[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Page 3646]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

                          ____________________