[Senate Hearing 114-159]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-159
OVERSIGHT OF THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 7, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-268 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST 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
OCTOBER 7, 2015
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... 5
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 198
WITNESSES
Burns, Stephen, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission..... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe
Senator Barrasso
Senator Capito........................................... 41
Senator Crapo............................................ 51
Senator Fischer.......................................... 58
Senator Markey
Senator Sanders.......................................... 83
Senator Sullivan......................................... 89
Svinicki, Kristine, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 169
Response to an additional question from:
Senator Markey........................................... 170
Senator Capito........................................... 172
Ostendorff, William, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 173
Response to an additional question from Senator Markey....... 174
Baran, Jeffrey, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 175
Responses to additional questions from Senator Markey........ 176
OVERSIGHT OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
(chairman of the full committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Barrasso, Capito, Boozman,
Fischer, Rounds, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, Gillibrand,
Booker, and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The meeting will come to order.
If you remember the last time we met, I made the comment
that there are nine people who are on both the Armed Services
Committee and this committee, so we set up something where we
are not going to coincide. Historically, we have always had the
meeting at 9:30 on Armed Services on both Tuesday and Thursday.
Well, they decided to have one today. So that shows how much
influence I have over there.
This hearing is part of an ongoing oversight on NRC's
decisionmaking on fiscal and policy matters.
I would like to begin by welcoming our four commissioners.
We appreciate very much your being here. We have received the
President's nomination of Mrs. Jessie Robertson for the open
seat, and I expect to proceed with a hearing on her nomination
once my colleagues have had a chance to visit with her in
person. So you might share that with her so we can make that
happen.
We will continue with the committee's practice of a 5-
minute opening statement for the chairman and then 2 minutes
for each commissioner, and then we will be asking questions.
The NRC's mission is a vital one and must be adequately
funded. I want our nuclear plants to be safe, and they are
safe. Following Fukushima, I urged the Commission to perform a
gap analysis to assess the difference between the basic
regulations that they had in Japan, as opposed to what we had
in this country, because a lot of people were laboring under
the misconception that it was the same, and it wasn't. So we
were far ahead of them to start with.
Four and a half years later, the industry has spent more
than $4 billion and the NRC staff has repeatedly sent proposals
to the Commission, which they admit are not safe, significant,
or cost-justified. I believe this shows the NRC's bureaucracy
has grown beyond the size needed to accomplish the mission.
Now, this is a chart that we are using here, and those who
have been on this committee for a while know that we beefed up
because we are anticipating something that never did happen,
and then you don't beef up after that. So that is kind of the
thrust, at least my thrust, in this committee hearing today.
Ten years ago, the NRC accomplished a lot more work with
fewer resources. Despite the shrinking industry, the NRC
continued to grow, and you can see that in this chart. Over the
last few years we have increased our oversight of the NRC's
budget and raised concerns about: one, the NRC's extreme level
of corporate overhead costs; two, the reactor oversight,
spending increasing, despite the decline in operating reactors;
three, over-budgeting for the new reactors, work that no longer
exists; and, four, persistent carryover funds.
In response to this scrutiny, the Commission initiated
Project Aim 2020 to right-size the agency, and I would like to
take the NRC for its word. However, I am struggling to
reconcile this with the NRC's recent response to the Senate
appropriators.
Lamar Alexander spent a lot of time looking at this, saying
what we should do from an appropriation perspective. Then I
have the response. I do want to make this response, without
objection, a part of the record; and I think several of my
colleagues here are going to be asking some questions about
that. So it is now part of the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Rather than seize this as an opportunity to
be proactive in the spirit of Project Aim, the NRC took the
posture of a bureaucracy, fighting to maintain every nickel of
spending. I consider this irresponsible. The situation is
strikingly similar to the state of the agency when I took over.
I took over as chairman of this subcommittee in 1997. At
that time, there had not been an oversight hearing in 4 years.
Four years. And that can't happen. So we did, we put targets
out there as to how often we were going to be having them. I
think we need to go back to that and pay a little bit more
oversight attention.
Now, given the NRC's response to appropriators, I don't
have confidence that the agency will diligently address the
need to reform on its own. I believe it is time for oversight
to take place.
I intend to draft legislation to reform the NRC's budget
structure and fee collection in an effort to instill fiscal
discipline in the agency and ensure that resources are properly
focused on safety, significant matters, timely decisions are
made on matters.
Senator Boxer.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
This hearing is part of our ongoing oversight into the
NRC's decisionmaking on fiscal and policy matters. I'd like to
begin by welcoming the four commissioners.
We have received the President's nomination of Mrs. Jessie
Roberson for the open seat, and I expect to proceed with a
hearing on her nomination once my colleagues and I have visited
with her.
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's mission is a vital one and must be adequately
funded. I want our nuclear plants to be safe, and they are
safe.
Following Fukushima, I urged the Commission to perform a
``gap analysis'' to assess the differences between our
regulations and those of the Japanese, in order to guide what
regulatory changes might be needed. Instead of taking that
approach, the Commission empowered the NRC staff to develop a
wish list of more than 40 items including restructuring the
regulatory framework.
Four and a half years later, the industry has spent more
than $4 billion and the NRC staff has repeatedly sent proposals
to the Commission, which they admit are not safety significant
or cost justified.
I believe this shows the NRC's bureaucracy has grown beyond
the size needed to accomplish its mission.
Ten years ago, the NRC accomplished a lot more work with
fewer resources. Despite a shrinking industry, the NRC has
continued to grow.
Over the last few years we have increased our oversight of
the NRC's budget and raised concerns about:
The NRC's extreme level of corporate overhead costs;
Reactor oversight spending increasing despite the decline
in operating reactors;
Over-budgeting for New Reactors work that no longer
exists; and
Persistent carry-over funds.
In response to this scrutiny, the Commission initiated
``Project Aim 2020'' to ``right-size'' the agency. I would like
to take the NRC at its word.
However, I am struggling to reconcile this with the NRC's
recent response to Senate appropriators when asked about the
impact of a possible $30 million decrease for fiscal year
2016--a mere 3 percent of their budget.
Rather than seize this as an opportunity to be proactive in
the spirit of Project Aim, the NRC took the posture of a
bureaucracy fighting to maintain every nickel of spending. I
consider this irresponsible.
This situation is strikingly similar to the state of the
agency when I took over as subcommittee chair in 1997.
Given the NRC's response to appropriators, I don't have
confidence the agency will diligently address the need for
reform on its own. I believe it's time for Congress to step in.
I intend to draft legislation to reform the NRC's budget
structure and fee collection in an effort to instill fiscal
discipline in the agency and ensure that resources are properly
focused on safety-significant matters and timely
decisionmaking.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
thank you and the staff because you moved this up to 9:30
because we asked you to because we thought we had something at
10, and it turns out we didn't.
Senator Inhofe. But in Armed Services we do, so that is the
problem.
Senator Boxer. It is hard to do all this.
I respect your looking at the fiscal issues surrounding the
Commission. As you know, my focus has been really the slow pace
at which the NRC is implementing measures to protect American
nuclear plants in the wake of the earthquake, tsunami, and
nuclear meltdowns that occurred in Japan in March 2011. So we
have different focuses, which is fine.
Only one of Japan's 43 nuclear reactors has been turned
back on since the Fukushima disaster. A recent Reuters analysis
found that of the other 42 operable nuclear reactors in Japan,
only 7, only 7 out of 42 are likely to be turned on in the next
few years.
For the last 4 years I have been saying that in order to
earn the confidence of the public, we must learn from Fukushima
and do everything we can to avoid similar disasters here in
America. Following the last NRC oversight hearing in April, I
met with Chairman Burns to discuss the Commission's progress on
implementation of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force
recommendations. I do appreciate the letter that you sent to me
after our meeting outlining the status of the Commission's work
and timelines for completing each of the recommendations.
While I recognize progress has been made in some of the
areas, I am frustrated and disappointed with the overall slow
pace. Not one of the 12 task force recommendations has been
fully implemented, and I think we have a chart that shows this.
Many of the recommendations still have no timeline for action.
I am also concerned with some of the decisions NRC is
making on whether to implement important safety enhancements.
For example, the Commission overruled staff safety
recommendations. They overruled their staff and voted not to
move forward with multiple safety improvements. By a 3 to 1
vote, the Commission decided to remove a requirement that
nuclear plants have procedures in place for dealing with severe
accidents.
What is wrong? How can we vote that way? How does this make
any sense?
This requirement was identified in the aftermath of
Fukushima, but, after years of work, the Commission chose not
to move forward. This is unacceptable.
The Commission, in my view, is not living up to its own
mission, which I always read to you to instill in you this
burning desire for safety. This is your mission: ``To ensure
the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian
purposes, while protecting people and the environment.'' That
is your goal. Not to build new nuclear plants as fast as you
can, or walk away from your own ideas on how to make plants
safer.
We need to look no further than the two nuclear power
plants in my State. At California's Diablo Canyon Power Plant,
NRC has repeated declared the plant safe, even after learning
of a strong earthquake fault near the plant, which wasn't known
about when the plant was approved. If you asked the average
person on the street, I don't care if they are Republican, a
Democrat, a liberal, a conservative, or anything in between, do
you think you ought to build a nuclear power plant near a
really big earthquake fault, I think they would say no. And I
don't think they would need a degree in nuclear science to get
the fact that that is not safe. So when you hear of a new
fault, and for you not to take any action is very shocking to
me.
At the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Diego,
which has closed permanently, the NRC recently issued
exemptions to emergency planning requirements. We still have a
lot of nuclear waste there. There are so many millions of
people who live around that plant. The plant's operator,
because of your decision, will no longer be required to
maintain detailed plans for evacuation, sheltering, and medical
treatment of people residing in the 10-mile zone around the
plant should something go wrong.
I am aware that NRC is planning a rulemaking on
decommissioning issues, but rubber-stamping exemptions the way
the Commission is the wrong approach. I believe it is wrong to
relax emergency planning requirements with thousands of tons of
extremely radioactive spent fuel remaining at the site. The
millions of people, my constituents, they write to me. They are
scared. They are really glad that place closed, but they are
scared because they don't see the kind of attention being paid
to their safety.
The NRC owes it to the citizens of California and to the
Nation to make safety the highest priority, and I urge all the
commissioners to rethink this, refocus. Think about why you are
there.
And I do look forward to discussing these issues with you
today. I know you don't look forward to it, but I look forward
to it.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
We will take a moment to congratulate Victor McCree, hold
your hand up so everyone knows who you are, on his promotion as
Executive Director. It is kind of coincidental; last night I
was at an event and three different people came up to me and
were singing your praises. So we are looking for great things,
and I am hoping that after this meeting concludes you won't
change your mind.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. He is a graduate of the Naval Academy. That
gives you and Commissioner Ostendorff something to talk to him
about, so I think you will be a welcome addition there.
Senator Rounds.
Oh, I am sorry, we will start with the chairman for your 5
minutes, and then we will go down and hear from the rest of the
commissioners. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BURNS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member
Boxer, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Carper, and
distinguished members of the committee. We are pleased to
provide an update this morning on the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's activities.
As you know, in response to earlier industry plans to
construct a new fleet of reactors, the NRC recruited staff and
enhanced our licensing capability. Today, only 6 applications
remain active, out of 18 combined applications originally
submitted. Two early site permit requests are under review, not
the expected four, and two standardized plant design
certifications, instead of the anticipated four, remain on the
docket.
The focus of the NRC's work has also shifted in other areas
over the last decade. Interest in new reactors is growing.
There has been a focus on security, of course, after the events
of 9/11. We are also working on license renewal, looking at
power uprates, overseeing decommissioning, and, importantly,
implementing safety enhancements spurred by the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident.
To meet the workload challenges, we are instituting
organizational and budget realignments under Project Aim 2020.
We are identifying the work most important to our mission, as
well as the activities that can be shed, deprioritized, or
performed with a reduced commitment of resources.
Rebaselining is a central element of the Project Aim
initiative. The NRC has about 3,628 full-time equivalent staff,
down from about 3,960 in fiscal year 2010. Our target is 3,600
by the end of this fiscal year. This excludes the Office of the
Inspector General in those numbers.
But, importantly, Project Aim will improve our ability to
respond to change, to plan and to execute our important safety
and security mission. But we must monitor attrition and recruit
with care to retain appropriate expertise in the agency. Our
success as an agency is due to our highly trained and
knowledgeable staff and their commitment to our mission has
established worldwide our reputation as a strong, independent,
and competent regulator.
Overseeing the most safety-significant enhancements
stemming from the Fukushima accident remains a priority. Most
licensees will complete the highest priority work by the end of
2016. This will substantially improve the already significant
capabilities of U.S. nuclear plants and provide further
assurance that they can cope with extreme natural hazards or
events.
The NRC technical staff is reevaluating plans for the
remaining longer-term or lower priority recommendations and
will present the Commission with a paper later this month or
next month, and we will be meeting on that in the near future.
The Commission has also directed its staff to submit a
proposal for increasing the Commission's involvement in the
rulemaking process. The goal is for the Commission to be more
involved early in the process, before significant resources are
expended.
Being prepared to evaluate applications for light water-
based small modular reactors, as well as non-light water
technologies, presents challenges, but we are prepared to
review any applications under our existing framework. Within
budget constraints, the agency is working on advanced reactor
activities with the Department of Energy, industry standard
setting organizations, and the Generation IV International
Forum. We expect to receive a small modular reactor design
application in late 2016.
Finally, I would like to touch on this topic of spent
nuclear fuel. The NRC has received two letters from potential
applicants indicating intent to apply for a consolidated
interim storage facility license. The NRC does not have
resources budgeted for either review this fiscal year but could
reprioritize work if need be. The NRC has previously issued a
license to authorize an independent spent fuel storage
facility--private fuel storage in Utah, but construction of
that facility did not go forward.
In conclusion, as I have noted many times since becoming
chairman, I am very proud to be part of this organization. The
NRC has a prestigious history and is viewed worldwide as a
premier regulator. I am repeatedly reminded of the NRC's
importance and the excellence with which we pursue our work. We
are in a sustainable path toward reshaping the agency, while
retaining the skill sets necessary to fulfill our safety and
security mission.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Chairman Burns.
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 to
examine policy and management issues pertaining to the NRC.
The Commission's Chairman, Stephen Burns, in his statement
on behalf of the Commission, has provided an overview of the
agency's current activities, as well as a description of some
key agency accomplishments and challenges in carrying out the
NRC's work of protecting public health and safety, and
promoting the common defense and security of our Nation.
The NRC continues to implement safety significant lessons
learned from the Fukushima accident in accordance with agency
processes and procedures while also maintaining our focus on
ensuring the safe and secure operation of nuclear facilities
and use of nuclear materials across the country. Concurrent
with this, the NRC is undertaking a comprehensive reevaluation
of our agency's structure and processes under the Project Aim
initiative. This initiative has engaged--and continues to
solicit the input of--all agency employees, as well as
interested stakeholder groups.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and
look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[Ms. Svinicki's responses to questions for the record
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Commissioner Svinicki.
Commissioner Ostendorff.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Ostendorff. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
I am in complete alignment with the chairman's testimony. I
will expand very briefly on two topics: post-Fukushima safety
and Project Aim.
The Commission recently approved what I consider to be the
capstone of our response to Fukushima, the Mitigation of the
Beyond Design Basis Event rulemaking. This rulemaking codifies
significant enhancements for station blackout, spent fuel pool
safety, onsite emergency preparedness responsibilities, and
other command and control aspects.
I look at Senator Carper and note an exchange we had in
this committee hearing 4 years ago on the half-dozen, and I
believe that this rulemaking codifies the bulk of that half-
dozen we exchange comments on in 2011.
Seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, the Commission
also directed staff to provide a plan and schedule for
resolving all remaining Fukushima action items. That is due to
us the end of this month.
Project Aim is a real opportunity for this agency to take a
fresh look at how we operate and see where we can improve our
efficiency and effectiveness in executing our mission. This
fresh look has new faces leading the change. As Senator Inhofe
mentioned, we have Victor McCree now leading as the Executive
Director for Operations. We also announced a number of other
significant management changes. I have the utmost confidence in
these leaders.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today
and look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Ostendorff's response to a question for the record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Commissioner Ostendorff.
Commissioner Baran.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY BARAN, COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Baran. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
Chairman Burns provided an overview of the agency's current
activities. I would like to highlight just a few of those
efforts.
NRC continues to address post-Fukushima safety enhancements
and lessons learned. Progress has been made in several areas,
but a lot of work is still underway. Later this month, as
Commissioner Ostendorff mentioned, the NRC staff will be
sending the Commission a plan for how to proceed on the
remaining Tier 2 and Tier 3 items. There are some significant
safety issues in these categories, so we will need to do some
careful thinking about how to best address them.
The staff has begun work on a rulemaking for
decommissioning reactors. This rulemaking offers an opportunity
to take a fresh look at a range of decommissioning issues with
the benefit of public comment. It is also a chance to move away
from the current approach of regulation by exemption, which is
inefficient for both NRC and its licensees.
The Commission has been working to resolve the policy
issues raised by the expected applications for small modular
reactors. Earlier this year, we decided to proceed with a
rulemaking to establish a variable fee structure for small
modular reactors which will provide regulatory certainty and
transparency for potential applicants.
In addition, the Commission recently approved a rulemaking
related to the size of emergency planning zones for small
modular reactors. This will allow the agency to examine novel
emergency planning issues in a way that engages potential
applicants and other interested stakeholders.
As you have already heard, the agency is working to
increase its efficiency and agility, while remaining focused on
our core mission of protecting public health and safety.
Through our Project Aim rebaselining prioritization efforts, we
will strive to implement NRC's existing scope of work more
efficiently, identify any outdated and unnecessary initiatives,
and adjust to declining workloads in some areas. Project Aim is
not about relaxing regulatory oversight of licensee performance
and safety; it is about more efficiently focusing on the right
safety priorities.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Baran's responses to questions for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. OK, thank you. Thank you all,
commissioners.
The NRC proposes to spend $91 million on research in 2016,
which is 9 percent of the total budget. Now, three times,
including the last meeting that we had, I have asked for a list
of all ongoing research projects. I understand that that is one
reason that some are saying that the amount of money in my
opening statement that I talked about should be looked at is
going to research projects, in writing and once personally with
you, Chairman Burns, when we met in my office.
Now, late last night I finally received the list. So that
has been several weeks ago, and then we get it right before the
meeting, which makes it very difficult to analyze. But it still
doesn't have, according to those who have read it, all of the
cost information or the risk reduction information that we
asked for.
So, commissioners, how do you develop a budget and meet
your responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollar and
license fees if it takes 6 months and three oversight requests
to produce a list of what projects this $91 million will be
spent on? Any one of you want to respond to that, why it should
take that long? Because it did.
Mr. Burns. Senator, I will take that, and my colleagues can
add.
I think the difficulty that we had in terms of the way that
the agency tracks some of the research projects and its
accounting, and our accounting is responsible; it meets
management requirements. We assure within our process that
projects are identified, have a user need; they are reviewed by
management and are undertaken. So we try to do the responsible
thing.
But what I have asked our EDO and our CFO to do is to tell
me how can we, in effect, track some of the data in a way that
I think we have gotten a request from your staff. So I don't
think this is a matter that we are irresponsible. I think we
are quite responsible in terms of how we plan the research of
the agency, how we account for it, and how we carry it out. But
there are ways we could make it, perhaps, more transparent for
you.
Senator Inhofe. Well, do you disagree with the staff's
first analysis of the document that we received last night is
not complete, is not as thorough as it should be?
Mr. Burns. I think it has the projects that are there. What
I understand is what we don't have is the granularity at the
individual project level. I think that is what it is. That is
what I have asked our EDO and CFO to look at in terms of going
forward and we have a process in terms of how we bin the data
that can meet that.
Senator Inhofe. Well, other members are going to have
specific questions about that. I would observe that in April I
asked about the 2005 IG finding that the NRC needed to update
its budget formulation procedure, and you indicated that the
revised procedure was complete. Was the 2017 budget that we
referred to developed using this procedure?
Mr. Burns. I think, Senator, my understanding is what we
have was we have a set of management directives that would come
to the Commission for its review, given its policy, and I think
by the end of this year, for our approval. Our budget, as I
understand it, has been developed in accordance with procedures
that the agency has in place and are consistent with the
standards that OMB expects as we develop a budget.
Senator Inhofe. Wouldn't a thorough updated budget
formulation procedure establish some discipline that there has
been criticism of before and prevent the sort of thing that we
are seeing in the Office of Research?
Mr. Burns. I think the updated procedure can help us
improve our processes, and I think that is one of the outcomes
that we are looking for.
Senator Inhofe. Do you think Senator Alexander, when he was
making his analysis, is accurate in most of his assertions?
Mr. Burns. I am sorry; I didn't hear that.
Senator Inhofe. On the budget, looking at it from an
appropriator's perspective, Lamar Alexander made
recommendations and criticism. Well, let's do this. For the
record, why don't you respond to his criticism. Would you do
that?
Mr. Burns. Yes, we will.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burns, I was perplexed by the Commission's decision to
approve exemptions from emergency response planning
requirements at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. I am
sure you know millions of people live around it. And the plant
has been permanently shut down, but significant amounts of
spent fuel remain at the site. I know you know that as well.
They are in spent fuel pools.
I don't understand. Why did you do that? Why did the
Commission decide it was wise to exempt the plan from emergency
response planning requirements?
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Senator. The current framework for
plants under decommissioning relies, for better or worse, in
terms of a construct that includes both looking at amendments
to the license, as well as exemptions. And the exemptions are
from rules that applied during operations, when there is fuel
in the reactor, when the reactor may be operating.
The judgment with respect to emergency planning and the
exemptions from certain emergency planning requirements was
based on the staff's analysis that the risks with respect to
the spent fuel pool are not such that it requires the full
emergency planning complement. That is the basis for it.
Senator Boxer. OK, so let me understand. So if something
were to happen, God forbid, because, as you know, there is a
lot of storage right there, your answer to the people who are
exposed to these materials would be, oh, we didn't do it
because you weren't operational; this happened after you closed
down? That makes no sense to me.
Now, I am introducing legislation, or I actually have done
it, to prohibit emergency planning exemption at decommissioning
reactors until all the spent fuel has been moved into safer
drier cask storage. And I understand that NRC is developing a
rule to address decommissioning issues.
Will you take another look at this issue or is this your
final decision? Once a plant is decommissioned, you don't care
how much spent fuel is there, they don't need a plan? You have
to be kidding. Are you going to look at this again when you do
that rule, in terms of decommissioning?
Mr. Burns. I believe that within the scope of the
decommissioning rule, we would look at the processes for what
requirements would remain place and what time frequency.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I am going to talk to you further
about this, all of you, and make the point. If you are exposed
to nuclear materials, it is very serious; and people don't care
if the plant was operational and there was an accident or the
plant was decommissioned and there is an accident. They get
just as sick.
I don't know how many of you have been there. Have all of
you visited the plant? Can you nod? All of you? One hasn't,
three have.
I spoke to the sheriff there and I said, what is the plan
in case there is an evacuation, and she kind of shrugged her
shoulders and she pointed to the road, which was backed up 24/
7. That is the way people get away from there. So, please, your
decision is dangerous, is wrong.
Now, Mr. Burns, will you commit to respond to me with
specific timelines for implementation of all the task force's
recommendations? You did send a good letter and had some
deadlines, but you left out others. Will you get back to me on
what the deadlines will be?
Mr. Burns. Yes. I can look at the gaps that are there and
make sure we understand what they are and what you are looking
for. I would be pleased to do that.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Baran, recently, the Commission decided to ignore the
recommendations of NRC staff and remove safety requirements
from a proposed rulemaking that were opposed by the nuclear
industry. In a press release, the Nuclear Energy Institute
said, ``The measures were not justified using quantitative
measures.''
What are the limitations of relying solely on quantitative
measures to justify new safety enhancements?
Mr. Baran. Well, I think a purely quantitative approach
isn't going to do a good job of addressing low probability,
high consequence events. A Fukushima style or Fukushima type
event is a very low probability of occurring. So when you run
the numbers, that makes it difficult for even common sense
steps to pass a cost-benefit test that looks only at quantified
benefits.
In fact, I think it is unlikely that any of the major post-
Fukushima requirements that were instituted by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission with broad support would have passed a
purely quantitative test. The Commission required flex
equipment and hardened vents both as necessary for adequate
protection of public health and safety, which is an exemption
to the back-fit rule. Spent fuel pool instrumentation was
required under the rule.
Senator Boxer. OK, I am going to interrupt you. I agree
with you, but I am running out of time. Are there any other
rules that don't look at quantitative only, in your knowledge?
Do they all have to pass that quantitative test? Obviously, the
staff didn't agree with that.
Mr. Baran. Well, when you are doing a cost-benefit
analysis, you need to examine both quantitative factors and
factors that you can't quantify.
Senator Boxer. I agree.
Mr. Baran. So all the costs, all the benefits. You need to
look at them all. If you can quantify them, that is great; if
you can't, you do need to still examine them.
Senator Boxer. You have to examine the worst that could
happen, is that the point?
Mr. Baran. Some benefits are not easy to quantify, but you
still need to consider them when you are making decisions about
weighing the pros and cons of whether to proceed with the
requirement.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I agree with you completely.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burns, five reactors have shut down in recent
years, and more closures are possible. I think in your written
testimony you indicate an expectation for Oyster Bay to be shut
down in 2019. My understanding is that it takes more resources
to oversee the operating reactors than it does for those that
have been permanently closed. In spite of this, the budget of
the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has grown about 42
percent, if our calculations are correct, since 2012, including
a $32 million increase in corporate support costs.
Chairman Burns, do you think it is sustainable to continue
increasing this section of the budget while the size of our
reactor fleet continues to shrink? The reason why I am asking,
it looks to me, while we focus on the safety side of things and
we understand, as you have heard right here, there is a concern
on that end of it, the dollars and cents side of it is an
important part of the oversight as well. I think it is a fair
question when we start looking at, if we have a shrinking
number, how do we react to that in terms of the size of the
entity that oversees these operations.
Mr. Burns. Well, I would agree with you, Senator, that the
size of the operation should meet the resource commitments or
the projects that we would expect to come in. I would note in
the operating reactor area, though we expect, for example, the
Oyster Creek Plant in New Jersey, which this has been a
longstanding plan, to cease operation in, I think, 2019, and
there may be some others, we also, in the area of the operating
reactors, we expect the Watts Bar 2 Plant to come online
sometime next year. We are taking steps to work off the
licensing backlog and to finish the Fukushima requirements. So
those are things that I think, responsibly, that we need to
budget for.
I agree with the principle that the resources should
reflect the type of work that we have, and it may shift. It may
shift. As you get out to 2020 in terms of operating reactors,
the forecast would be you have four additional units online
between the Vogtle and the Summer plants.
Senator Rounds. Let me just continue on a little bit. In
both 2014 and in 2015 the fee recovery rules, the NRC has
accounted for the reactor closures so far and the resulting
loss of those fees by simply billing the remaining reactors
more, on a per reactor basis to make up the difference.
For example, the NRC stated in their 2015 fee recovery
rule, 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. As I say,
now you have Oyster Bay, which is planned for decommissioning
in 2019.
This is for all of you. Do you believe that this is a fair
way, an appropriate way to structure the fee collection, to
drive up the fees on the operating reactors because of a
closure of a plant currently in existence today? Is this the
right way to do it or should we be looking at another
alternative?
Ms. Svinicki. If I might jump in, Senator Rounds. Not
speaking to whether or not it is fair, as long as the legal
requirement exists for NRC to recover 90 percent of its budget,
by virtue of mathematics, if there are fewer reactors in the
United States, the fixed costs of our activities will be
allocated across a smaller number of reactors with, again, the
mathematical result that the fee would increase. So I think
there is likely some minimum number of reactors where that
would become unsupportable, and at that point perhaps Congress
would then look at options for a different fee allocation.
Senator Rounds. Do you have any recommendations for this
committee?
Ms. Svinicki. I do not, but if I might respond for the
record, please.
Senator Rounds. That would be appropriate. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank the commissioners for being here and for your
service to our country. The mission of the agency is critically
important to this country. The amount of energy met by nuclear
electricity is significant, particularly when you look at the
carbon-free generation. And your mission on safety, as we have
already talked about several times, is very important to the
public health of people of this country, not only the design
and operation, but, as Senator Boxer said, the handling of
spent fuels. All that is a critically important mission.
I want to talk about the workforce for one moment.
Your agency consistently ranks among the top as a best
place to work. I mention that because I am sure that is because
of your headquarters location in Maryland. But I want to talk
about the impact that may have moving forward.
You have a highly skilled workforce. You are looking at
Project Aim, with the realities of the reductions in the number
of applications that you have received. You look at the
demographics of your workforce and you see a significant
number, over 20 percent now, are eligible for retirement, and
that number is going to escalate pretty dramatically in the
next few years. You look at the average age of your workforce,
and that is increasing pretty dramatically.
So as you are looking to rebalance and you are looking at
the realities of budget here in Washington, what game plan do
you have to be able to recruit young talent that is needed in
the agency, maintain expertise so that the mission of your
agency moving forward can maintain that excellence?
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Senator. One of the things I think we
continue to do is have a robust entry level program for
technical staff, and there is still a lot of excitement about
that. I have had the opportunity in the last few months to go
to Penn State University, which does some research for us but
also has a large nuclear engineering department. They say they
have an excellent interest in nuclear engineering there.
We support, through our budget, a grant program that goes
out to not only universities, but also some craft and trade
schools that help throughout. So, again, I think what we can do
is leverage off being a great place to work, having an exciting
mission that jumps around. That is what kept me there and kept
me in Maryland for 34 years at the NRC before I left and then
came back.
But it is an important area because there is a generational
shift there, and there are fewer of us folks who were there in
the late 1970s and early 1980s, and we need to make sure we
have the next generation and we are able to also transfer
knowledge to them. So we work at that.
Senator Cardin. But as you are looking at Project Aim 2020
and rebalancing, which in many cases is code for downsizing, do
you have a concern that young people may not see the future of
the agency and that you may not be able to recruit? Also,
downsizing numbers. You are going to get hit on both sides, it
seems to me, retaining the expertise you need, but recruiting
the new people. Is there any help you need? Any tools that you
need in order to be able to get this done?
Mr. Burns. I think we have the tools that we need. What I
agree with you with is part of it is our communication, because
what it is, although we are getting smaller, we need to retain
critical disciplines. Those are our highly skilled workers.
But we also need lawyers, we need administrative staff, we
need IT people, and communicating that out so that while we are
shifting around we expect ourselves to be somewhat smaller,
again, communicating those opportunities. That communication
piece is important. I think we have the tools we need to
recruit and do those types of things.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all so much for being here. The work of the
NRC is so very, very important, and we need a Commission that
is responsive to Congress, collegial, and thorough. The
Commission must be science-based and quantitative analysis of
benefits and costs, and it must be focused on the right
priorities. We need to budget for these priorities.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the hard work and
dedication of your staff in Arkansas. We are very proud of
Arkansas Nuclear One. There was an industrial accident at the
plant in 2013 that involved contract work that was performed
onsite in a non-radiation area. This was a very serious and
tragic accident, but it involved no risk to public health or
safety.
The NRC has been very active over the last 2 years,
reviewing safety measures at the plant. In the meantime, the
Commission has determined that the plant remains extremely safe
to operate, and we appreciate the work that has gone into
fixing issues that were identified.
Our nuclear plant provides nearly 1,000 really good jobs in
Arkansas, which is a huge boost to the economy of the city of
Russellville and the area. In addition to those permanent jobs,
hundreds of additional contractors regularly work onsite and
invest in the community.
The plant has the capacity of over 1,800 megawatts. Our
nuclear plant truly keeps the lights on in Arkansas, and it
keeps our industry and manufacturers going. It is the largest
producer of emissions-free energy in Arkansas by far. In fact,
each year this plant reduces air emissions by over 13,000 tons
of sulfur dioxide, it eliminates nearly 10,000 tons of nitrogen
oxide emissions, and it cuts almost 8.5 million tons of carbon
emissions. For all these reasons, we are very glad to have
Arkansas Nuclear One.
So, again, we are very proud of our nuclear plant. We
appreciate the potential and all that nuclear energy does.
Chairman Burns, the NRC's corporate overhead costs have
risen significantly over the last decade, reaching $422
million, or 41 percent of NRC's total budget authority,
according to the NRC's fiscal year 2015 fee recovery schedule.
I am told that the NRC is considering an accounting
recommendation that would allow some overhead costs, such as
the human resources and financial management, to be
reclassified within the NRC's business lines in order to make
the costs attributed to corporate overhead appear smaller.
I guess the question is does the NRC plan to adopt what I
would call almost an accounting gimmick, or is the Commission
planning to find ways to actually reduce corporate overhead
costs, rather than simply placing them in such a way in the
business line budget that it is harder to get to?
Mr. Burns. Well, thank you, Senator. We need to be
transparent in terms of how costs are allocated and where they
are. We do, as part of Project Aim, we are taking seriously
looking at efficiencies in terms of the corporate support
costs, as well as overhead costs in our activities. As directed
by the Congress in the last appropriation bill or in the report
on the bill, we used the consultant services of EY, formerly
Ernst & Young, to look at corporate support.
My understanding is that we are generally aligned with
other agencies. But this is an area we are focused on in
Project Aim to try to reach a better balance and efficiencies
in how we do it.
Senator Boozman. So I guess the question is, are you going
to do that. Are you going to, again, make it such that you
reclassify some of your costs that shifted away from the
overhead costs?
Mr. Burns. I believe that the way we are portraying some of
the costs will include overhead costs, yes. And I think in
doing that, again, the idea is not to hide them, we want to be
transparent about it, but a direct effort of a technical person
does require some overhead in terms of office space, other
types of support activities and the like, so that overhead. But
we want to do it in an appropriate way.
I fully agree with your principal. This is not sort of hide
the peanut, move a shell game here. We want to be responsible
about it.
Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you, and thank you all for
being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to talk a little bit about Indian Point, which
is one of our reactors in New York. Following the May 8th
transformer fire at Indian Point, which resulted in oil leaking
into the Hudson River, I wrote to you expressing concerns about
the incident and the number of incidents involving transformers
over the past 8 years, including fires in 2007 and 2010. In our
correspondence following the incident, we discussed the
Commission's decision to not require an aging management plan
for transformers as part of the licensing renewal and instead
continue to monitor them as part of NRC's ongoing oversight
inspection and maintenance activities.
Can you please explain, any of you who have looked at this,
why, given multiple incidents involving transformers at Indian
Point over the past 8 years, the Commission believes that the
current monitoring regime for transformers is sufficient?
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. As I think we
discussed when I met with you, I did not participate in the
Commission's adjudicatory decision related to that because I am
disqualified from doing that. I think the general principal is
that in looking at license renewal, the focus is on the aging
of long-lived passive components, which a transformer generally
is not considered. I think there is oversight and monitoring
that the licensee is expected to do through its maintenance
programs that we monitor. I think that is the basic dichotomy.
Senator Gillibrand. OK. Despite the fact that Indian Point
experienced four unplanned shutdowns earlier this year,
including a shutdown that was a result of the transformer fire,
the mid-cycle assessment states that NRC plans to conduct
baseline inspections at Indian Point. What are the criteria for
a baseline inspection versus other levels of inspection? And
when making a decision on the level of inspection that a plant
will be subject to, do you look at the previous violations in a
cumulative way, or do you only look at a specific period of
time?
Mr. Burns. I would like to be able to provide you more
detailed information for the record. The general approach is we
do look at a history of operation or performance during the
time. I have to say I am a little fuzzy in terms of how the
things will line up, but I would be pleased to provide that for
you for the record.
Senator Gillibrand. OK. And for the record, if there is a
number, if there is a number of incidents or violations within
a certain period of time that NRC would then require a
different level of inspection above baseline inspection, please
let us know.
Mr. Burns. Yes. Because there is generally, through our
reactor oversight process, and I just don't have the details in
my head, in terms of how the levels of inspection and
expectations are. So we will make sure we get that to you.
Senator Gillibrand. OK.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, if I may just make a brief comment
here on your question.
Senator Gillibrand. Sure.
Mr. Ostendorff. One of the concerns on tying plant
shutdowns or trips to performance evaluations is, it could send
a signal to a licensee that there is going to be a penalty to
pay if they shut down. And in many cases our licensees will
take the conservative safety step of shutting down.
Senator Gillibrand. Right.
Mr. Ostendorff. We do not want to send a different
incentive to that licensee.
Senator Gillibrand. OK.
On December 12th the license for Indian Point Unit 3 will
expire. As you know, the license for Unit 2 expired in 2013.
The reactor has been operating with an unrenewed license for
the past 2 years in what is called a ``timely renewal period.''
Is Unit 3 also expected to enter into a timely renewable period
when its license expires in December? Have there been previous
instances where multiple reactors at the same plant were both
operating without a renewed license? What impact do you think
this will have on the plant and the NRC's inspection process
for Indian Point?
Mr. Burns. I would expect, given the status of the
adjudicatory proceeding on renewal, that the other unit would
go into so-called timely renewal. That is a provision under the
Administrative Procedure Act that is incorporated in our
regulations.
What I understand is that the licensee, Entergy, will
implement the enhancements to the license that are expected
that have come through the process of staff review. They would
continue to have the oversight by the NRC. They are still
expected to follow the license. In a sense, the open item is
the conclusion, the proceeding on license renewal, but our
oversight would remain and our ability to do that remains the
same.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
With my remaining 5 seconds, will you just submit for the
record an analysis about the Fitzpatrick Plant? Because we have
hear from Entergy that they may shut it down, and I just want
to know what NRC's role, if any, in being part of these
decisions, whether you are notified of plans, whether you have
any input. Because it is a huge community issue right now, and
I would love to know what your perspective is and if you do
involve in these decisions on any level.
Mr. Burns. I will certainly do that. We don't have a role
in the decision with respect to operation, but if a plant
decides not to continue operation, there are processes, and we
can provide you information on that.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of you all for being here today. I
would like to ask some questions along some of the same lines
as my colleagues have. I also would like to mention that I do
not have a nuclear facility in my State, but I was able, by the
courtesies of AEP, to visit the Cook Plant in Michigan, which
has just had a 20-year extension, I believe, on their license.
So I learned quite a bit there.
But as I understand it, when companies need to modify their
plants or alter their procedures, the NRC has to approve that.
Correct?
Mr. Burns. For many things. There are provisions in our
regulations, and perhaps also in our licenses, that allow
certain types of changes to be made if the licensee does the
analysis and concludes, for example, under one of our
regulations, that there is no unreviewed safety question. So
they have some flexibilities themselves.
Senator Capito. All right, good. Thanks for that
clarification. And you budget for about 900 reviews a year. Am
I correct in assuming that you have stated that you prioritized
the licensing actions based on safety significance? So the ones
that would have more impact on safety obviously are going to
rise to the top? Is that how you prioritize 900 reviews a year?
Mr. Burns. I think that is generally true. Part of that
also comes in discussion with licensees who apply for the
amendments or other types of licenses.
Senator Capito. OK. So we are going to put the chart back
up that the chairman used. The first point I would like to call
your attention to is the number of operating reactors has gone
down due to economic challenges. So we have gone from 104 to
100 reactors. But resources for the agency have gone up 15
percent over that same time period.
I learned just today, more specifically, that Project Aim
2020 is aimed at probably that discrepancy, but the second
thing I would like you to notice is how the workload is down,
but there is still a backlog in reviewing licensing actions on
time. So I would say since the NRC prioritizes reviews based on
safety, which we pretty much just established, any licensing
action that companies are pursuing for economic reasons but do
not have a safety nexus, are they the ones that are more likely
in this backlog? Do you understand my question?
Mr. Burns. No, I understand the question. I think I would
have to look at that in terms of the record.
Senator Capito. Let's talk about the backlog a little bit.
How extensive is it and what kind of time periods are allowed
for backlogs? Is there a stop dead date where you can no longer
be in a backlog, when you have to have a decision made?
Mr. Burns. Essentially what the objective is, I think, is
to work through license amendment or licensing action type of
requests from licensees within a year, and what happened over
the last few years, particularly after the Fukushima accident,
is a backlog grew as we focused on the safety significant
Fukushima enhancements. So that grew.
What I give credit and credit mostly goes to, I think, our
current Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Bill Dean, and
his team in terms of they have been taking steps that are
working down that backlog, and I think their objective is that
we basically have it down to zero by fiscal year 2017.
Senator Capito. OK. And I think the chairman mentioned the
document the NRC gave to appropriators, I am on an
appropriations committee, NRC Fiscal Year High Level Impacts of
Further Reductions. In that document, it indicates that the NRC
would delay domestic licensing actions prior to suspending the
review of foreign reactor design for construction in a foreign
company. How do you justify giving foreign work a higher
priority than a domestic licensee's operational needs?
Am I understanding that correctly, the statement that you
made in that document?
Mr. Burns. The document that the chairman referred to was
developed at looking at potential impacts of rolling
significant cuts to our budget request.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Burns. And in one of them, yes, it does identify the
Korean design certification that is under review. I think what
we look at in terms of if we have cuts that go along those
levels, or certain actions that we would have to go to look at
in terms of the relative priority. I think that when it comes
to the actual decision, the Commission would look at the
priority of the particular items and things that are under
review. Like, for example, on the backlog it may be a question
of stretching out, again, the review versus saying we are not
going to undertake that review.
Senator Capito. And I guess the point of my question is I
would think, just on the face of it, that one of the priorities
that we would certainly like to see, and Senator Boxer has
talked about this in terms of her State, is a domestic
influence here, or not influence, a domestic priority over what
might be occurring around the rest of the world.
Anyway, I thank you for that and I thank you for the
response.
[The referenced documents follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
I would like to follow up on Senator Capito's questions
about the backlog with some questions about what you might call
the frontlog.
People have been talking about modular nuclear reactors for
decades. So far, not a single one has ever been approved by the
NRC. I believe that the first likely one is the NuScale project
coming up next year. There have been significant advances in
nuclear next generation technology, the traveling wave
technology. TerraPower is, to a large extent, Bill Gates'
company. He is no idiot. He has not been able to develop that
technology beyond the experimental. Not even beyond the
experimental, beyond the theoretical stage in America. Instead,
he has signed contracts with China's nuclear commission.
And we are looking at, at a time when carbon pollution is
probably going to be the disgrace of our generation, 4.2
gigawatts of carbon-free power lost just in the last 2 years to
decommissioning. Now, some of those decommissionings may have
been necessary for safety purposes. It is obviously a case-by-
case scenario. I know our ranking member is very concerned
about a plant in her State. But to the extent that these are
viable plants that are providing carbon-free power and they are
being decommissioned on economic grounds because nobody has
bothered to figure out a way to price the carbon savings that
they provide, we are losing a big piece of our fleet.
So if you look at those three emerging things, the modular
power, the next generation power, and the decommissioning that
we are seeing, it doesn't look to me like you guys even have a
windshield. You are living looking in your rearview mirrors at
problems of the past, and I don't get why we seem to be behind
or not paying attention in all of those three frontlog areas.
Now, I am probably exaggerating for effect, but I feel some
real frustration when American technologies get developed in
China instead of here. I feel some real frustration when
strategies for modular, which is basically still light water,
it is not even a new technology, that we have talked about for
decades, are still backed up; and we are looking at the very
first certifications a year from now, after decades, and when
we see these plants being decommissioned with no evident review
as to the significance of their carbon savings.
So, great on the backlog. How about the frontlog?
Mr. Burns. Thanks, Senator. I think we are looking forward
and we are looking forward in some of those areas. We have to
ensure the safety, obviously, of the existing fleet. We have to
ensure that the plants that go into decommissioning are handled
safely. But there are initiatives and there is work that we are
doing with respect to both small modular and also advanced
technology.
Let me describe that a little bit, but one thing let me
point out is that with respect to our ability to review or
take, in effect, licensing type action on those new
technologies, they have to come in with a sponsor who is ready
to pay, basically pay the fees as we are required to collect
under that. That is some of the challenge. I have had some
discussions with the Department of Energy, because they have a
role, too, in terms of the R&D part. We are the safety
regulator; we have to give judgment to say are these types of
concepts going forward.
We recently had a very good workshop with the Department of
Energy where we invited in people who are looking at this type
of innovation, and there are things we can do with DOE, staying
in our appropriate roles, that look at what are the types of
safety issues that are different than the light water
technology, and we are doing some of that.
Senator Whitehouse. Would you agree as a general
proposition that regulatory agencies have ways to preadapt
regulatory processes to emerging technologies so that the
emerging technology doesn't have to face a regulatory regime
that was developed for an old technology but, rather, a more
welcoming, equally rigorous, but welcoming in terms of fitting
the new technology? I would love to know what steps you have
taken to change the manner in which modular reactors will be
certified in advance of this clearly oncoming means of giving
us some clean power.
Mr. Burns. Well, let me make two quick points. First, with
respect to the NuScale design, they are coming in under what I
will call the design certification process, and there has been
a dialog with them as they prepare to submit the application to
make sure that both sides' expectations meet. So that is one
thing.
The second thing I would say, and this is an item that came
out of that workshop, is whether we are prepared to do more.
While we are not giving the final license, if you will, the
final certification, I think we can be responsible about making
step-wise decisions that signal and indicate to developers and
investors that we have looked at this aspect of the technology,
we have issued a topical report or review on it, and that that
looks OK, you can go to this step. That is the type of thing
that they are looking for. I think within our framework we can
do that because I would agree with you, we need to be
adaptable.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On July 15th I joined in a letter with Chairman Inhofe and
other members of this committee to the Commission expressing
concerns based largely on defense of NRC's existing backfit
rule. This rule provides that before a new requirement can be
added to an existing license 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 costs of implementation for that facility
are justified in view of this increased production.
Commissioner Ostendorff, what policies or procedures are in
place at the Commission level to ensure that the backfit rule
is consistently applied in staff analysis and recommendations?
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator Fischer, thank you for the
question. If I may, let me address this in the context of a
recent Commission decision I think that is very important. I
referred to it in my opening statement, and that is the
Mitigation of the Beyond Design Basis Event rulemaking, which
brings together in one rule a large number of Fukushima-related
action items.
Our regulatory framework is predicated upon two essential
notions. One, adequate protection. If something is required for
adequate protection, then we don't take cost into account,
period. And I wanted to say that because I know there was an
exchange earlier Commissioner Baran had on this topic with
Senator Boxer. Added protection, no costs are considered.
If it is a lower safety issue, such as it does not rise to
adequate protection, then it becomes under the backfit rule; is
there a substantial safety enhancement that passes a cost-
benefit analysis. In the Mitigation for the Beyond Design Basis
Event rulemaking, which overall the Commission approved that
rule, there is one small part of it that the majority of the
Commission did not approve because it did not pass the cost-
benefit analysis test using quantitative analyses, which were
available, and that is the requirement for severe accident
management guidelines.
So I would say that the staff made a recommendation to the
Commission in the spirit of an open collaborative work
environment. We do not want to stifle the staff coming forward
with a recommendation. At the end of the day, when it comes to
the backfit rule, it is the Commission that makes the final
decision. That is what we have done.
Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Baran, I see you nodding. Did you have
comments you wanted to add to that?
Mr. Baran. I don't think so. Commissioner Ostendorff
mentioned severe accident management guidelines, and that was a
situation where I disagreed with my colleagues. I thought the
staff's analysis was the right one there. What we heard from
both the staff and from our advisory committee on reactor
safeguards was that the staff's quantitative analysis wasn't a
complete picture of all the safety benefits of requiring SAMGS,
as they are called. In other words, the staff didn't have all
of the tools they would need to do a complete quantitative
analysis that captured all the safety benefits.
So, from my point of view, the staff, therefore,
appropriately did a qualitative analysis to supplement the
limited quantitative analysis, and when they did that analysis
they found that it was a substantial safety enhancement. But as
Commissioner Ostendorff pointed out, and I completely agree
with this, it is ultimately a Commission decision about whether
or not to accept that analysis, accept that recommendation. The
staff's job is to lay out all of their analysis in a way that
is transparent and understandable for decisionmakers and for
stakeholders, and I think they did that here, and then the
Commission made a decision about it.
Senator Fischer. Commissioner Burns, as we look at the
rulemaking process, I think really a critical first step in
addressing the impacts when we look at a new regulatory
requirement to be verified is to be safety significant and cost
justified, and that is required by the NRC's backfit rule. But
we have seen the NRC staff proposals that fall short of that.
In fact, the NRC IG has noted, ``The agency may be vulnerable
to errors, delays, wasted effort, and flawed decisionmaking
because of the limited experience of its cost estimators. It
also increases the potential to make less than optimal
rulemaking decisions because the NRC Commission uses regulatory
analysis to determine whether to move forward with
rulemaking.''
Do you agree that the Commission should, I guess, more
closely scrutinize rulemaking initiation and how those
rulemaking processes are prioritized so that you can better use
staff time and resources on proposals that are brought forward
by the staff?
Mr. Burns. There is certainly an important role for the
Commission in rulemaking, and one of the things I have done, we
are expecting a paper from the staff very shortly, is taking a
look at steps to assure greater involvement at more critical
points in time of the Commission and rulemaking. So we will be
deliberating on that over the next few months. But I would
agree with you, Senator, it is important for our leadership
role to assure that we take as a Commission a hard look at
rules that we propose to impose.
Senator Fischer. Well, I thank you for that, and I agree
with you. I think it is especially important that the
Commission provide scrutiny at the initiation of the rulemaking
process. So thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
More than a year ago Senator Sanders and I wrote the
Commission about why NRC's economists were improperly prevented
by their supervisors from asking Entergy questions about
whether Entergy had the financial resources to, if needed, deal
with the safe operation of its reactors. In the Commission's
response to us, NRC maintained that there was no ``direct link
between safety and finances.'' It is time to revisit that
statement.
The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth,
Massachusetts, was recently placed in NRC's least safe
operating reactor category because of repeated unplanned
shutdowns and other safety problems. There are only three
reactors in that category, and every single one of them is run
by Entergy. In fact, of the 10 reactors Entergy operates, only
4 are currently rated as being in NRC's safest categories.
Moreover, financial analysts are openly saying that it
isn't economical for Entergy to continue to operate Pilgrim and
other reactors.
Do any of you disagree that if NRC staff wants to renew
their request to you so that they can receive detailed
financial information from Entergy in order to determine
whether Entergy has the money needed to safely operate its
reactors, that they should not be allowed to do so? Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Burns. There may be an appropriate circumstance in
which we would do that. I would say on a day-to-day basis I
want our inspectors in the plant looking at how activities are
being carried out at the plant. I think that, for us, is the
primary way to do it.
I am not particularly familiar with the letter you and
Senator Sanders sent, but, again, if there is an appropriate
basis for us to do so, certainly we could do so.
Senator Markey. I think this is a very suspicious
situation, Mr. Chairman, when Entergy has three reactors in the
same category and every single one of them is an Entergy plant,
in this lowest category, and that analysts are wondering
whether or not Entergy has the financial capacity to run the
Pilgrim plant, that we give to the NRC staff the ability to be
able to make that determination as to whether or not the
financing capacity is there. Would you agree that that makes
some sense?
Mr. Burns. Again, I think there are circumstances in which
it may be appropriate to do that. Whether that is here or not,
I won't say.
Senator Markey. OK. Commissioner Baran.
Mr. Burns. But I want our inspectors on the ground.
Senator Markey. OK. Commissioner Baran.
Mr. Baran. Well, if the NRC staff thinks there is a nexus
between underinvestment at a plant and safety problems at that
plant, I think they should get the information they need to
address that issue.
Senator Markey. I agree with you.
Do any of the other commissioners disagree with that?
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, just a comment. I had a chance, in
June of this year, to visit Pilgrim, and I appreciate that one
of your staff from Massachusetts attended that visit with me,
and we spent a lot of time with the licensee looking at their
operating performance. Subsequent to that visit, 2 months
later, our staff made the recommendation to place them in
column 4, as you noted in your comments. I would just observe
that having spent quite a bit of time, along with other
commissioners and senior staff, looking at this particular
issue at Pilgrim, we have not assessed that there is a nexus
between plant investment and operating performance.
Senator Markey. Commissioner Baran, every time a reactor
gets placed in a lower safety category by NRC, it gets
subjected to more inspections and requirements, and those cost
the industry money. There is currently a proposal in front of
the Commission that would basically allow reactors to
experience more safety problems before they fail into NRC's
second worst safety category for operating reactors. Is that
your read of the new proposal?
Mr. Baran. The Commission is currently deliberating on
whether to increase the number of white findings, or low to
moderate significance findings, in the same cornerstone
necessary to put a plant in column 3, so the proposal is to
increase that from two findings to three findings, which would
raise the bar for column 3.
Senator Markey. My experience with nuclear power plants is
that they age, and what has happened here is that each one of
these plants keeps requesting an extension so that they can
continue to operate longer and longer. But the older the plants
get, the more problems they have; and the industry historically
has tried to avoid having to make the additional investment in
safety, because that is cost for them that they don't want to
have to have factored in, the lifetime cost of keeping these
plants safe.
So, from my perspective, I just think that the NRC should
listen to their staff, they should allow them to do the
financial analysis of whether or not the actual overall
financial well being of Entergy is in any way inhibiting their
investment in the safety procedures that are needed, given the
fact that Entergy has such a high percentage of the plants in
America that are considered to be the least safe operating
reactors in America.
So that is my request to the Commission. I think you should
give them permission, and I think we will get the answer we
need. This linkage between financial viability of a corporation
and the investment they make in safety. It is pretty clear here
it is an issue that has to be answered, and soon.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Burns, the EPA has proposed a rule to set forth
groundwater protection standards for uranium recovery
facilities. I believe the EPA proposal ignores the successful
40-year history of in situ recovery projects. It imposes
numerous overly stringent standards that would jeopardize the
future of the uranium recovery industry in the United States. I
believe the EPA is once again asserting power over another area
of the economy, even though they are not the primary agency
that Congress created to manage and oversee uranium production.
That role belongs to the NRC.
So while I recognize EPA has some standard setting
authority under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act, it is my understanding the NRC is charged with determining
how to implement these standards, and the question is has the
NRC adequately looked at this issue.
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Senator. I think we have looked at
the issue with respect to the proposed changes to the EPA
regulations, I think in 40 CFR part 192, and our general
counsel has submitted commentary with respect to that.
Senator Barrasso. Do you feel the NRC was adequately
consulted on the rulemaking?
Mr. Burns. I think we had an opportunity to provide input,
which we did, on it. That is what the general counsel's letter
does.
Senator Barrasso. Any other members want to jump in on
that, whether the NRC was adequately consulted?
Mr. Ostendorff. I would just add that I think the NRC and
EPA have a very solid ongoing working relationship. We have,
however, as an agency, identified concerns with perhaps their
regulatory footprint going into our jurisdictional issues in
dictating how certain methods are to be used by our licensees,
and that causes us concern. But I think we understand the EPA
will be talking to us about our concerns here in the near
future.
Senator Barrasso. Because I know the NRC has indicated in a
July 28th letter to the EPA that the proposed rule ``may
encroach upon the NRC's authority.'' So I wonder has the NRC
met with the EPA specifically to discuss the concerns. You said
you are going to meet with them in the near future? What is the
plan on that based on that July 28th letter?
Mr. Burns. My understanding from our general counsel is
that we met on preliminary basis, but there is the intention to
have future meetings on the subject.
Senator Barrasso. Because a 2009 NRC memo from staff
entitled Staff Assessment of Groundwater Impacts from
Previously Licensed In Situ Uranium Recovery Facilities states
that the staff is unaware of any situation indicating that the
quality of groundwater at a nearby water supply well has been
degraded, any situation where the use of a water supply well
has been discontinued, or any situation where a well has been
relocated because of impacts attributed to an ISR facility. So
the question is has there ever been a leak that you know of
from uranium in situ recovery facility that impacted drinking
water?
Mr. Burns. Not that I am aware. I could check with our
staff.
Senator Barrasso. OK. That is the recent staff report from
a couple of years ago.
So, Chairman Burns, in April I asked you about the length
of time that it should take to review an application for a new
uranium recovery facility, and your response you concluded was
I think this is an area I am willing to look at and see. We are
trying to do a better job. And I agree with you.
This is what we found from information that we requested
from the NRC. By our math, the agency takes an average of 3
years to review an application for a new facility; one
application took 5 years. I mean, that is longer that it took
for the NRC to issue the licenses for the new nuclear plants in
Georgia and South Carolina.
So uranium recovery licenses are for 10 years, and there
has to be a reapplication for a renewable. We found the NRC
sometimes spends 5 years deciding whether to grant the 10-year
license extension. So a company spends about half of its time
paying for license reviews.
Is a uranium recovery facility as complicated as a nuclear
power plant? And if not, why should it take a comparable, if
not longer, amount of time to review a license application than
it does for a nuclear power plant?
Mr. Burns. I think, Senator, in some of the circumstances
the requirements on consultation under the National Historic
Preservation Act, those requirements, because of the
consultations, have to be done with local tribes, those have
been extensive.
What I understand from talking to our staff, a couple areas
where I think we have seen some improvement in that area is,
one, encouraging the license applicant to have dialog with
local community. Second, we have been focused also on improving
our processes with request to this consultation process. We
issued recently a tribal protocol in terms of helping our
communications. I think that is going to help in that area, but
it is something I think we can continue to work on.
Senator Barrasso. So finally, then, would a longer license
duration, rather than the 10 years, a longer duration, help the
NRC manage its workload better?
Mr. Burns. That is a possibility. We would have to take a
look at that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Boxer, I think you want to submit something for the
record.
Senator Boxer. Yes. I just wanted to thank you for this
hearing and thank the Commission and all of our colleagues.
I ask unanimous consent to place in the record an
explanation of the rulemaking that Senator Barrasso talked
about. We want to make sure that the water is safe when you
have this uranium mining. I think the EPA could go either way;
they could do a rule under the Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation
Control Act or under the Safe Drinking Water Act. So I just
want to put that in the record.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Without objection, it will be in
the record.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Inhofe. Let me just say to the four commissioners,
first of all, thank you for being here. You are doing a good
job in some areas, but the big concern that gave birth to this
hearing is that when you are looking at operating reactors
dropping down from 105 to 99, licensed action going down from
1,500 to 900, material licensees 4,500 to 3,200, licensed
renewals 43 percent down at the same time, there should be cuts
in the budget commensurate with this lighter workload.
I know that Project Aim is supposed to be helping us to do
that, but I don't think anyone on our side over here is
satisfied with the progress that we have made so far, and I
want to make sure that you leave with that message and that you
continue on this and come up in a very short period of time
with better results that respond to what we refer to as the
workload and financial concern. And I thank you very much for
the hearing today. Thank you, Chairman Burns.
Mr. Burns. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:58 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
Although this hearing will cover a range of important
issues, the issue that is of the greatest concern to me is the
Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vermont, and the
process involved in decommissioning the plant.
Since the plant's operator, Entergy, announced its plan to
close Vermont Yankee in August 2013, we have turned our
attention to employing the safest measures for decommissioning
and to protecting the livelihood of Vermont Yankee's employees
and the communities in which they live. There has been a strong
desire on the part of Vermonters to participate in the
decommissioning process to ensure a complete, full, and safe
decommissioning.
I have voiced my very serious concerns regarding the lack
of input communities in Vermont have in the decommissioning
process. I have said time and again that these communities
deserve a seat at the table, and have introduced legislation
that would allow States and cities to provide meaningful
feedback during the decommissioning process.
It is my understanding that most of the conversation
surrounding Vermont Yankee's decommissioning plan has been
between Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and members of the
Nuclear Energy Institute, which includes Entergy--to the
exclusion of the State government and local communities that
house the plant. This is simply unacceptable. I believe that it
is unconscionable that the NRC would deny Vermonters the
opportunity to participate in the decommissioning plan--a plan
that will affect their day to day lives and livelihoods for
generations.
Even more unsettling than the lack of communication with
local stakeholders is that Entergy has been allowed to take
money out of its decommissioning fund for spent fuel
management, even though NRC regulations expressly disallow the
use of decommissioning funds for spent fuel management. \1\ To
my mind, this is a misuse of funds and could potentially put
Vermonters on the hook if Vermont Yankee is unable to cover the
costs remaining for full decommissioning. If the company goes
bankrupt in the process of decommissioning the plant, then
Vermonters will be responsible for finishing the job, which
includes at this point, managing spent nuclear fuel.
There is little assurance that Entergy itself will still be
around 60 years from now or that the cost of decommissioning
won't skyrocket between now and then. Vermont is counting on
the NRC to play the role it needs to play and look out for our
communities' interests, not just Vermont Yankee's. I intend to
hold them accountable.
The NRC rules allowing for a 60-year decommissioning
process were adopted many years ago. We now know more about
nuclear plant safety and degradation issues than we did when
the regulations were first promulgated. Yet, unfortunately, the
Commission's regulations have not addressed those issues. I
look forward to working with the committee to ensure the NRC's
decommissioning process addresses the full span of the NRC's
obligation to protect communities across the country.
I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support my bill
(the Nuclear Plant Decommissioning Act) that would give States
a seat at the table and to require the NRC to represent the
interests of the communities that are dealing with
decommissioning plants like Vermont Yankee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Amounts are based on activities related to the definition of
`Decommission' in Sec. 50.2 of this part and do not include the cost of
removal and disposal of spent fuel or of nonradioactive structures and
materials beyond that necessary to terminate the license.'' 10 CFR
50.75(h)(1)(iv) n. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------