[Senate Hearing 114-336]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-336
OVERSIGHT HEARING: THE PRESIDENT'S
FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 6, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-942 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, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 6, 2016
OPENING STATEMENTS
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 3
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 302
WITNESSES
Burns, Stephen, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission..... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 27
Senator Vitter........................................... 75
Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso..... 82
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Rounds........................................... 83
Senator Sanders.......................................... 87
Senator Fischer.......................................... 95
Senator Crapo............................................ 104
Senator Sessions......................................... 136
Svinicki, Kristine, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 277
Prepared statement........................................... 278
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 279
Ostendorff, William, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 280
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 281
Baran, Jeffrey, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 283
Response to additional questions from Senator Inhofe......... 284
OVERSIGHT HEARING: THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo,
Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Carper, Cardin, Gillibrand,
Booker, and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. I would like to begin by welcoming all four
commissioners here. I appreciate it.
And I say particularly to you, Commissioner Ostendorff, I
understand you are going to be going back to your previous
duties, less strenuous, I would assume, teaching at the Naval
Academy. You have had a great background in history and great
contributions to this committee. We will miss you. We will all
miss you sitting out there.
By the way, right now there are two vacancies. Mrs. Jessie
Roberson is one of them that has been nominated. These are
partisan nominations, so that would be a Democrat slot. What we
have always done in the past we will attempt to do again now,
is to pair with a Republican, and we are hoping we will be able
to do that. We are in contact right now with the White House to
try to accommodate that, because I would hate to have to try to
operate with just three commissioners.
Barbara is here.
Senator Boxer. Good morning, Jim.
Senator Inhofe. Good morning, Barbara.
So, anyway, that is what our intention will be. And we are
going to ask, also, as I did individually with you, since we
have a vote at 11, that means we can stay here until 11:15. I
think if everyone stays within the time limit, that will work,
and that is what we will be asking our members to do.
The NRC requested $982 million in budget authority for
fiscal year 2017, down slightly from fiscal year 2016. The
NRC's safety mission is a critical one, but it accomplished its
mission with significantly fewer resources in the past.
Following 9/11 the NRC's budget grew to address rising
security concerns. Around 2006 it started growing to address
growth in nuclear energy. Unfortunately that growth hasn't been
as robust as we thought. In fact, we have seen five reactors
close in recent years, and at least three more will be closed
by 2019. The NRC's budget remains significantly higher.
So what I am saying is we raised the budget anticipating
greater activity out there, and that didn't happen. But it is
very typical of a government agency to maintain that same size.
So we have a chart. What I am saying is right here, if you look
at the increases, and then you look at the workload, the
workload is going down, money is going up, and this is not the
first time in Government that that has happened. So I am
concerned about this.
As a result of Project Aim, the NRC staff has proposed to
the Commission an additional $31 million in cost savings for
next year. That is good, but that is not enough.
Now, back then I talked to Barbara about what happened in
1998. At that time we had actually gone 4 years without any
oversight, and that is something that doesn't work. So at that
time the stakeholders identified several areas for improvement
in the Commission meeting and before this Committee, and I was
there at the time, and I remember it well.
Those recommendations were five: the timely and fiscally
responsible review of the licensing actions; stricter
application of the Backfit Rule; the systematic application of
a clear standard of safety significance in regulatory
decisionmaking rather than vague terms such as enhanced
defense-in-depth; more disciplined use of Requests for
Additional Information, or RAIs; and the need for an objective,
quantitative assessment of safety performance.
You may have noticed that this committee has either written
or requested the Commission on all these subjects in the last
year. It appears that many of the inefficiencies that plagued
the NRC in the 1990s have returned, and that is what we have
been talking about.
Back then, in response to congressional oversight Chairman
Shirley Ann Jackson held a meeting with stakeholders to delve
into their concerns. She followed with a memo tasking agency
staff with developing a plan to address those concerns and
others raised by this committee.
The Executive Director, Joe Callan, seized her challenge,
and his routine progress reports became legendary examples of
the agency's self-improvement capability and responsiveness.
All of this transpired under 3 months.
In 1998, in my first NRC hearing as subcommittee chairman
an industry witness testified, ``Just as the industry has made
a significant transition in the way it operates in a
competitive market, the NRC must replace an outdated,
ineffective regulatory framework with one that is objective,
safety-focused, and responsive,'' and it did.
The nuclear industry once again faces challenges in the
marketplace, and once again the need for the NRC to be an
objective, safety focused, and responsive regulator is
imperative, and Chairman Burns, I urge you to take a page out
of Chairman Jackson's playbook and tackle these challenges.
Senator Boxer.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
I'd like to begin by welcoming the four commissioners, but
especially Commissioner Ostendorff who will leave the
Commission in June to once again take up teaching at the U.S.
Naval Academy. Bill, your service at the NRC came during some
tough times. I personally appreciate your service.
By July 1st, there will be two vacancies at the Commission.
Mrs. Jessie Roberson was nominated for the open seat. I have
met with the nominee as have many other members of the
committee. Before moving forward with her nomination, it is
important to know the White House's intentions on the open
seat. The NRC has partisan seats, and pairing the nominations
informs the committee members' decisions.
We will continue with the committee's practice of a 5-
minute opening statement from Chairman Burns and 2 minutes for
each of the commissioners.
The NRC requested $982 million in budget authority for
fiscal year 2017, down slightly from fiscal year 2016.
The NRC's safety mission is a critical one, but it
accomplished its mission with significantly fewer resources in
the past.
As a result of Project Aim, the NRC staff has proposed to
the Commission an additional $31 million in cost savings for
next year.
While this is a step in the right direction, I believe the
Commission should move beyond incremental savings and examine
its budget and regulatory processes more fundamentally.
The NRC can do better. I've seen it do better.
Unfortunately, the situation we are witnessing now reminds me
of the late 1990s.
Back then, stakeholders identified several areas for
improvement:
The timeliness and fiscally responsible review of
licensing actions;
Stricter application of the Backfit Rule;
Systematic application of a clear standard of safety
significance in regulatory decisionmaking rather than vague
terms such as ``enhanced defense-in-depth'';
More disciplined use of Requests for Additional
Information, or RAIs; and
The need for an objective, quantitative assessment of
safety performance.
You may have noticed that this committee has either written
or questioned the Commission on all of these subjects in the
last year. It appears that many of the inefficiencies that
plagued the NRC in the 1990s have returned.
Back then, in response to congressional oversight, Chairman
Shirley Ann Jackson held a meeting with stakeholders to delve
into their concerns. She followed with a memo tasking agency
staff with developing a plan to address those concerns and
others raised by this committee.
The Executive Director, Joe Callan, seized her challenge,
and his routine progress reports became legendary examples of
the agency's self-improvement capability and responsiveness.
All of this transpired in under 3 months.
In 1998, an industry witness testified: ``Just as the
industry has made a significant transition in the way it
operates in a competitive market, the NRC must replace an
outdated, ineffective regulatory framework with one that is
objective, safety focused and responsive.''
The nuclear industry once again faces challenges in the
market place, and once again the need for the NRC to be an
objective, safety focused, and responsive regulator is
imperative.
Chairman Burns, I urge you take a page out of Chairman
Jackson's playbook and tackle these challenges.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I would like to welcome the commissioners here.
There are many important topics facing us, including
implementing post-Fukushima safety improvements, ongoing
efforts to cut costs, and the Commission's work on
decommissioning reactors such as the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station in my home State.
Today's hearing comes more than 5 years after the Fukushima
tragedy. The people in Japan continue to suffer from the
consequences of this disaster. It may be pleasant not to look
at it, but we better look at it.
A study released in October 2015 and published in the
journal Epidemiology found that children living near the site
of the Fukushima meltdown have been diagnosed with thyroid
cancer at a rate 20 to 50 times that of children elsewhere.
Also, in October Japan's Health Ministry announced the first
confirmed case of cancer in a Fukushima recovery worker. These
reports do not inspire confidence.
Just last month the Gallup Poll showed that for the first
time a majority of U.S. adults, 54 percent, opposed nuclear
power.
I have been saying over and over again since Fukushima, in
order to earn the confidence of the American public and win
them over, the nuclear power industry must do everything it can
to avoid similar disasters, and so must you. That is why it is
so critical to address post-Fukushima safety recommendations
that were identified by the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force in
2011.
While I recognize that progress has been made on some of
the recommendations I remain concerned that not one--not one--
of the 12 Task Force recommendations has been fully
implemented, and many have been closed without any action at
all.
We will share with you this chart. Sadly, it is the same
darned thing I held up months ago. What are you folks doing
over there? You have a majority of the people against nuclear
power for the first time in a long time. People believe nuclear
should be part of the mix if it is safe.
So you have reports out of Japan; you had your task force
tell you what to do. I will tell you if the Congress did that,
we would all be voted out if we were expected to take certain
steps. I don't understand it. So I am going to ask you about
it.
Now, in addition to this, the non-action over here, the
Commission recently approved an NRC staff proposal to close out
numerous lower priority recommendations without taking any
action to implement safety improvements. This approach ignores
the serious safety concerns raised in the wake of Fukushima.
I am concerned that the efforts to reduce your budget would
undermine safety if they are not implemented carefully, those
cuts. The staff recently provided the Commission with a paper
outlining 151 recommendations for cutting costs. Unfortunately,
some of these recommendations would reduce or eliminate
important safety initiatives, including new limits on
inspections at nuclear plants.
If we want to convince the American people, again, that
they are wrong on nuclear power, that it can be done safely,
this is the worst way to go about it I have heard. I don't get
it. I really don't, in all sincerity.
The Commission has to live up to its mission ``to ensure
the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian
purposes while protecting people and the environment.'' One
mess-up in any one of these power plants, and it is over for
the nuclear power industry. I hope everyone understands that,
with this news coming out of Fukushima.
Finally, I want to highlight challenges at the two nuclear
power plants in my home State. My people there are telling me
they are very concerned that Diablo Canyon cannot withstand
earthquakes that could occur in the area. Despite evidence in
recent years of increased seismic risk at the plant, the NRC is
proceeding merrily along the way with the relicensing process
for this plant and has failed to take action to address seismic
safety concerns. My people are at a loss to understand it.
And at the San Onofre Nuclear Plant, which is closed
permanently, there are many concerns about public safety during
the decommissioning process. As I stated at our October
hearing, I disagree with NRC's approval of exemptions to
emergency planning requirements. Why would you do that with so
many people living so close to this plant?
Because of this exemption, the plant's operator will no
longer be required to maintain detailed plans for the
evacuation, sheltering, and medical treatment of people
residing in the 10-mile zone. This is troubling. You know how
populated the area is, and there are thousands of tons of
extremely radioactive spent fuel remaining at the site and
millions of people, millions living in close proximity.
So, in closing, and I will close in 10 seconds, you cannot
be a rubber stamp for exemptions from the nuclear industry.
That is not your job. That is counter to your job. And I think
you owe it to the citizens of my great State and the Nation to
make safety your highest priority.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Without objection, I want to enter into the record this
article from Platts entitled Nuclear safety upgrades post-
Fukushima cost $47 billion, a very complimentary article to you
folks.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, if you would begin. And I am
going to ask you all to try to stay within your time.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BURNS, CHAIRMAN,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member
Boxer and other members of the committee. We appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you this morning to provide an
update on the fiscal year 2017 budget request and the agency's
current regulatory activities.
As we said, the NRC is an independent agency established to
license and regulate the civilian use of nuclear and
radioactive materials in the United States and ensure adequate
protection of the public health and safety to promote the
common defense and security and protect the environment. The
resources we are requesting will allow the NRC to continue to
carry out our important mission.
The proposed 2017 budget is $970 million and 3,462 FTE,
full-time equivalent staff, excluding the Office of the
Inspector General. The proposal represents a net decrease of
nearly $20 million and 90 FTE from the fiscal year 2016 enacted
budget. The request reflects a decrease of approximately $74
million and 280 full-time equivalent employees from the 2014
enacted budget.
The inspector general component of the 2017 budget is $12
million.
Consistent with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, our
2017 request provides for 90 percent fee recovery, resulting in
a net appropriation of $121 million. This appropriation is an
increase of $2 million compared with the 2016 enacted budget
due to the inclusion of $5 million in non-fee recoverable
resources for advanced nuclear reactor technology.
Our 2017 budget request reflects our continuing focus on
our important mission while continuing our Project Aim
initiative. We are concluding the review of the re-baselining
paper that outlines an additional 150 activities that could be
eliminated or reduced without an impact on safety, for a
savings of about $41 million in 2017, of which $10 million has
already been reflected in the fiscal year 2017 President's
budget request.
We cannot emphasize, however, 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 that we provide the American people
remains unchanged. 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 want to highlight one area the Commission is attending
to: improving our rulemaking process. The Commission has
revised its processes to improve its understanding of, and
where possible to reduce the cumulative effects of regulation.
In addition, the Commission has recently directed the staff on
a proposed plan to better define and enhance the Commission's
role in the early stages of rulemaking, before significant
resources are expended.
The Commission is also considering a proposal to establish
a single unified approach to tracking rulemaking activities so
the public and stakeholders have real-time access to current
information.
We carry out our safety and security activities through two
major programs: nuclear reactor safety, which includes
operating reactors and new reactors; and nuclear materials and
waste safety, consisting of fuels facilities, nuclear materials
users, decommissioning and low level waste, spent fuel storage,
and transportation.
Our request in the operator reactors business line
represents a decrease of $1.7 million from the 2016 enacted
budget.
These resources that we request will help with
implementation of lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi
accident in Japan. The requested resources support the
continued implementation of the most safety significant, or
Tier 1, enhancements that were identified after Fukushima,
including implementation of our orders on mitigation
strategies, spent fuel instrumentation, and severe-accident-
capable hardened vents, and completion of the mitigation of
beyond-design-basis events rulemaking.
The bulk of the most safety significant enhancements for
post-Fukushima should be completed in this year, calendar year
2016. We expect to bring to closure our evaluation of the
longer term Tier 2 and Tier 3 issues. We will inspect the work
that has been done and ensure plants maintain their progress.
We strongly believe that the United States' plants are better
prepared for extreme events now than they were in 2011.
On a related note, the NRC recently issued letters to the
Nation's commercial operating plants about their 2015
performance. While the vast majority fully met safety and
security performance objectives, three reactors at two sites,
Arkansas Nuclear and Pilgrim, were deemed to be in the fourth
or lowest performance category.
To wrap up, we have requested in our budget to cover some
new reactor activities, including the review of the small
modular reactor design expected from NuScale, and we have asked
for $5 million in non-fee activities to cover development of
image structure for advanced reactors.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear, and we would be
pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Svinicki.
STATEMENT OF KRISTINE SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member
Boxer, and distinguished members of the committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today at this hearing on NRC's
fiscal year 2017 budget request and associated matters. Our
Chairman, Stephen Burns, in his written 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.
I thank the committee for its consideration of our budget
request. In the interest of time, I will ask if I may submit my
brief oral statement for the record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:]
Senator Inhofe. Commissioner Ostendorff.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Ostendorff. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking
Member Boxer, and distinguished members of the committee.
Chairman Inhofe, thank you for your kind remarks. It has been a
distinct privilege to serve with this group of people for the
last 6 years.
I am in complete alignment with Chairman Burns' testimony.
I will make two specific comments.
First, as mentioned by the Chairman, the Commission's
recent decision to provide direction to the staff to seek
Commission approval before embarking upon rulemaking activities
is a significant change and a major step toward improving
efficiency. Second, our budget requests $5 million in non-fee
billable resources to further develop our regulatory
infrastructure to review advanced, non-light reactor technology
applications. It is very important for the long-term health of
the NRC and the nuclear industry that we retain the ability to
license new reactor technologies.
In closing, I completely agree with Chairman Inhofe's
comment that these oversight hearings are of extreme
importance.
Thank you.
[The responses of Mr. Ostendorff to questions for the
record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you very much, and again, good
luck at the academy.
Commissioner Baran.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY BARAN, COMMISSIONER,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Baran. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, members
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. It is a pleasure to be here with my colleagues 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, questioning
look at what work the agency is doing and how we are doing that
work. The NRC staff has generated a list of 151 proposals that
would reduce costs in the coming months. The Commission is
deliberating on those now. I think the vast majority of these
items make a lot of sense, but I have concerns about several
items, 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 clean up 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, as the
Chairman mentioned. In the last few years, five U.S. reactors
have permanently shut down, and three more have announced plans
to do so 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.
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, a number of other important efforts
underway, including small modular reactors coming up, and the
proposal for advanced reactor funding. We are happy to discuss
these and any other issues of interest.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The response of Mr. Baran to questions for the record
follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Commissioner Baran.
I will begin, and I have three questions, all three for
Chairman Burns. The first two questions just require a yes or
no answer, and I think you may be already starting in on the
areas that I am going to suggest here. The last one you will
probably want to elaborate just a little bit.
First of all, I referred several times to the then Chairman
Shirley Jackson. When she testified before this Committee, this
would have been 1998, the time that I have been referred to, I
am quoting now: ``The NRC has been the subject of a number of
external reviews, some of them sharply critical. Whether or not
one agrees with these criticisms, we believe that they are
worthy of careful consideration. The Commission invited a
number of these stakeholders, including some of the harshest
critics, to engage in a roundtable discussion open to the NRC
staff, the press, and the public. As anticipated, the meeting
provided the Commission with beneficial insights, including a
range of perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of NRC
regulatory programs and policies.''
Chairman Burns, would you commit to holding a stakeholders
meeting within the next 3 months?
Mr. Burns. Yes, I would be willing to do that. I do meet
with stakeholders across the spectrum.
Senator Inhofe. Good.
Mr. Burns. But I would be willing to meet with----
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that.
Now, following the 1998 hearing, Chairman Jackson tasked
the NRC's executive director with action on a set of high
priority tasks identified in the stakeholders meeting, the one
that we referred to, and by this committee. The executive
director responded in less than a month with a plan to address
an issue that had been raised.
Chairman Burns, would you commit to task your executive
director and report your progress to this committee let's just
say every couple months?
Mr. Burns. Yes, I would do that. I want to consult with my
colleagues, the fellow commissioners, and provide some
direction. I think we probably can get some other ideas----
Senator Inhofe. Would any of the other three commissioners
object to this request that I am making? All right.
And last, Chairman Jackson's single most important reform
was to transition the agency from subjective, inconsistent
assessments of nuclear plant safety to the current reactor
oversight program, which is based on objective, measurable
performance indicators. However, I understand there has been
some of the staff backsliding on this.
So, Chairman Burns, how will the Commission exercise its
oversight of the staff to ensure the reactor oversight process
is not compromised by undue subjectivity?
Mr. Burns. We have been engaged with the staff on the
reactor oversight process. There are some aspects I think they
are looking at. They are engaging with stakeholders now on
that. I would expect the Commission to be informed about that.
To the extent that there are changes that require Commission
endorsement or approval, that those be provided to us and we
have an understanding what the different viewpoints are. So I
think as part of our normal process we would do that.
Senator Inhofe. OK. I have another minute and a half.
Anyone want to comment on that, of the other three
commissioners?
Mr. Baran. I would just add that I think the staff takes
very seriously the rigor that we have right now in the reactor
oversight process; they are very conscious of that. So it is
something that the Commission is focused on, we are talking
with the staff about, but I think it is something that the
staff is very clear that they want to maintain the rigor of the
reactor oversight.
Senator Inhofe. You know, when I say it could be that
reports we have gotten are not all that accurate, but we
understand that there has been some resistance to this, and I
would just ask you to do what you can to eliminate that.
Any comments on that?
Ms. Svinicki. Chairman Inhofe, I agree with the Chairman
and Commissioner Baran. The Commission has been engaging rather
actively with the staff as they develop any proposals to modify
this process. Although there may be modest adjustments that are
within their authority to make if something has a significant
impact to the program, I am certain that the Commission would
want to put its imprimatur on that.
Senator Inhofe. OK. And let me be clear. Our situation
today is not analogous to what it was in 1998. In 1998, having
gone 4 years without an oversight, that was a pretty extreme
time. And though this is not the case now, there are some
indicators that there has been a more relaxed attitude than
there should be.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
I want to follow up on this meeting with stakeholders. How
do you define stakeholders, Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. I think that was our members of non-governmental
organizations, members of industry, licensees that can be local
groups.
Senator Boxer. Community groups?
Mr. Burns. It is a wide variety.
Senator Boxer. Good. Because this is not just a meeting
that the Chairman is asking for you to have with the industry;
it is the industry, it is the non-profit groups, it is the
community groups, is that correct?
Mr. Burns. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. Good. That is good.
Mr. Burns. And part of what I do, for example, I am meeting
with an NGO tomorrow on some of their concerns. I meet with a
lot of people.
Senator Boxer. Good. That is good. Well, to me it is not
about a lot of people; it is about stakeholders, you know. And
I agree meeting with stakeholders, as long as it is everyone,
and meeting with them at the same time is critical. It builds
confidence all around.
And specifically on that, I would like to arrange a meeting
with you and the stakeholders in San Onofre, as well as Diablo.
That would include the operator of the power plant, the
concerned community, the citizens around there, the
environmentalists around there as well. Could we work together
on that?
Mr. Burns. Certainly, Senator.
Senator Boxer. And I would love it as many commissioners
could attend would be great. It is not just meant to be for the
chairman; he has a lot on his shoulders. So any one of you that
wants to be at that meeting. And I will organize that and get
back to you.
I wanted to comment on the article that my friend, and he
is my friend, put in the record, Nuclear safety upgrades post-
Fukushima cost $47 billion. When you read the story, what you
find out is that 90 percent of that is being spent outside the
United States of America, most of it in Japan because of the
disaster and the turning up now of these diseases. So I wanted
to point out that our nuclear industry is quoted in the story
as saying the industry has managed its response to Fukushima
while avoiding costly new requirements.
So I just wanted to circle those points in the story. And I
am glad the story is in the record because it proves my point
that what is happening here is just not moving fast enough,
which leads me to the last part of my questioning.
I think I gave you this, Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Boxer. And I know that everyone has seen it and
agreed that it is accurate, but I am going to go through it
just to show the people, the American people how little is
really being done post-Fukushima.
Almost 4 years ago, your Commission, your task force laid
out these 12 ideas. They were senior members of the NRC staff.
I don't know who is still there. If I was working there, I
would probably quit, given the fact that nothing has been done.
But it is almost 4 years, so I am going to go through each one
of these, and all I want from you, Mr. Burns, if you would, is
if you agree with my analysis of each one, and if you don't,
explain why.
No. 1, improve regulatory framework. The NRC rejected staff
proposals on that, is that correct?
Mr. Burns. The Commission decided not to proceed with that.
Senator Boxer. That is what I just said. So the Commission
said no to the NRC staff proposal on regulatory framework.
Two, study and upgrade seismic flooding and other hazard
protections. My understanding is that there is no target date
set for permanent safety upgrades on seismic flooding or other
hazards, is that correct?
Mr. Burns. I am not sure that that is correct. We have
seismic and flooding analysis from most of the plants.
Senator Boxer. No, I am asking do you have a target----
Mr. Burns. In some circumstances there was not a need for
further seismic and flooding upgrades.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, your staff said----
Mr. Burns. This is important work, and progress is made on
it.
Senator Boxer. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Your staff said that there
needed to be upgrades, study and upgrades seismic flooding and
other protections. My understanding is you are implementing
some, but no target date has been set for permanent safety
upgrades. Now, your staff said that is correct. Is that
correct?
Mr. Burns. I am not sure of the context, Senator. I am
happy to look at that.
Senator Boxer. Does anyone else understand the context?
Mr. Baran.
Mr. Baran. I think it is correct that there is no firm date
by which any necessary upgrades would be made.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. So that is accurate.
Three, upgrade to prevent or mitigate seismically induced
fires or floods. My understanding is the NRC rejected that
action. Is that correct?
Mr. Burns. I think that is correct because we felt it was
bound by the existing protections that we----
Senator Boxer. I understand that. All of these are
improvements, they are not status quo. You rejected, the NRC
rejected doing this even though your staff, senior staff, after
Fukushima 4 years ago, said to do it.
No. 4----
Mr. Burns. No, what they said to do is to evaluate whether
that provided an additional benefit.
Senator Boxer. No, they said to upgrade.
Mr. Burns. And we have been responsible about doing those
things.
Senator Boxer. Upgrade. Upgrades. They want upgrades in the
plants to prevent or mitigate seismically induced fires or
floods. You said no.
Let's move on. Mitigation for events like blackouts. The
final rule is supposed to be due this year. Is it coming?
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Boxer. When?
Mr. Burns. Toward the end of the year, as scheduled.
Senator Boxer. Can we say by December?
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Burns. And the plants have already implemented, per
orders imposed by this Commission in 2012, improvements to
address this, and in fact went beyond the Near-Term Task Force
requirements were.
Senator Boxer. I see I have gone over my time, so I will
wait for a second round to go through the rest of these. But we
will ask you the rest of these.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burns, as part of the oversight review, there are
just some specifics on the budget proposal that I would like to
ask, and if you think you need to respond to them for the
record, that would be fine.
Mr. Burns. Thank you.
Senator Rounds. Your testimony states that the fiscal year
2017 budget represents a decrease of $19.8 million from 2016,
$15 million of which is a decision not to fund the university
grant program. That leaves a decrease of $4.8 million and 90
FTE in the NRC's office. Chairman Burns, I would expect that
there would be more of a cost savings than $4.8 million
considering the decrease in FTEs. Is the NRC spending some of
the savings and efficiencies in other activities?
Mr. Burns. No, Senator, it is not. And one thing I would
note, with respect to the integrated university program, in
terms of the President's budget reflects a judgment the
Administration believes that those activities ought to be
consolidated. We recognize that over a number of years we have
received the direction to continue with that and have
essentially absorbed that program and tried to implement it
responsibly.
But to your other point, we are looking at, we have
identified savings. One of the things, as I said both in my
submitted and in my oral testimony, as part of Project Aim, we
have identified about $30 million beyond the President's budget
submittal where we think through the re-baselining we can
achieve additional savings.
Senator Rounds. Then when can we expect to see the savings
and the efficiencies fully reflected as actual decreases in the
NRC spending, rather than, if it is being reallocated, but when
will we see that actually reflected in the budget?
Mr. Burns. Well, we see some of that actually in our
implementation of the fiscal year 2016 budget, and as I say,
although the President's budget came in at $970 million, which
included incorporation of some of the identified gains or
efficiency gains in areas where we thought we could reduce, we
think there is more there for the fiscal year 2017. So there is
some work we are doing this year where we think we are
achieving those gains, and I think in the further consideration
of the fiscal year 2017 budget we can achieve more.
Senator Rounds. OK. Licensees must seek NRC review and
approval for many modifications to equipment and procedures. As
such, this is a fairly routine activity and a significant
portion of the NRC's workload. However, the NRC seems to be
struggling with a backlog, unable to complete their reviews on
time in spite of the fact that from 2012 to 2015 the industry
filed fewer licensing action requests than the NRC had budgeted
to review. The NRC used the review about 1,500 licensing
actions each year at a time when the agency had fewer people
and fewer resources.
What has changed since then to cause this recurring
backlog?
Mr. Burns. Well, thank you for the question, Senator.
Actually, where we are, we have come to the point where we have
substantially worked down the backlog. I think a major cause of
the backlog was a need to focus on the potential safety
enhancements post-Fukushima. What we have been able to do over
the last few years is work that backlog down. I think it was
like about 100 actions were in the backlog about a year ago, so
we are about 24 now, and we expect to work them off within the
next year.
Progress to date through fiscal year 2016, we are just
about at what our target of 95 percent completion, we are at
about 94 percent. Staff, I know, will work to get that better.
So I think the simple answer to your question, I think a lot of
attention, necessary as it was, on Fukushima put some of the
licensing actions on hold, created backlog. What we have been
trying to do and have done successfully is work that off.
Senator Rounds. OK. I have another question, but rather
than that I just want to give you the opportunity, and I think
Ranking Member Boxer had asked you a question, and she was out
of time. I have a few seconds left. Is there any part to her
question that you would like to respond to with regards to when
staff recommendations are made, and sometimes the Commission
decides not to accept or may have other things? Is there
anything you would like to respond to that you didn't have time
to when the Ranking Member was asking the question?
Mr. Burns. I think she has given me a fair opportunity to
answer her question. The only context I would give is that the
Near-Term Task Force, I was here as general counsel then, and I
have a lot of respect, and there are a number of folks who are
still working with the agency and proudly do so.
But what I would say is this, the Task Force had an
enormous task in 90 days to say what are the things we ought to
be looking at, and the Commission and the staff took that
seriously. Staff added some additional things, and we took
those seriously. So I think from my standpoint we may have
disagreements about whether some of those things should be
implemented or not, but I think we have taken them seriously,
and I continue to do so.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
Welcome, one and all. Good to see you.
Commissioner Ostendorff, tell us what you are going to be
doing next, please.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator Carper, I have accepted a position
at the Naval Academy as a distinguished visiting professor of
national security, and I will start teaching there in August.
Senator Carper. All right. Well, as we say in the Navy,
fair winds and a following sea. Thank you for all of your
service to our country.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for bringing us together
for this hearing. I recently wrote a letter to Chairman Burns
about the challenges of safely licensing advanced nuclear
reactors. I was encouraged to see that the NRC budget request
for 2017 includes $5 million to develop the licensing
infrastructure.
I would just start off by asking Chairman Burns and others
who would like to join in what you expect to do with the $5
million targeted toward the development of advanced nuclear
reactor technology regulatory structure in terms of hiring
appropriate staff. Give us some idea how many might be needed,
technology development, maybe some other activities.
Could you start off with that, please?
Mr. Burns. Certainly, Senator. Thanks for the question.
Probably three areas that we focus on with the $5 million,
focusing on licensing infrastructure. Given that the current
infrastructure focuses primarily on light water reactors, these
advanced reactors are in a lot of non-light water technologies,
are there areas where we need to address there? Part of it is
technical preparation, getting some of the right staff,
understanding where we may be going, actually talking with our
Canadian counterparts about the processes.
One of the concerns is whether people have to go all or
nothing in terms of coming in with an application. Are there
ways of doing, in effect, what we would call topical reports
that sort of give maybe not a final sign off, but it gives
encouragement that says you look like you are on the right
step, we don't see a primary safety problem. We are looking at
that, and our Canadian colleagues have a process to do that,
and we are encouraged to do that.
I think, again, it is outreach. We had a successful
workshop we co-hosted with DOE last year----
Senator Carper. I am going to interrupt you and just ask
some specific questions if I could.
Mr. Burns. OK.
Senator Carper. How long do you expect the regulatory
development process to take?
Mr. Burns. I couldn't hear you. Sorry.
Senator Carper. How long do you expect the regulatory
development process to take?
Mr. Burns. I think that is over probably several years. I
don't think we really expect an advanced non-light water
application probably until the mid-2020s, so we have some time
there. There is work underway, and I think we would continue.
Senator Carper. Might we expect to see similar requests in
coming years?
Mr. Burns. Probably. What we understand, I think this is
some of information we get from DOE in some of these
initiatives, I think around 2025.
Senator Carper. OK. So in terms of how much money and
roughly how much time will it take to put the appropriate
regulatory structure in place, we are talking about 8 or 9
years?
Mr. Burns. I am not sure it would take that long. Part of,
I think, what this $5 million helps us do is understand where
the gaps are, what other work we would have to do. But I think
we want to encourage those who are interested in the industry
to talk to us and we want to be in a place where we are ready
and we have identified the issues that we think need to be
addressed.
Senator Carper. OK.
Commissioner Ostendorff, any idea when you might anticipate
advanced nuclear reactor technology applications being
presented to the Commission? Any idea?
Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you for the question, Senator Carper.
I spoke at a conference at Oak Ridge National Laboratory back
in February of this year, met with a number of groups that are
looking at, on the vendor side, developing new technologies. I
have had communication with the Nuclear Infrastructure Council,
Nuclear Innovation Alliance, Nuclear Energy Institute, and
Third Way, four different groups who are working in this area.
There is not a predicted date, but we think it is possible in
the next 5 years to receive an application.
Senator Carper. Do you think that the NRC staff have the
non-light water reactor design and modeling skills that are
going to be required to consider applications for advanced
nuclear reactors?
Mr. Ostendorff. Let me answer that by using an anecdote, if
I may. Right behind me is Amy Cubbage. Amy, please raise your
hand. Amy is my reactor assistant. She was a member of the
Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima issues. She has been my
reactor assistant for the last 3 and a half years.
Amy, 15 years ago, worked on the pebble bed reactor
technology that was submitted to the NRC, and those plans were
curtailed at the industry's request. I would say we have many
other people like Amy at the NRC who have had some experience
working in non-light water reactor technologies, and we believe
we can fully capitalize on their skill sets going forward.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks so much again, and thank you for
your service. Great to see you.
Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Baran, thank you all
for joining us today.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burns, thank you, and I think the members for
being here today. I want to discuss the NRC permitting process.
During its licensing reviews, the NRC staff frequently poses
requests for additional information, they call it the RAI,
Request for Additional Information, to licensees, to
applicants. It is clear the NRC should request any information
necessary to make a safety determination, then process the
information, because the process itself can be burdensome if it
is not properly managed, and that is one of the concerns about
how this works.
Chairman Inhofe and Senator Capito and I have tasked GAO
with examining the very problem, and I want to just give you
one example of why we feel the process warrants some scrutiny
from you as chairman. With regard to a request for additional
information request made by the NRC to the United States
Geological Survey, it regards their renewal application for a
research reactor they have in Denver.
This is what the NRC asks the United States Geological
Survey, and this is recent, February 8th, 2016. It says: The
application indicates that the United States Geological Survey
is a Federal bureau within the United States Department of
Interior. To comply with 10 CFR 50.33(d), the staff--your
staff--requests that the applicant state whether the United
States Geological Survey is owned, controlled, or dominated by
an alien foreign corporation or foreign government, and if so,
give details.
This is what your staff has decided to ask the U.S.
Geological Survey. Now, I am going to quote what the NRC's
instructions for developing these requests for additional
information are, because you need to get additional information
sometimes. Your own instructions say before developing a
request for additional information, the staff should ensure
that the information isn't already available to the staff or
that the answer could not reasonably be inferred from general
knowledge or previously docketed correspondence.
So I think not only can it be reasonably inferred that
anyone outside the NRC staff that the United States Geological
Survey is part of the Federal Government, the fact has been
docketed in previous correspondence with the NRC staff. They
actually asked the same question in an RAI in 2010, and they
got the same answer. It just seems that project managers are
supposed to be responsible for ensuring that these requests for
additional information are actually necessary on companies, my
State, other States, but do you have any idea how this sort of
thing keeps happening?
Mr. Burns. No, Senator, and I would agree that that
question is unnecessary. I appreciate the request the committee
has made to have GAO take a look at it. It is something--and I
think our EDO is committed to bringing discipline, bringing
training. This may be, in part, one of these things in terms of
the transition from the generational shift from older folks
like me who are getting fewer at the Commission to some of our
young staff.
As a lawyer, I know, for example, I would go up to the
judge and say, Your Honor, will you take official notice or
judicial notice that the USGS is a U.S. Government agency. We
can do better. I think that the review will probably help us do
that, and I think our staff will continue to be vigilant. But
we need to be disciplined because it is important. There are
important questions we have to ask during the review, but we
need to focus on the things where those touchy safety issues or
undefined things. So I appreciate the example.
Senator Barrasso. OK, thank you. I asked a question for the
record back in October, October 7th hearing, that essentially
asked how might a longer license duration help the NRC manage
its workload a little better with regard to uranium recovery
facilities. I think you said extending the license term would
reduce the administrative burden associated with the license
renewal process for both the NRC, I think you said, the staff
and the uranium recovery licensees, and I agree.
Will you, therefore, commit to me to help pursue extending
the license duration for uranium facilities for the reason that
you had stated? Because it used to be 5 years; we extended it
to 10 back in the 1990s, which helped, but it takes about 5
years to get through the full process.
Mr. Burns. I think that is something we can look at. As you
noted, we had extended before. My understanding and as a
general matter, given where we are in terms of some of the
licenses before us, renewals, it becomes a more critical issue
in the early 2020s, but that gives us some time to, I think,
consider that, and I think the staff will be willing to do
that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Madam Ranking Member.
As I am sure you are aware, last week Entergy, which
operates Indian Point Units 2 and 3 in New York, discovered
that 227 baffle-former bolts inside of Unit 2's reactor core
are degraded, which is more than 10 percent of the specific
type of bolts used in the reactor. My understanding is that
these bolts are used to hold together the core former which
surrounds the nuclear fuel. Do you have any information about
whether there was any degradation of these bolts detected prior
to this most recent inspection?
Mr. Burns. Senator, I am not sure. Let me get back to you
on that, whether there were indications. As you said, the
inspections were started after defueling and identified, and I
want to give you the best answer I can.
Senator Gillibrand. OK. Would you have concern about other
types of bolts if that was indeed the case?
Mr. Burns. I think your concern about the bolts there, and
this is part of the monitoring I would expect at plants. This
is the type of equipment that you want to see----
Senator Gillibrand. You would expect that type of
monitoring?
Mr. Burns. Pardon?
Senator Gillibrand. You would expect that kind of
monitoring?
Mr. Burns. Yes. That is what happened here.
Senator Gillibrand. OK, then I would urge the same
inspection for Unit 3, because they have decided not to expect
Unit 3 because it is 3 years younger. Do you think that is a
legitimate reason not to inspect Unit 3?
Mr. Burns. Actually, my understanding from my staff is that
it will be inspected in several years. It has operated less----
Senator Gillibrand. I wouldn't wait several years. If 11
percent is degraded and you didn't expect to find degradation,
it means your expectations are wrong. So I would not wait a few
years; I would inspect Unit 3 immediately.
Mr. Burns. OK, we will take that into consideration,
Senator, but I think the technical evaluation of our staff
assure that they believe that the timing is appropriate.
Senator Gillibrand. Their technical evaluation concerning
Unit 2 was flawed, so I would be highly concerned that their
technical evaluation concerning Unit 3 is also flawed, and I
would request you to do the inspections now. It is unexpected
to have 10 percent degradation. One of the bolts couldn't even
be found.
That is highly alarming to me, given that it is just 50
miles from 8 million people. We do not want to have any
problems at this power plant, and I think you have to be more
concerned than you might be otherwise, given the failure to
know that 10 percent of your bolts were degraded so close to
the reactor. I think it is very unwise and I think it is
unsafe.
So who decides? Who is the technical decisionmaker here?
Mr. Burns. The NRC considers and evaluates the information
it has. The licensee has programs in terms of monitoring and
maintenance, and those are integrated together.
Senator Gillibrand. So when do you step in and require an
infrastructure issue to be treated as a significant safety
issue for the plant?
Mr. Burns. When we identify it as a significant safety
issue.
Senator Gillibrand. Is 10 percent of degradation a
significant safety issue?
Mr. Burns. I would be happy to consult with our staff in
terms of their evaluation. They are evaluating what the
licensee is doing and examining there, and I would expect us to
take that information into account.
Senator Gillibrand. I would like a written response to
these questions, specifically whether you think 10 percent
degradation of bolts is a safety issue. If not, why not? And if
you do, then I would like you to evaluate Entergy's plan and
make recommendation about what they should do instead.
Does anyone else on the panel have a comment to this
concern?
Mr. Baran. Well, Senator, let me just add I think the
written request you asked for is completely appropriate, we
should do that. You should have a complete answer to those
questions. My understanding is that the number of baffle bolts
that were potentially problematic in this case is a
substantially larger number than we have seen in the past with
other plants that had this issue, so I know it is something the
staff is looking at very carefully. We should get you the
answers you are asking for.
Senator Gillibrand. Well, I would like aggressive oversight
here.
Both Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are currently in a period
of relicensing. A major component of relicensing is the
management of aging infrastructure. Is it fair to say that as
you go through the process of evaluating a plant for
relicensing, there are a certain set of assumptions made on
what you expect the condition of the plant's infrastructure to
be and how the plant will operate if it is relicensed based on
past performance of safety records?
Mr. Burns. Senator, I would agree essentially with that you
said. The focus on license renewal tends to be on aging
management. In fact, I believe the issue of the question of the
inclusion of the baffle bolts is a matter in contention within
the license renewal hearing. We can't comment on the outcome of
that, I think it is still going on, but that is the focus. So I
think I would agree with your general characterization.
Senator Gillibrand. So if you find that degradation was
higher than you expected, will you then go back and challenge
other assumptions you made in the review for relicensing?
Mr. Burns. If that is appropriate.
Senator Gillibrand. Meaning if your assumptions were wrong,
I would like you to go back and look at all of your assumptions
concerning degradation.
Mr. Burns. We would look at our assumptions.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of
you for being here today.
Chairman Burns, I listened to your testimony, and I just
want to make sure that in terms of the budget and your FTEs,
your employees, where the numbers are. I understand that in
2005 your budget was $669 million and you had just over 3,100
employees, and today you are overseeing a smaller--I think we
brought this up several times--a smaller nuclear fleet and
considering far fewer licensing actions, but you are requesting
$982 million and over 3,500 employees. I know Project Aim is
specifically aimed at this issue, and I applaud your progress.
How far along is Project Aim, and how much longer do you
plan to continue? And do you think that will be shrinking the
work force, number of employees?
Mr. Burns. Thank you for the question, Senator. Project
Aim, in terms of the particular tasks that were identified when
it began, is pretty far along. This re-baselining paper, which
the Commission will issue its final guidance on I think very
soon, was one of the main steps.
We have some additional papers and recommendations to come
from the staff, for example, on the consolidation, the new
reactors, and recombining the new reactor office with a nuclear
reactor regulation office, a few things like that. The EEO and
the CFO have given some tasks in terms of further looking at
the corporate support offices and potential efficiencies and
reductions there.
So the main activities that were identified in the Aim
program were, I think, come to close this year. The longer term
issue, and I have been talking to the EEO and I think my fellow
commissioners, and I will let them add if they wish, is really
incorporating sort of the ongoing awareness and idea of looking
at how we do our work to assure we get the safety security
benefit that we need while doing it effectively and
efficiently. That is the longer term challenge once I think
most of their Aim activities conclude this year.
Senator Capito. Does anybody have any other comment on
that?
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I would just add and reinforce the
chairman's comment that there is still more work to be done
both on corporate support as well as some of the programmatic
activity lines, and we are committed to doing that work.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Baran. Just briefly. I will just give you a couple of
concrete numbers that I think illustrate how aggressive the
effort has been. At the beginning of fiscal year 2016 we had
3,628 FTE. By the end of fiscal year 2017, so 2 years later, we
expect to see that number drop to 3,344 if all these re-
baselining items are approved. That is 284 fewer employees in 2
years, or about 8 percent of our work force. It is a pretty
significant decline we have seen.
Senator Capito. And you are already on your way there
because you are at, like, 35-something at the present time.
Mr. Baran. That is right. Yes.
Senator Capito. Chairman Burns, also, you were directed ay
appropriators to discontinue the practice of carrying over
budgeted funds from one fiscal year to the next. Are you
carrying over any funds in this fiscal year?
Mr. Burns. Well, our plan is to obligate the funds that we
have been appropriated in 2016.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Burns. With respect to potential carryover, there is
the potential for some at the end of the year, some de-
obligation. I think it is somewhat less than $25 million.
Senator Capito. Well, I am on the Appropriations Committee,
and I mean, I think you can understand in tight times you want
to appropriate to the proper amount for the particular year
because there is a lot of give and take and a lot of flat in
the budget. So you can understand why that would be an issue.
Another issue, we are having trouble getting conflicting
numbers on the number of rulemakings that are in progress right
now. We have been given numbers between 43 to 60. Do you have
an accurate number for that?
Mr. Burns. Yes. What we did, and this is quite honestly one
of my frustrations and one of the reasons why I asked for a
tasking to say let's get a consistent reporting on these
issues. We have what would be called rulemaking activities,
about 80, and part of that 89 is there are a number of those
things that are, for example, petitions for rulemaking. That
means the industry or a citizen can file something.
We have an obligation under the law to look at that. We can
probably give you a better breakdown for the record, but a
number of other things are things like incorporating industry
consensus standards, cast certifications, things like that that
the industry wants.
But we have, I think, a good handle on what the number of
``rulemaking activities'' are. And one last point is within
those 89, the staff has identified for potential elimination a
number of rulemakings so that we would take those off where we
see limited value in proceeding.
Senator Capito. If you could get me that, maybe more detail
on that.
Mr. Burns. I can try to give you a better breakdown.
Senator Capito. All right. Thank you so much.
Senator Inhofe. Because a vote has started, and we are good
for another probably 15 minutes here, we are going to continue.
Senator Boxer wanted to make one statement that I think is
reasonable.
Senator Boxer. Really quickly. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
We only got to four of the recommendations. Could I count
on you to answer my questions in writing on the rest of the
list?
Mr. Burns. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. I know that you are taking these seriously.
That is the difference between that and implementation. So I
appreciate all of you being here today.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
I just want to once again put the Commission on notice that
the NRC is still not in compliance with its own policy and the
law surrounding providing documents to members of your
oversight committee. It has been almost 2 years since I first
requested documents related to the indictment of five members
of the Chinese military on charges of hacking and stealing
nuclear reactor trade secrets from Westinghouse in 2010 and
2011. At the very same time that these thefts occurred,
Westinghouse was hosting months-long visits for dozens of
unescorted Chinese personnel at U.S. nuclear reactors.
I have narrowed my document request. I have sent several
letters. I have raised this in several hearings of this
committee. I have raised it in private conversations with the
chairman of the Commission. My staff has been briefed by your
staff. The Commission still hasn't even provided me with the
documents that others at the agency have already made it
possible to get access to.
I am not willing to accept briefings in lieu of my document
request, nor is it helpful for the Commission to ignore the
need to respond to my request until several days before the
hearing. When you ask for a meeting on this issue, I expect the
Commission's response to my request.
I just wanted to put that on the record, and I would ask
the Commission again to comply with the request for that
information.
In 2014 an insider at the Doel Nuclear Plant in Belgium
sabotaged the reactor by draining all the oil from the reactor
turbine. This was not all that sophisticated; it was basically
the nuclear reactor technology equivalent of slashing someone's
tires.
But it caused more than $100 million in damage. Two years
earlier a contractor at the plant who had passed a security
background check traveled to Syria to fight with jihadist
groups there. This incident is similar to that of Sharif
Mobley, an American who worked at U.S. nuclear plants and
subsequently fought with Al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Disturbingly, the background check investigations that are
required for nuclear contract workers allow them to self-report
their foreign travel. We also recently learned that two suicide
bombers in the Brussels terrorist attacks had collected video
footage at the home of a Belgian nuclear official.
Commission Baran, do you agree, then, in light of these
disturbing reports from Belgium, the Commission should take a
new look at its design basis threat, force-on-force mock
terrorist exercises, and other security regulations?
Mr. Baran. I have to be careful answering that just because
the design basis threat issues are classified. I can say that
the NRC staff is taking a look at this issue, and I believe
that is appropriate. The events you raised are something that
is being looked at by our security folks.
Senator Markey. We know that nuclear power plants, gaining
access to those materials are at the top of the terrorist
target list, so I recommend very strongly that you put in place
a program to reexamine the measures that we have in place. That
is where they are going, and we have been warned, and I think
it is critical for us to have heeded those warnings.
The NRC is currently doing a rulemaking to address
decommissioning in light of the many reactors that are now or
soon to be shutting down, including the Pilgrim Plant in
Massachusetts. The commissioners told the staff that the new
rules should consider the concerns of State and local
officials, but the nuclear industry wants the Commission to
eliminate the consideration of State and local officials' views
from the rulemaking altogether.
At a recent NRC meeting, Massachusetts State Senator Dan
Wolf said the industry's suggestion was absurd.
Starting with Commissioner Baran, do you all agree that it
would be absurd to eliminate all consideration of State and
local officials' concern in your decommissioning rulemaking?
Mr. Baran. I agree that would be a very bad idea. I think
we absolutely, as part of that rulemaking, should look at the
appropriate role of State and local governments in the process.
Senator Markey. Can we keep coming down the panel? Do you
agree?
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator Markey, we had a good Commission
meeting on this topic here last month. We heard the State
senator from your State, his comments, and we are considering
all these comments as we go forward here.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Ms. Svinicki. Senator, the NRC staff is engaging in looking
at all of the public input that came in. The comment period is
closed, and I look forward to their evaluation of all of that
public comment.
Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burns. Really the same response. I haven't made up my
mind on this. I want to look at the comments. I want to extend
my appreciation to Commissioner Baran for suggesting this
meeting. I think when you and a number of others wrote to us
this was one of the impetuses for holding that meeting on the
decommissioning issues.
Senator Markey. OK. Well, only one of you can, right now,
say yes, that the State officials should be listened to, and I
think that is not a good thing.
Mr. Burns. Well, I don't think that is what I said. That is
not what I mean to imply. I think we need to take into
consideration those views in this process.
Senator Markey. OK.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burns, I would like to ask you a few questions
about the Backfit Rule. That is a topic that I have raised in
several of our committee's oversight hearings of the NRC in the
last 2 years. As you know the Backfit Rule says that before the
NRC can impose a new requirement on an existing licensed
facility the NRC must first demonstrate that the new
requirement results in a substantial increase in the protection
of public health and safety and also that it is cost justified.
This committee has expressed concerns about how the NRC's
use of subjective qualitative factors, as opposed to objective
quantitative factors, can erode the Backfit Rule and undermine,
I believe, its important purposes, and I have been very
concerned about that.
Sir, are you aware of the compliance exception to the
Backfit Rule, and do you believe it should be used by the NRC
staff to avoid the Backfit Rule in cases involving changes in
interpretations of existing regulations?
Mr. Burns. Yes, Senator, I am aware of the compliance
exception to the Backfit Rule. It has a role, and it should be
applied that way. I don't view it as a way of evading the
Backfit Rule but a way of looking at what is the requirements,
what is compliance; if it fits in that, otherwise you need to
apply the Backfit Rule the substantial additional protection
elements.
Senator Fischer. So are you saying that your staff would be
justified in requiring extra steps for regulation that don't
take into effect the cost?
Mr. Burns. No. What I think I am saying is that there may
be circumstances in which the question or the issue between a
licensee and the staff is whether or not some corrective
action, some other action by the licensee is really something
needed to comply with existing requirements. That is an
exception. I don't mean the exception to swallow the rule. But
that is a stated exception the Commission adopted in the mid-
1980s when it reformed the Backfit Rule.
Senator Fischer. And the rule then should still be in
effect.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Fischer. It should be considered at all times?
Mr. Burns. Well, the Backfit Rule has a substantial
additional protection piece of it. Included within the Backfit
Rule are these limited exceptions to whether or not you engage
in the cost-benefit analysis. I am just saying I think the rule
should be applied appropriately in the circumstances we find
ourselves in.
Senator Fischer. And costs should be considered?
Mr. Burns. Costs should be considered where it is not a
compliance backfit, or for example there is a statutory
requirement that has been imposed by the Congress to do
something. It is part of a normal evaluation and consideration
of the Backfit Rule. I don't want to leave you the impression
that I am saying that the exception should swallow the rule. It
is part of the normal process of evaluating whether a
particular action requires the backfit analysis, the
substantial additional protection.
Senator Fischer. I think this gets us back to the
discussion on looking at if it is a subjective factor or an
objective factor when we consider the rules and regulations.
Would you agree with me on that? And I would always come down
on the objective side of this.
Mr. Burns. Well, and the Commission's guidance----
Senator Fischer. I think that has been clear.
Mr. Burns. Yes. And I think the Commission's guidance
issued about a year or so ago emphasizes we expect the
application of quantitative factors, and we have given
guidance, and I would expect that as the process of engagement
between licensee and staff goes on that that guidance of the
Commission would be adhered to.
Senator Fischer. OK, thank you.
Also, in a letter that was dated January 20th of this year,
the Nuclear Energy Institute discussed concerns about misuse of
the compliance exception. For historical context, the NEI
letter quotes from the Federal Register Notice from the 85
Backfit Rule where the NRC explained new or modified
interpretations of what constitutes compliance would not fall
within the exception and would require a backfit analysis.
I think this is getting at it again. Would you agree for
the NRC staff to be able to use that Backfit Rule's compliance
exception that the staff first of all has to show some omission
or mistake that has occurred within that licensed facility that
was previously approved by the NRC?
Mr. Burns. I think my answer is yes, but let me give some
explanation.
Senator Fischer. OK.
Mr. Burns. The provision I think you quoted from the
Federal Register, the statement of consideration for the
Backfit Rule, are significant example or significant guidance
from the Commission with respect to the appropriate application
of the compliance exception. And I am aware of the NEI letter,
but I am not aware of all the details of some of the dialogue,
but I would expect in the dialogue between staff and licensee
that that would be focused on, and in terms of the
decisionmaking those are persuasive words or persuasive
criteria that the Commission set at that time. So what I want
to say is I don't think they are easily discarded.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burns, thank you for your upcoming plans to visit
Arkansas Nuclear 1. As you know, nuclear power improves air
quality. Each year Arkansas Nuclear 1 allows our State to
reduce air emissions. For example, in just 1 year, the plant
reduces sulfur dioxide by about 14,000 tons, it reduces
nitrogen oxide by about 10,000 tons, and it reduces
CO2 by nearly 8.5 million metric tons.
In other words, thanks to nuclear power in Arkansas we
reduce acid rain, smog, and ground level ozone. The operation
of our Arkansas Nuclear 1 directly creates more than 1,000 good
paying jobs; it provides a reliable source of over 1,800
megawatts of clean power to Arkansans. The plant provides
affordable power that supports many other jobs and industries
across our State that helps families keep the lights on.
The NRC staff has been working diligently to address a few
issues that were discovered at the plant following a serious
industrial accident that occurred 3 years ago during
maintenance on the non-nuclear side of the plant. I applaud the
efforts of energy and the NRC staff to address these issues
while keeping the plant safely operating. We really are very,
very proud of our nuclear plant.
Just a question. We want to make sure you have the
resources you need to do your work, and we want to make sure
that the NRC budget is right sized for today's workload. The
NRC's work on Project Aim is intended to more closely align
NRC's resources with the actual workload while making sure the
NRC meets its safety and security missions.
In your testimony you say, ``The NRC has taken a hard look
at the proposed budget and is proposing reductions in both
full-time equivalents and contract support dollars that
represent real savings. As we continue our work through the
Project Aim initiative we anticipate additional savings and
efficiencies to come.''
How would these additional savings translate in reductions
of the NRC fiscal year 2017 budget request of $982.3 million
and 3,523 FTEs?
Mr. Burns. Thank you for the question, Senator. I do
appreciate the opportunity to be able to go visit Arkansas
Nuclear 1 and 2 soon. It is a plant I haven't been to as yet.
The answer to your question is that we have identified,
primarily through the re-baselining effort through Project Aim,
about $31 million in additional savings, and I think below what
we came in on the President's budget, part of that is, you
know, the timing of the President's Budget and the review
process.
The Commission is about ready to issue its final guidance
on these additional re-baselining items, and I think they
represent about $31 million. There are a few more, and frankly
the number escapes me now, that we see that would go on into
2018. I forget; it is about $8 million in additional savings.
So that is where I would say the core of it is, and I think it
is a demonstration we have taken this effort seriously.
Senator Boozman. How about Project Aim recommendations and
work force planning, including strict hiring controls, staff
reduction buyouts; how would that affect things?
Mr. Burns. The Office of the Chief Human Capital, I used to
call it HR, now it is OCHC, so I get confused sometimes. Our
H.R. office basically has put hiring controls, so in terms of
external hires we are looking only at very critical positions,
looking to be more flexible, that is the strategic work force
planning, about getting people with skill sets who might, say,
working in the reactor area go to the materials area and
working with things like that.
We did do an early out buyout last year. We were authorized
up to about 100. We had about 50, I think 49 take it. We are in
the process of going through the process of getting
authorization for an additional effort in that way, but that is
in process. So we would do that again to achieve some savings
this year.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Chairman
Burns.
Mr. Burns. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
Senator Sessions had questions concerning Yucca Mountain,
and without objection I am going to ask him to submit to each
one of you those questions, and we would anticipate a response
by the end of the week. OK?
Thank you very much for your patience and also getting us
out on time.
We are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]
[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders,
U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont
In examining the fiscal year 2017 budget request for NRC I
would like to focus on the need to provide a strong role for
the public in the decommissioning process when a nuclear plant
shuts down. The fundamental issue here is the role of the State
and the local community members in the decommissioning process.
The community of Vernon, Vermont, is grappling with the effects
of the decommissioning process of the Vermont Yankee nuclear
plant, and communities all over the country are now, or will
soon, experience the process of having the plant in their
community shut down.
As I understand the current rules do not apply uniquely to
decommissioning. The current rules allow the NRC to sit down
with the companies to negotiate a decommissioning process, and
States have no significant role in that process. They can be
observers, they can attend public meetings, they can provide
input, but at the end of the day the company and the NRC work
out the agreement. On the face of it that just doesn't make a
whole lot of sense. The people of the State, regardless of
whether it's Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, or California,
it seems to me have the right to have a seat at the table. The
NRC must be very diligent in ensuring adequate public input as
it continues to develop its new rules.
Additionally, specifically regarding Vermont Yankee
although the NRC is in the very beginning of the process of
developing regulations regarding decommissioning, the NRC
continues to approve requests from Entergy to waive current
regulations. I find that very problematic.
For example, the NRC approved Entergy's request to withdraw
funds for spent fuel management from the Decommissioning Trust
Fund, which is expressly disallowed by NRC's own regulations.
The NRC also recently allowed Entergy to decrease the level of
both its onsite and offsite insurance from the required $1.06
billion to merely $50 million. This lower amount is expressly
in violation of the level required by the NRC's own
regulations. NRC's insurance requirements do not explain what
should happen in the instance of a decommissioning and should
be followed until there are regulations that expressly consider
the unique circumstances and risks of the decommissioning
process.
That, of course, is why the NRC is actively developing
regulations for the decommissioning process. However, while we
wait for the final rules the NRC continues to allow companies
to avoid the existing regulations. The NRC should not negate
its own rules and instead wait until it has an appropriate set
of regulations that are drafted after sufficient input from the
public. Those final regulations will be created with input from
the public that will allow them to address the unique
circumstances and risks of decommissioning. The NRC should wait
tor that necessary input instead of allowing plants to continue
to operate outside the NRC's own rules.
[all]