U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–654 PDF 2016

FISCAL YEAR 2017 NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION BUDGET 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 20, 2016 

Serial No. 114–138 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 55 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, prepared statement ....................................................................... 56 

WITNESSES

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ......................... 7 

Prepared statement 1 ........................................................................................ 10 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 57 

Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............... 24 

William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........... 24 

Jeff Baran, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................. 25 

1Mr. Burns submitted a written statement on behalf of the Commission. 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus (chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Olson, 

Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Cramer, Tonko, Rush, Engel, Green, Capps, 

McNerney, Welch, and Loebsack. 

Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy 

and Power; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Dan Schneider, 

Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Andy Zach, Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Tiffany 

Guarascio, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 

Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Democratic Policy Coordinator; Jessica Martinez, Democratic Outreach and Member Services Coordinator; Alexander Ratner, Democratic Policy Analyst; 

Timothy Robinson, Democratic Chief Counsel; Andrew Souvall, 

Democratic Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member 

Services; and Tuley Wright, Democratic Energy and Environment 

Policy Advisor. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let’s call the hearing to order. If staff could close 

the door; staff, members take their seats. And I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

We want to welcome the NRC. Welcome for coming. Good morning and welcome to examine the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

budget request. Nuclear energy is and must remain a central component of our Nation’s electricity mix. The NRC’s role in overseeing 

civilian nuclear power reactors serves to ensure that nuclear energy will remain an integral part of our energy future. Thank you 

2 

for all being here. I would like to add a special thank you to Commissioner Bill Ostendorff for his service on the Commission. This 

will be his last appearance before this committee as a Commissioner. I know that breaks your heart. 

I appreciate Commissioner Ostendorff’s willingness to speak up 

on the need for the Federal Government to fulfill its legal, I will 

add, obligation to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. You will be an invaluable asset to your alma mater, United States Naval Academy. 

Of course, they need a lot of help there, and as a distinguished visiting professor of national security. The next generation of military 

leaders will greatly benefit from your deep knowledge and expertise on national security issues. Good luck to you. 

My home State of Illinois generates the most nuclear energy in 

the Nation. Nuclear energy is a major contributor to Illinois’ economic wellbeing, and must continue to remain so. Our reliance on 

nuclear power plants also means my constituents and ratepayers 

throughout the State provide more funding to the NRC than any 

other State. Therefore, the agency’s effort to right-size the organization and streamline efficiency is of great importance to me and 

my constituents. 

This morning, we will examine the NRC’s fiscal year 2017 budget 

request. I appreciate the initial steps the Commission has taken to 

reduce its budget to date, but the budget reductions thus far are 

inadequate. Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee considered the energy and water appropriations bill for the upcoming 

fiscal year. And I support Chairman Simpson’s funding level for the 

NRC of $936 million, including $20 million for the Nuclear Waste 

Fund for Yucca Mountain activities. 

This committee will continue to provide close oversight of the 

Commission to find further opportunities to increase efficiency and 

reduce the budget. Let me also be clear, these efforts will not compromise the safety of our nuclear power plants, nor will they prevent the NRC from fulfilling its mission to protect public health 

and safety. 

Last Wednesday the Commission approved an additional $30 

million in reductions through rebaselining and prioritization efforts. I hope that the additional reduction in workload and responsibility will translate to a tangible reduction of NRC staff. However, just because the Commission has voted on these recommendations, Project Aim 2020 is not complete. As the Commission stated, 

and I quote, ‘‘It is important that the completion of the rebaselining 

effort and the other Project Aim tasks be view by the NRC staff 

and stakeholders as the beginning and not the end in our goal to 

be better positioned to respond to the challenges of 2020 and beyond.’’ 

I would be remiss if I didn’t express my dissatisfaction that once 

more, the Commission failed to include funding to continue consideration of Yucca Mountain’s license application. This Congress, I 

have held a series of hearings to examine different issues associated with development of a comprehensive solution to disposal of 

used fuel. I will continue to advocate for a bipartisan solution that 

must include Yucca Mountain. 

This committee has been persistent in its oversight to assure the 

NRC complies with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The courts diVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:42 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X138NRCBUDGETMAYBEPDFREADY\114X138NRCBUDGETPEN
3 

rected the NRC to spend previous appropriated nuclear waste fund 

money. And I understand that funding will be nearly exhausted by 

the end of this fiscal year. I hope you are taking all the necessary 

steps to maintain the necessary expertise and infrastructure to continue consideration of the Yucca Mountain license application. 

I look forward to hearing from the Commissioners today. And I 

thank you for your service. With that, I’ve ended my opening. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Nuclear energy is and must remain a central component to our Nation’s electricity 

mix. The NRC’s role overseeing civilian nuclear power reactors serves to ensure that 

nuclear energy will remain an integral part of our energy future. Thank you all for 

being here. 

I would like to add a special thanks to Commissioner Bill Ostendorff for his service on the Commission. This will be his last appearance before this committee as 

a Commissioner. I appreciate Commissioner Ostendorff’s willingness to speak up on 

the need for the Federal Government to fulfill its obligation to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. You will be an invaluable asset to your alma mater, the United States 

Naval Academy, as a Distinguished Visiting Professor of National Security. The 

next generation of military leaders will greatly benefit from your deep knowledge 

and expertise on national security issues. Good luck. 

My home State of Illinois generates the most nuclear energy in the Nation. Nuclear energy is a major contributor to Illinois’ economic well-being and must remain 

so. Our reliance on nuclear power plants also means my constituents and ratepayers 

throughout the State provide more funding to the NRC than any other State. Therefore, the agency’s efforts to right-size the organization and streamline efficiency are 

of great importance to me and my constituents. 

This morning we will examine the NRC’s fiscal year 2017 budget request. I appreciate the initial steps the Commission has taken to reduce its budget to date, but 

the budget reductions thus far are inadequate. Yesterday, the House Appropriations 

Committee considered its Energy & Water Appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year, and I support Chairman Simpson’s funding level for the NRC of $936 million, including $20 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund for Yucca Mountain activities. This committee will continue to provide close oversight of the Commission to 

find further opportunities to increase efficiency and reduce the budget. Let me also 

be clear, these efforts will not compromise the safety of our nuclear power plants 

nor will they prevent the NRC from fulfilling its mission to protect public health 

and safety. 

Last Wednesday, the Commission approved an additional $30 million in reductions through rebaselining and prioritization efforts. I hope that the additional reduction in workload and responsibilities will translate to a tangible reduction of 

NRC staff. However, just because the Commission has voted on these recommendations, Project Aim 2020 is not complete. As the Commission stated, ‘‘it is important 

that the completion of the re-baselining effort and the other Project Aim tasks be 

viewed by the NRC staff and stakeholders as the beginning and not the end in our 

goal to be better positioned to respond to the challenges of 2020 and beyond.’’ 

I would be remiss if I didn’t express my dissatisfaction that once more the Commission failed to include funding to continue consideration of the Yucca Mountain’s 

license application. This Congress I have held a series of hearings to examine different issues associated with developing a comprehensive solution to disposal of 

used fuel. I will continue to advocate for a bipartisan solution that must include 

Yucca Mountain. 

This committee has been persistent in its oversight to assure that NRC complies 

with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The courts directed the NRC to spend previously 

appropriated Nuclear Waste Fund money and I understand that funding will be 

nearly exhausted by the end of this fiscal year. I hope you are taking all necessary 

steps to maintain the necessary expertise and infrastructure to continue consideration of the Yucca Mountain License Application. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Anyone want the last minute? If not, I yield back 

the balance of my time and I now yield to my ranking member, Mr. 

Tonko, from the great State of New York, for 5 minutes. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chair 

Shimkus and Chair Whitfield, for holding this hearing. And I want 

to thank my good friend and cohost on our side, Congressman 

Rush, for joining with us. I also welcome Chairman Burns and 

Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Ostendorff—and the best to 

you, Commissioner, as you move forward—and Commissioner 

Baran for appearing before the subcommittees today. 

We are here to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fis- cal year 2017 budget request of $982.3 million, which reflects a decrease of some $19.8 million below last year’s enacted level. It is 

a decrease of $73.7 million, and 279.7 full-time equivalent employees when compared to the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget. We 

know the electric utility sector is undergoing major changes. New 

technologies and markets are changing, grid management, deployment of distributed generation, and the relationship between our 

utilities and their customers. Nuclear power still accounts for a significant amount of baseload generation. And in some areas, it plays 

an important role in the mix of power supply, and to ensure the 

important concept of reliability. 

But we must start to consider, seriously, how nuclear power will 

best fit into the new grid and sector structures that are emerging. 

Given the trends occurring in the nuclear industry, the Commission has undertaken Project Aim to find deficiencies and streamline 

the Commission. I understand the goals of Project Aim to right-size 

the agency in light of the ratio of decommissioning plants to new 

licenses while still continuing to meet its mission to ensure the safe 

operation of nuclear facilities and the protection of public health 

and the environment. 

Some Project Aim reductions have already been included in the 

fiscal year 2017 budget request. Members on this committee have 

a wide range of views on existing and new nuclear power. But 

there is unanimous agreement that we need high standards for 

safety and enforcement of those standards. There is no compromising on that agenda. So I think it is fair that as the Commission’s budget and staff is shrinking, we look at calls for expediting 

the licensing process very closely, and potentially with some skepticism, we must recognize the need for the Commission to be 

staffed and resourced at levels appropriate for carrying out its very 

critical oversight and safety missions, first and foremost. 

In addition to changes in the utility sector, we must also pay 

more attention to those changes to the climate. Just reported, The 

New York Times yesterday, under the title of 2016 Already Shows 

Record Global Temperatures, according to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, 2016 has been the hottest 

year to date with January, February, and March each passing the 

mark set in the year 2015. Out West, persistent drought will pose 

challenges to the nuclear industry, as most designs require significant availability of water. As a Nation, we will face water scarcity 

challenges, and nuclear plants’ access to sufficient water and sufficiently cool water must be considered. 

Elsewhere, floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are becoming more and more common. These events can pose serious opVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:42 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X138NRCBUDGETMAYBEPDFREADY\114X138NRCBUDGETPEN
5 

eration and safety challenges. Some plants may not have been designed or constructed with the frequency and magnitude of these 

events in mind. The nuclear industry is not immune to the threats 

of climate change. In the future, severe weather events will happen 

even more often. 

So, I know I speak for many of us when I say the nuclear industry and the Commission need a concerted effort to put strong adaptation and resiliency plans in place to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

Last month was the 5-year anniversary of Fukushima disaster. 

The Commission has worked on developing and implementing lessons learned, and expects a number of safety enhancements to be 

completed this year. Other longer-term issues will be looked at in 

the years ahead. And I look forward to hearing what we have 

learned from this tragedy and what steps are necessary to ensure 

such a disaster never occurs here in the United States. 

I look forward to hearing from all of you today about the Commission’s efforts to guide the nuclear industry, and to guide it 

through the transition that is underway. Again, I thank you all for 

being here. And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO

Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Chairman Whitfield for holding this hearing. And thank you, Chairman Burns, Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Ostendorff, and Commissioner Baran for appearing before the subcommittees 

today. 

We are here to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fiscal year 2017 

budget request of $982.3 million, which reflects a decrease of $19.8 million below 

last year’s enacted level. It is a decrease of $73.7 million and 279.7 full-time equivalent employees when compared to the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget. 

We know the electric utility sector is undergoing major changes. New technologies 

and markets are changing grid management, deployment of distributed generation, 

and the relationship between utilities and their customers. 

Nuclear power still accounts for a significant amount of base load generation. And 

in some areas it plays an important role in the mix of power supply and to ensure 

reliability. But we must start to consider seriously how nuclear power will best fit 

into the new grid and sector structures that are emerging. 

Given the trends occurring in the nuclear industry, the Commission has undertaken Project Aim to find efficiencies and streamline the Commission. 

I understand the goals of Project Aim to right size the agency in light of the ratio 

of decommissioning plants to new licenses while still continuing to meet its mission 

to ensure the safe operation of nuclear facilities and the protection of public health 

and the environment. Some Project Aim reductions have already been included in 

the fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

Members on this committee have a wide range of views on existing and new nuclear power. But there is unanimous agreement that we need high standards for 

safety and enforcement of those standards. There is no compromising on that. 

So I think it is fair that as the Commission’s budget and staff is shrinking, we 

look at calls for expediting the licensing process very closely—and potentially with 

some skepticism. We must recognize the need for the Commission to be staffed and 

resourced at levels appropriate for carrying out its critical oversight and safety missions first and foremost. 

In addition to changes in the utility sector, we must also pay more attention to 

the changes to the climate. 

Just yesterday the New York Times reported, ‘‘2016 Already Shows Record Global 

Temperatures.’’ According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), 2016 has been the hottest year to date, with January, February, and 

March each passing the mark set in 2015. 

Out west, persisting drought will pose challenges to the nuclear industry as most 

designs require significant availability of water. As a nation we will face water scarVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:42 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X138NRCBUDGETMAYBEPDFREADY\114X138NRCBUDGETPEN
6 

city challenges, and nuclear plants’ access to sufficient water-and sufficiently cool 

water-must be considered. 

Elsewhere floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are becoming more and 

more common. These events can pose serious operation and safety challenges. Some 

plants may not have been designed or constructed with the frequency and magnitude of these events in mind. 

The nuclear industry is not immune to the threats of climate change. In the future, severe weather events will happen even more often. So I know I speak for 

many of us when I say, the nuclear industry and the Commission need a concerted 

effort to put strong adaptation and resiliency plans in place to mitigate the effects 

of climate change. 

Last month was the 5-year anniversary of the Fukushima disaster. The Commission has worked on developing and implementing lessons learned and expects a 

number of safety enhancements to be completed this year. 

Other, longer-term issues will be looked at in the years ahead. I look forward to 

hearing what we have learned from this tragedy and what steps are necessary to 

ensure such a disaster never occurs in the United States. 

I look forward to hearing from all of you today about the Commission’s efforts to 

guide the nuclear industry through the transition that is underway. Again, I thank 

you all for being here, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

The Chair looks to the majority side. Seeing no interest, the Chair 

now recognizes the ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality 

Committee, Bobby Rush, from the great State of Illinois, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank all of the NRC Commissioners for being here today. I would 

also, Mr. Chairman, like to welcome back a former staffer from our 

committee, Commissioner Jeff Baran, who worked diligently in the 

past on a variety of issues with my office. Welcome back, Commissioner Baran. 

Mr. Chairman, it appears that the NRC has fully embraced 

Project Aim, an initiative designed to significantly downsize the 

agency that has received much support from members of my colleagues here on Capitol Hill. Five years after the Fukushima disaster, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we are not becoming overly complacent in our attitudes towards nuclear safety, and 

we are constantly being vigilant in our efforts to prevent a catastrophe from ever occurring here in the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, in fact, the NRC request of fiscal year 2017 of 

$982.3 million represents a decrease of $19.8 million below the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, in the 

area of nuclear reactor safety, specifically, the NRC request of 

$587.5 million to support activities at current nuclear facilities represents a $1.7 million decrease from the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

budget. 

Mr. Chairman, as part of the Project Aim initiative, the NRC has 

identified at least 151 activities to be reduced or cut out entirely, 

including discontinuing or delaying rulemakings, reducing travel, 

and, in some cases, reducing staff and/or their workloads. 

Mr. Chairman, while I understand that many of my colleagues 

applaud these deep cuts, I think it is important to understand the 

practical implications of making these decisions before we all start 

patting each other on the back. 

7 

Mr. Chairman, foolishness must never be the sum total of our 

frugality. With Illinois housing, more nuclear reactors than any 

other State in the country, my constituents, Mr. Chairman, want 

to be assured that the agency in charge of safety has all of the 

funding, all of the staff, and all of the resources it needs to do its 

job. To that point, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there are still 

currently 10 Tier 2 and Tier 3 items that remain unresolved from 

the NRC task force that was established following the Fukushima 

accident back in 2011. Some of these unsettled items that are still 

being evaluated by the Commission include various emergency preparedness activities and evaluation of natural hazards, among others. 

So, Mr. Chairman, today, I look forward to engaging the Commissioners on these outstanding items, as well as hearing from 

them directly on the impacts of their proposed funding cuts on the 

overall safety protocols of the NRC. 

Mr. Chairman, as we move towards a more sustainable, reduced 

energy economy, there is no doubt in my mind that nuclear power 

must play a vital role in our Nation’s overall energy portfolio if we 

are to achieve these objectives. However, we must also, Mr. Chairman, continue to assure the American public that we have the best 

safety protocols and practices in place, and that the agency in 

charge of overseeing these systems have all the resources that they 

need. 

So I look forward to hearing from our Commissioners on these 

issues in more depth. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. And based on 

the two openings statements by my colleagues on the Democrat 

side, we also want to point out that if climate is a national debate, 

then the largest baseload generation of carbon-free energy is nuclear. And that has an important part of our debate in this portfolio. So I just want to raise that. 

Now, I would like to, again, welcome the NRC. We are going to 

recognize the Chairman first for 5, and then, I think, 2 minutes 

each for the other Commissioners. And with that, Chairman Burns, 

welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF STEPHEN G. BURNS, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION; AND KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, 

WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, AND JEFF BARAN, COMMISSIONERS, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. BURNS 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Members Tonko and Rush, and other distinguished members of the committee. My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today to give an overview of the NRC’s fiscal year 2017 

budget request and the agency’s current regulatory activities. The 

NRC, of course, is an independent agency established to license 

and regulate the civilian use of radioactive materials in the United 

States, to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the 

environment. 

8 

The resources we are requesting will allow the NRC to continue to carry out our important mission. Our proposed budget is $970 

million, and 3,462 full-time equivalent staff, excluding the office of 

the inspector general. The proposal represents a net decrease of 

nearly $20 million and 90 full-time equivalent from the 2016 enacted budget. The 2017 request reflects a decrease of roughly $74 

million and 280 full-time equivalent employees from the fiscal year 

2014 enacted budget. And the inspector general’s component of the 

2017 budget is $12 million. 

Consistent with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, our request provides for 90 percent fee recovery, resulting in a net appropriation of $121 million. This is an increase of $2 million over 2016 

due to the inclusion of $5 million in non-fee recoverable resources 

for advanced nuclear reactor technology. Our budget request reflects our continuing focus on our important mission, while continuing our Project Aim initiative. The Commission has concluded 

its review of the rebaselining paper, as the chairman noted, and 

approved a total savings of about $41 million in 2017, of which 

about $10 million is reflected in the President’s budget. 

However, we can’t emphasize strongly enough that while we expect to be a smaller agency, as a reflection of workload reductions 

and efficiency gains, the need for the great majority of the services 

we provide the American people remains unchanged. And as we 

proceed, the agency remains mindful of the importance of its highly 

skilled technical staff, and the need to maintain our expertise. We 

must keep a focus on knowledge management as senior staff retire 

and new experts take their place. 

I would like to highlight one area that the Commission is attending to: improvement in our rulemaking process. The Commission 

has revised its processes to improve its understanding of and where 

possible to reduce the cumulative effects of regulation. The Commission is currently considering a proposal to establish a single 

unified approach to tracking rulemaking activities so the public 

and stakeholders have access to current information. We carry out 

our activities through two major programs: the Nuclear Reactor 

Safety, which includes both operating reactors and new reactors, 

and Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety, consisting of fuel facilities, nuclear materials users, decommissioning and low-level waste, 

and spent fuel storage and transportation. 

The 2017 budget request for the operating reactors business line 

supports the implementation of lessons learned from the 

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan. The requested resources support the continued implementation of the 

safety significant—most safety significant Tier 1 activities, including continuing implementation of the orders on mitigation strategy, 

spent fuel pool instrumentation, and severe accident capable hardened containment vents. Resources will also support reviews associated with seismic and flooding hazard reevaluations. The bulk of 

the most safety-significant enhancements should be completed in 

calendar year 2016. And we expect to bring to closure our valuation 

of longer term Tier 2 and Tier 3 issues. We will inspect the work 

that has been done and ensure that plants maintain their progress. 

We strongly believe that the United States plants are better prepared for extreme events now than they were in 2011. 

9 

The budget request for the new reactors business line will allow 

us to begin review of a small modular reactor design certification 

application from NuScale. The budget request includes $5 million 

in non-fee recoverable activities to implement a strategy for developing the regulatory infrastructure for advanced non-light water 

nuclear reactor technologies. We will hope it will help us to undertake licensing reviews consistent with the maturity and development pace of the technologies. 

Again, members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here, and 

we will be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize Commissioner Svinicki for 2 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Members 

Rush and Tonko, distinguished members of the subcommittees for 

the opportunity to appear before you today. The Commission’s 

Chairman, Steve Burns, in his statement on behalf of the Commission has provided an overview of the agency’s budget request, as 

well as a description of several ongoing activities that are central 

to carrying out NRC’s important work. The NRC continues to implement safety-significant lessons learned from the Fukushima accident in accordance with agency processes and procedures, while 

maintaining our focus on ensuring the safe operation of nuclear facilities and the safe use of nuclear materials across the country. 

The past few years have been a particularly dynamic period for the 

NRC as an organization, and our staff has been addressing these 

challenges in a systematic fashion. 

Our fiscal year 2017 budget request was developed concurrent 

with the ongoing implementation of our Project Aim initiative. Beyond the rebaselining effort discussed in Chairman Burns’ testimony, the NRC continues to pursue improvements to our programs, processes, and procedures. The NRC staff is also developing 

guidance for the disciplined implementation of approved changes 

and for monitoring the impacts of changes after they are implemented. 

I thank you for your consideration of our budget request and look 

forward to your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes Commissioner Ostendorff. Again, thank you for your service, and you 

are recognized for 2 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking 

Members Rush and Tonko, and distinguished members of the subcommittees. I appreciate the chance to be here today. Chairman 

Shimkus and Tonko, thank you for your kind remarks. It has been 

an honor and privilege to serve on the Commission. Today is my 

twenty-sixth time to testify before Congress as a Commissioner. 

And I have always appreciated the respect and civility which you 

and both sides of the aisle have afforded this Commission. And I 

am very grateful for that. 

I am in complete alignment with the Chairman’s testimony. I 

want to emphasize the deliverables that the Chairman mentioned 

do not represent the end state for Project aim. Project Aim is not 

just a temporary exercise, but the beginning of a longer-term initiative. 

I will make two very specific comments. First, the Commission’s 

recent direction to our staff to seek Commission approval before 

embarking upon rulemaking activities is a significant step towards 

better efficiency and better stewardship of agency resources. Second, our budget request of $5 million in non-fee billable resources 

to further develop our regulatory infrastructure for advanced nonlight water reactor technology. It is important for the long-term 

25 

health of the NRC and the industry that we retain the ability to 

license new technologies. 

In closing, I appreciate the chance to be here today, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes Commissioner Baran. Welcome back. And you are 

recognized for 2 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF BARAN 

Mr. BARAN. Thanks. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking 

Members Tonko and Rush, and members of the subcommittees, for 

the opportunity to testify today. It is great to be back to discuss 

NRC’s fiscal year 2017 budget request and the work of the Commission. 

With respect to Project Aim, I have been very impressed by the 

willingness of the NRC staff to take a hard look at the work the 

agency is doing and how we are doing that work. The NRC staff 

generated a list of 151 proposals that would reduce costs in the 

coming months. The Commission recently approved nearly all of 

those proposals. I think a large majority of these items make a lot 

of sense. But I have concerns about a number of them, including 

a few that would reduce inspection hours. In my view, Project Aim 

should not be about relaxing regulatory oversight of licensee performance and safety. 

On March 22, I traveled to Fukushima Daiichi to take a firsthand look at conditions at the site. The scale and decades-long duration of the cleanup effort there are a sobering reminder of the 

need to learn and implement the lessons of Fukushima. Last 

month marked 5 years since the accident in Japan. It is a natural 

time to take stock of where we are. I think it is clear that we have 

made significant progress, but still have a lot of work left to do. 

Decommissioning is another important issue for NRC. In the last 

few years, five U.S. reactors have permanently shut down, and 

three more have announced plans to close in the near term. I see 

two main purposes for the decommissioning rulemaking effort that 

is now underway. And both are important. First, it will allow NRC 

to move away from regulating by exemption in this area. The exemption approach isn’t efficient for anyone, and it provides no opportunity for public comment. And second, the rulemaking provides 

a chance for NRC and all of our stakeholders to take a fresh look 

at our decommissioning process and requirements. We need to 

thoughtfully consider stakeholder ideas with an open mind. 

There are, of course, other important efforts underway at NRC. 

The staff is preparing for the first small module reactor design application expected later this year. The budget request also includes 

funds to ramp up NRC’s efforts to prepare for advanced reactor designs that may be submitted further into the future. 

We are happy to discuss these and any other issues of interest. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Now, I will recognize myself 5 minutes for the opening of the 

questions. And I will begin with Chairman Burns. I appreciate 

your efforts to identify and reduce the workload of the agency 

through the Commission’s recent approval, and the vast majority 

26 

of the proposals, including in the staff’s integrated priority and rebaselining agency activities. 

Will you please tell the committee the total funding reductions 

and reductions in full-time equivalents that were approved by the 

Commission? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The full reductions in the rebaselining effort is on the order of about 40 to $50 million. Actually, the number escape me. We have about $10 million that is reflected in the reductions that came through the President’s budget. 

And what we are suggesting since then is it is about another $31 

million. There is an additional $8 million. That is how I get to my 

about 50 number that we really were reflecting on beyond fiscal 

year 2017 into the 2018 period. I would have to give you—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I have—maybe I can help. We have $49 million and 185 FTEs. 

Mr. BURNS. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Of the FTEs that were approved to eliminate those 

activities, what are they doing now? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, some of those—they may be involved in some 

of the tasks. What we would be doing is reducing those FTEs. For 

example, we are seeking, as we did last year, early-out buyout authority for some staff in those areas. And then attrition would also 

address some—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you are shifting some folks around waiting for 

the ability for—— 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. And we also—I think we have also shifted in 

the technical—some of the technical discipline’s staffing to other offices where the technical work may be. But, I mean, this is—it is 

an attempt to, I mean, in terms of real reductions, in terms of the 

number of staff where we see we don’t need the staff anymore. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. This is still directed, next question to 

you, Chairman, but Commissioner Ostendorff mentioned in his 

opening statement about Project Aim continues to go forward. Obviously, it is labeled 2020. What is next on your goal as you look 

at Project Aim 2020? What is the next type of reorganization? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I think we have adopted the notion it is Project 

Aim with—originally it was called 2020. But I think, as Commissioner Ostendorff and my other colleagues have said, it is important that we keep a focus on this. So a few other things that are— 

that would be coming to us, the EDO and our CFO have asked for 

a hard look at the corporate support offices. And in terms of looking at reductions there, we anticipate a merge—re-merger of the 

new reactors office and the NRR office. And so those are highlights 

of activities that come. But I think what I want to do, certainly as 

Chairman, and talk to the EDO about this, is—and as reflected in 

the Commission direction is inculcate this idea—we need to look at 

ourselves in terms of how do we carry out our mission effectively 

in the most efficient way possibly. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And right back at you, again, on another question. 

Obviously, I am going to—in previous testimony, we know that 

when you submitted your budget, obviously you didn’t put in the 

money to finish the work on Yucca Mountain. And in testimony on 

the Senate side, your comment was, the question was asked by 

Chairman Alexander, your response was, It is the President’s budgVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:42 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X138NRCBUDGETMAYBEPDFREADY\114X138NRCBUDGETPEN
27 

et. So here is the question: How does your legal standing as an 

independent safety regulator comport with your comment that it is 

the President’s budget? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, thanks for the question. We ultimately—we are 

the regulator. We have to make a decision one way—on the application that comes before us. The difficulty that we are in is that 

we don’t have an applicant that is sponsoring its application in 

front of us. We have done the work that we can do and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But you are really not answering the question. The 

point being is you are an independent agency. You have requirements under the law. This is part of the portfolio of responsibilities, 

but yet, you don’t request the dollars. And in a question, a comment, you say, Because it is the President’s budget. It is not the 

President’s budget. It is your budget. You are independent of the 

executive branch. And so that is the issue I want to raise. 

My time has expired. There will probably be some follow-up. But, 

you know, I am tired of agencies not following the law, especially 

when they are independent. And I yield back my time, and now 

turn to my ranking member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. And I thank the Chair. 

In the aftermath of the Fukushima tragedy, the Commission set 

a goal of completing its response within 5 years, as has been mentioned here this morning. We have passed that date. And while 

there is still more work to be done, there has been progress. 

Chair Burns, can you please explain the tiered system for 

Fukushima Lessons Learned activities? 

Mr. BURNS. It—excuse me. The tiered—— 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. 

Mr. BURNS. What the Commission did, and some of my colleagues who were on the Commission at the time adopted might 

want to add to my responses. The Tier 1 were considered—those 

are the things where we saw the most safety benefit from—and 

that is what we focused on first. And those are the things, particularly, that are coming to closure this year and into next year. The 

Tier 2, actually many of the Tier 2 items were absorbed into the 

Tier 1 activities, some of our rulemaking activities, the orders that 

were issued to licensees. The Tier 3 were considered longer term 

items. These are things worth looking at. Not clear whether ultimately there would be some new requirement coming out of them. 

But it was deemed that those were things that could be looked at 

on a later period. The significant things, for example, the installing 

equipment to deal with these beyond-design basis events, the seismic and flooding evaluations, the spent fuel pool instrumentation. 

Those were the things that were in the first tier or deemed most 

significant. 

Mr. TONKO. And then is it accurate then that Tier 2 and 3 items 

may also involve significant safety issues? 

Mr. BURNS. They involve safety issues, particularly from the 

standpoint that they are things that I think we thought needed to 

be looked at. Whether or not a particular requirement might come 

out of them, that—I think that is left to be seen. And as I say with 

some of the Tier 2—or much of the Tier 2 was really absorbed into 

a lot of the initial activities. 

28 

Mr. TONKO. And, Commissioner Baran, do you feel more work 

needs to be done on longer term Tier 2 and 3 issues? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. My view is that NRC should do a thorough safety analysis for each open item that is a Tier 2 or Tier 3 item before 

deciding whether additional action needs to be taken in that area. 

The staff did this—did a good job on some items, but I thought 

their analysis was insufficient on other items. A full analysis 

doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to take additional regulatory action, as the Chairman mentioned. But when someone asks 

me, you know, whether we fully examined all of the items identified as lessons of Fukushima, I want to be able to respond with an 

unqualified yes, not, well, we didn’t look at this as hard as I 

thought we should have. So I thought there were cases where the 

staff should have taken a harder look at it. 

Mr. TONKO. One issue addressed by the Near Term Task force 

focused on reevaluating external hazards, that would include 

drought and extreme temperatures. As I mentioned in my opening 

statement, we are already seeing significant impacts from climate 

change. These hazards are expected to be worse in many parts of 

the country in the future. Commissioner Baran, do you agree with 

that observation? 

Mr. BARAN. I do. And I am actually very encouraged with how 

seriously the NRC staff is taking this Near Term Task Force recommendation to reevaluate external hazards. The Near Term Task 

Force recommended doing it every 10 years. And I think the staff 

is absolutely right that we need to be more proactive as an agency 

than we have been about getting additional scientific information, 

the latest scientific information, that could deepen our understanding of those external hazards. And I think you are exactly 

right that this reevaluation is going to be critical, particularly for 

climate-related hazards, like drought, or hurricane, or extreme 

temperatures or flooding, where we cannot assume that the magnitude or the duration or the intensity of those hazards are going 

to be static in the future. 

And so what the staff is doing right now throughout 2016 is trying to figure out, well, one approach is we could reevaluate every 

5 years or 10 years or 15 years. What they are looking at is can 

we do it on a more continuous pro-active basis to make sure that 

we are getting the latest information, considering that and making 

sure that if our understanding of the hazards change, or if the hazards themselves change, our plants are—the plants we regulate are 

prepared for that. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. So that obviously, then, you think the Commission needs to do more in terms of requiring that proactive, forward 

look to potential hazards? 

Mr. BARAN. I think as an agency, we need to do better than we 

have been doing. The staff recognizes that. And they are working 

on the process to do a better job of that and be more pro-active and 

make it more of a routine part of what we do, gathering that information and incorporating that into our analysis. Right now, I think 

we consider information when we get it, but we are just a little too 

passive. We need to be more forward-leaning to get that information. 

29 

Mr. TONKO. OK. With that, I yield back and thank you, Mr. 

Chair 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 

Harper, the vice chair of my subcommittee. And you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you 

for being here. 

Chairman Burns, in February, the Commission provided a report 

to Congress on Commission involvement in the early stages of rulemaking. This effort was conducted in a very timely manner and appears to be a well thought-out product. And I would like to ask you 

a couple of questions about this report. 

Will you please provide a bit of background as to what prompted 

this effort and describe how this will increase efficiency in the 

Commission? 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. Thank you for the question. Part of—as 

we were looking at things, I think actually Commissioner Svinicki 

had gone back and identified a time, a period of about 10 years ago 

or so, at which the Commission decided to not be as involved at the 

early stages. And I think we were looking at that. We also got congressional direction in one of our reports last year. And I felt, as 

the Chair, before there was a final report on that, we should go forward and take a look at that, those types of things. And that is sort 

of how we got to where we are in terms of putting more of a Commission imprimatur on the initial stages of the rulemaking process. 

Mr. HARPER. And, you know, that report did acknowledge that 

NRC changes over a decade ago eventually developed into a lack 

of discipline by the staff and their authority to initiate rulemaking. 

So the report is—we would like to see that. But how can we assure 

that those long-term trends don’t resurface in the future? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I think that is the role of the Commission as 

it—as individual rulemakings come before it, or proposals is for us 

to take a hard look at why we might be going forward and making 

that type of judgment. I think that is—the idea is that the senior 

leadership of the Commission—at the Commission level would be 

doing that. So that is how I would see it going forward. 

Mr. HARPER. Has the Commission used this new process yet? 

And if so, was the supporting staff documentation adequate? 

Mr. BURNS. I don’t think—because I don’t think we have had a 

particular proposal that has come in front of us as yet. I don’t— 

yes. We haven’t had that as yet. 

Mr. HARPER. We will ask that when it happens then. How about 

that? 

The new streamline rulemaking plan will include a preliminary 

evaluation of the cumulative effects of regulation. What else is the 

Commission doing to address cumulative effects? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, part of that effort, which has been ongoing was 

initiated several years ago, asks that at the front end that there 

were—that we have a better idea, make sure we have a good idea 

of what the impacts of adopting a particular rule are on the industry. And so, that when we are in the process of deliberating the 

rule, we have that in front of us. We have a better consciousness 

30 

of that. I think that is probably the—I would say the highlight of 

the significant things that we would do in that area. 

Mr. HARPER. The Commission directed the staff to address 

whether the advisory committee on reactor safeguards should review the proposed rule. How would this recommendation as a part 

of the Commission’s early involvement in the rulemaking affect the 

ACRS workload? 

Mr. BURNS. I am not sure I have a—the ACRS is an important 

organization. I am not sure I have a particular impact as yet. The 

ACRS can help us in terms of providing—it was created to provide 

this expert panel outside the Commission to advise it. And I think 

we can fold its recommendations into our deliberation. 

Mr. HARPER. You know, in 1980 Congress passed the low-level 

waste Policy Act providing a framework for States to voluntarily 

join compacts and then work within the compact to site a low-level 

waste disposal facility. While this merely addressed low-level 

waste, it provides relevant experience about a consent-based process for nuclear waste disposal. After the Act was passed in 1980, 

it wasn’t until 1985 that Congress approved the compacts. And it 

was 1990 before a disposal facility opened in Utah, but only for 

class A waste, the lowest class of low-level waste. Congress didn’t 

approve the Texas/Vermont compact until 1998, 18 years after the 

Act passed, many others in the history there. And in light of the 

limited success and lengthy process for consent-based siting for 

low-level waste, what gives you confidence that DOE will find an 

interim storage site for used nuclear fuel and have it operating 8 

years from now? 

Mr. BURNS. I am not sure that we are particularly in a position 

to answer that. What—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They are an independent agency. 

Mr. BURNS. Well, that is right, Mr. Chair. We are not part of the 

consent development process either for the low-level waste compacts or this. The one thing—what we have seen is we have seen 

interest in both an applicant in western part of the State of Texas 

and in eastern New Mexico who are interested in pursuing applications for independent consolidated storage sites. 

Mr. HARPER. I am over my time. And so I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. I want to 

note that the pesky Cubs beat my Cards last night. But the Blues 

took care of the Blackhawks. So we are even today, and you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. It is only the beginning of the season, Mr. Chairman. 

You have got a lot of hurt coming your way. 

Chairman Burns, as you know, my home State, the chairman’s 

home State, is home to more nuclear plants than any other State. 

And our constituencies have some concerns when they hear that 

the NRC is requesting a $20 million decrease in the budget for this 

year that would—then the one that was enacted in last year’s 

budget. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, and each of the Commissioners, can you, for the record, as short of a guarantee, state that 

the NRC is doing its absolute best to eliminate any and all known 

threats to nuclear safety in this Nation? 

31 

Mr. BURNS. I believe we are, Mr. Rush. One of the things we do 

is we evaluate operating experience. We take into account information we have in terms of new analysis of, for example, in the seismic and flooding area, and we apply that experience in terms of 

looking at assurance of the safety of nuclear power plants. So I 

think that is something—that is at the core of our mission to do 

that, and I think it is something we strive to do on a day-to-day 

basis. 

Mr. RUSH. Commissioner Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Congressman Rush, I am confident that the NRC’s 

experts are doing their best in the areas that you describe. And I 

want to note that although there is a small reduction in our operating reactor activity area in the fiscal year 2017 budget, those reductions are not principally attributable to Project Aim. They are 

attributable to work and issues that are concluding in fiscal year 

2016, and there is not a need to request budget in fiscal year 2017 

on some technical issues that will conclude this year. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Commissioner Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes, sir. I would agree with my colleagues. I 

will also add one other perspective from the international community. The Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris that is part of the OECD 

regime as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency, part of 

the United Nations, have both issued reports in the last year dealing with Fukushima issues. And our staff’s review and the Commission’s review of those two reports have not identified any issues 

that we did not explore as part of the Fukushima lessons learned. 

And so I just give you that as a data point that the committee may 

not be aware of. 

Mr. RUSH. Commissioner Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. Well, Mr. Rush, I agree with my colleagues. Safety 

and security is our priority. It is our focus. It is our core mission. 

And when I evaluate a potential efficiency or potential cost savings, 

what I have at the forefront of my mind is we can’t do things that 

are going to weaken our safety oversight. We can’t do things that 

are going to erode the technical capabilities of the agency. And that 

is exactly the test that I apply when I am looking at those kinds 

of questions. 

Mr. RUSH. Commission Baran, in my opening statement, I mentioned 10 outstanding Tier 2 and Tier 3 items that remain unresolved from the NRC task force recommendations. Can you and any 

of the other Commissioners briefly discuss these unresolved issues? 

Also, can you assure the public that these outstanding items pose 

no significant threat, and they are actively being addressed? 

Mr. BARAN. So going back to the conversation I was having with 

Mr. Tonko, there are a number of Tier 2 and Tier 3 items—the 

staff did an analysis of all of those, and they submitted their recommendations for closure to the Commission. A number of the 

items were closed at that time. For several other items, there is 

work going on this year. And one of the items was the one I discussed with Mr. Tonko about how are we going to reevaluate external hazards. That workis going on. 

And, you know, there are potentially significant safety issues in 

these Tier 2 and Tier 3 categories, which is why I think it is important that for each one of those items, the NRC staff does a solid 

32 

safety analysis to ensure that we have looked at the issue, we have 

evaluated whetherthere is something there that needs to be done, 

and have made a decision accordingly. You know, there were issues 

where I thought the staff could have done a better job on that. And 

I will give you one. And I guess I would put these in the category 

of we don’t know whether the safety enhancement would have 

made sense, but I wanted to see a better analysis to really know. 

And, so, one example I would briefly give you is just, every plant 

right now in the country is required to have what is called an 

Emergency Response Data System. And it provides real-time information to the NRC on various conditions at the plant, the reactor, 

the spent fuel pool, the weather conditions. 

And in the event of an emergency or an incident at the plant, a 

natural disaster, this would be a mechanism for NRC to have realtime instantaneous data on what is going on at the plant. One of 

the lessons of Fukushima, and actually from earlier natural disasters is, well, ERDS, this Emergency Response Data System, it is 

an Internet-based system. And in the event of a natural disaster, 

it is not clear you would have the Internet connectivity anymore. 

You might lose this functionality. Well, what would that mean? 

Well, we could still get information. We would have to do it by 

phone. We would have to talk to the operators at the site. And 

when we asked the staff, well, what are the implications of that, 

the answer was, well, you are probably getting updates every 20 

minutes instead of instantaneously automatically every 30, 60 seconds. You are probably getting less information and it may not be 

as accurate. 

So the staff took a look at this as part of the Tier 3 items, and 

they did an evaluation. And they looked at, Well, what would it 

take to do a backup system that didn’t rely on the Internet? And 

their initial—it was fairly preliminary. They looked at potential 

costs, and the costs were not enormous for at least the equipment 

itself. It was on the order of like a million dollars for the whole 

fleet nationwide. The staff on that item decided to recommend closing it, not to take further action. And there wasn’t really much of 

an analysis of the pros and cons. And for an issue like that where 

the costs are pretty modest, to my mind, the time you want to have 

the system functioning is when you have a natural disaster when 

you really need it. I wanted to see more of an analysis there. Is 

there a potential safety enhancement we could have made that 

would have made plants even safer? I wanted to see more on that. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It was important to hear the final answer, and appreciate that. 

The Chair now recognizes a great Texan, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. And welcome to all our NRC Commissioners, especially Commissioner Ostendorff. It is your last time 

before this committee. 

Our chairman failed to mention that he is a graduate of West 

Point. You are a graduate of Annapolis Naval Academy. He failed 

to mention that for the last 14 years, 14 straight years, our Navy 

has beat Army in football. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Really? 

33 

Mr. OLSON. Just to set the record straight. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I didn’t know that. 

Mr. OLSON. All seriousness, sir. May you have fair winds and following seas in your next endeavor. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. I want to thank you all for moving forward with the 

South Texas plant’s units 3 and 4 in Bay State, Texas with the 

final safety evaluation report for a combined license for units 3 and 

4. Thank you, thank you, thank you. As we say in Texas, much 

obliged. 

My first question is for you, Commissioner Burns. In November, 

Dominion Power announced it would seek a second license renewal 

for its Surry Power Station. It would be one of the first American 

nuclear plants to obtain a second license, 20-year license, since— 

first one ever. And I hope this is one of many. I want to know is 

the NRC ready for these next new applications? What specific 

progress has been made to prepare for a second license extension 

since our hearing last year? 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you for the question, Congressman. First of 

all, what the Commission before I returned to the agency about a 

year or so ago, the Commission decided that the basic framework 

for license renewal that was in place for the first—for the 40 to 60, 

the basic framework was sound and adopted that. Since then, what 

the staff has been doing and engaged with the industry and other 

stakeholders is reviewing the guidance—there is this generic aging 

lessons learned report that helps in the review process. And that 

has been out for comment. I think the staff has gotten comments 

on that as resolving that. The announcement from Dominion, I 

think, puts the potential for the application a couple years down 

the road. So I would expect by that time this additional work on 

the guidance documents will be done, and I think we are ready to 

entertain those applications. 

Mr. OLSON. Great. Is NRC working with the Department of Energy on their research and development efforts to extend the life 

of our existing fleet of nuclear power plants? How closely are you 

working with DOE to extend our current power plants? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. Thank you for that. We maintain a communication with DOE on some of the research that they are doing. That 

helps us and keeps us informed. So we have open communication 

with the Department of Energy. Obviously, we have different roles, 

but we are able to take that into account. 

Mr. OLSON. Any comments of the three Commissioners? Commissioner Svinicki, Captain Ostendorff, Commissioner Baran, about 

the issue of being ready for the new renewals, 20-year renewals? 

Anything to add? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I will just say that our staffhas been looking 

at this for some time. The buried piping, buried cables, reactor vessel fluence from neutron exposure. All these different technical 

issues are well coordinated between—as the Chairman mentioned, 

between us and the Department of Energy. Also, we work with 

EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute, on these issues. And so 

I think we are in pretty good shape. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. One further question. Commissioner Burns, last 

week, I was talking about 21st century nuclear power with the lead 

34 

of our power company. I was talking about south Texas, obviously, 

being a Texan. He said that is the past. The future is small modular reactors. And I want to talk briefly about those reactors. They 

have unique safety features and designs that the NRC has not seen 

before. I am curious, how do you plan to make sure that these can 

have applications on time? You can get these things done quickly. 

Because these are new for the NRC. Any idea how you are going 

to get this done? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, yes. I think this are a number of things that 

we are doing. First, what I would distinguish on some of the small 

modular technology is light water technology, like the South Texas 

plants and other plants that have been installed in the United 

States. And, in fact, we are going to get a design certification application from NuScale at the end of this year. It is—and we have 

been working with them and make sure we have mutual understanding of expectations. The other piece of this is the smaller— 

sometimes small modular reactors may be referring to advanced reactor technologies that are non-light water reactors. There is experience in the United States with those. But longer term, what we 

are doing, and one of the things this $5 million in our budget request would help us do is to continue engagement with those who 

are interested in those technologies, making sure we have got the 

right framework. Again, this is an area we work with DOE. So I 

think we will see where the interest goes on this. But I think it 

is something we can be prepared for. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. My time—end by saying go Navy, beat 

Army 15 straight. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Diablo Canyon, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, to our 

witnesses for appearing today and all your testimonies. 

As was indicated by the chairman, and as some of you know, I 

do represent Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis 

Obispo, California. This power plant, which is owned and operated 

by PG&E, is the largest private provider of jobs in that county and 

a very important part of our economy as well as our energy portfolio. But Diablo also sits very close to two significant earthquake 

faults, the Hosgri and the Shoreline fault. The Shoreline, which 

was most recently discovered, actually lies only a few hundred 

yards from the plant. Given the proximity to these faults, the potential for seismic activity and its impact on Diablo Canyon is ever 

present. This is especially true in a post-Fukushima era, as we recognize the dangers that seismic activity can pose. 

As such, we have responsibility to ensure we are considering 

these risks when it comes to operating all nuclear plants as safely 

as possible. And I keep this in mind as we are due very shortly for 

relicensure of Diablo Canyon. 

So my question, I am going to address this to you, Commissioner 

Baran, it was a pleasure to serve with—to work with you on this 

committee in a previous lifetime of yours, can you please elaborate 

on the funding in the fiscal year 2017 NRC budget to implement 

the lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi accident. How would 

35 

this funding help to make nuclear power plants like Diablo Canyon 

safer? 

Mr. BURNS. Sure. I don’t have the number right on hand. I think it is in the order of $15 million or $16 million in fiscal year 2017 

for the various Fukushima lessons-learned activities. 

One of the key things going on—and this is true at Diablo, but 

it is true for a number of sites across the country—is the seismic 

reevaluation, looking at the latest information about seismic hazards affecting different plants. It is a longish process, you know. 

There was an initial phase where every plant was screened to determine whether a very detailed seismic probabilistic risk assessment needed to be done. Diablo is one of the sites where that is 

being done. I believe, for Diablo, that would be submitted by September 2017, and that analysis would be—at Diablo or any other 

plant—would be the basis for determining, are there any additional 

safety enhancements that would be necessary at a plant to address 

seismic hazards? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Ensuring that we are prioritizing safety 

and transparency is supremely important, and the safety of Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, all of the nuclear power plants across 

the country, is really the highest priority for plant employees, 

many of whom live in the surrounding communities, and all the 

communities in which these plants are located. 

As such, this budget absolutely must prioritize safety, and we 

must institute the lessons learned from Fukushima and apply the 

best science in order to meet this need. In my district, and I am 

sure across the country, community stakeholders are very interested in being better informed and participating in the ongoing discussions surrounding nuclear power plants. However, it has come 

to my attention that sometimes community members feel they don’t 

have the information to access and productively participate. 

So I will start again with you, Commissioner Baran, but I would 

welcome comments from any of the rest of you on how the fiscal 

year 2017 budget supports increased transparency and facilitates 

stakeholder engagement and participation. 

Mr. BARAN. I would just briefly say I think it is less of a budgeting issue, and it is more about just a focus on outreach, on having good meetings with communities where they have an opportunity to express their concerns or ask their questions and have the 

staff ready. We are always trying to improve at this, really listening to those concerns, really focusing on the questions and getting 

good responses to community members who care about these 

issues. Some of the issues are really complicated and technical, and 

we have to do a good job of explaining it in a way that people can 

understand. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Good. 

Mr. BARAN. And really taking their concerns to heart, if they 

have concerns. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

I have a few seconds if maybe, Chairman, or any of you would 

like to respond, either to the issue of the comparison with 

Fukushima and also the transparency. 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Congresswoman Capps. What I would 

note is there are a couple of opportunities coming up. I think in 

36 

summer 2016, we would have our annual assessment meeting, 

have a townhall style meeting out near the site. And then also because it is related to the license renewal application, there is a 

public meeting to discuss the draft supplemental environmental 

impact statement roughly in September of this year. So I want to 

highlight those as examples. 

I know, last year, you cosponsored a townhall out in the area 

which we were pleased to participate in. 

So I think it is something, as Commissioner Baran says, we can 

continue to look for opportunities. I think also making sure that we 

give good information on our Web site and are responsive, hear 

from you and others in the community, are ways we can improve, 

so we can continue to work at that. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And to the Commission, thanks very much for being here today. 

On Monday of this week, Congressman McNerney and I introduced the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, which 

would require the NRC and Department of Energy to address 

issues that are currently hindering the development of advanced 

reactor technologies, such as the need for a predictable risk-informed regulatory framework. The legislation would also codify the 

Commission’s proposal, including the fiscal year 2017 budget request of $5 million for the development of regulatory infrastructure 

for advanced nuclear reactor technologies that is not subject to the 

fee-based, which the NRC must recover from the NRC licenses and 

applicants. 

If I could start, Commissioner Ostendorff, with you with a couple 

of questions, but, first, also just to follow up, thank you for your 

tenure at the Commission and wish you all the best in your future 

endeavors. 

You have spoken on the need to examine the current regulatory 

framework to create more certainty for non-light water reactor 

technologies. Would you please describe the nature of your $5 million proposal? And, for example, what is it specifically intended to 

address, and what is the expected timeline to develop that regulatory framework? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Certainly. Thank you for the question, Congressman Latta. The proposal for the $5 million for fiscal year 2017 

would basically have us engaged in looking at other technologies 

that are being discussed in the industry vendor side of the house, 

would have us participate in outreach activities, and also look at 

our particular regulatory requirements to ensure that we understand how a prospective application might fit into those requirements. 

Let me give you one example that has been discussed earlier this 

year by our staff, by Dr. Jennifer Uhle, who is in charge of our New 

Reactors Office, and by others. That is, we are embracing now a 

phased approach to look at new technology in a way that would 

provide incremental feedback to a prospective vendor to break it 

down, not into just one package that comes in 3 years from now, 

37 

but in year one, they have two major conceptual design issues they 

want to discuss at NRC. We are prepared now to provide that type 

of feedback and do it in a phased way to make it, quite frankly, 

easier but also recognizing the limitations of venture capital funding for new ideas and new projects. So that is one example of a specific regulatory adaptation we are ready to make that would be facilitated by the $5 million funding if we receive it. 

Mr. LATTA. Chairman Burns, the Commissioner recently issued 

a construction permit for a new facility to generate medical isotopes. Would you please describe how the Commission approached 

the permitting process and if there are lessons learned that could 

be applied to the licensing of other non-power reactors or non-light 

water reactors? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think he had a hard time hearing your question. 

Mr. BURNS. Could you repeat the question? I couldn’t quite hear 

the—— 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Well—— 

Mr. BURNS. I understand. I think you are asking about the 

SHINE application. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, right. So I guess, describe how the Commissioner approached the permitting process and if there are lessons 

learned that could be applied to the licensing of other non-power 

reactors or non-light water reactors. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, thanks for the question. What it showed I think 

is some adaptability in terms of the agency looking at something 

that didn’t quite fit, perhaps, the part 50 reactor framework and 

looking at—that that was a good approach in terms of going forward with the licensing. 

Now what they did is use what I will call the traditional two-step 

approach: construction permit, come back ultimately for operating 

license. 

I think what that does—the advantage of that two-step process 

was it allowed development finalization of design. What led us to 

go into the part 52 or one step was a concern about certainty and 

that type of thing. But I think where you—it was a good example 

here where you had new technology, where it didn’t quite fit the 

model, that we discussed it with the applicant. We found a place 

where it could go, and I think it has been successful in terms of 

getting through the construction permit phase. I don’t know if any 

of my colleagues have anything else to add. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. One thing, a fine point, maybe 2 1⁄2 years ago, 

our staff came to us with our help—with the help of our Office of 

General Counsel and said: This part 50, the way it is written would 

require perhaps some modification or change. They proposed that 

to the Commission. With the general counsel’s help, we approved 

it, and it was dealt with. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield, it almost sounds like 

a design build type thing instead of the two processes—current construction, you are kind of doing it together in the process. Is that 

true? 

Do you understand design build in construction? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, yes. 

38 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Where it is not a two-step? It is designing and 

building; in essence, one firm operating together in two different 

operations. No. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I may not fully—again, I think what it allows 

is there may be some finalization of the design for the final phase 

for the operating license, and that is—but that allows them to go 

forward. It gave them some opportunity in terms of making a safety case, showing that the technology was viable, and some of the 

details in operation that can be dealt with in the second phase. I 

think that was the advantage of it. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

My time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman form California, Mr. 

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Latta, for introducing with me H.R. 4797. Are you all familiar with that legislation yet? Have you had a chance to look at it? 

Mr. BURNS. I have had just a very brief chance to look at sort 

of the high points of it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, do you believe that the NRC can play an 

effective role in developing advanced regulatory technology? And in 

particular, would a memorandum of understanding with the DOE 

be helpful? 

Mr. BURNS. It could be. We have ongoing discussions with the 

Department, and we maintain awareness of what they may be 

doing in terms of assistance to new technologies. Again, we have 

a development role—they have the development role; we have the 

regulatory role. But across that, I think we have good discussion 

and can work appropriately together. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. How quickly are some of these technologies 

being developed, the new advanced technologies? 

Mr. BURNS. That is a good question, because some of these technologies have existed. What we have not had particularly presented 

to us—other than, say, for example, a small modular reactor, a 

NuScale, which is a light water reactor design—we really haven’t 

had a lot of them presented to us. There has been some discussion. 

So I probably am not well-equipped to understand how far along 

they are on development. I think some are further along than others, quite honestly. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. One of the areas that the NRC may need to improve is—I mean, we have already discussed licensing and outreach—is technical preparation. And I see you have reduced staff 

by 90 folks. Were those done by attrition? I think you mentioned 

that some of them were anyway. 

Mr. BURNS. Some is attrition. Some we had an early-out buyout 

last year, so some were buyout as well. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you expect to see additional reductions? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, yes, given the budget request for fiscal year 

2017. 

But what I say is what we try—what we have to maintain 

awareness of and we keep a focus on is, where do we see the demands on in terms of our staff, in terms of workload? And we reach 

out to the industry to try to tell us, what do you think you are 

39 

going to be putting on our plate? So that helps inform our planning 

process. And that is part of what we would be doing with this $5 

million, nonfee-based, in the fiscal year 2017 budget. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. If I may add to the Chairman’s comment, Congressman, I think one very positive aspect of your legislation with 

Congressman Latta is the fact that it excludes from the fee base 

work on advanced reactor technologies. That is a very constructive 

and helpful change, because that has been a tension for us to have 

staff working on areas that are preparatory to receiving applications, so that is a very positive aspect. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So how is the morale of the agency, seeing that 

you have reductions and will see additional reductions? 

Mr. BURNS. I think the overall the morale is pretty good. Before 

I retired, I had served in the agency 34 years before going to Paris 

and then coming back as a Commissioner. I saw, across the course 

of my career, those ups and downs, after Three Mile Island, the 

early 1990s, when licensing had been done. 

This is a pretty resilient staff. It is a high-quality staff, very 

dedicated to the mission of the agency. Yes, there are some uncertainties, but that is part of what I think our role is and senior leadership’s role is, is to work on the morale. But, overall, I think it 

is good. I think that is reflected in our—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I will ask a question that will make the Chairman happy, I think. Are there any realistic paths for long-term 

storage of nuclear waste? Is there anything out there that we can 

hang our hats on that is realistic, given the politics? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I will avoid the politics. But what I mentioned 

before, we have two potential applicants who—I think we may get 

the one application this month and another one later on in the 

year. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. For high-level waste. 

Mr. BURNS. For high-level waste, consolidated storage of highlevel waste. This is the one in western Texas and in eastern New 

Mexico. So we will see how that proceeds, but we have the authority to license—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yucca Mountain, is it completely dead? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You have been there. You have seen it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to hear what the Commission says. It 

looks—— 

Mr. BURNS. I am not going—I am not going to weigh in on that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But I will say DOE has no authority under current 

law to move on high-level nuclear waste anywhere but current law, 

which is Yucca Mountain. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman form 

Ohio, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the panel for being with us this morning. I want to 

talk about a little bit of a different topic. NRC has invoked the adequate protection standard to require a backfit in a provision of the 

draft rulemaking known as mitigating beyond-design-basis events. 

Now, by invoking adequate protection, NRC staff doesn’t have to 

submit the rulemaking to the Committee to Review Generic ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:42 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X138NRCBUDGETMAYBEPDFREADY\114X138NRCBUDGETPEN
40 

quirements, or CRGR, make a determination of safety significance, 

or conduct a cost-benefit analysis. It appears that, in making this 

determination, NRC staff’s draft regulatory analysis did not account for actions already required for licensees to comply with nor 

did the regulatory analysis appropriately justify the need for a 

backfit application. 

So I am concerned that NRC staff’s invocation of adequate protection in this situation is not warranted and, in doing so, undermines the credibility of the NRC and your principles of good regulation. 

So, Commissioner Ostendorff, you have previously been vocal 

about the need for discipline, clarity, and reliability in the Commission’s rulemaking process. Why is it important for the Commission 

to have a high threshold for requiring a backfit? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you for the question. 

Let me just, if I can, talk very briefly about the overall experience from Fukushima issues. Along with Commissioner Svinicki, 

each of us has voted on 25 separate decisions associated with 

Fukushima regulatory actions in the last 5 years. Throughout that, 

we have looked very carefully at ensuring that we have adhered to 

our historic principles of adequate protection, which is a Commission decision. It is not something our staff decides. We are the only 

group that can decide adequate protection issues. If it does not 

meet the adequate protection threshold, then to move forward from 

a regulatory standpoint requires identification of a substantial 

safety enhancement that passes a cost-benefit test. So that is the 

backfit piece you are talking about, Congressman. 

And I would offer from my experience that the Commission—I 

am drawing a line here—the Commission decisionmaking, as a result of Fukushima issues, has adhered to the adequate protection 

standard and the backfit rule. The only—it is not a—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t mean to interrupt you, because I don’t have 

a whole lot of time. But adequate protection, that is a qualitative 

assessment. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. That is correct. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is not a quantitative objective assessment, 

like having to submit the rulemaking to CRGR. Correct? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes, sir. But it is a qualitative decision by the 

Commission, not the staff. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. Well, given that, though, is that the same 

standard of discipline and reliability on the rulemaking process 

when we do a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I think the Commission takes this adequate 

protection notion very seriously. There is Supreme Court case law 

here, significant Commission precedent. I think the end result of 

the decisions, though it may not be as predictable as a quantitative 

analysis, I think the decision—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I am glad you said that, because if looking 

at the NRC’s backfit rule, 10 C.F.R.—I have got to get my glasses 

on—50.109 provides that, before a new requirement can be added 

to an existing licensed facility, the NRC must demonstrate that the 

new requirement would result in a substantial increase in the protection of public health and safety, and that the direct and indirect 

cost of implementation for that facility are justified in view of this 

41 

increased protection. How in the world can you meet that standard 

with a qualitative assessment rather than a quantitative assessment? How can you meet your own rule? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Well, the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. With simply a qualitative adequate protection 

standard? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. The adequate protection piece which you are— 

you are not referring to. You are talking about the backfit—there 

is the adequate protection that does not have the cost-benefit. 

Then—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But your rulemaking, but the backfit rule requires 

that you do determine cost-benefit analysis. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. That is for something that is not at the level 

of adequate protection. So if something is required for adequate 

protection—and we have had this with respect to the station blackout mitigation of beyond-design-basis event rulemaking, as you referenced—costs are not a consideration. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I guess when it comes to the backfit rule and 

requiring—when it requires that facilities fund and pay for backfit 

control technology, that the taxpayers would expect that we get 

that higher degree of certainty and cost-benefit analysis, because it 

is affecting the industry. It affects the industry. It affects jobs. But 

I have extended my time. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. If I can ask the opportunity—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Talk quickly, quickly. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. If I can ask the opportunity to come back with 

Congressman Johnson, either in the context of a question for the 

record or come by to brief him in the office, I would be happy to 

do that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Engel, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank our guests for coming here. As this panel knows, the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York just outside my district is operating under two expired licenses. Applications to renew 

these licenses are currently pending. Serious people have serious 

concerns about the safety of this aging and troubled plant located 

only 24 miles from our Nation’s largest metropolitan area, which, 

of course, is New York City. 

In 2015, Indian Point suffered seven major malfunctions: pump 

and power failures, a transformer explosion, radiation leaks, a fire, 

and an oil spill. In early 2016 this year, enhanced levels of radioactive tritium were found in the water of three monitoring wells 

near the plant, including one well with the radioactivity level increased by 65,000 percent. Then, last month, the plant operator 

found that 227 of the 832 core baffle bolts—these are the bolts that 

keep the inner walls of the reactor core from coming apart—were 

either missing or impaired, degraded by the high levels of radiation 

inside the reactor. 

For these and many other fundamental reasons, I have believed 

for a long time now, and the Governor agrees with me, that the reactors at Indian Point should be shut down. Indian Point’s reliVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:42 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X138NRCBUDGETMAYBEPDFREADY\114X138NRCBUDGETPEN
42 

censing applications have been pending for years, and yet you have 

been unable to reach a decision. 

Your budget request includes a $1.7 million cut in funding for activities at operating nuclear reactors, which includes the review of 

pending license renewal applications nationwide. Will this budget 

request help or hinder your timeline for reaching a decision on Indian Point? And when do you think we can expect that decision? 

Anyone who cares to answer. 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Our 

budget provides for the anticipated license renewal work we have. 

So it is not a reduction to defer license renewal work. My best understanding of the status of the applications, the renewal applications, is that there is a supplemental environmental impact statement that would be issued in 2016 or September 2016. The baffle 

bolt issue that you have alluded to is a matter in litigation before— 

as part of the renewal proceedings, so that may impact where that 

goes. But I would, again, the next—the other document I expect is 

this supplemental environmental statement, which would be in 

September of this year. 

Mr. ENGEL. So you don’t feel that the budget impedes any decision that will be made? 

Mr. BURNS. No. I do not. 

Mr. ENGEL. OK. Let me ask one other question. I have so many 

questions, but let me just say, about Indian Point, before we leave: 

I just think it is a disaster waiting to happen. I never called for 

the closing of it, frankly, until we learned that, prior to the tragedy 

of September 11, 2001, one of those planes flew right over the Indian Point plant on its way to ramming into the World Trade Center. And that really made me look, and I have come to the conclusion that this plant should be shut down. 

Let me ask a question about cybersecurity, because I think it is 

important. This also happened just outside of my district: The Department of Justice recently indicted seven Iranian hackers for 

their role in a cyber attack on a dam in Rye, New York. Terrorists 

and hostile foreign actors are looking for vulnerabilities in our infrastructure every day, so we have to be vigilant about these 

threats. 

When it comes to securing our Nation’s infrastructure, we need 

to consider whether we incorporate adequate safeguards against 

cyber attack, and we need to consider whether the right people are 

evaluating this question. 

So let me ask, when licensing new reactors, do you consult with 

the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that these facilities are hardened against cyber threats? Have you consulted with 

DHS about potential cyber threats to Indian Point? Anyone who 

cares to answer that. 

Mr. BURNS. I will do it. I think one of my colleagues may want 

to add to it. We do consult with the Department of Homeland Security, and also the NRC has had, for about 6 years or so, rules that 

apply to existing power plants with respect to maintaining 

cybersecurity. It is within what we call our design-basis threat. 

One of the things, the differences between the dam in New York 

and Indian Point and other nuclear plants, is basically the air gap 

between the essential systems, safety systems in the plant. My unVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:42 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X138NRCBUDGETMAYBEPDFREADY\114X138NRCBUDGETPEN
43 

derstanding is this dam was actually connected to the Internet, 

which is not something that is allowed for the essential safety systems within the plant. 

So we have some requirements. There is some additional work 

we expect licensees to do in the coming year. But you are correct: 

it is something we want to keep a focus on. And I think we are trying to do the responsible thing on cyber. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 

Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Burns, as part of the agency’s efforts to identify lowpriority activities, NRC staff identified nine rulemaking activities 

to be discontinued. Can you enlighten us and tell us what the considerations were that went into the staff’s recommendations? 

Mr. BURNS. I think what the staff was focused on is whether 

those rules—essentially whether they added value in terms of the 

regulatory scheme. I am not sure whether the Commission—I am 

blanking as to whether the Commission has completed its deliberation on that paper. When I look at it, I think, from my standpoint, 

most of those are matters that I think—I thought that we don’t 

need to continue proceeding. But I think what they looked at is, 

again, whether or not it added a particular value in terms of our 

regulatory footprint or assuring safety or security on certain matters. 

Mr. LONG. Will the Commission encourage staff to expand this 

level of scrutiny to all regulatory actions as well as maintain the 

scrutiny into the future? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I think the Commission will maintain that scrutiny. That is part of the reason for the reintroduction of the Commission’s review of rulemaking or proposals at the outset to assure 

there is Commission endorsement at least at the exploratory stage 

of going forward. So I think that is an important part of our effort 

there. 

Mr. LONG. In early June, your staff will cohost for the Department of Energy a second workshop to discuss developing advanced 

nuclear technologies. Will you please describe the purpose of these 

workshops? For example, what is on the agenda, and what are the 

goals of these workshops? 

Mr. BURNS. I might give you the particular agenda, provide you 

that for the record. The purpose—— 

Mr. LONG. The purpose, yes. 

Mr. BURNS. The purpose of the workshops has been really to 

reach out to this community of—that has an interest in potentially 

pursuing the advanced reactor designs and try to give them information about us, the NRC; us hearing from them about what their 

concerns are, how we might address them; and also hear from the 

Department of Energy in terms of DOE type of initiatives, DOE research and the like. So the first workshop was very successful, and 

I think we are looking forward to the next one. I know I have 

talked to John Kotek at DOE regarding it and— 

Mr. LONG. Any ah-ha moments or takeaways you can relate from 

that first workshop? 

44 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I think the one, again, is this understanding 

in terms of the phased approach, what we call the phased approach 

or topical approach, to looking at the designs and how that—from 

the standpoint of the potential vendors—how that helps them in 

terms of their need for venture capital and to some assurance that 

you are not just going down a trail that leads to a dead end, that 

there is, you know, you have got some idea of where you are going 

with the particular technology. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Thank you. 

I have got some extra time. I don’t know if Mr. Flores would like 

for me to yield. He usually has several questions. 

Mr. FLORES. I have got several. I will take your time. 

Mr. LONG. All right. 

Mr. FLORES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Chairman Burns, I really appreciate the NRC’s efforts to rightsize itself in light of the fact that the nuclear industry is not growing nearly like all of us would like it to in order to address environmental issues. But I am concerned that, while the NRC talks about 

trying to right-size itself, it does some things that sort of take your 

breath away. For instance, 2 days before the end of fiscal year last 

year, they signed a $20 million contract for new office furniture. 

Well, let me read it: acquire office systems, conference rooms, and 

ancillary furniture. 

That is $5,500 per employee. That is just amazing. So, at a time 

of increased budget scrutiny throughout the agency, how is that 

kind of a contract justified? Do you replace every person’s furniture? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I am not sure it is replacing every person’s furniture. What we have been doing is we have been reducing the 

footprint of the buildings that we are in at White Flint. And part 

of that contract is to restack the buildings to get more employees 

into the White Flint 1 and 2 buildings and reduce our footprint in 

the third building. 

Mr. FLORES. How do you—most taxpayers, hardworking American family taxpayers have seen their family finances get worse off 

in the last 8 years. How do we justify this to the taxpayers? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, our budget has been reducing over the last few 

years. The fact of the matter is we do need infrastructure to accommodate our staff that we do have. Again, I would be pleased to provide more detail for the record on this particular contract. 

Mr. FLORES. I just say that it looks bad. Two days before the end 

of the fiscal year, to sign a $20 million contract just really has a 

bad odor to it. 

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee approved the 

fiscal year 2017 energy and water appropriations bill and set NRC 

funding at $936 million. And $20 million of that is for the nuclear 

waste fund for Yucca Mountain activities. This funding level seems 

to be the right fit when you look at the NRC’s projected workload, 

and it still allows it to fulfill its mission. Are you working with 

your senior leadership team, including the executive director of operations, the chief financial officer, and the chief of human resources officer, to develop a plan that will fit the NRC’s operations 

to fit that budget? 

45 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. We worked with our EDO and CFO and our 

OCHCO director to assure that we implement the budget that we 

get. What I have identified is, from the President’s budget, which 

was the 970, excluding the IG, is that we have identified through 

the Project Aim Initiative about $31 million in additional cuts, 

which brings us down. I haven’t fully understood or looked at the 

House mark. I would say we would have—we need to analyze that 

some. I would have some concerns, but there may be areas in 

which we can accelerate some of the additional savings we identified in Project Aim into the following fiscal year. But we work, I 

think, very hard and very responsibly in implementing those whatever budget mark comes out in the end. 

Mr. FLORES. In looking at your budget request for fiscal year 

2017, we note, as you said a minute ago, that you reduced your 

budget request from $990 million, excluding IG, to $970 million, 

but three-quarters of those savings came from the Integrated University Program, and that is the spending on basic research that 

provides the seed corn for future advanced nuclear reactor technology. It seems to me like we are hurting ourselves in the future 

by the way the NRC designed its budget. We ought to be maintaining those investments and taking that from the other less essential 

areas. Don’t you agree with that? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, this is an area in which, in terms of the Integrated University Program, where the administration has preferred 

to consolidate those into other STEM programs, and as a result, 

the President’s budget does not reflect that. What has happened 

over the number of years now is that when that is appropriate, the 

agency has been responsible about integrating that into its programs and effectively carrying out the program. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Let me close—— 

Mr. BURNS [continuing]. We have taken real cuts. 

Mr. FLORES. Let me close my time by saying that the basic research is the seed corn for the future. That is not the area that we 

need to be cutting. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the other gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the Chair and ranking member for holding this hearing. 

And I want to welcome the Chairman and Commissioners. 

I also welcome back our former Energy and Commerce staffer, 

Jeff Baran. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an important agency. To 

look forward to the future, we need to assess our energy mix in the 

country. We must not overlook the importance of the nuclear power 

industry. Nuclear power is carbon-free and capable of providing 

base-load power, but the industry faces economic uncertainty. The 

nuclear power industry deserves a clear path forward, and the 

NRC provides a crucial role in determining that path. 

Chairman Burns, on November 15, the White House announced 

a plan to expand nuclear energy opportunities to the U.S. The 

Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, GAIN, was to proVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:42 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X138NRCBUDGETMAYBEPDFREADY\114X138NRCBUDGETPEN
46 

vide the nuclear community with access to a broad range of opportunities and capabilities across the Government complex. 

Mr. Chairman, what role did NRC play in the development of 

GAIN? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, thank you for the question. The NRC itself did 

not develop the GAIN initiative. However, we have a role. I attended the White House Summit on Nuclear Energy and spoke at 

it. One of the things that we did was this engagement that we 

talked about here, that the budget request would cover, is being a 

place where you can contact and make sure you understand the 

NRC processes to have a discussion point with respect to that, because all of these technologies, ultimately, if they are going to be 

put into commercial use are going to require an NRC license. So 

that is our relationship to the GAIN initiative. 

Mr. GREEN. The Government Accountability Office reported to 

Congress the typical NRC light water reactor application costs in 

the range between $50 million and $75 million, and it takes an average of 41 months. Industry reports state that a new small modular reactor application should be submitted to NRC by the end of 

the year. If NRC receives a small modular reactor application in 

December, do you anticipate the same cost and timeframe as reported by the GAO? 

Mr. BURNS. I believe the costs—and these are, basically, the licensing fee costs—are similar. We can check on that for the record. 

In the timeframe, I think, again, we are looking at—about that 

same type of timeframe, about a 3-, 3 1⁄2-year timeframe for the review. We had an engagement with NuScale over the last couple of 

years, which I think helps in terms of when they do submit their 

application at the end of the year, that will help us go through efficiently. 

Mr. GREEN. Currently, the NRC has two licensing paths, according to the Code of Federal Regulations, titled part 50 and part 52. 

In the Commission’s view, which licensing path is more appropriate 

for the small modular reactor technology? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, part of it depends on how the vendor or a particular applicant is going to approach the agency. For example, 

NuScale is using the part 52 process because they want to get a 

design certification, which then can be referenced by individual applicants. And we have indication of interest at least by one, this 

Utah, UAMPS, I think, organization, that they may do that. So, ultimately, somebody who will actually site and will operate the 

plant will need a license from us. 

But what NuScale is doing is they want to get the design certification, which then can be referenced anywhere in the country 

where somebody might wish to try to site the plant. 

Mr. GREEN. My understanding is, if the applicant pursues part 

52 licensing, exemptions would be required. Are these exemptions 

identified and worked on in the pre-application process? 

Mr. BURNS. Actually, I am not particularly aware of the exemptions, but that I would expect as part of the discussion between the 

staff, the pre-application discussion. I might be or staff may be able 

to provide more granularity. 

Mr. GREEN. If you could have them get back with us. 

47 

In January 2015, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality sent a letter to the NRC requesting clarification on the State’s 

authority to license the disposal of Greater-than-Class C low-level 

that may contain transuranic waste. In its response 15 months 

later, the NRC said it would have to further examine the issue. 

Chairman Burns, can you share with the committee what the 

current status of the Texas inquiry is? 

Mr. BURNS. What the Commission decided was to have the staff 

develop some of the technical basis, looking at some of the technical issues related to that. And I believe they are coming back to 

the Commission at some point this year, maybe midyear. I may be 

wrong about that, but that would help inform further discussion 

with the State regarding whether the licensing would be done directly by Texas or by the NRC. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions on that application, and if I could submit them? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. 

Let me ask unanimous consent that there are 10 days for members to submit questions for the record. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here today and your continued service to the country. 

Before I ask my questions, I would like to thank all of you and 

your staff for your help on draft legislation that I sent over last 

week that would reform some of the NRC processes currently in 

place. I welcome any technical expertise that you can provide on 

this draft and look forward to continuing to work together on this 

endeavor. 

Mr. Chairman, last September, I asked you about the current 

status of efforts to update an outdated management directive, last 

revised in 1989, that guides the budget development process. As I 

pointed out last year, the NRC inspector general found 3 years ago 

that the Commission had an incomplete planning, budgeting, and 

performance management process, resulting in a budget formulation that doesn’t match up in its formulation and execution. Seven 

months ago, you expressed optimism that this directive would be 

in place to develop your fiscal year 2017 budget. What is the current status of this directive? 

Mr. BURNS. The Commission has approved the set of management directives that would encompass this issue. There are some 

changes that we have asked our CFO to make before issuing them 

as final to reflect some of the marks in the appropriations bill in 

terms of the control points that were put in. So I expect that could 

be done very soon. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So you think it is on track then. While we are 

discussing the budget for fiscal year 2017, your agency is already 

starting to prepare the budget justification for fiscal year 2018. Do 

I have your assurance that the new management direction will be 

approved and fully in place—do you expect—by the fiscal year 2018 

development process? 

48 

Mr. BURNS. It should be, yes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And then you also raised the issue of reexamining current legal restrictions for foreign ownership or control of 

nuclear facilities in September. We live in a competitive global 

marketplace, and we are seeing many leaders in nuclear technology 

and operations take their business elsewhere. This is very—I 

mean, I have folks that produce part of reactors in my district. I 

have four nuclear plants myself and five repositories for spent fuel. 

Do you think policymakers should reconsider how this current restriction is structured? 

Mr. BURNS. As I said last September, I think it is worth—it is 

something worth taking a look at. It basically applies to—the foreign ownership, control, and domination provision applies to reactors or utilization facilities and production facilities, so primarily 

think about commercial reactors in that sense. 

We still have the ability to protect national security through 

other provisions of the act, so I think it is something that is worth 

taking a look at. 

Mr. KINZINGER. What are some of the considerations that you 

think should be examined as part of that? You kind of touched on 

a little bit, but—— 

Mr. BURNS. I think one important thing is, to the extent that we 

do have an important responsibility in terms of security and national security as well as the physical security of facilities, I think 

that is an important issue there. 

The question is, is that, as you indicate, in a global market, 

which the nuclear has certainly become, is there a value added for 

that provision? I think that is the primary question. 

Mr. KINZINGER. You think a study, would that be—if we did a 

study—beneficial to you, beneficial to policymakers on that provision, the impacts, everything else? 

Mr. BURNS. I think that could be useful, yes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back my minute. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes, if he wishes to take it, the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Griffith—I know, but he has been here for a 

long time. Do you want to go last, or do you want to go now? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I can do whatever. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You are scheduled to go now if you want to go 

now. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. Then I guess I will go now. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. I appreciate you all being here today. 

Chairman Burns, as the guardian of the backfit rule, the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, CRGR—always hate keeping up with those initials—but CRGR embodies the spirit of the 

NRC’s principle of good regulations. However, following a change 

installed over a decade ago, the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, CRGR, has asserted its authority with less and less 

frequency, particularly in formal reviews of NRC actions. 

I understand that the NRC staff is currently developing a proposal for how and when CRGR reviews regulatory actions. I would 

ask you to encourage the staff to broaden their proposal and to conVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:42 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X138NRCBUDGETMAYBEPDFREADY\114X138NRCBUDGETPEN
49 

sider, additionally, potential structural changes to the CRGR membership to provide greater ownership and attentiveness for CRGR 

members and to ensure the committee operates truly independently. 

Now I got all of that out, and I would like for you to just comment on it, in general. But I also would like for you, at some point 

in your response, can you commit that you will pursue a thorough 

review of the CRGR? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. Thank you. 

Nuclear has lots of acronyms, don’t we? 

My understanding is the staff is to provide us a copy of its review 

I think sometime in the early summer, late spring or early summer, with respect to its review. I will take—and I think my colleagues will take—a close look at that to look at, you know, in 

terms of how the CRGR is performing its function, is it providing 

a value added that was conceived of when it was I think originated 

in the 1980s? So I can commit to doing that. I want to see what 

the staff comes up with. That is one of the reasons in the paper 

or our approval of the revisions to rulemaking that we ask to see 

that before making it—taking further steps. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate that. I hope they will take the broader 

look. Now maybe it is just a change in culture that needs to occur, 

but if it does need to have a change in membership or in their outlook, I hope you all will look at that as well. Would anybody else 

on the panel like to respond to that? Ms. Svinicki? Everybody is 

pretty much in agreement. All right. 

I am going to switch gears completely. One of the large drivers 

in escalating the cost of the NRC was its mismanagement of office 

space in the past. Will you please update the committee on the status of your housing strategy and what that will mean for your 

agency’s budget in the upcoming years? Again, Mr. Chairman, if 

you could answer that. 

Mr. BURNS. The details of the actual impact on the budget I may 

have to provide for the record. We have basically reconsolidated the 

staff that had been—spread out primarily in the first and second 

buildings. We have issues—not issues, but we have negotiations 

about—ongoing in terms of the lease in the second building. We are 

reducing the footprint in the third building. 

One important thing we have there is the Emergency Operation 

Center, but more of the staff is moving out. I would be pleased to 

provide for the record a more granular picture of what I think that 

means for budgeting going forward. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. If you could, I would appreciate that. 

I will tell you that I represent a district that has some economic 

issues, a district with many attributes, but the coal industry in 

particular has been hurting. It used to have textiles and furniture 

and tobacco. You can imagine that there is a lot of empty space in 

my district and would ask you just to take a look, if it is something 

that doesn’t have to be in DC and can operate using the modern 

wonders of the Internet, you may want to look at not just my district but central Appalachia and other areas that are facing some 

economic problems, because we have a lot of space that is really 

cheap that you could rent and house some folks in, but I do appreciate you looking at that very much. Thank you. 

50 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Mullin, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, if we are lobbying for them to move, I want 

them to move to Oklahoma. We have a lot of space there too. Oil 

and gas is kind of hurting right now. 

Anyway, I appreciate everybody being here. 

Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

My questions, Chairman Burns, are all going to be directed to 

you. We can allow whoever wants to jump in at any given time. 

However, I know your brain has to be hurting. You have been on 

the hot seat for a while. 

As you know, Chairman Burns, five reactors have shut down in 

recent years, and at least three more closures are expected in 2019. 

In spite of this, the budget of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as grown 10 percent since 2012. In both 2014 and 2015 fee recovery rules, the NRC has accounted for the reactor closures and 

resulting loss of these fees by simply billing the remaining reactors 

to make up the difference. 

A statement that was put out: ‘‘The permanent shutdown of the 

Vermont Yankee reactor decreases the fleet of operating reactors 

which subsequently increases the annual fees for the rest of the 

fleet.’’ 

My question, Chairman Burns, and to the rest of the Commissioners for that: Is this a fair way to structure fee collections? Does 

it cost more to inspect fewer? I mean, wasn’t the fee set up—the 

idea of the fees to be able to be adjusted for the amount that you 

had to take care of, the workload? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, the fact of the matter is that the fees are going 

down, and they are about $300,000 less per unit than they were 

a couple years ago. What does happen when they transition out—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Then why was the statement said that that increases the annual fee for the rest of the fleet? That was a statement that you guys put out. 

Mr. BURNS. Well, the fact—what I am saying is the overall impact is that there is a reduction. It is true that if you have a reduction in the overall number of operating reactors in the fleet because, by law, we are required to—— 

Mr. MULLIN. How has it gone down when the corporate support 

cost has gone up $97 million over the last 10 years—— 

Mr. BURNS. Well, we are addressing corporate support costs, and 

we have been reducing corporate support costs. That is what is reflected in our rebaselining. That is what the charge is with our—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Chairman Burns, you said they are reducing, but 

I am reading right here that they went up 47 percent over the last 

10 years. How is that reducing? 

Mr. BURNS. We have reduced corporate support costs. 

Mr. MULLIN. How? 

Mr. BURNS. How? 

Mr. MULLIN. Because they have increased $97 million. How is 

that—I am not saying that I am the best in math, but I sure understand cost increase. And I am looking at a 47 percent increase 

over the last 10 years. So you just explained to me how you are 

51 

saying it is reducing when we are seeing it going up, and yet we 

are inspecting a lot less. 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I am not sure we are inspecting less. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, you have had five factories shut down in recent years. You have at least three more closures expected in 2019. 

That is inspecting less. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. We have 100 operating nuclear power plants 

now. We have a larger number of decommissioning plants, and we 

have four units that are being constructed that are also inspected 

during the construction phase. So that is what the workload is in 

terms of the reactor fleet. The fact of the matter is, as I said 

and—— 

Mr. MULLIN. So then explain how costs went down—— 

Mr. BURNS [continuing]. I would be pleased to provide for the 

record, is that the fees, the annual fees for the reactor fleet, is 

going down. The fact of the matter is our corporate support costs 

are going down. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, the facts that I have, they are not showing 

that and including the statement I will read again that you will increase annual fees to the rest of the fleet. That is a statement that 

you all put out. And the fact is that I am reading here that we did 

research on that that says the corporate costs have gone up $97 

million. I feel like I am repeating myself, because I am not figuring 

out how this is taking place. If you are saying they are going down, 

they have increased $97 million, 47 percent cost increase over 10 

years, and that you guys said that—you all said that you are going 

to increase the annual fees, then you are going to have a lot to explain to me and show me, which evidently we can’t do in 30 seconds, of how this math is adding up, because I am not following 

it. 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I would be pleased to provide that for the 

record—— 

Mr. BARAN. Could I add just a little bit of context that might 

help? 

Mr. MULLIN. Please. 

Mr. BARAN. If we are talking about the timeframe of 10 years 

ago, that was right before—that was during the period of ramping 

up for what we thought were going to be a large number of new 

reactors. So there is no question that there was a period of time 

where the NRC budget was going up. We are now on the other side 

of that hill. We are on the other side of that mountain, and the 

budget’s coming down. And so when the Chairman is talking about 

the decreases, he is talking about fiscal year 2015, fiscal year 2016, 

fiscal year 2017, as the agency is matching the resources to the 

workload we really have today that is coming down. 

Mr. MULLIN. In 2015 is when the statement come out that said 

that you were going to increase annual fees. 

Mr. BARAN. It was talking about the pool of reactor fees. You 

have two trends that are kind of pushing in opposite directions. 

One, it is true that the smaller the fleet, the smaller the number 

of units that have to cover the cost. On the other hand, the costs 

are also coming down. And so the total fee amount is coming down. 

It is shared among a smaller number of operating reactors. You 

52 

have kind of trends going against each other and canceling each 

other out in that regard. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina, 

Mrs. Ellmers, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This has been a lengthy hearing. And I thank the panel for being 

here with us today. 

Chairman, I will be asking the questions mostly of you, but I am 

more than happy for any of the rest of the Commissioners to add 

any input as we go along. Following your appearance before the 

committee last year, you stated in your response to questions for 

the record that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, NRR, 

was, quote, ‘‘conducting an initiative to review and evaluate the existing reactor license amendment process with the goal of reinforcing current expectations and best practices, including examining potential implications that staff turnover on licensing reviews 

may add to the process.’’ 

My question is, can you please provide an update on the status 

of this initiative? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, thank you for the question. Essentially, within 

the senior management in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

has continued to focus on this with monthly briefings on performance in the area, continued attention by staff to adherence to the 

basic procedures, and I think that goes to your point particularly 

about potential staff turnover and, you know, the need to develop 

and inculcate into new staff the right processes and procedures. 

Part of that is focusing on requests for additional information and 

assuring that they are focused and relevant. The office issued some 

guidance last year and, I am actually informed, I think within the 

last day or so issued some additional guidance to address some of 

these issues. So I think, you know, I commend the office staff and 

the senior management there to keep a focus on this, because I 

think that is important. That is how we can carry out what we 

need to do as a safety regulator in an effective and an efficient way 

and achieve the safety reviews that we need to do. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. So you would basically say, then, that on a regular basis, the Commission is reviewing the staff recommendations? 

Mr. BURNS. What the—some of the staff guidance is guidance 

that they can issue on themselves. I haven’t seen this most recent 

guidance. I think I probably will. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. So it is periodically when recommendations—— 

Mr. BURNS. Periodically. And part of it, I think it is the day-today management of the office. If you have got procedures, this is 

how you do a licensing review. This is how—you know, this the 

where it is appropriate to ask questions. You got to train your staff 

to do that. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Were the NRC licensees able to provide input to 

the NRC staff as they developed this initiative? 

Mr. BURNS. I am not sure of the answer to your question. We 

have a lot of engagement with the industry on a lot of our processes. So I would be surprised if the—you know, what we have 

53 

heard, kudos and complaints, haven’t been taken into account by 

staff in the guidance. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. So what I will ask, then, is over the following 

days, you know, I think we have 5 or 10 days of time, if you could 

provide maybe just some input to the committee on that. Does anyone else on the panel want to, or have knowledge of—OK. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I wanted to comment. Thank you for the question. To the extent that you are getting at licensing backlog—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Yes. That is basically my next question. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Well, let me make two comments there. One, 

we are in a much better place today than we were 2 years ago. Bill 

Dean, who leads our Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has 

made significant strides. Not there yet. But the number of backlog 

items is significantly down. 

And, two, for those items that are in a queue, so to speak, we 

are engaging with industry to get their sense as to what is the 

highest priority. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. So more of a prioritization. Do you have a 

number? I mean, do you know what the number of backlogged—— 

Mr. BURNS. I think the backlog, it had been around 100 licensing 

actions a couple years ago. And it is about 24 now. The other good 

thing is—progress is that the—their basic goal is to complete 95 

percent of the requests within a year. And through the first half 

of this fiscal year, I think we are at 94 percent. So I think that is 

a good progress. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. I just have a couple of seconds left. And I would 

like to ask this question on behalf of the Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant. You know, they have invested significantly over the past 

years on many different initiatives. And my question to you is, Is 

there a process in place for them to be accredited for some of the 

advancements that they have made adjusting to, you know, the 

regulations and the regulatory process? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, I think they are given credit for what they implement. Again, if there are things that they are doing that need 

to—they need to do or are approaches to meeting NRC regulatory 

requirements, we certainly inspect that, we acknowledge that. They 

may choose to do other things as an operator from—either from a 

business perspective, or because they think from a safety perspective, some other actions might be appropriate. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. Thank you. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for this time. Thank you to the panel. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. 

I want to ask unanimous consent to enter Chairman Upton and 

Chairman Whitfield’s opening statement for the record. Without 

objection, so ordered. We did talk about the 10 days already, and 

ask unanimous consent on that. 

[The statements appear at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And before I close, I would like—Chairman Burns, 

I know that in a discussion with Chairman Inhofe, you agreed to 

do, which I think is pretty exciting, this public meeting with stakeholders in the next 3 months as your predecessor, Chairman Shirley Jackson, did in 1998. Have you started doing any planning on 

that? 

54 

Mr. BURNS. Well, part of what I am looking at is exactly what 

Chairman Jackson did. So I am trying to scope out right now—it 

has been preliminary—scope out the nature of what the meeting 

was. I know I had some concerns to make sure we have a broad 

range of stakeholders. So I am hoping over the next few weeks that 

I will have a better sense of what this might look like. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. I just—you know, I kind of think it is a 

good idea, and I don’t know the whole scope of it either, but I think 

it would be interesting. 

So Mr.—— 

Mr. TONKO. A couple things. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent for our ranking member, 

Congressman Pallone, to put a statement into the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. TONKO. And if I have a little bit of time, I will actually get 

to the questions I wanted to about the Texas application. 

I started earlier about the disposal of the greater than class C 

low level that may contain waste. Fifteen months later, the NRC 

says it has to further examine it. Can you share with the committee what is the current status of the State of Texas inquiry on 

that class C? I know it is probably the only application in the country there. So—— 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. So, as you indicated, we had a communication 

back with the State. I think I have not spoken—I think Commissioner Ostendorff had actually met or spoken to the State representatives. And he might be able to—— 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. So, yes. Commissioner Baran and I visited the 

Waste Control Specialist site in Andrews back in January of this 

year. We invited the Texas Council on Environmental Quality Commissioners and their technical staff to join us, and they did. We 

had a very rich discussion. We discussed the NRC response back 

to the State of Texas. And the State of Texas representatives we 

dealt with were not surprised by our response. They were pleased 

that we agreed to work with them to discuss technical issues on 

the basis to move forward. It was a very constructive meeting. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, our committee as a whole, you know, at one 

time back in the 1980s we had a plan to have a long-term nuclear 

waste facility, and decision back then was Yucca Mountain. And 

the other agreement was that we were going to have these interim 

storage facilities that would take it from all our plants that are 

now storing it on site. And would this be the first interim storage 

site that would be permitted if it finally gets done? 

Mr. BURNS. Well, it wouldn’t be the first one that was actually 

permitted. The NRC had licensed a site in Utah, but that project 

did not go forward. What we are able to do is, we are authorized 

to look at and evaluate the applications. As Chairman Shimkus 

noted, the question about the relationship, the Department of Energy probably involves some legislative changes. But we would—if 

the applicants come forward as we expect them to do, we would review the—we would review those applications and make a determination with respect to the, you know, the technical, environmental aspects of the site. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. So you anticipate regulatory changes would be 

necessary to allow the State to license the GTCC waste facility? 

55 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, but that—yes. That is one of the questions is, 

and why we are going to the getting at the staff technical basis because there is some questions about whether or not Texas or 

whether it is a—there is some—there is some interpretive issues 

with respect to the existing legislation about the license-ability by 

Texas versus the NRC, or as the Federal Government. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, and at that time location years ago I was a 

State legislator in Texas when we—there was a permit that the 

State issued for low-level facilities. And, again, the community out 

there, the Member of Congress actually has legislation, Congressman Conaway, and I guess from sitting on our committee, you 

know, we would like to see—you know, we have these nuclear 

power plants that are holding that storage on their own, and the 

agreement was, and, of course, the Supreme Court decision also 

makes it difficult. But ultimately, you get an interim storage, and 

hopefully, someday get a permanent storage. And, you know, but 

as I know—I don’t know of anywhere in the world, whether it be 

France or Sweden or anywhere else that has actually a permanent 

storage, long-term storage. So but that doesn’t mean we don’t need 

to continue to work for it. And, again, with the agreement that was 

made, you know, 40 years ago now maybe almost that, you know, 

we would have these interim storage facilities like this. And hopefully it would be in different parts of the country also ultimately 

having a permanent storage. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Again we want to thank you for coming. We know it has been 

a long morning. Again, thank you for your service. And obviously, 

Commissioner Ostendorff, I know this will be something you will 

regret, not getting a chance to come up here and spend a couple 

hours with us and—but we do—we are excited about your future. 

Thank you. You all have been going a great job. I think the rebaselining, the relooking at that, I know we got nitpicky on a lot of 

things. You would expect that from public policy guys and in a 

budget hearing. So thank you for being available and accessible, 

and we look forward to working with you. And I will adjourn the 

hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

This morning we welcome back the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discuss the 

agency’s proposed fiscal year 2017 budget. I’d first like to acknowledge Commissioner Bill Ostendorff for his distinguished record of service. Today is likely Commissioner Ostendorff’s last appearance before this committee, as he has announced 

he will serve as a Distinguished Visiting Professor of National Security at his alma 

mater, the United States Naval Academy. Commissioner Ostendorff has served as 

Captain of a Navy submarine, Congressional staffer, Deputy Administrator for the 

National Nuclear Security Administration, and NRC Commissioner. We wish him 

luck in his next endeavor. 

The Commission’s 2017 budget request reflects NRC’s ongoing attempt to rightsize the organization’s funding level and properly align staff resources with the 

agency’s workload, known as Project Aim 2020. This initiative has focused the agency’s attention on identifying the highest priority activities in order to safely and effectively oversee our 100 operating nuclear power plants. The breadth and duration 

of this initiative has been extensive. As the Commission looks to execute Project 

56 

Aim’s next steps, I hope you maintain the rigorous culture of self-analysis that has 

developed over the previous couple years. 

NRC’s responsibility to license, regulate, and inspect our nation’s fleet of nuclear 

power plants is of utmost importance to protect public health and safety. Nuclear 

power is especially important to folks of Southwest Michigan with the Cook and 

Palisades plants. The plants not only provide affordable and clean power to the region and beyond, they provide hundreds of good paying jobs and directly benefit 

local economies as well. Nuclear energy is, and will continue to be an integral piece 

of our electricity portfolio. 

However, we should also recognize the NRC’s role to license and oversee other nuclear material, such as medical isotopes and nuclear medicine treatments. In this 

context, the NRC is a partner in my bipartisan effort to advance breakthrough medical treatments and 21st Century Cures. I was pleased to see the Commission issue 

a construction permit for a first-of-a-kind facility for medical isotope production in 

February. I also understand the Commission is actively reviewing another medical 

isotope application, and there is at least one more expected to be under review. 

These new technologies and life-saving medical treatments are critical to develop 

and deploy at a timely pace, and I trust the NRC will ensure competent, efficient 

review of these applications for the benefit of public health. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

Nuclear energy is a safe, clean component of our diverse electric generation portfolio. Like coal, market challenges are pressuring nuclear power plants and potential regulatory costs are placing additional economic burdens on the electricity generation sector. 

Last September, I expressed concern about the agency’s inflated budget and staffing levels, delays in addressing licensing actions, and lack of organizational efficiency. Those issues directly affect NRC licensees, as well as the ratepayers who 

fund the Commission through annual fees. I recognize that the Commission has subsequently taken some steps to address these issues and applaud you all for your 

leadership in these efforts. 

During my tenure as chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, I have 

witnessed an overly enthusiastic regulator, primarily the EPA, repeatedly determine 

it has no bounds when it comes to how or what it regulates. As a contrast, the 

NRC’s rulemaking process and structure is designed to be disciplined and embody 

its Principles of Good Regulation—independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and 

reliability. The ability to promulgate and impose regulations on NRC licensees is a 

potent statutory authority and one that should be thoughtfully and diligently exercised only when necessary. 

In 1981, as a means to assure that the Commission apply a rigorous and credible 

evaluation to the most significant rulemakings, it established the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, or CRGR. Consisting of senior management representatives throughout the NRC, CRGR was designed to be a check on the most consequential regulatory actions that could be imposed on licensees, known as applying 

the ‘‘backfit rule.’’ However, over time, we see the CRGR no longer functioning as 

originally intended with respect to backfit reviews, which has been confirmed by the 

NRC Inspector General and other stakeholders. 

Recently the Commission in a vote on its involvement in the rulemaking process 

missed yet another opportunity to initiate a comprehensive review of CRGR’s membership, effectiveness, responsibilities, and how exactly it is functioning. I encourage 

you to revisit this issue. As one Commissioner noted, it is telling that there has not 

been a single instance of the staff electing to recommend CRGR review of any rulemaking package since the waiver process was approved by the Commission in 2007. 

However, I am pleased that within this vote the Commission, with Congress’ urging, reasserted its influence and leadership in the rulemaking process. Providing the 

Commissioners an opportunity to engage in NRC staff proposed rulemakings at an 

early stage of the process will allow the agency to more effectively allocate resources 

to the highest priority actions. This reassertion of authority will also assure that 

any rulemaking that is initiated has established milestones to hold NRC staff accountable, is fully vetted with a full consideration of alternative courses of action, 

and have a preliminary assessment of the cumulative effects of regulations. These 

are important and necessary considerations to preserve credibility in the regulatory 

process. 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

Æ