[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 145 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3183, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 8, 2009

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address briefly the language of 
Section 401 of the conference report, which requires the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide a report on barriers to the 
issuance of a combined construction and operating licenses (COLs).
  As the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the 
House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the 
NRC, I want to ensure that the Commission, in responding to Section 
401, remains cognizant of its responsibilities to comply with the 
substantive and procedural requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC regulations in the 
issuing of COLs to new nuclear power plants. These laws cannot be 
overridden or even challenged by a reporting requirement appended to an 
annual appropriations bill.
  The NRC should, of course, review COL applications in an efficient 
fashion, without undue or unwarranted delays. However, speed of action 
is not the only policy interest that the Congress has with respect to 
licensing. Public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the 
licensing process requires the Commission to ensure that licensees 
comply with the substantive safety requirements of the law and of NRC 
regulations. The Commission must therefore assure that it does not 
sacrifice crucial safety evaluations, public input or adequate 
environmental review as part of any effort to streamline or accelerate 
its regulatory functions.
  Under Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC is directed, 
after holding a public hearing, to ``issue to the applicant a combined 
construction and operating license if the application contains 
sufficient information to support the issuance of a combined license 
and the Commission determines that there is reasonable assurance that 
the facility will be constructed and will operate in conformity with 
the license, the provisions of this Act, and the Commission's rules and 
regulations.''
  The Act further stipulates that in conducting its licensing 
activities, ``The Commission shall identify within the combined license 
the inspections, tests, and analyses, including those applicable to 
emergency planning, that the licensee shall perform, and the acceptance 
criteria that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide 
reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be 
operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of this Act, 
and the Commission's rules and regulations.''
  Moreover, the Act mandates that: ``Following issuance of the combined 
license, the Commission shall ensure that the prescribed inspections, 
tests, and analyses are performed and, prior to operation of the 
facility, shall find that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met.''
  In addition, NRC regulations 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 52 
implement the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA in regards 
to the licensing process. Under these regulations, for example, the NRC 
is required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part 
of the COL application. According to the NRC website, ``the NRC staff 
estimates that the environmental review process will take approximately 
24 months. This includes scoping, issuance of the draft EIS, a comment 
period, and issuance of the final EIS.''
  While it is true that the necessary reviews take time, the NRC's 
licensing regulations were enacted to protect the public from poorly 
sited locations, untested reactor designs, and other factors that could 
lead to environmental damage, unsafe construction, or even catastrophic 
nuclear emergencies. I support an efficient and effective NRC licensing 
process as long as it does not come at the expense of the safeguards 
codified in existing law.
  In point of fact, it does not appear that the licensing process 
itself is to blame for any delays in new reactor approval. In 2007 the 
NRC established the Office of New Reactors (NRO), separate from the 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, so that the NRO can focus solely 
on the review of new reactors. Indeed, NRC Chairman, Dr. Gregory 
Jaczko, has repeatedly stated that the licensing delays are ``almost 
exclusively tied to challenges with the [reactor] designs not being 
complete,'' resulting in license applications that reference 
uncertified design plans. This bottleneck has far more to do with the 
iterative design approval process, than with potential internal NRC 
barriers such as inefficient administration or inadequate funding. 
Certainly all must agree that it is impossible for the NRC to approve a 
license application for which there is not yet an approved design!
  Finally, I would note that while Section 401 mandates report 
submission to the committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee, which is the NRC's authorizing committee, also 
expects to receive copies of any reports submitted pursuant to this 
Section.
  I look forward to seeing the Commission's report on this matter, and 
I urge the Commission to pay careful heed to the current laws and 
regulations under which the NRC operates, so that we ensure that the 
nuclear reactor application process works properly.

                          ____________________