
let me read it: acquire office systems, conference rooms, and
ancillary furniture.
That is $5,500 per employee. That is just amazing. So, at a
time of increased budget scrutiny throughout the agency, how is
that kind of a contract justified? Do you replace every
person's furniture?
Mr. Burns. Well, I am not sure it is replacing every
person's furniture. What we have been doing is we have been
reducing the footprint of the buildings that we are in at White
Flint. And part of that contract is to restack the buildings to
get more employees into the White Flint 1 and 2 buildings and
reduce our footprint in the third building.
Mr. Flores. How do you--most taxpayers, hardworking
American family taxpayers have seen their family finances get
worse off in the last 8 years. How do we justify this to the
taxpayers?
Mr. Burns. Well, our budget has been reducing over the last
few years. The fact of the matter is we do need infrastructure
to accommodate our staff that we do have. Again, I would be
pleased to provide more detail for the record on this
particular contract.
Mr. Flores. I just say that it looks bad. Two days before
the end of the fiscal year, to sign a $20 million contract just
really has a bad odor to it.
Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee approved the
fiscal year 2017 energy and water appropriations bill and set
NRC funding at $936 million. And $20 million of that is for the
nuclear waste fund for Yucca Mountain activities. This funding
level seems to be the right fit when you look at the NRC's
projected workload, and it still allows it to fulfill its
mission. Are you working with your senior leadership team,
including the executive director of operations, the chief
financial officer, and the chief of human resources officer, to
develop a plan that will fit the NRC's operations to fit that
budget?
Mr. Burns. Yes. We worked with our EDO and CFO and our
OCHCO director to assure that we implement the budget that we
get. What I have identified is, from the President's budget,
which was the 970, excluding the IG, is that we have identified
through the Project Aim Initiative about $31 million in
additional cuts, which brings us down. I haven't fully
understood or looked at the House mark. I would say we would
have--we need to analyze that some. I would have some concerns,
but there may be areas in which we can accelerate some of the
additional savings we identified in Project Aim into the
following fiscal year. But we work, I think, very hard and very
responsibly in implementing those whatever budget mark comes
out in the end.
Mr. Flores. In looking at your budget request for fiscal
year 2017, we note, as you said a minute ago, that you reduced
your budget request from $990 million, excluding IG, to $970
million, but three-quarters of those savings came from the
Integrated University Program, and that is the spending on
basic research that provides the seed corn for future advanced
nuclear reactor technology. It seems to me like we are hurting
ourselves in the future by the way the NRC designed its budget.
We ought to be maintaining those investments and taking that
from the other less essential areas. Don't you agree with that?
Mr. Burns. Well, this is an area in which, in terms of the
Integrated University Program, where the administration has
preferred to consolidate those into other STEM programs, and as
a result, the President's budget does not reflect that. What
has happened over the number of years now is that when that is
appropriate, the agency has been responsible about integrating
that into its programs and effectively carrying out the
program.
Mr. Flores. OK. Let me close----
Mr. Burns [continuing]. We have taken real cuts.
Mr. Flores. Let me close my time by saying that the basic
research is the seed corn for the future. That is not the area
that we need to be cutting.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the other gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the Chair and ranking member for holding this
hearing.
And I want to welcome the Chairman and Commissioners.
I also welcome back our former Energy and Commerce staffer,
Jeff Baran.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an important agency.
To look forward to the future, we need to assess our energy mix
in the country. We must not overlook the importance of the
nuclear power industry. Nuclear power is carbon-free and
capable of providing base-load power, but the industry faces
economic uncertainty. The nuclear power industry deserves a
clear path forward, and the NRC provides a crucial role in
determining that path.
Chairman Burns, on November 15, the White House announced a
plan to expand nuclear energy opportunities to the U.S. The
Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, GAIN, was to
provide the nuclear community with access to a broad range of
opportunities and capabilities across the Government complex.
Mr. Chairman, what role did NRC play in the development of
GAIN?
Mr. Burns. Well, thank you for the question. The NRC itself
did not develop the GAIN initiative. However, we have a role. I
attended the White House Summit on Nuclear Energy and spoke at
it. One of the things that we did was this engagement that we
talked about here, that the budget request would cover, is
being a place where you can contact and make sure you
understand the NRC processes to have a discussion point with
respect to that, because all of these technologies, ultimately,
if they are going to be put into commercial use are going to
require an NRC license. So that is our relationship to the GAIN
initiative.
Mr. Green. The Government Accountability Office reported to
Congress the typical NRC light water reactor application costs
in the range between $50 million and $75 million, and it takes
an average of 41 months. Industry reports state that a new
small modular reactor application should be submitted to NRC by
the end of the year. If NRC receives a small modular reactor
application in December, do you anticipate the same cost and
timeframe as reported by the GAO?
Mr. Burns. I believe the costs--and these are, basically,
the licensing fee costs--are similar. We can check on that for
the record. In the timeframe, I think, again, we are looking
at--about that same type of timeframe, about a 3-, 3 \1/2\-year
timeframe for the review. We had an engagement with NuScale
over the last couple of years, which I think helps in terms of
when they do submit their application at the end of the year,
that will help us go through efficiently.
Mr. Green. Currently, the NRC has two licensing paths,
according to the Code of Federal Regulations, titled part 50
and part 52. In the Commission's view, which licensing path is
more appropriate for the small modular reactor technology?
Mr. Burns. Well, part of it depends on how the vendor or a
particular applicant is going to approach the agency. For
example, NuScale is using the part 52 process because they want
to get a design certification, which then can be referenced by
individual applicants. And we have indication of interest at
least by one, this Utah, UAMPS, I think, organization, that
they may do that. So, ultimately, somebody who will actually
site and will operate the plant will need a license from us.
But what NuScale is doing is they want to get the design
certification, which then can be referenced anywhere in the
country where somebody might wish to try to site the plant.
Mr. Green. My understanding is, if the applicant pursues
part 52 licensing, exemptions would be required. Are these
exemptions identified and worked on in the pre-application
process?
Mr. Burns. Actually, I am not particularly aware of the
exemptions, but that I would expect as part of the discussion
between the staff, the pre-application discussion. I might be
or staff may be able to provide more granularity.
Mr. Green. If you could have them get back with us.
In January 2015, the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality sent a letter to the NRC requesting clarification on
the State's authority to license the disposal of Greater-than-
Class C low-level that may contain transuranic waste. In its
response 15 months later, the NRC said it would have to further
examine the issue.
Chairman Burns, can you share with the committee what the
current status of the Texas inquiry is?
Mr. Burns. What the Commission decided was to have the
staff develop some of the technical basis, looking at some of
the technical issues related to that. And I believe they are
coming back to the Commission at some point this year, maybe
midyear. I may be wrong about that, but that would help inform
further discussion with the State regarding whether the
licensing would be done directly by Texas or by the NRC.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions on that
application, and if I could submit them?
Mr. Shimkus. Yes.
Let me ask unanimous consent that there are 10 days for
members to submit questions for the record.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Kinzinger, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today and your continued
service to the country.
Before I ask my questions, I would like to thank all of you
and your staff for your help on draft legislation that I sent
over last week that would reform some of the NRC processes
currently in place. I welcome any technical expertise that you
can provide on this draft and look forward to continuing to
work together on this endeavor.
Mr. Chairman, last September, I asked you about the current
status of efforts to update an outdated management directive,
last revised in 1989, that guides the budget development
process. As I pointed out last year, the NRC inspector general
found 3 years ago that the Commission had an incomplete
planning, budgeting, and performance management process,
resulting in a budget formulation that doesn't match up in its
formulation and execution. Seven months ago, you expressed
optimism that this directive would be in place to develop your
fiscal year 2017 budget. What is the current status of this
directive?
Mr. Burns. The Commission has approved the set of
management directives that would encompass this issue. There
are some changes that we have asked our CFO to make before
issuing them as final to reflect some of the marks in the
appropriations bill in terms of the control points that were
put in. So I expect that could be done very soon.
Mr. Kinzinger. So you think it is on track then. While we
are discussing the budget for fiscal year 2017, your agency is
already starting to prepare the budget justification for fiscal
year 2018. Do I have your assurance that the new management
direction will be approved and fully in place--do you expect--
by the fiscal year 2018 development process?
Mr. Burns. It should be, yes.
Mr. Kinzinger. And then you also raised the issue of
reexamining current legal restrictions for foreign ownership or
control of nuclear facilities in September. We live in a
competitive global marketplace, and we are seeing many leaders
in nuclear technology and operations take their business
elsewhere. This is very--I mean, I have folks that produce part
of reactors in my district. I have four nuclear plants myself
and five repositories for spent fuel. Do you think policymakers
should reconsider how this current restriction is structured?
Mr. Burns. As I said last September, I think it is worth--
it is something worth taking a look at. It basically applies
to--the foreign ownership, control, and domination provision
applies to reactors or utilization facilities and production
facilities, so primarily think about commercial reactors in
that sense.
We still have the ability to protect national security
through other provisions of the act, so I think it is something
that is worth taking a look at.
Mr. Kinzinger. What are some of the considerations that you
think should be examined as part of that? You kind of touched
on a little bit, but----
Mr. Burns. I think one important thing is, to the extent
that we do have an important responsibility in terms of
security and national security as well as the physical security
of facilities, I think that is an important issue there.
The question is, is that, as you indicate, in a global
market, which the nuclear has certainly become, is there a
value added for that provision? I think that is the primary
question.
Mr. Kinzinger. You think a study, would that be--if we did
a study--beneficial to you, beneficial to policymakers on that
provision, the impacts, everything else?
Mr. Burns. I think that could be useful, yes.
Mr. Kinzinger. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back my minute.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes, if he wishes to take it, the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith--I know, but he has been
here for a long time. Do you want to go last, or do you want to
go now?
Mr. Griffith. I can do whatever.
Mr. Shimkus. You are scheduled to go now if you want to go
now.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Then I guess I will go now.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you. I appreciate you all being here
today.
Chairman Burns, as the guardian of the backfit rule, the
Committee to Review Generic Requirements, CRGR--always hate
keeping up with those initials--but CRGR embodies the spirit of
the NRC's principle of good regulations. However, following a
change installed over a decade ago, the Committee to Review
Generic Requirements, CRGR, has asserted its authority with
less and less frequency, particularly in formal reviews of NRC
actions.
I understand that the NRC staff is currently developing a
proposal for how and when CRGR reviews regulatory actions. I
would ask you to encourage the staff to broaden their proposal
and to consider, additionally, potential structural changes to
the CRGR membership to provide greater ownership and
attentiveness for CRGR members and to ensure the committee
operates truly independently.
Now I got all of that out, and I would like for you to just
comment on it, in general. But I also would like for you, at
some point in your response, can you commit that you will
pursue a thorough review of the CRGR?
Mr. Burns. Yes. Thank you.
Nuclear has lots of acronyms, don't we?
My understanding is the staff is to provide us a copy of
its review I think sometime in the early summer, late spring or
early summer, with respect to its review. I will take--and I
think my colleagues will take--a close look at that to look at,
you know, in terms of how the CRGR is performing its function,
is it providing a value added that was conceived of when it was
I think originated in the 1980s? So I can commit to doing that.
I want to see what the staff comes up with. That is one of the
reasons in the paper or our approval of the revisions to
rulemaking that we ask to see that before making it--taking
further steps.
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. I hope they will take the
broader look. Now maybe it is just a change in culture that
needs to occur, but if it does need to have a change in
membership or in their outlook, I hope you all will look at
that as well. Would anybody else on the panel like to respond
to that? Ms. Svinicki? Everybody is pretty much in agreement.
All right.
I am going to switch gears completely. One of the large
drivers in escalating the cost of the NRC was its mismanagement
of office space in the past. Will you please update the
committee on the status of your housing strategy and what that
will mean for your agency's budget in the upcoming years?
Again, Mr. Chairman, if you could answer that.
Mr. Burns. The details of the actual impact on the budget I
may have to provide for the record. We have basically
reconsolidated the staff that had been--spread out primarily in
the first and second buildings. We have issues--not issues, but
we have negotiations about--ongoing in terms of the lease in
the second building. We are reducing the footprint in the third
building.
One important thing we have there is the Emergency
Operation Center, but more of the staff is moving out. I would
be pleased to provide for the record a more granular picture of
what I think that means for budgeting going forward.
Mr. Griffith. If you could, I would appreciate that.
I will tell you that I represent a district that has some
economic issues, a district with many attributes, but the coal
industry in particular has been hurting. It used to have
textiles and furniture and tobacco. You can imagine that there
is a lot of empty space in my district and would ask you just
to take a look, if it is something that doesn't have to be in
DC and can operate using the modern wonders of the Internet,
you may want to look at not just my district but central
Appalachia and other areas that are facing some economic
problems, because we have a lot of space that is really cheap
that you could rent and house some folks in, but I do
appreciate you looking at that very much. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Mullin, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Well, if we are lobbying for them to move, I
want them to move to Oklahoma. We have a lot of space there
too. Oil and gas is kind of hurting right now.
Anyway, I appreciate everybody being here.
Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
My questions, Chairman Burns, are all going to be directed
to you. We can allow whoever wants to jump in at any given
time. However, I know your brain has to be hurting. You have
been on the hot seat for a while.
As you know, Chairman Burns, five reactors have shut down
in recent years, and at least three more closures are expected
in 2019. In spite of this, the budget of the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation as grown 10 percent since 2012. In both 2014
and 2015 fee recovery rules, the NRC has accounted for the
reactor closures and resulting loss of these fees by simply
billing the remaining reactors to make up the difference.
A statement that was put out: ``The permanent shutdown of
the Vermont Yankee reactor decreases the fleet of operating
reactors which subsequently increases the annual fees for the
rest of the fleet.''
My question, Chairman Burns, and to the rest of the
Commissioners for that: Is this a fair way to structure fee
collections? Does it cost more to inspect fewer? I mean, wasn't
the fee set up--the idea of the fees to be able to be adjusted
for the amount that you had to take care of, the workload?
Mr. Burns. Well, the fact of the matter is that the fees
are going down, and they are about $300,000 less per unit than
they were a couple years ago. What does happen when they
transition out----
Mr. Mullin. Then why was the statement said that that
increases the annual fee for the rest of the fleet? That was a
statement that you guys put out.
Mr. Burns. Well, the fact--what I am saying is the overall
impact is that there is a reduction. It is true that if you
have a reduction in the overall number of operating reactors in
the fleet because, by law, we are required to----
Mr. Mullin. How has it gone down when the corporate support
cost has gone up $97 million over the last 10 years----
Mr. Burns. Well, we are addressing corporate support costs,
and we have been reducing corporate support costs. That is what
is reflected in our rebaselining. That is what the charge is
with our----
Mr. Mullin. Chairman Burns, you said they are reducing, but
I am reading right here that they went up 47 percent over the
last 10 years. How is that reducing?
Mr. Burns. We have reduced corporate support costs.
Mr. Mullin. How?
Mr. Burns. How?
Mr. Mullin. Because they have increased $97 million. How is
that--I am not saying that I am the best in math, but I sure
understand cost increase. And I am looking at a 47 percent
increase over the last 10 years. So you just explained to me
how you are saying it is reducing when we are seeing it going
up, and yet we are inspecting a lot less.
Mr. Burns. Well, I am not sure we are inspecting less.
Mr. Mullin. Well, you have had five factories shut down in
recent years. You have at least three more closures expected in
2019. That is inspecting less.
Mr. Burns. Yes. We have 100 operating nuclear power plants
now. We have a larger number of decommissioning plants, and we
have four units that are being constructed that are also
inspected during the construction phase. So that is what the
workload is in terms of the reactor fleet. The fact of the
matter is, as I said and----
Mr. Mullin. So then explain how costs went down----
Mr. Burns [continuing]. I would be pleased to provide for
the record, is that the fees, the annual fees for the reactor
fleet, is going down. The fact of the matter is our corporate
support costs are going down.
Mr. Mullin. Well, the facts that I have, they are not
showing that and including the statement I will read again that
you will increase annual fees to the rest of the fleet. That is
a statement that you all put out. And the fact is that I am
reading here that we did research on that that says the
corporate costs have gone up $97 million. I feel like I am
repeating myself, because I am not figuring out how this is
taking place. If you are saying they are going down, they have
increased $97 million, 47 percent cost increase over 10 years,
and that you guys said that--you all said that you are going to
increase the annual fees, then you are going to have a lot to
explain to me and show me, which evidently we can't do in 30
seconds, of how this math is adding up, because I am not
following it.
Mr. Burns. Well, I would be pleased to provide that for the
record----
Mr. Baran. Could I add just a little bit of context that
might help?
Mr. Mullin. Please.
Mr. Baran. If we are talking about the timeframe of 10
years ago, that was right before--that was during the period of
ramping up for what we thought were going to be a large number
of new reactors. So there is no question that there was a
period of time where the NRC budget was going up. We are now on
the other side of that hill. We are on the other side of that
mountain, and the budget's coming down. And so when the
Chairman is talking about the decreases, he is talking about
fiscal year 2015, fiscal year 2016, fiscal year 2017, as the
agency is matching the resources to the workload we really have
today that is coming down.
Mr. Mullin. In 2015 is when the statement come out that
said that you were going to increase annual fees.
Mr. Baran. It was talking about the pool of reactor fees.
You have two trends that are kind of pushing in opposite
directions. One, it is true that the smaller the fleet, the
smaller the number of units that have to cover the cost. On the
other hand, the costs are also coming down. And so the total
fee amount is coming down. It is shared among a smaller number
of operating reactors. You have kind of trends going against
each other and canceling each other out in that regard.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from North
Carolina, Mrs. Ellmers, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This has been a lengthy hearing. And I thank the panel for
being here with us today.
Chairman, I will be asking the questions mostly of you, but
I am more than happy for any of the rest of the Commissioners
to add any input as we go along. Following your appearance
before the committee last year, you stated in your response to
questions for the record that the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulations, NRR, was, quote, ``conducting an initiative to
review and evaluate the existing reactor license amendment
process with the goal of reinforcing current expectations and
best practices, including examining potential implications that
staff turnover on licensing reviews may add to the process.''
My question is, can you please provide an update on the
status of this initiative?
Mr. Burns. Yes, thank you for the question. Essentially,
within the senior management in the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation has continued to focus on this with monthly
briefings on performance in the area, continued attention by
staff to adherence to the basic procedures, and I think that
goes to your point particularly about potential staff turnover
and, you know, the need to develop and inculcate into new staff
the right processes and procedures. Part of that is focusing on
requests for additional information and assuring that they are
focused and relevant. The office issued some guidance last year
and, I am actually informed, I think within the last day or so
issued some additional guidance to address some of these
issues. So I think, you know, I commend the office staff and
the senior management there to keep a focus on this, because I
think that is important. That is how we can carry out what we
need to do as a safety regulator in an effective and an
efficient way and achieve the safety reviews that we need to
do.
Mrs. Ellmers. So you would basically say, then, that on a
regular basis, the Commission is reviewing the staff
recommendations?
Mr. Burns. What the--some of the staff guidance is guidance
that they can issue on themselves. I haven't seen this most
recent guidance. I think I probably will.
Mrs. Ellmers. So it is periodically when recommendations--
--
Mr. Burns. Periodically. And part of it, I think it is the
day-to-day management of the office. If you have got
procedures, this is how you do a licensing review. This is
how--you know, this the where it is appropriate to ask
questions. You got to train your staff to do that.
Mrs. Ellmers. Were the NRC licensees able to provide input
to the NRC staff as they developed this initiative?
Mr. Burns. I am not sure of the answer to your question. We
have a lot of engagement with the industry on a lot of our
processes. So I would be surprised if the--you know, what we
have heard, kudos and complaints, haven't been taken into
account by staff in the guidance.
Mrs. Ellmers. So what I will ask, then, is over the
following days, you know, I think we have 5 or 10 days of time,
if you could provide maybe just some input to the committee on
that. Does anyone else on the panel want to, or have knowledge
of--OK.
Mr. Ostendorff. I wanted to comment. Thank you for the
question. To the extent that you are getting at licensing
backlog----
Mrs. Ellmers. Yes. That is basically my next question.
Mr. Ostendorff. Well, let me make two comments there. One,
we are in a much better place today than we were 2 years ago.
Bill Dean, who leads our Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
has made significant strides. Not there yet. But the number of
backlog items is significantly down.
And, two, for those items that are in a queue, so to speak,
we are engaging with industry to get their sense as to what is
the highest priority.
Mrs. Ellmers. OK. So more of a prioritization. Do you have
a number? I mean, do you know what the number of backlogged----
Mr. Burns. I think the backlog, it had been around 100
licensing actions a couple years ago. And it is about 24 now.
The other good thing is--progress is that the--their basic goal
is to complete 95 percent of the requests within a year. And
through the first half of this fiscal year, I think we are at
94 percent. So I think that is a good progress.
Mrs. Ellmers. I just have a couple of seconds left. And I
would like to ask this question on behalf of the Harris Nuclear
Power Plant. You know, they have invested significantly over
the past years on many different initiatives. And my question
to you is, Is there a process in place for them to be
accredited for some of the advancements that they have made
adjusting to, you know, the regulations and the regulatory
process?
Mr. Burns. Well, I think they are given credit for what
they implement. Again, if there are things that they are doing
that need to--they need to do or are approaches to meeting NRC
regulatory requirements, we certainly inspect that, we
acknowledge that. They may choose to do other things as an
operator from--either from a business perspective, or because
they think from a safety perspective, some other actions might
be appropriate.
Mrs. Ellmers. OK. Thank you. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for this time. Thank you to the panel.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time.
I want to ask unanimous consent to enter Chairman Upton and
Chairman Whitfield's opening statement for the record. Without
objection, so ordered. We did talk about the 10 days already,
and ask unanimous consent on that.
[The statements appear at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. And before I close, I would like--Chairman
Burns, I know that in a discussion with Chairman Inhofe, you
agreed to do, which I think is pretty exciting, this public
meeting with stakeholders in the next 3 months as your
predecessor, Chairman Shirley Jackson, did in 1998. Have you
started doing any planning on that?
Mr. Burns. Well, part of what I am looking at is exactly
what Chairman Jackson did. So I am trying to scope out right
now--it has been preliminary--scope out the nature of what the
meeting was. I know I had some concerns to make sure we have a
broad range of stakeholders. So I am hoping over the next few
weeks that I will have a better sense of what this might look
like.
Mr. Shimkus. Great. I just--you know, I kind of think it is
a good idea, and I don't know the whole scope of it either, but
I think it would be interesting.
So Mr.----
Mr. Tonko. A couple things.
I would like to ask unanimous consent for our ranking
member, Congressman Pallone, to put a statement into the
record.
Mr. Shimkus. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Tonko. And if I have a little bit of time, I will
actually get to the questions I wanted to about the Texas
application.
I started earlier about the disposal of the greater than
class C low level that may contain waste. Fifteen months later,
the NRC says it has to further examine it. Can you share with
the committee what is the current status of the State of Texas
inquiry on that class C? I know it is probably the only
application in the country there. So----
Mr. Burns. Yes. So, as you indicated, we had a
communication back with the State. I think I have not spoken--I
think Commissioner Ostendorff had actually met or spoken to the
State representatives. And he might be able to----
Mr. Ostendorff. So, yes. Commissioner Baran and I visited
the Waste Control Specialist site in Andrews back in January of
this year. We invited the Texas Council on Environmental
Quality Commissioners and their technical staff to join us, and
they did. We had a very rich discussion. We discussed the NRC
response back to the State of Texas. And the State of Texas
representatives we dealt with were not surprised by our
response. They were pleased that we agreed to work with them to
discuss technical issues on the basis to move forward. It was a
very constructive meeting.
Mr. Tonko. Well, our committee as a whole, you know, at one
time back in the 1980s we had a plan to have a long-term
nuclear waste facility, and decision back then was Yucca
Mountain. And the other agreement was that we were going to
have these interim storage facilities that would take it from
all our plants that are now storing it on site. And would this
be the first interim storage site that would be permitted if it
finally gets done?
Mr. Burns. Well, it wouldn't be the first one that was
actually permitted. The NRC had licensed a site in Utah, but
that project did not go forward. What we are able to do is, we
are authorized to look at and evaluate the applications. As
Chairman Shimkus noted, the question about the relationship,
the Department of Energy probably involves some legislative
changes. But we would--if the applicants come forward as we
expect them to do, we would review the--we would review those
applications and make a determination with respect to the, you
know, the technical, environmental aspects of the site.
Mr. Tonko. OK. So you anticipate regulatory changes would
be necessary to allow the State to license the GTCC waste
facility?
Mr. Burns. Yes, but that--yes. That is one of the questions
is, and why we are going to the getting at the staff technical
basis because there is some questions about whether or not
Texas or whether it is a--there is some--there is some
interpretive issues with respect to the existing legislation
about the license-ability by Texas versus the NRC, or as the
Federal Government.
Mr. Tonko. Well, and at that time location years ago I was
a State legislator in Texas when we--there was a permit that
the State issued for low-level facilities. And, again, the
community out there, the Member of Congress actually has
legislation, Congressman Conaway, and I guess from sitting on
our committee, you know, we would like to see--you know, we
have these nuclear power plants that are holding that storage
on their own, and the agreement was, and, of course, the
Supreme Court decision also makes it difficult. But ultimately,
you get an interim storage, and hopefully, someday get a
permanent storage. And, you know, but as I know--I don't know
of anywhere in the world, whether it be France or Sweden or
anywhere else that has actually a permanent storage, long-term
storage. So but that doesn't mean we don't need to continue to
work for it. And, again, with the agreement that was made, you
know, 40 years ago now maybe almost that, you know, we would
have these interim storage facilities like this. And hopefully
it would be in different parts of the country also ultimately
having a permanent storage.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
Again we want to thank you for coming. We know it has been
a long morning. Again, thank you for your service. And
obviously, Commissioner Ostendorff, I know this will be
something you will regret, not getting a chance to come up here
and spend a couple hours with us and--but we do--we are excited
about your future. Thank you. You all have been going a great
job. I think the rebaselining, the relooking at that, I know we
got nitpicky on a lot of things. You would expect that from
public policy guys and in a budget hearing. So thank you for
being available and accessible, and we look forward to working
with you. And I will adjourn the hearing. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
This morning we welcome back the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to discuss the agency's proposed fiscal year 2017
budget. I'd first like to acknowledge Commissioner Bill
Ostendorff for his distinguished record of service. Today is
likely Commissioner Ostendorff's last appearance before this
committee, as he has announced he will serve as a Distinguished
Visiting Professor of National Security at his alma mater, the
United States Naval Academy. Commissioner Ostendorff has served
as Captain of a Navy submarine, Congressional staffer, Deputy
Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
and NRC Commissioner. We wish him luck in his next endeavor.
The Commission's 2017 budget request reflects NRC's ongoing
attempt to right-size the organization's funding level and
properly align staff resources with the agency's workload,
known as Project Aim 2020. This initiative has focused the
agency's attention on identifying the highest priority
activities in order to safely and effectively oversee our 100
operating nuclear power plants. The breadth and duration of
this initiative has been extensive. As the Commission looks to
execute Project Aim's next steps, I hope you maintain the
rigorous culture of self-analysis that has developed over the
previous couple years.
NRC's responsibility to license, regulate, and inspect our
nation's fleet of nuclear power plants is of utmost importance
to protect public health and safety. Nuclear power is
especially important to folks of Southwest Michigan with the
Cook and Palisades plants. The plants not only provide
affordable and clean power to the region and beyond, they
provide hundreds of good paying jobs and directly benefit local
economies as well. Nuclear energy is, and will continue to be
an integral piece of our electricity portfolio.
However, we should also recognize the NRC's role to license
and oversee other nuclear material, such as medical isotopes
and nuclear medicine treatments. In this context, the NRC is a
partner in my bipartisan effort to advance breakthrough medical
treatments and 21st Century Cures. I was pleased to see the
Commission issue a construction permit for a first-of-a-kind
facility for medical isotope production in February. I also
understand the Commission is actively reviewing another medical
isotope application, and there is at least one more expected to
be under review. These new technologies and life-saving medical
treatments are critical to develop and deploy at a timely pace,
and I trust the NRC will ensure competent, efficient review of
these applications for the benefit of public health.
Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield
Nuclear energy is a safe, clean component of our diverse
electric generation portfolio. Like coal, market challenges are
pressuring nuclear power plants and potential regulatory costs
are placing additional economic burdens on the electricity
generation sector.
Last September, I expressed concern about the agency's
inflated budget and staffing levels, delays in addressing
licensing actions, and lack of organizational efficiency. Those
issues directly affect NRC licensees, as well as the ratepayers
who fund the Commission through annual fees. I recognize that
the Commission has subsequently taken some steps to address
these issues and applaud you all for your leadership in these
efforts.
During my tenure as chairman of the Energy and Power
Subcommittee, I have witnessed an overly enthusiastic
regulator, primarily the EPA, repeatedly determine it has no
bounds when it comes to how or what it regulates. As a
contrast, the NRC's rulemaking process and structure is
designed to be disciplined and embody its Principles of Good
Regulation--independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and
reliability. The ability to promulgate and impose regulations
on NRC licensees is a potent statutory authority and one that
should be thoughtfully and diligently exercised only when
necessary.
In 1981, as a means to assure that the Commission apply a
rigorous and credible evaluation to the most significant
rulemakings, it established the Committee to Review Generic
Requirements, or CRGR. Consisting of senior management
representatives throughout the NRC, CRGR was designed to be a
check on the most consequential regulatory actions that could
be imposed on licensees, known as applying the ``backfit
rule.'' However, over time, we see the CRGR no longer
functioning as originally intended with respect to backfit
reviews, which has been confirmed by the NRC Inspector General
and other stakeholders.
Recently the Commission in a vote on its involvement in the
rulemaking process missed yet another opportunity to initiate a
comprehensive review of CRGR's membership, effectiveness,
responsibilities, and how exactly it is functioning. I
encourage you to revisit this issue. As one Commissioner noted,
it is telling that there has not been a single instance of the
staff electing to recommend CRGR review of any rulemaking
package since the waiver process was approved by the Commission
in 2007.
However, I am pleased that within this vote the Commission,
with Congress' urging, reasserted its influence and leadership
in the rulemaking process. Providing the Commissioners an
opportunity to engage in NRC staff proposed rulemakings at an
early stage of the process will allow the agency to more
effectively allocate resources to the highest priority actions.
This reassertion of authority will also assure that any
rulemaking that is initiated has established milestones to hold
NRC staff accountable, is fully vetted with a full
consideration of alternative courses of action, and have a
preliminary assessment of the cumulative effects of
regulations. These are important and necessary considerations
to preserve credibility in the regulatory process.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]