[Senate Hearing 116-12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-12
OVERSIGHT OF
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 2, 2019
__________
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.govinfo.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-163 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 2, 2019
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 3
WITNESSES
Svinicki, Kristine, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 21
Senator Gillibrand....................................... 52
Senator Markey........................................... 58
Baran, Jeff, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.... 71
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Responses to additional questions from Senator Gillibrand.... 73
Burns, Stephen, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 74
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Caputo, Annie, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.. 76
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Wright, David, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.. 78
Prepared statement........................................... 79
OVERSIGHT OF
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Cramer, Braun,
Rounds, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Markey, and Van
Hollen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
Today's oversight hearing will be looking at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the NRC, and I welcome all five
Commissioners here today to the Committee.
Last May, the Senate confirmed Commissioners Caputo,
Wright, and Baran. As a result, the Commission now has a full
slate of five Commissioners for the first time since 2014.
This morning Commissioners Caputo and Wright will testify
before Congress for the first time since being confirmed. I
look forward to the testimony.
Today also marks the last time that Commissioner Burns will
be testifying before the Committee. His term concludes this
summer. Commissioner Burns has served the agency in various
capacities for over 40 years. A remarkable service. We are very
grateful.
You were Chairman from 2015 through 2017, so we just want
to thank you on behalf of the entire Committee for all of your
service to the NRC.
Last week marked 11 years of continuous service as
Commissioner for Chairman Svinicki. This is unprecedented. So
far, her tenure as Chairman has been very productive. Last
September Chairman Svinicki and then-Wyoming Governor Mead
signed an agreement in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The agreement allows
the State of Wyoming to license and regulate uranium recovery
facilities.
It has been a long time priority for me. Thank you for your
leadership to assure the agreement was signed in a very timely
manner.
Affordable, reliable electricity powers a strong economy.
Nuclear energy is by far the most reliable carbon-free energy
source. Nuclear energy also provides more than twice the amount
of electricity as wind and solar combined. Nuclear power
provides about 60 percent of our Nation's emissions-free
energy. If we are serious about climate change, we must be
serious about expanding our use of nuclear energy.
In 2018, nuclear energy generated a record breaking amount
of electricity in the United States. Regrettably, last year's
record will not be broken again unless we take dramatic action.
Two nuclear power plants will close this year. An additional
eight reactors are expected to close between 2020 and 2022. We
need to work to reverse this trend.
Shuttering nuclear plants not only reduces the amount of
dependable energy produced, it also increases a plant's
regulatory costs since fewer plants are available to fund the
Commission's work. In this regard, I am pleased the Commission
has submitted a smaller budget that reflects the reduced
workload.
I encourage the Commission to continue to find ways to make
their work more efficient. For example, the Commission staff
should focus their efforts on issues of greatest safety
significance. This would not only reduce budgetary demands, it
would also allow nuclear reactor operators to focus on the most
important safety issues.
Predictable and transparent budgets should align with
predictable and transparent regulations. The Commission's
completion of a major rulemaking in January I believe did just
that. This rulemaking requires nuclear power plants to be
prepared for an unforeseen emergency. It is an accumulation of
years of work in response to the 2011 nuclear crisis in Japan.
I look forward to hearing more about the rulemaking.
In addition to maintaining predictable requirements for
existing nuclear reactors, the Commission must also establish
the rules for new nuclear technologies. That is why I was
pleased that President Trump signed into law the Nuclear Energy
Innovation and Modernization Act in January. A number of us
cosponsored this bipartisan legislation. I cosponsored it,
along with seven members of our Committee, to help American
nuclear innovators develop, license, and deploy advanced
nuclear technologies.
These new technologies could increase safety, could
decrease costs, and could reduce nuclear waste. They are also
necessary to achieve low carbon energy future for our country
and the world.
America has always been the global leader in nuclear
technology. We can't allow our international rivals to surpass
us. The Commission plays a vital role in this global
competition. The Commission should prioritize activities to
advance American nuclear leadership. For example, new and
upgraded fuel types, known as accident-tolerant fuel, can
improve safety, make plants more cost efficient, and generate
less waste. This is a win-win-win.
While we seek to reestablish American leadership for
nuclear reactor operation and technology, we must not disregard
the dire outlook of American uranium production. Last year, two
American uranium companies petitioned the Department of
Commerce to consider the national security impacts of uranium
imports. I support this review.
The deadline for the Administration's response to the
petition is approaching. The Administration must take
meaningful steps to maintain and grow American uranium
production. Our American uranium industry must not be forced
out of business due to unfair competition driven by Russia and
other nations.
It is also critically important for the Federal Government
to properly manage and dispose of our Nation's spent nuclear
fuel and nuclear waste. I am pleased the Commission's budget
requests $39 million to resume its review of the Yucca Mountain
site, as required by law. Congress should support this request.
I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for bringing
us all together.
It is good to see each of you here before us today.
Madam Chair, a pleasure.
And to our former Chairman, I just want to echo the words
of our Chairman John Barrasso to thank you for a lifetime of
service to this country.
He has expressed my thoughts on the need for more carbon-
free electricity--not less--and nuclear has provided anywhere
from 60 to 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity for some
time. It is dropping now, as you know, but I think we have an
opportunity and I think an obligation to try to make sure it
doesn't drop much further. And if we can somehow reverse that,
we ought to do so.
But we are here today to continue our oversight of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to hear more about the
President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2020. It is my
sincere hope that today's hearing is just the beginning of
other hearings on our Committee's budget over the agencies for
which we have jurisdiction.
Since joining this Committee, I have worked closely with
our colleagues to strengthen the culture of safety, worked
closely with you to strengthen the culture of safety, and
within the U.S. nuclear industry itself. In part, due to our
collective efforts, and thanks to the NRC leadership and the
Commission's dedicated staff, the NRC continues to be the
world's gold standard for nuclear regulatory agencies.
However, we are here to look forward, not look back, and we
need to ensure that the NRC continues to have the tools that it
needs to be successful and to be safe. We also need to ensure
that the NRC's actions taken this year have safety in mind in
order to ensure that America's nuclear power remains the safest
in the world.
Today I am interested in--and I think we are interested
in--learning whether the President's budget, which I believe
falls short in a number of areas, will provide the NRC with
sufficient funding to protect the public, while being
responsive to the legitimate needs of the industry that is
being overseen.
While most any organization needs strong leadership, as I
like to say, it is always the key to success. I don't care what
the organization is, leadership is always the key. A dedicated
work force is certainly helpful, and the appropriate resources
don't hurt, either.
I support improving the NRC's efficiency and its
flexibility to respond to the changes in the nuclear industry;
however, we cannot cut the agency's budget just for the sake of
cutting. We must ensure that the NRC has adequate funding to
continue to attract the best and brightest talents so that the
agency continues to be the global standard for safety.
Beyond the budget, I am particularly interested in hearing
today more about why the NRC decided to change courses
regarding the post-Fukushima rule. Our nuclear reactors must be
able to withstand seismic or flooding events, regardless of
when the reactors were built. Requiring our nuclear reactors,
most of which were built decades ago, as you know, to withstand
earthquake and flooding risks beyond the capacity of their
original design doesn't make much sense to me.
This issue goes well beyond being able to withstand a
similar event that occurred in Fukushima. As we continue to see
the worsening effects of climate change nationwide, our nuclear
fleet will experience flooding, experience drought and other
extreme weather more frequently. As we saw a year or two ago in
Ellicott City, Maryland, not far from here, and recently in the
Midwest, 1,000-year flooding events are happening every couple
of years, not every 1,000 years, and we need for our nuclear
fleet to be prepared for this new climate reality.
Why the NRC has decided to reverse course from its proposal
and make these protections voluntary is still unclear to me,
especially since, according to the NRC's own staff, no one
asked for this change; not industry, not staff, no one. With
that said, I look forward to learning more today from the NRC
about why its members decided to take this approach.
I am also interested in hearing today how the NRC plans to
implement changes in the advanced nuclear reactor licensing
framework, as Congress directed in the recently passed Nuclear
Energy Innovation and Modernization Act that the Chairman has
alluded to. This legislation was supported by the Chairman, by
me, I think many members of our Committee, and it is a good
legislation.
I believe that if our country is smart--and we are--we will
replace older nuclear technology with new technology developed
right here at home. That includes advances that are safer,
produce less spent fuel, and are cheaper to build and to
operate. In doing so, we can reap the economic benefits, along
with the clean air benefits of a new, advanced nuclear
electricity generation.
In closing, let me again reiterate the importance of making
sure that the NRC has the resources that you need to review
these new technologies and to ensure that our current nuclear
fleet remains safe far into the future.
I want to thank our Commission for being here today. We
look forward to your testimonies. Welcome.
I am going to have to slip out for a few minutes, but I
will be back, and I look forward to a robust round of questions
and answers.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
We are now going to hear from our witnesses. We will start
with the Chairman, Kristine Svinicki, and then move to
Commissioner Jeff Baran, Commissioner Stephen Burns,
Commissioner Annie Caputo, and Commissioner David Wright.
We are going to continue with the Committee's practice of a
5-minute opening statement from Chairman Svinicki and the 2-
minute statements from each of the other Commissioners.
I want to remind the witnesses that your full testimony
will be part of the official hearing record.
Chairman Svinicki, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF KRISTINE SVINICKI,
CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
Senators Gillibrand and Cramer, and other distinguished members
of the Committee who may join us. My colleagues and I
appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on the U.S.
NRC's fiscal year 2020 budget request.
The funding we are requesting provides the resources
necessary to accomplish our mission to license and regulate the
civilian use of radioactive materials to ensure adequate
protection of public health and safety, and to promote the
common defense and security.
The NRC's fiscal year 2020 budget request, including
resources for the NRC's Office of the Inspector General, is
$921.1 million, which would include 3,062 full-time equivalent
positions, or FTE. The fiscal year 2020 budget request
represents an increase of $10.1 million when compared to the
fiscal year 2019 enacted budget. This requested increase in
resources is due principally to the inclusion of $38.5 million
to support licensing activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain
deep geologic repository for spent fuel and other high level
radioactive waste.
The NRC proposes to recover $759.6 million of the requested
budget from fees assessed to NRC's licensees and applicants.
This will result in a net appropriation of approximately $161
million with, again, $38.5 million of that to be derived from
the Nuclear Waste Fund.
The NRC has initiated efforts to implement requirements of
the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act and is
progressing in each area to ensure timely implementation of the
Act's requirements. The budget also proposes $15.5 million for
the continued development of a regulatory infrastructure for
advanced nuclear reactor technologies.
We are mindful of the importance of the highly skilled
staff that we have and the need to maintain our expertise while
our workload continues to evolve. In addition, the NRC's focus
on transformation and innovation continues. The Commission has
met with NRC staff and external panels that included the
nuclear industry, other Federal agencies with ongoing
innovation efforts, and non-governmental organizations to
discuss the NRC's staff's efforts, and we have also explored
broader organizational strategies and innovation perspectives
from a range of external experts.
In summary, the fiscal year 2020 budget request reflects
the NRC's continuing efforts to achieve efficiencies while
maintaining reasonable assurance of adequate protection of
public health and safety and safeguarding the security of our
Nation.
On behalf of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you and for the Committee's consistent support
and oversight of NRC's important mission.
Before I conclude, I would like to add my recognition and
thanks to former Chairman Stephen Burns and Commissioner. I
think of the members of the Commission, I may have known him
the longest. He was Deputy General Counsel when I joined the
Commission, was then General Counsel, left for a time, and came
back and was both my Chairman and my colleagues. I consider him
a friend. He is a pleasure to work with.
We all think about the last day we might have on the job,
but I think if any of us could leave the NRC with the amount of
respect and esteem that Steve commands throughout the NRC, it
would be a significant accomplishment.
So thank you, and I look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Commissioner Baran.
Senator Carper. That was lovely. That was lovely. I hope
when we leave as members that our colleagues say things about
us that was as poignant and as meaningful as that. Thank you
for that.
Senator Barrasso. Commissioner Baran.
STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN,
COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Baran. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
It is wonderful to be here with my colleagues.
During the past year, NRC received a number of ideas for
transforming the way we do our work. I would like to briefly
share my thoughts about how NRC should approach transformation.
In my view, it makes sense to consider transformational
change when a new technology challenges NRC's existing
regulatory approach or when the agency has historically
struggled to regulate effectively in a particular area. For
example, a strong case can be made for updating NRC's
regulations to account for non-light water reactor
technologies.
But when a regulatory process has worked well over the
years, it is better to pursue targeted refinements aimed at
solving clearly defined problems. Whether NRC is considering a
major transformational change or a more modest incremental
change, we must keep our focus squarely on our safety and
security mission. Transformation at NRC can't be about rolling
back safety and security standards to save money, and it can't
be about fewer inspections or weaker oversight. That would take
NRC in the wrong direction.
Several of the transformational ideas being discussed
involve the reactor oversight process. This is NRC's basic
framework for overseeing the safety of the Nation's nuclear
power plants. It affects every power reactor in the country. I
would be wary of making any radical changes to this program
because it has generally been an effective safety framework.
One of the proposals I am particularly concerned about is
to replace some core NRC inspections with self-assessments
performed by licensees. These baseline inspections are
essential, and NRC inspectors need to be independently
conducting them. We should not allow licensees to inspect
themselves. Doing so would be fundamentally inconsistent with
our role as an independent nuclear safety regulator.
To do the best job for the American people, NRC needs to be
open to new ideas and new approaches. But we also need to
carefully and thoroughly evaluate the proposed regulatory
changes to ensure that they will have a positive impact on
safety. That is our core mission and must remain our top
priority.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baran follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Commissioner Baran.
Commissioner Burns.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BURNS,
COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Burns. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
other members of this Committee, I appreciate the opportunity
to testify today, and I also appreciate very much your very
kind remarks. It has been hard to believe it has been 40 years
or more, and I want to thank the Chairman for also her eloquent
statement.
Senator Carper. Were you in the third grade when you
started?
Mr. Burns. Yes, I was in third grade.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Burns. Anyway, as noted, in the near future I will
complete my service as a Commissioner at the NRC. My service
began at the agency in 1978, when I graduated from law school
here at George Washington University, and continued from that
time except for a brief respite at the OECD Nuclear Agency in
Paris from 2012 to 2014. I am honored that President Obama
appointed me as Commissioner and designated me as Chairman
during the last years of his Administration. I am proud to have
served the NRC and particularly the people I have gotten to
know who are dedicated to our mission.
I know there are times when we have had to learn from our
experience, learn to do better and to improve our performance
as a regulator, but on the whole I think we hit the mark the
vast majority of the time in achieving a high level of
performance and holding the regulated industry accountable.
This is a better agency today than it was when I walked into it
in 1978.
We can always strive to better perform our safety and
security mission, and to better risk-inform our decisions, but
the safety and security of the public must always be the
central focus. Credit belongs largely, again, to the day to day
work of our dedicated staff in achieving those goals. I
appreciate their day to day focus on ensuring adequate
protection to the public.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
and the work you do in oversight of our agency, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so very much for your testimony
and your service.
Commissioner Caputo.
STATEMENT OF ANNIE CAPUTO,
COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Caputo. I would like to add my thanks to the Committee
for inviting us here to testify. As the Chairman said, it is
absolutely essential and very much appreciated, the rigorous
oversight that this Committee brings to the work of our agency.
There are many diverse views about transformation and the
changes that the agency should pursue, so I would like to just
add a couple of my own thoughts just in the area of budgeting
and transformation.
Our mission doesn't change, our high level standards of
safety and security don't change, and our principles and values
don't change. But our workload and how we manage it will be
different in the future. To manage a changing workload, I think
it is necessary to modernize how we budget and allocate
resources. The Treasury Department's white paper entitled The
Future of Financial Management states, ``The use of data is
crucial to the future of Federal financial management.''
Currently, we use a budget developed 2 years ago to
formulate a budget for 2 years from now. During that process,
we use very little data on actual expenditures and performance
to inform our budget development. This results in a budget that
is slow to reflect our changing environment.
The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act is a
strong statement on the NRC's need to reform. The new budget
and fee recovery structure in NEIMA provides an opportunity for
us to harness analysis of actual expenditures to better inform
our budget decisions and rethink how we allocate our resources,
particularly in light of the fact that we anticipate retirement
of an additional 13 reactors by the year 2025.
I look forward to working with the Committee, my fellow
Commissioners, the NRC staff, and our stakeholders to shape a
modern, successful NRC.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Caputo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much for your testimony.
Commissioner Wright.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WRIGHT,
COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Wright. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, and Ranking Member Carper,
and esteemed members of this Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
I have been on the Commission about 10 months now, and I am
grateful for the warm welcome and collegiality of my
colleagues, as well as the staff's efforts to bring me up to
speed. I view the NRC as a team and one I am proud to be a part
of.
As I promised, I have gotten out of my office and spent
considerable time walking the halls of the NRC and visiting
plants. I visited every office on every floor at NRC
headquarters at least once now. These meetings and visits with
the NRC staff and our licensees have given me invaluable
insights into the agency's critical safety mission, their
priorities, successes, and challenges. I am humbled and
impressed by the people that I have met, as well.
I come to this position as a former State regulator, and I
am, therefore, mindful of the impact regulation has on
regulated utilities. When I make decisions as a Commissioner, I
combine that perspective with my dedication to the NRC safety
mission and the agency's principles of good regulation,
particularly the principle of efficiency.
While I am not yet an expert on the NRC's budgeting and
licensing process, I do see room for improvement in both areas
when it comes to efficiency. I also know the agency is busy
analyzing and preparing for changes required by the Nuclear
Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, so I am also
interested in how this law will motivate other changes in how
we do our work.
I view change--in particular changes how we perform our
work--as an opportunity. Change is an opportunity to transform,
innovate, and recalibrate the things we do to achieve our
important safety mission in the most efficient and effective
way possible.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, all of you,
for your testimony and your service.
We will start with a couple rounds of questions, and I
would like to start first with Chairman Svinicki.
In January, the Commission approved the final rule known as
the Mitigation of Beyond Design Basis Events. The rule codifies
a number of existing requirements imposed on nuclear power
plants following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accident. Would you
please summarize the key provisions of that rule for us?
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you for the question, Chairman
Barrasso. I would note that yesterday I received a
correspondence from Senators Carper and Whitehouse asking a
series of questions. We look forward to responding to the
Committee's questions on the Commission's action on the rule.
It is not easy to summarize a lengthy rule, but let me
attempt.
After Fukushima, the Commission mandated a host of changes
and reevaluations of the hazards that U.S. plants face. We did
that through other instruments like immediately effective
orders and demands for information.
As a matter of rigor, agencies such as ours typically
follow that up with a rulemaking process afterward so that
those measures can go through the Administrative Procedure Act
process of being promulgated as a formalized rule.
As laid before the Commission, the rule went beyond the
measures that had previously been mandated and included a set
of additional measures that the staff proposed that the
Commission adopt and make into requirements on the basis of
what is called our adequate protection authorities under the
Atomic Energy Act, which do not require an analysis. If we
invoke adequate protection, there is not a legal requirement to
do an analysis of the safety benefits and the costs and
benefits of the new requirements.
The majority of the Commission, in looking at the
provisions beyond those already mandated, was not willing to
adopt or invoke the adequate protection basic summary
conclusion for the additional measures and indicated that they
would move forward with the rule with the measures that had
been mandated and the continuation of the site specific
evaluation of the flooding and seismic hazard at U.S. plants.
In addition, the Commission, in 2016, had established a
center of expertise for the ongoing continual evaluation of
external hazards to U.S. nuclear facilities. This group has
been stood up and will contain a library of information where
we will go out to the USGS, to the climate change experts, and
others and look at the hazard information as it changes over
time.
So, I would depict it as a way to bring visibility and
focus to new information as it comes in. And of course, we
would assess that and take action.
We did have a very severe difference of opinion on the
Commission over the final rule, and I have deep respect for my
colleagues who differed on the outcome, but in totality,
looking at all of the measures that the NRC enacted since
Fukushima, and again, I had direct and personal involvement
going all the way back to the accident in 2011, the outcome of
the Commission majority I think was an acknowledgment of this
efficiency of the measures in place.
There was a particular difference of opinion over the
forward going regulatory treatment of certain of the changes
and what we call the flex equipment. This is the surplus sets
of equipment that are now at every U.S. nuclear power plant to
deal with hazards or events that would go beyond the design
basis.
The majority of the Commission felt that the industry's
commitment previously given to maintain that equipment was
sufficient, and I know that other members of the Commission
would have turned that into a regulatory requirement.
There were other differences, but that was, I think, the
most pointed difference that we had.
Senator Barrasso. In October, the EPA withdrew an Obama
administration midnight rule. The midnight rule, of course,
would have added unnecessary red tape, in my opinion, to the
principle method of uranium production. In 2015, the NRC staff
communicated substantial jurisdictional concerns to the EPA
about the proposal, and the EPA proceeded despite the concerns
that the NRC had come up with. These jurisdictional issues I
think need to be resolved. Accordingly, in 2017 I asked EPA to
sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC clarifying the
EPA's regulatory authorities.
Madam Chairman, could you please provide an update on the
status of the NRC's engagement on that Memorandum of
Understanding?
Ms. Svinicki. My understanding of the current status is
that upon the withdrawal of the rule by EPA, NRC and EPA staffs
have been engaging over the renewed interest in the Memorandum
of Understanding. There are, as you note, I think some
statutory interpretation differences that are being worked out,
but the experts do continue to engage on this matter. As a
matter of fact, I believe there is a meeting that will be held
yet this month between the EPA and NRC on the MOU development.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so very much.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Just very briefly to the Chair, quickly,
how are we doing in terms of retention, attracting new folks to
come to work at the NRC? How is morale? Just very briefly.
Ms. Svinicki. Very briefly, I would characterize the
concern about our demographic shift to more senior workers,
while we are very, very grateful to have them, and they have a
lot of expertise, we are realizing now that the front end of
the pipeline and entry level workers I think I would
characterize that as an increasing concern for the agency.
While we wouldn't take a broad brush to it, for myself alone, I
think it is imperative that we begin to look at strategic hires
of recent university graduates and things like that.
I will say, on morale, you know, transformation and change
is hard. Human beings have a lot of concerns over what it might
mean for them, so the leadership team at NRC has a strong focus
on messaging and outreach and communications regarding changes
that are or might be in the future coming for NRC.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Do the other Commissioners agree? If you agree, raise your
hand. Do you agree with that assessment?
All right, let the record show four hands. All right, good.
Thank you very much.
Question for Commissioner Baran. With the President's NRC
budget for fiscal year 2020, in your judgment, will the NRC
have the resources needed to do its job to ensure safety for
current nuclear reactors and to be ready for the next
generation of them?
Mr. Baran. I believe it will. I would just provide a little
bit of context, though, and say since fiscal year 2014 NRC's
budget has decreased by 15 percent and our work force has
declined by 21 percent. That is a huge amount of change in a
short period of time, so I think we have adjusted well.
Our budget and staff need to reflect our workload, but I
share the Chairman's concern that one of the things that has
been sacrificed in that period of time is entry level hiring.
We are at a point now where only 2 percent of the people who
work at NRC are below 30 years old. That is really low, and it
is an indication, I think, that we are not doing much entry
level hiring, and we have to get back to that, I think, in the
near future for the long term health of the agency.
Senator Carper. OK, thank you.
To our Chair, you mentioned that Senator Whitehouse and I
recently sent you a letter regarding the post-Fukushima rule
that the Commission finalized I think back in January. We
appreciate your attention to that and your timely response.
Senator Whitehouse and I are concerned that the changes to the
final rule made by the Chair may have missed the mark in
addressing the lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear
accident, and we need answers regarding why changes were made
to the final rule, changes that I think went against the career
staff's recommendations.
Just a quick yes or no on this one. I don't ask a lot of
yes or no questions, but I want to be mindful of my time.
Madam Chair, did the NRC career staff recommend changing
the mandatory safeguards against seismic and flooding hazards
to voluntary ones? Did they recommend that?
Ms. Svinicki. No, but there were expert staff that had--
they didn't go through the former differing views process, but
we did have a handful of agency experts that disagreed with the
proposal as it was laid before the Commission. And I have
spoken with those individuals who were in disagreement.
Senator Carper. A follow up to that. Did public comments
during the rulemaking process ask the Commission to make the
mandatory safeguards against seismic and flooding hazards
voluntary?
Ms. Svinicki. No, they did not.
Senator Carper. A follow up on the same issue, a follow up
to Commissioner Baran and maybe Commissioner Burns. You both
voted against the changes. Would you please take a moment and
explain your concerns with the final rule? And in your answer
please verify if you know of any party that asked for this
change.
Mr. Baran. Mr. Burns, go ahead.
Mr. Burns. Essentially, Senator, I thought that the rule as
proposed, as commented on, and as then offered to the staff in
final form was a more direct, in fact, a direct and elegant
solution to the issue that had been identified; that is,
looking at current seismic and flooding type hazards and
assuring that they were addressed during the course of a
lifetime by licensees, and there wasn't, to my understanding,
adverse comment on that from the external stakeholders who
would have commented on the rule.
Senator Carper. All right.
Mr. Baran.
Mr. Baran. I think everyone agrees that the flex equipment
that the Chairman mentioned is the single biggest post-
Fukushima safety improvement, but the equipment doesn't do us
any good if it is not there and available when called upon, and
that means protecting the equipment from entirely predictable
natural hazards. We spent several years, the staff and
licensees, using the latest science to figure out what are the
current modern day hazards, flooding and seismic hazards, at
the power plant sites across the country.
From my point of view, and I think Commissioner Burns
agreed with this, it makes sense to protect that equipment from
those modern understood hazards, and not the old outdated
hazards. It is the biggest improvement we had. You want to
protect that equipment.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
All right, thanks for those responses, and we look forward
to a second round.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is nice to see the full Commission here. I want to give
a shout out to Commissioner Caputo, because we worked together
on the Subcommittee, so welcome. He says we are confusing him
because it is Caputo and Capito, but we know what it really is.
Ms. Caputo. I can keep us straight.
Senator Capito. I am going to ask a question I think I ask
every year, and I still don't understand.
I understand that you are making great strides to right
sizing the Commission, and I thank the NRC, and that is a
question that comes up every year, but there is a significant
amount of carryover funding, which suggests there is a mismatch
I don't understand. In fiscal year 2017 carryover was $37
million, at the end of fiscal year 2018. Per your budget,
carryover from the prior year totaled $40.4 million, with $22.7
million still wholly unallocated.
And then again, the request is for more carryover, which is
described to be in the budget to jump starting licensing around
Yucca Mountain. But I understand that that cannot be funded by
a carryover.
So, could you help me with what do you do with all these
millions of dollars that you are carrying over, and are you
overprescribing your budget to allow for a carryover to give
you some flexibility that maybe your regular budget doesn't
provide for you?
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you for that question, Senator. We have
engaged in previous years on the NRC's efforts to develop and
end the year with a more accurate figure so that it does not
have this surplus at the end of the year. There are a number of
factors that contribute to ending the year without the amount
of outlay that one predicted. Receiving the budget later, after
the beginning of the fiscal year, can often be a contributor,
but we did not experience that this year. So, as of right now,
being approximately midway through the fiscal year, we estimate
that we would have about $20 million of carryover on the fee
base.
So, as happened with the appropriations bill last year,
when we had about $25 million, appropriators directed us to use
$20 million of that as an offset. So, I can't speak for what
appropriators will do, where we will end the fiscal year and
what they would do. We have had an effort on improving our
budgeting and trying to get greater fidelity and end the year
with less of a surplus. I don't know that we would ever get to
having it be down to the penny, but we have driven down the
figure in recent years, and I think we continue to look at what
we end the year with.
Senator Capito. Was last year the first year that the
appropriators had asked you to use that as an offset?
Ms. Caputo. No, it was not.
Senator Capito. That is pretty much standard, then? OK.
The other question I think is with the anticipated
shrinking number of reactors and the fees associated. You are
raising the 8 percent annual increase this year, what, 6.5.
What steps are you making to make sure that that is not just an
incremental thing over years as we see more of these being
retired?
Ms. Svinicki. Well, I think the most prominent change to
that will be arising out of the NEIMA bill that is now enacted
law. Of course, it has a number of measures that have
interrelated effects on the agency's budget, but one of which
is to create a ceiling for the operating reactor fee. In
addition, there are other measures that exert budget discipline
on the agency that arise out of NEIMA.
I will say that embedding some of that statutory--again,
those provisions, kind of by virtue of mathematics, affect
different parts of the budget. We are working to build that
into our accounting and budgeting systems, so I can't testify
to the totality of the impact of the provisions. Of course,
there are a number of provisions on our corporate support costs
as well.
I think it would probably take 1 year through the budget
cycle to have a complete picture of how those provisions impact
each other, so in future appearances we should be able to give
you a better sense of that.
Senator Capito. Commissioner Caputo, I am going to put you
on the spot here because you have spent years on the other side
of the dais here. What perspectives could you say becoming a
Commissioner has changed your view from where we sit to where
you sit now?
Ms. Caputo. Well, I think this budget, the 2020 budget that
is before you now, is my first budget on the Commission, so it
is an introduction to how the Commission develops its budget,
and that, I think, largely is what lies behind my remarks about
the fact that I think the Commission could use data and data
analytics to a much greater extent to inform our resource
allocation decisions.
I think the increase in the fee that you are talking about,
this year in particular, is driven by the retirement of a few
reactors. But if you look at a 2-year span, as an example, the
2020-2018 and the budget before you now, the 2020 budget, six
plants will have retired, and those six plants would be paying
in $4.8 million, roughly, in an annual fee.
So, when we look at the 2020 budget, 6 5 is $30 million.
But we don't see a decrease in the operating reactors' budget
in that order; we see a decrease of $5.4 million. So I think
that is evidence of our struggle to sort of right size in
advance of the cessation of those fees coming in. And this will
continue to be a struggle, I think, going forward, but one that
hopefully the new fee structure under NEIMA will help with.
Senator Capito. OK. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Senator Capito.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
calling this hearing.
I want to thank the entire Commission for being here. It is
impressive to see you all out there. We thank you very much for
your work.
I want to follow up on Senator Carper's point in regard to
the personnel issues. Since fiscal year 2010, there has been
approximately a 23 percent reduction in the work force at the
Commission. The past fiscal year saw another decline. I first
would like to know whether we should anticipate a further
reduction in the work force, or do we have the right numbers
now?
Why don't I ask that question first. What is your game plan
on downsizing, Madam Chair?
Ms. Svinicki. We continue to trend down. Again, our
demographic is we have a very, very senior work force. A
substantial portion of our employees are retirement eligible.
Now, many of them stay well beyond their retirement
eligibility, but it is a growing concern that the front end of
the pipeline--Commissioner Baran was mentioning a statistic
that only 2 percent of NRC employees are younger than the age
of 30, which is an extreme figure.
Senator Cardin. You are getting to my second question. My
first question is the size that you are attempting to get to;
the second is retaining good people. My staff tells me that by
2023, 42 percent of your work force will be eligible for
retirement. I know that Commissioner Baran already mentioned
the 2 percent under the age of 30, which is a very small number
for any of our work force.
Put on top of that the general challenge for Federal work
force today as a result of attacks on the Federal work force on
the budget and their benefits, as well as the shutdown impact.
You may have been directly impacted, but you were indirectly
impacted by the Government shutdown. It has caused a drain of
some of our best from agencies that are not clear as to the
future commitment of the Government to their mission.
I worry that the same thing could be happening at the NRC
as to whether you are attracting young people to this
profession. Do they see a future here, and are we challenged in
maintaining the capacity, moving forward, of the NRC to keep us
safe and to be at the top of the game internationally on
regulating nuclear energy?
We really need to pay a little bit of attention to this,
and it looks like the fact that you don't have younger
workers--I know at NSA, by way of comparison, we always are
concerned that they can bring in the youngest, brightest people
so they have a pipeline to the future. Are we missing this
opportunity on the nuclear regulatory side?
Mr. Baran. I would just say that on the question of the
overall size of the agency, personally, I think we should get
to the point of stabilizing at this point. We have had a lot of
reduction in a relatively short period of time. I do worry
that, continuing on the track we are on, we are going to have
problems maintaining our core capabilities, our core technical
capabilities. I worry about that. Of course, the other issue is
the lack of entry level hiring, which is significant.
One of the things we are seeing is retaining. It is harder
to retain folks because, with a smaller agency, an agency that
has been shrinking, you don't have the same promotional
opportunities, the same career enhancement opportunities. We
see folks leaving--great people, mid-career--who can't really
advance the way they want to.
Senator Cardin. So how do we counter this? How do we
counter this?
Mr. Baran. Well, the staff is working very hard on that,
and the Commission focuses on it a lot. It is challenge, but I
think as long as the budget keeps declining steeply and the
work force keeps declining steeply, it is difficult to
counteract that.
Senator Cardin. I would just urge--Mr. Chairman, we are the
authorizing Committee. I would like to get a game plan from you
as to how we can attract the youngest, brightest talent for the
future into your agency.
Also, I would think from the appropriators' point of view
that they also need to have a game plan as to where you are
heading so that we can try to assist. We understand the size is
one thing, but not having the brightest minds coming out of our
universities interested in a career in nuclear safety does
present challenges for us moving forward.
One of those challenges, and it might be the right thing,
but the Nuclear Energy Institute has asked for a self-
assessment, rather than inspection, in regards to some of their
nuclear activities. We saw that didn't work very well on
airline safety with Boeing. The question is are we moving more
toward reliance upon self-assessment rather than the work of
the Commission in order to keep us safe, a down product of not
having the capacity because of downsizing and the lack of
recruitment.
Mr. Baran. Speaking for myself, I would just say I strongly
believe we should not head in that direction. I think the role
of NRC is to set the health and safety standards and to inspect
to make sure those standards are met. The role of licensees is
to operate the plant safely. We shouldn't operate their plants;
they shouldn't be conducting our inspections. That is our job;
it is a core responsibility of the agency, and we should be
doing that.
Senator Cardin. I would just ask the Commission if you
could just share with us your game plan for attracting the
professionals that you need moving forward so that we can have
that in our planning as authorizers and as appropriators. I
think that would be helpful.
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, Senator Cardin. We do have a detailed
work on our strategic work force planning ongoing. We can
provide an update on where that stands to the Committee with a
focus on the younger workers.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Senator Cardin.
Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Chairman.
Especially interesting for me to be sitting in on this. I
am the Chair of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee,
so I intend to do more work on this down the road.
A two-pronged question, and this would be for any of the
witnesses. No. 1, Purdue University has had research on some
new technology, and it is with the digital version that has
been in place in other countries. I am interested in what is
going to get us across the threshold for using nuclear energy
for all the pertinent topics that are in front of us, clean
energy generation.
Also, what is happening in other countries, because I know
many other countries have put an emphasis on it, and I feel
they are going to lead more than us due to the fact that there
has been gun shyness about pushing forward with nuclear power
for electric generation.
In addition to what Purdue is working on, tell me about
what else is happening, how that is going to lead in to where
we have more confidence here, and then tell me about the
competition across the world where they seem to be embracing
nuclear energy for power generation more than we are.
Ms. Svinicki. If I may, Senator, I will just begin, and if
my colleagues want to add to that broad question.
But I would note that with respect to the modification to
the Purdue research reactor, I was made aware that the agency
has completed its review of that amendment and modification to
that facility, and I think that the completion of that was
communicated yesterday or may be communicated today to Purdue.
I knew we were very close to the finish line, but I didn't know
what we had actually concluded our work on that.
On your broader questions about the global energy picture,
I think it doesn't necessarily fall squarely in our domain.
What we do is look at nuclear safety and security regulation.
The United States is generally considered to have an extremely
strong and set a high standard for nuclear safety and security.
I know that there are countries that have looked closely,
such as Spain, that has adopted, I think, a near replica of the
U.S. nuclear safety regulations whole cloth. We do continue to
try to advance global objectives on nuclear safety, not so much
the penetration of the technology for energy production, but
setting a strong, high level of expertise on the nuclear safety
issues.
Mr. Baran. I agree with all that. I would just add on the
new technology side, really, our role is licensing, so it is
about having a good, efficient licensing process for new
technologies, whether it be non-light water reactor
technologies or innovations and fuel in other areas, so there
is a lot of focus right now on that at NRC to make sure that we
have the technical capabilities to do those reviews and have a
good process in place and that we have the right standards.
If you take the example of non-light water reactors, all
the existing fleet in the U.S. is light water reactors. Our
regulations were really written for that. One of the big
efforts at NRC now is adapting those regulations for other
technologies so that we can have efficient and thorough and
effective reviews of newer technologies unlike anything we have
currently deployed across the country.
Mr. Burns. One thing I might add is that we do participate
in international forums through the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
and also the International Atomic Energy Agency that are
looking at, for example, on the small modular reactors or
advanced reactors technologies, and there have been other
cooperative efforts so that we learn from folks who are
building, say, in Finland or France or in China through what is
called the Multinational Design Evaluation Program, so I think
those have been of benefit to us as regulators because it is
really about what are the approaches for regulation; what types
of things are they finding that can have learnings for us, and
I encourage us to continue in those types of fora.
Ms. Caputo. With regard to advanced designs, I haven't been
to Purdue, so I am not familiar with what Purdue is doing, but
I have visited Texas A&M and the University of Wisconsin, and
my observation from both of those visits is the universities
are really conducting a lot of exciting work in developing both
accident-tolerant fuel technology and advanced reactor designs.
So I think there is a fair amount of exciting work being done
in our universities to lay the foundation for ultimately the
designs that come to the Commission for review.
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Senator. I agree with everything
that you have heard, but I think there is another leg to this,
too, and that is that if we are not efficient in our regulatory
scheme at the NRC and get things done efficiently as well, we
are possibly seeing ourselves around the world where other
technologies are being sold, which would be a DOE or State
issue and obviously a congressional issue, and that could have
long term security impacts on our country, too. So, we have to
do our part at the NRC to make sure that we are putting things
in place for these new technologies to make them efficient so
we can get them through the regulatory scheme effectively and
efficiently.
Senator Braun. Thank you.
Senator Capito [presiding]. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Do any of you doubt that climate change is causing sea
levels to rise around the globe and along our shores?
[No audible response.]
Senator Whitehouse. Let the record reflect no doubts. OK.
Does anybody contest that post-Fukushima it has been
established that flooding interferes with nuclear plant
operations? Pretty obvious statement, isn't it?
[No audible response.]
Senator Whitehouse. OK, all agreed, let the record reflect.
I represent a coastal State. For those of you aren't from
coastal States, let me let you know that we are all coastal
States looking at dire and uncontested and best science
predictions of significant sea level rise and harm to our
coasts, just so you know. So it is from that background that I
wonder about the recent chain of events along this timeline.
In November 2015, the NRC proposed its comprehensive post-
Fukushima flooding preparation rule with full agreement of the
Commission at the time. It is called the Mitigation of Beyond
Design Basis Events Rule, and our Ranking Member just spoke
about it. It went to public comment, and in 2016, after
receiving public comments, the staff issued a draft final rule
with mandatory requirements for flood preparation.
At this time, the NRC Commission had two Democrats and one
Republican appointees, and you couldn't get three votes, so the
order wasn't finalized, but the staff recommendation was there.
A month later, Commissioner Svinicki was designated Chairman.
The Commission still did not move forward on a final order for
the rule.
In July 2017, the Nuclear Energy Institute sent this
letter, which I ask unanimous consent to be made a part of the
record----
Senator Capito. Without objection.
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Saying that all of its
concerns had been addressed, and it was OK to go forward with
the rule; still mandatory.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. In May 2018, after all this closed, two
new Republican appointees joined the Commission, giving
Republican appointees a three to two majority, and in January
2019 NRC weakened the rule, made it voluntary. The NRC has
acknowledged that there were not any public comments calling
for this change.
Now, I am somebody who has worked to get you more
authority. I have been a prime mover on two pieces of
legislation to promote innovation and nuclear technology. I am
the cosponsor, with our acting Chair, of another one that is
working its way through the Senate right now.
It is going to be a real problem for me to continue to
trust in all of you if either of two things is true: one, there
is some kind of an industry back door into the Commission that
gets a change like this done after the public comment period is
closed, without any public comment, and apparently outside of
the APA public process. That would be a very unfortunate set of
events, probably also illegal. So I think this Committee is
entitled to an answer as to what exactly took place that caused
that.
The second is, you don't take sea level rise seriously. You
don't think this is a real risk for the nine nuclear plants
that are within 3 kilometers of our coast or the four that have
been deemed susceptible to sea level rise and flooding. That is
not acceptable either.
So I see this event as a potentially very significant
bellwether as to the trustworthiness of this Commission, and I
have been trusting this Commission. So I need some serious
answers and we are going to follow up. We sent this letter,
Chairman Carper and I, which I would ask to be put into the
record as an exhibit. We need to get to the bottom of this.
If there is some back door where industry people can come
in and fix a rule without going through the APA process, that
is just plain wrong. And if the reason for this is that you
don't take flooding and sea level rise seriously, that is just
plain wrong. The first is wrong procedurally and legally; the
second is wrong morally and factually.
So I intend to pursue this, and I am just putting you on
notice that I think this is really serious. And I say this as a
person who has trusted you with very important new
responsibilities.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Is there any reaction?
Ms. Svinicki. Senator Whitehouse, I look forward to
responding to the series of questions that you provided to the
Commission yesterday. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. We look forward to hearing your
response.
Senator Capito. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant is set to close in June,
and I know the Commissioners are not going to answer some
specific questions as related to matters that are pending
before the NRC, but we need more clarity.
Chair Svinicki, does the NRC have the statutory or
regulatory authority it needs to make sure that licensees bear
all of the financial costs of decommissioning and site
maintenance?
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Senator Markey. I believe that the
decommissioning funds that are collected under our authority
are principally for decommissioning of the radiological hazard.
There may be amounts beyond that that State authorities require
to be collected, and often these funds are comingled in the
decommissioning fund.
Senator Markey. Well, obviously the communities, including
Plymouth, need assurance that all the financial costs are going
to be borne, and they don't want to get stuck footing the bill
if costs go up, or businesses go under, so the proposed
decommissioning rulemaking at the NRC would do even more to cut
NRC approval and public comment out of the already flimsy
decommissioning process, including by automatically granting
exemptions to safety regulations.
Commissioner Baran, do you think the proposed
decommissioning rule might tilt the balance of power farther
toward nuclear plant operators and away from the independent
NRC staff?
Mr. Baran. I think the proposed rule needs a lot of work. I
think we need to produce a balanced rule that considers the
interests of a broad range of stakeholders, including States
and local governments. I think in terms of who is making the
big decisions about decommissioning; I don't know that the
proposed rule changes that much. Right now that is tilted
heavily toward the licensees. NRC is pretty hands off when it
comes to decommissioning. We, of course, do safety inspections,
which are important, but licensees get to make most of the
major decisions, and the proposed rule really wouldn't change
that.
Senator Markey. And that is my concern, that the nuclear
industry wants the NRC to turn a blind eye, but we actually
need more independent oversight, not less.
The Nuclear Energy Institute is pushing for major changes
to the reactor oversight process, the cornerstone safety
program at the NRC. The industry wants to inspect and assess
itself more often, rather than allow the NRC to conduct
independent inspections. If adopted, these changes would make
inspections like a take home exam and leave the NRC just hoping
that plants don't cheat.
Chair Svinicki, plants often do self-assessments before the
NRC comes in for an inspection. Do the NRC inspectors find
issues that the plants have missed?
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, they do sometimes.
Senator Markey. Yes, you do, because the NRC does
frequently uncover issues that the operators don't find
themselves, and these could be problems that would be totally
ignored if the nuclear industry could self-assess.
One of the proposed changes is to take less of a look at
``white findings,'' which are safety issues that are less
obviously severe than yellow or red findings, but white
findings are incredibly important. Following a series of white
findings, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth was placed
in the lowest active safety category after NRC inspectors
followed up and found major safety issues. This designation
triggered additional inspections and oversight, ultimately
helping Pilgrim operate more safely and improve its rating.
Madam Chair, if the proposal to ignore more white findings
was adopted, would Pilgrim have gotten a closer look from NRC
inspectors?
Ms. Svinicki. I think it is difficult for me to conclude
one way or another on that, respectfully. It is a certain
number of findings of a certain color that lead them to move to
different performance categories, and I can't, off the top of
my head, kind of recreate what those triggers were back in 2014
and 2015.
Senator Markey. Well, let me ask you, Commissioner Baran,
does discounting low risk findings mean we might miss higher
risk issues down the line?
Mr. Baran. Yes, I think white findings are very important
for that. Since the beginning of the reactor oversight process,
white findings, and even green findings, have been leading
indicators of potentially more safety significant problems at
plants, so Pilgrim is a good example of that; it got into
column four with three white findings. There were no yellows,
there were no reds; it ended up there on whites. And it
absolutely needed to be in column four. I think everyone agreed
that was a right safety outcome.
So, if we moved in the direction of really reducing the
significance of white findings, I would have significant
concerns about that.
Senator Markey. And I have that concern as well, because
the NRC should not be giving take home exams to nuclear power
plant operators, because the tendency on a take home exam is to
always give yourself an A+, and obviously the history of this
industry tells us that that temptation too often has been
succumbed to by industry participants. So, I just think that we
have to make sure that the industry doesn't cut corners,
doesn't undermine public safety, so I am going to be following
this very closely.
I thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank all of you for your testimony today. As we have
heard, the NRC plays a vital role in regulating the domestic
nuclear industry by ensuring the secure and safe use of nuclear
materials. That is the goal. You also play an important role in
regulating nuclear exports, exports abroad, by ensuring that
U.S. nuclear materials and technology do not fall into the
wrong hands. In other words, you are part of a mechanism that
is supposed to pursue rigorous due diligence when it comes to
these export controls.
I am concerned that, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, this
Administration is severely testing the strength of the
alignment between the NRC's role, the DOE's role, and the goal
of a nonproliferation policy. Reportedly, and I think they have
confirmed they are pursuing a nuclear cooperation agreement
with Saudi Arabia, which has enforced the lowest standard of
international safeguards, a country whose leaders have loosely
talked about acquiring nuclear weapons and a country that we
know consistently flouts international norms. And now this
Administration wants to do nuclear business with Saudi Arabia.
Last week, DOE confirmed that the Administration has
deepened nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Secretary of
Energy Perry acknowledged that the Department of Energy has
issued seven undisclosed part 810 authorizations to American
companies to transfer unspecified nuclear technology and know-
how to Saudi Arabia. In my view, it doesn't appear that the
Administration is exercising due diligence.
I know the NRC is not the lead agency here, but under the
statute and regulations you play a consulting role. In fact, it
is required that DOE consult with you on these, so my question,
Madam Chairman, is when did the Department of Energy consult
with the NRC on issuing these seven part 810 authorizations?
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Senator. As you have described,
under the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC does have a consultative
role, it is not a concurrence role; and again, it is not an
opinion on U.S. foreign policy. We have a consultative role
under the law because, as you note, should the U.S. get to a
point where they are exporting components and nuclear
materials, the NRC is the central export licensing authority
for that.
The NRC's consultative role I would generally describe as
something that they are looking at whether matters of law and
under an 810 or whether or not you could effectuate the export
licensing, should you get to that point, so it is a narrow
consultation on some matters of expertise of the agency, but it
differs from our role in the----
Senator Van Hollen. No, Madam Chairman, my question was not
what is the nature of your role. You have a role. My question
was when did the Department of Energy consult with the NRC with
respect to the part 810 authorizations to Saudi Arabia.
Ms. Svinicki. I don't have that answer for you today,
Senator. I would need to get back to you.
Senator Van Hollen. I would like you to get back as soon as
possible. I mean, these 810 authorizations were apparently kept
secret, and I must say I am surprised. Were you involved in the
consultation?
Ms. Svinicki. In general, since the role is narrow----
Senator Van Hollen. I mean specifically on the 810
authorizations.
Ms. Svinicki. Members of the Commission. This is a
delegated staff process.
Senator Van Hollen. Were any of you individually involved?
Nobody at the table was part of that 810 consultation process.
All right, so then you wouldn't know when it took place. I
see.
I must say that is staggering. So you don't know whether or
not the NRC raised any concerns as part of this consulting--I
know you don't have sign off authority, but none of you at this
table know whether the NRC raised any concerns about entering
into these 810 authorizations.
Ms. Svinicki. I do not.
Senator Van Hollen. OK.
Madam Chairman, I would request that you get this
information as soon as possible. This just came to light. You
have a statutory and regulatory role to play here, and I have
to say it is astounding that not a single one of you is aware
of whether, when, and what role the NRC played in that
particular authorization.
Senator Capito. Well, if there are no more questions for
today--oh, yes, Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I want to come back to the Nuclear Energy
Innovation and Modernization Act from when we talked about it
earlier in the hearing. My question for you, just a little bit
different, could you all take a moment and tell us how you
believe NEIMA implementation is going, and will the changes
help the advanced nuclear technologies, and do you have any
concerns with implementing any of those new changes?
Madam Chair.
Ms. Svinicki. If I may start, Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Please.
Ms. Svinicki. Candidly, with Congress passing it in
December and its signature in January, it is candidly off-cycle
from the development of the fiscal year 2020 budget that lies
before the Congress right now. That being said, we moved out
very quickly on it in January to do kind of a diagramming of
all the different provisions, and it is our assessment today,
based on where we are, that with a shifting of some priorities
and other things we are confident that within the budget
request that pends before you, even though we didn't have NEIMA
enacted at the time that we formulated that request, we are
confident that we could perhaps reprioritize a bit within
fiscal year 2020 activities in order to accommodate the NEIMA
requirements under the budget we have.
As I had mentioned to Senator Capito, there are a number of
provisions that are interrelated by their mathematical effect
on our budget. We are still working to run some scenarios and
have a better sense of how all of those provisions will work in
concert with each other. It will probably take one full budget
cycle before we could come back to you in an informed way and
say it creates a significant downward pressure here, but offers
relief here.
So, certainly, we would keep the Committee informed as we
implement, we have feedback that would be of utility and
informing the Committee about how we are doing on it. It is a
little bit early days right now. That would be my
characterization of where we are.
Senator Carper. Anybody have a different view or feel a
need to amplify on that?
Mr. Baran. The only thing I would add just specifically on
advanced reactors, I think probably the main provision under
the statute on the advanced reactors is having NRC do a
rulemaking that would be a rulemaking that could cover any of
the advanced reactor technologies, something that is not
technology specific but rather, more of a performance based
approach that would cover any of the technologies.
That is very much consistent with where the staff had been
moving. The staff had already proposed to the Commission a
rulemaking of that sort, so on the advanced reactor side I
think the vision expressed in the bill that became law and the
vision kind of at NRC are very much consistent.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
I have a last question, a different question. I just want
to ask you for advice, and we will start with you, Commissioner
Burns.
Like Senator Whitehouse, I live in a coastal State. Our
State is the lowest lying State in America. The seas are
rising, my State is sinking, so we have a huge concern about
sea level change, climate change.
It was not long ago roughly 70 percent of the non-carbon
electricity that was generated came from nuclear. I am told we
are now down to about 60 percent of the non-carbon electricity
generated comes from nuclear. We are seeing more wind, we are
seeing more solar, which is a good thing.
Like the Chairman, I have a longstanding interest in making
sure that we continue to address climate change, and we do it
in ways that are cost effective and safe. Give us, each of you,
just a very brief word of advice on what this Committee can do
to make sure that the nuclear industry, rather than continue to
diminish in terms of its contribution to carbon-free
electricity, gets to increase it. Please.
Commissioner Burns.
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Senator Carper. I think, again, it is
looking across this span of our history as an agency, and even
going back into the development of civilian nuclear power. One
thing is maintaining the integrity of the institutional
integrity that we have, that we have a strong regulator, an
independent regulator. That is the international norm, and in a
way, when we were created, we created, in many respects, what
became the international norm for regulation through the
Convention on Nuclear Safety.
I think, again, your role in terms of oversight for us, in
terms of holding us accountable through hearings and through
the process is important, and you also complement that by
looking into things like research and development that is
undertaken by DOE, by private industry. Those things I think
continue to be the most important things that I think you can
do.
Again, I would say one of the interesting things about
working at this agency for many years has been that, across
time, we call it a learning organization, using this word
transformation, it is continually to think about how we do our
work and how we can do it better, more effectively. I think
that is the challenge for you, to keep pushing at us.
So those are just some brief thoughts.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired,
but would it be possible if any of the other Commissioners who
wanted to comment on that question, just to say a few words?
Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Please.
Senator Carper. How about our newest member.
Mr. Wright. I agree with everything that you have heard. I
do think that right now we are going through change,
transformation. That is the word that you are hearing in the
paper that is before us.
But if we don't do things within our agency to keep ahead
of the curve and be prepared for what the future is going to
hold, regardless of which direction it goes, and that is kind
of what the agency is looking at, then we are going to cede
ourselves to somewhere we don't want to be. So we need to be
prepared for anything that comes along, especially making sure
that we have the ability for new technologies to be licensed in
this country that can be sold around the world.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Caputo.
Ms. Caputo. I think one thing that I would add is just the
importance of the NRC conducting predictable and timely
decisions, because I think a lot of companies that are looking
at advanced reactor technology are not traditional nuclear
utilities and to a great extent, if we are perceived to be
slow, untimely, not predictable, it will have drastic impacts
on the nature of their investment and their business prospects
for proceeding. So, I think there is a great attention toward
making sure that we take risk informed actions and that we do
it in a timely fashion in order to make the regulatory process
as predictable as possible.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Commissioner Baran.
Mr. Baran. I don't know that I would have too much to add.
I agree with Commissioner Burns that your focus on the work we
are doing and on safety is so critical, because it is the
foundation for everything. You know, whether it is about having
the plants continue to operate that are there or having new
plants come online, safety is just key to all of that, and your
focus on that is so appreciated.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Madam Chair.
Ms. Svinicki. Well, I agree with the perspectives of my
colleagues. I think I am increasingly daunted by how hard
change is in large organizations. If we were manufacturers, we
could shut down the line, and we could retool, but our product
is really decisions and regulatory outcomes, and what you are
asking people to do at every level in the organization is to
think differently about things, to be open to innovation and
new technology.
Now, we do want to get them improved tools to do what they
do, maybe better ways to monitor their program activities and
metrics, and we are making a lot of IT investment, and we are
trying to equip them. Because if you are asking people to
change, you have to give them the tools to go about and do
things differently or more efficiently. But when an agency has
had such a strong performance record regulating one type of
reactor and doing it one way, it is a hard thing to surmount
how accustomed people are to reflexively, without even thinking
about it, kind of picking up something and going about it the
same way, so hats off to our leaders.
We do have a lot of mid-career employees who I think are
bringing strong energy to this. They want to work there 15
years from now, 20 years from now, and they are actually, I
think, a little excited to say, hey, I will get to put my
imprint on how we do things they have inherited. Things like
the reactor oversight process that has been mentioned here,
that was designed 20 years ago, and they want to have an
opportunity to take what we have learned in the intervening
years and make NRC not less than it was or diminished, but just
the NRC that is going to continue that they want to be working
at 20 years from now.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Speaking of change and transition, I would just say to
Stephen Burns--what do they say in Hawaii, aloha, whether you
are coming or going? In the Navy, we say fair winds and a
following sea. Thank you for your service. God bless you and
your family.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Just a couple more questions.
Chairman Svinicki, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required
the Department of Energy to begin receiving spent nuclear fuel
in 1998. American taxpayers now pay I think over $2 million of
legal costs every day because Yucca Mountain is not
operational. The NRC's budget requests $36 million to hire 77
staff to receive the Commission's nuclear waste disposal
program in terms of reviving the program and moving along with
it. What can the Commission accomplish with that funding if
Congress is able to appropriate the money?
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you. The increment of funding that we
have asked for would be allocated principally toward the
resumption of what is called the adjudicatory hearing. There
are over 300 what we call contentions or disputed issues on the
Yucca Mountain license application, and we need to have a
hearing infrastructure, we need to have hearing judges and
staff.
As has been noted, this project for NRC has been dormant
now for nearly 10 years, or it would be 10 years when the
fiscal year 2020 budget is put in place. We have lost a lot of
people; we have lost a lot of knowledge and expertise. We have
good experts. I think we could reacquaint them with the record
and try to have them begin to participate fully in this
activity, but there would be a lot of capability and
infrastructure to be restored, and the funding we have
requested would be put to that purpose.
Senator Barrasso. One last question. You do a monthly
report on the status of the NRC, the licensing actions, the
budget. I have recently reviewed I think your 26th monthly
report. I think the report would benefit from some redesigning,
maybe for clarity and for some usefulness, and I just wondered
if you and your staff would work with me and my Committee staff
to revise the format and the content of the monthly report, if
that is something we can work on.
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, Chairman Barrasso, we would welcome an
opportunity to try to better meet the Committee's information
needs in that report, which has become a bit, ponderously long
and cumbersome. We seek only to provide you with something that
is beneficial.
I would note that we also have legacy reports that I think
Senator Voinovich may have initiated, and if, as a part of
that, we could propose to you any combination that would make
sense. We send you committee reports on different frequencies,
on different topics that have simply accumulated over the
course of the Committee's request to the agency, and there may
be some rationalization, and we could result maybe in an
improved product on more than just the monthly report.
Senator Barrasso. That would be very helpful.
I am grateful to all of you for your testimony, especially
Commissioner Burns. Thank you for your long years of service to
our Nation. It is bipartisan gratitude for all the work that
you have done.
If there are no further questions, members may submit
follow up questions for the record over the next couple of
weeks. The hearing record will therefore remain open for 2
weeks.
I want to thank all of you for your time and your
testimony. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]