[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 1, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2564-S2565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BUDGET REQUEST

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
my opening statement at the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Development be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Nuclear Regulatory Commission Budget Request

       Mr. ALEXANDER. We run a real risk of losing our best source 
     of carbon-free power just at a time when most Americans are 
     increasingly worried about climate change. Nuclear power must 
     be part of our energy future if we want clean, cheap, and 
     reliable energy that can create good jobs and keep America 
     competitive in a global economy.
       Today 98 nuclear reactors provide about 20 percent of 
     electricity in the United States, and 60 percent of all 
     carbon-free electricity in the United States. But nuclear 
     plants are closing because they cost too much to build and 
     cannot compete with natural gas. Two reactors have announced 
     they will retire later this year, and ten more have announced 
     retirements by 2025.
       Let's do a little math here. If we closed those 12 
     reactors, that would mean a 17 percent decline in carbon-free 
     nuclear power by 2025, which is 10 percent of carbon-free 
     electricity. Today, solar power--despite impressive 
     reductions in cost--provides 4 percent and wind provides 20 
     percent of carbon-free electricity despite billions of 
     dollars in subsidies. To replace those 12 reactors that have 
     announced they will close with other carbon-free electricity, 
     we would have to almost triple the entirety of U.S. solar 
     power or increase wind power by another 50 percent. If half 
     of our existing nuclear reactors were to close, we would have 
     to double the amount of wind energy produced and or increase 
     the amount of solar energy produced by as much as 10 times.
       Nuclear power is much more reliable than solar or wind 
     power. It is available when the sun doesn't shine and the 
     wind doesn't blow. The bottom line is, we can't replace 
     nuclear power with just wind and solar. We would have to use 
     natural gas to replace nuclear power, which would increase 
     emissions in our country.
       Unfortunately, we do not need to speculate about what 
     happens when a major industrialized country eliminates 
     nuclear power. We have seen what happened in Japan and 
     Germany for different reasons. Major industrialized economies 
     similar to ours lost their emission-free, low-cost, reliable 
     electricity. Prices went up, pollution went up, and 
     manufacturing became less competitive in the global 
     marketplace. And that is where we are headed in the next 10 
     years if we do not do something. Stakes are high.
       In Japan, the cost of generating electricity increased 56 
     percent after the Fukushima accident in 2011 when Japan went 
     from obtaining 30 percent of its power from nuclear to less 
     than 2 percent.
       Before 2011, Germany obtained one quarter of its 
     electricity from nuclear. Now that number is down to 12 
     percent. Now Germany has among the highest household 
     electricity rates in the European Union after replacing 
     nuclear power with wind and solar as part of an expensive 
     cap-and-trade policy. Germany also had to build new coal 
     plants to meet demand, which increased emissions.
       In late March, I proposed that the United States should 
     launch a New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy, a five-year 
     project with Ten Grand Challenges that will use American 
     research and technology to put our country and the world 
     firmly on a path toward cleaner, cheaper energy.
       These Grand Challenges call for breakthroughs in advanced 
     nuclear reactors, natural gas, carbon capture, better 
     batteries, greener buildings, electric vehicles, cheaper 
     solar, and fusion.
       I put advanced reactors first on the list for a reason. To 
     make sure nuclear power has a future in this country, we need 
     to develop advanced reactors that have the potential to be 
     smaller, cost less, produce less waste, and be safer than 
     today's reactors.
       We need to stop talking about advanced reactors and 
     actually build something. Within the next five years, we need 
     to build one or more advanced reactors to demonstrate the 
     capabilities they may bring.
       As we review the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fiscal 
     year 2020 budget request we need to make sure the Commission 
     has the staff and resources it needs to respond to the 
     changing industry.
       First, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here 
     today, and also Senator Feinstein, with whom I have the 
     pleasure to work again this year to draft the Energy and 
     Water Appropriations bill. Our witnesses today include: 
     Kristine Svinicki, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission; Commissioner Jeff Baran; Commissioner Annie 
     Caputo; and Commissioner David Wright.
       Commissioner Stephen Burns retired yesterday after forty 
     years of distinguished service at the NRC. He started as an 
     attorney in 1978, rose to General Counsel, and then retired 
     from the agency to head Legal Affairs at the Nuclear Energy 
     Agency in Paris. He returned to the NRC in 2014 as a 
     Commissioner and Chairman. He was well respected in every 
     position he held. I would like to thank him for his many 
     years of service.
       We're here today to review the administration's fiscal year 
     2020 budget request for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission, the independent federal agency responsible for 
     regulating the safety of our nation's 98 commercial nuclear 
     power plants and other civilian uses of nuclear material.
       The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget request this 
     fiscal year is $921 million, which is about $10 million less 
     than Congress provided last year. The request includes $38.5 
     million for the Yucca Mountain licensing process.
       It has become increasingly difficult for the nuclear 
     industry to compete with other sources of electricity, 
     especially natural gas. One of the concerns the industry had 
     was the amount of regulatory fees charged by the Commission--
     currently, $760 million of the Commission's budget comes from 
     fees paid by utilities and other facilities that are 
     licensed to possess and use nuclear materials.
       So over the last five fiscal years, we have worked with the 
     Commission to reduce its overall budget by about $100 
     million, which represents about a 10 percent reduction in 
     budget--which means a roughly 10 percent reduction in fees--
     and more closely reflects its actual workload while 
     maintaining its gold standard of safety.
       These savings are important because they lower the fees 
     utilities must pay the Commission, and these savings can be 
     passed on to utilities' customers. These reductions have not 
     been arbitrary and represent the type of oversight the Senate 
     is supposed to do. Our subcommittee has only reduced the 
     Commission's budget in areas that the Commission has 
     identified as unnecessary to its important safety mission.
       To ensure nuclear power will continue to play a significant 
     role in our nation's electricity generation, I'd like to 
     focus my remarks on four main areas:
       (1) Licensing small modular and advanced reactors;
       (2) Solving the nuclear waste stalemate;
       (3) Safely extending licenses for existing reactors; and
       (4) Maintaining adequate staffing at the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission.
       Advanced reactors and small modular reactors represent the 
     future of nuclear power. The Commission needs to be ready to 
     review applications for new these new reactors. In fiscal 
     year 2017, we provided enough funding to complete the Small 
     Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support program at the 
     Department of Energy. NuScale, which was one of the 
     technologies selected in that program, filed an application 
     for design certification of a small modular reactor with the 
     Commission in December of 2016. A utility group has been 
     working with NuScale and Idaho National Laboratory to build 
     and demonstrate a small modular reactor in Idaho. TVA also 
     has an application under review for a permit to build and 
     demonstrate a small modular reactor at the Clinch River site 
     in Tennessee.
       Licenses to build and demonstrate small modular reactors is 
     an important step, and we need to make sure the Commission 
     has the resources it needs to review the applications. I also 
     understand that the Commission expects to receive an 
     application in fiscal year 2020 for a construction and 
     operating license for an advanced, non-light water reactor.
       The fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill included $10 
     million for the Commission to prepare to review advanced 
     reactor designs, and the current budget request includes 
     $15.5 million for fiscal year 2020. I'd like to know what the 
     Commission plans to do with the funding Congress provided for 
     advanced reactors so that we can make sure the development of 
     advanced reactors stays on track.
       To ensure that nuclear power has a strong future in this 
     country, we must solve the

[[Page S2565]]

     decades' long stalemate over what to do with used fuel from 
     our nuclear reactors. Senator Feinstein and I have been 
     working on solving the nuclear waste stalemate for years, and 
     I'd like to take the opportunity to compliment Senator 
     Feinstein on her leadership and her insistence that we 
     find a solution to this problem. The only way to break the 
     stalemate is to get a final decision on whether Yucca 
     Mountain is safe or not.
       And this year's budget request for the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission includes $38.5 million to begin to answer that 
     questions by restarting the licensing process for the Yucca 
     Mountain repository. This is the next step the Department of 
     Energy must follow to determine whether it can begin 
     construction of Yucca Mountain. After a public hearing where 
     all parties, including the State of Nevada, can provide 
     expert testimony and evidence, the Commission will make a 
     final determination whether it is safe to build Yucca 
     Mountain.
       I strongly believe that Yucca Mountain can and should be 
     part of the solution to the nuclear waste stalemate. Federal 
     law designates Yucca Mountain as the nation's repository for 
     used nuclear fuel, and the Commission's own scientists have 
     told us that we can safely store nuclear waste there for up 
     to one million years.
       But even if we had Yucca Mountain open today, we would 
     still need to look for another permanent repository. We 
     already have more than enough used fuel to fill Yucca 
     Mountain to its legal capacity.
       The quickest, and probably the least expensive, way for the 
     federal government to start to meet its used nuclear fuel 
     obligations is for the Department of Energy to contract with 
     a private storage facility for used nuclear fuel.
       I understand that two private companies have submitted 
     license applications to the NRC for private consolidated 
     storage facilities, one in Texas and one in New Mexico, and 
     that the NRC's review is well underway. I'll be asking some 
     questions about that today. I want to make sure that the 
     Commission has all the resources it needs in fiscal year 2020 
     to review the applications for consolidated storage 
     facilities because we have to start working together to solve 
     the nuclear waste stalemate if we want a strong nuclear 
     industry.
       Senator Murkowski, along with Senator Feinstein and I, 
     introduced a bill this week to implement the recommendations 
     of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, 
     which include using temporary private storage facilities. The 
     legislation complements Yucca Mountain, and would create a 
     new federal agency to find additional permanent repositories 
     and temporary facilities for used nuclear fuel.
       Instead of building more windmills, which only produce 20 
     percent of our carbon-free electricity, or solar farms, which 
     only produce 4 percent of our carbon-free electricity, the 
     best way to make sure the United States has a reliable source 
     of inexpensive, efficient, carbon-free electricity is to 
     extend the licenses of our existing nuclear plants--which 
     produce 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity--if it is 
     safe to do so.
       Most of our 98 reactors have already extended their 
     operating licenses from 40 to 60 years (although many have 
     decided to close prematurely for economic reasons), and some 
     utilities are beginning the process to extend their licenses 
     from 60 to 80 years.
       The Commission has spent the past several years developing 
     the framework to review these types of license renewal 
     applications to make sure the reactors can continue to 
     operate safely from 60 to 80 years.
       This year's budget request includes funding to review what 
     the Commission calls ``subsequent'' license renewal 
     applications for six reactors in Florida, Pennsylvania, and 
     Virginia. Just those 6 reactor extensions would equal about 
     what solar power currently produces and a fourth of what wind 
     power currently produces. That is just accounting for the 6 
     reactors that have applied to extend their licenses rather 
     than shut down. If even half of the remaining 92 reactors 
     decide to extend their licenses another 20 years, it would 
     produce almost double the amount of wind power that is 
     currently produced and as much as 10 times the amount of 
     solar power produced.
       So if you care about carbon free emissions, the short term 
     solution for the next 20 years is, where safely, to extend 
     the licenses for these reactors. I want to make sure that the 
     Commission has the resources it needs to review those 
     applications in fiscal year 2020, because I think it is 
     important to maintain our existing nuclear power when it is 
     safe to do so.
       The Commission's budget reduction has been steep over the 
     past five fiscal years. As part of its effort to reduce its 
     budget, the Commission has limited hiring, especially entry-
     level hiring. We have heard from the Commission that of its 
     2,900 current employees, 24 percent are currently eligible 
     for retirement. Four years from now, 42 percent will be 
     eligible for retirement. Those numbers are not a concern as 
     long as the NRC has younger staff ready to take over the 
     important work of the agency. But I understand that only 2 
     percent of NRC employees are under 30 years old. To have 
     nuclear power in the future, we need to have a nuclear 
     regulator. I would like to understand how the Commission is 
     ensuring that the next generation is in place.
       I look forward to working with the Commission as we begin 
     putting together our Energy and Water Appropriations bill for 
     fiscal year 2020, and also with Senator Feinstein, who I will 
     now recognize for her opening statement.

                          ____________________