[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1582-S1583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record a copy of my remarks at the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
We're here today to review the president's fiscal year 2016
budget request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
independent federal agency responsible for regulating the
safety of our nation's commercial nuclear power plants and
other nuclear materials.
This is the first time in many years that the subcommittee
has held a hearing to examine the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's budget.
It is also the first of several hearings that the
subcommittee will hold this year on nuclear power. These
hearings are important because nuclear power provides about
20 percent of our nation's electricity and more than 60
percent of our carbon-free electricity.
I plan to focus my questions today on four main areas:
1. Licensing nuclear waste repositories;
2. Avoiding excessive regulations;
3. Licensing for new and existing reactors; and
4. Making sure the agency is running effectively
First, we must solve the 25-year-old stalemate about what
to do with used fuel from our nuclear reactors to ensure that
nuclear power has a strong future in this country.
Later this year, I will reintroduce bipartisan legislation
with Senators Feinstein, Murkowski and perhaps others, to
create both temporary and permanent storage sites for nuclear
waste. Also, Senator Feinstein and I plan to include a pilot
program for nuclear waste storage in the Energy and Water
appropriations bill, as we have for the past three years.
The new sites we'd seek to establish through the
legislation Senator Feinstein and I are reintroducing this
year would not take the place of Yucca Mountain--we have more
than enough waste to fill Yucca Mountain to its legal
capacity--but rather would complement it.
This legislation is consistent with the president's Blue
Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
But let me be clear: Yucca Mountain can and should be part
of the solution. Federal law designates Yucca Mountain as the
nation's repository for used nuclear fuel.
The Nuclear Waste Fund, which is money that utilities have
paid the government to dispose of their used nuclear fuel,
has a balance of about $36 billion and there are still
several steps to go in the licensing process for Yucca
Mountain.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a balance of unspent
funding that you are supposed to use to continue the
licensing process. But more resources will be required, so I
think it's fair to ask the question:
Knowing that there are additional steps and they will cost
money, why would you not request additional funds in your
budget?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently completed the
Safety Evaluation Report that said Yucca Mountain met all of
the safety requirements through ``the period of geologic
stability.''
The commission and the Environmental Protection Agency
define the ``period of geologic stability'' as one million
years. To continue to oppose Yucca Mountain because of
radiation concerns is to ignore science--as well as the law.
The next steps on Yucca Mountain include completing a
supplemental environmental impact statement and restarting
the hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,
which were suspended in September 2011.
Money is available for these activities, and I want to hear
why there is no request to use it.
Federal law requires that nuclear power plants be built
safely, but the law doesn't say it should be so hard and
expensive to build and operate reactors that you can't do it.
A 2013 report by the Center for Strategic and International
Studies found that up to 25 of our 99 nuclear reactors could
close by 2020.
The decision to close a reactor could be due to a number of
factors, including the low price of natural gas, and the
wasteful wind production tax credit, which is so generous
that in some markets wind producers can literally give their
electricity away and still make a profit.
But the decision to close a reactor can also have to do
with excessive and unnecessary regulations. I want to work
with the commission to address this.
Over the next several decades, most of our 99 nuclear
reactors will go through the commission's license renewal
process to extend their licenses, which is critical to the
future of nuclear power. I want to make sure that the
commission is prepared for this additional work.
I also want to make sure the commission has devoted the
appropriate resources to the licensing process to keep new
reactors--like Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee--on time and on
budget.
I have proposed that we build 100 new reactors, which may
seem excessive, but not if
[[Page S1583]]
about 20 percent of our current capacity from coal goes
offline by 2020 as projected by the Energy Information
Administration. If this capacity were replaced entirely by
nuclear power it would require building another 48 new,
1,250-megawatt reactors--which, by the way, would reduce our
carbon emissions from electricity by another 14 percent. Add
the reactors we may need to replace in the coming decades due
to aging and other factors, and my proposal for 100 may not
seem so high.
Additionally, the commission needs to move forward with new
small modular reactors.
This subcommittee has provided funding to help small
modular reactors get through the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's licensing process. I'd like to get your views on
what you need to continue your efforts.
One of the challenges for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
is to ensure that the agency is running effectively and
focusing staff on the right goals.
In fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated about $470
million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The budget
request this year is more than $1 billion.
Much of the increase was due to the significant number of
new reactor licenses that were anticipated--however most were
never actually submitted. So, it is fair to ask whether this
additional funding is being used for unnecessary regulation.
The best way to understand the importance of nuclear power
is to look at the stories of three countries: Japan, Germany
and the United Arab Emirates.
Japan and Germany have recently experienced what happens
when a major manufacturing country loses its nuclear
capacity. In Japan, the cost of generating electricity has
increased 56 percent and Germany has among the highest
household electricity rates in the European Union--both
because they moved away from nuclear power.
The United Arab Emirates has shown what a country can do
when a country decides to take advantage of nuclear power. By
2020, the Emirates will have completed four reactors that
will provide nearly 25 percent of its annual electricity.
It will take building more nuclear reactors to avoid the
path of Japan and Germany, and today's hearing is an
important step to making sure the United States does what it
must to unleash nuclear power.
I look forward to working with the commission and our
Ranking Member, Senator Feinstein, who I will now recognize
for an opening statement.
____________________